Badaxe: On Cap and Trade

[Steve]

The pot calling the kettle black.

You now have an audience of one - Pig Farmer, hypo, Whitewing, and commonsense.

Have you noticed how your audience is dwindling and that's why you're cranking up the clone machine?

:roll: :roll: :roll:

you can add me to the hypo audience list.. and take me off your list..

 

[Mike]

The purpose of cap and trade is not to generate revenue.

then what happens to the extra $1700 per household?

so either it is a TAX or it is a corporate welfare scheme..

with 105,500,000 households.. a $17,935,000,000 check has got to go somewhere..

if the government is not getting it.. then it will go to big business..

Since the NON-tax paying members of society will not be required to pay these fees. (In the name of gov't welfare.) The ones who do pay tax will be forced to pay their share. :roll:

 

[Anonymous]

Even the welfare mom's that are trying to become pie baking czars for the obama administration.

 

[nonothing]

The Nobel Prize is an often-politicized award that is criticized for increasing evidence of bias and possibly even corruption. It has been ostensibly given for achievements in physics, chemistry, medicine or physiology, literature, and peace. Named in honor of Alfred Nobel, the first prize was granted in 1901. The award for economics, the "Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel," was added in 1969 and is sometimes called a Nobel Prize.[1]

What a surprise.

Another unattributed quote from hypo's alternative reality.

You're just mad there isn't a Nobel Prize for Pointless Internet Agitating.

If there was such a prize....I would win it hands down....As I do enjoy ruffling the conservative feathers here with pointless internet agitating.. :wink:

 

[backhoeboogie]

Badaxe, The nuke plants have now collectively paid over 35 billion for a repository. Each unit pays 10 million a year. The rate payers are the ones who actually pay, through their increased rates on the electricity bill. Otherwise Nukes would be even a better deal.

Where is the 35 billion ? Where is the respository ?

This has gone on through 9 presidents as best I can tell. Hillary's words on the repository were, "Where are we going to get the money for that?" Where did the money go? Put it in the bank for the last 30 plus years and with interest it is over a trillion.

Do you really think the democrats are going to ear mark the Cap and Trade nickels for what they are intended? If so you are one gullible idiot and I can cite many more case in points (outside of the repository issues)

I'm not sure what Yucca Mountain has to do with cap and trade. I think the Democrats decided they wanted to win Nevada, and supporting Yucca Mountain is a surefire loser for the voters of that state.

The purpose of cap and trade is not to generate revenue.

The purpose of cap and trade is to decrease carbon emissions.

If they have money for Cap and Trade, it won't go to Cap and Trade. If they only need a half trillion, they'll seek 10 times that and spend it.

The nukes didn't ask for Yucca Mtn. They have simply overpaid for a repository that could have been built anywhere and there is no repository so they have to store fuel in non-existent space at the plants.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Score another one for Badaxe.

NONE of us are surprised everything went right over your head Reader.

 

[badaxemoo]

The purpose of cap and trade is not to generate revenue.

then what happens to the extra $1700 per household?

so either it is a TAX or it is a corporate welfare scheme..

with 105,500,000 households.. a $17,935,000,000 check has got to go somewhere..

if the government is not getting it.. then it will go to big business..

What happened to the extra costs that were associated with banning lead paint?

Lead paint was better paint without lead.

Industry had to figure out what to do, and for a time I'm sure people had to incur higher costs involved with painting with the new products.

The market fixed the problem.

Now, granted, this is on a totally different scale, but so are the possible costs of doing nothing.

 

[Steve]

The purpose of cap and trade is not to generate revenue.

then what happens to the extra $1700 per household?

so either it is a TAX or it is a corporate welfare scheme..

with 105,500,000 households.. a $17,935,000,000 check has got to go somewhere..

if the government is not getting it.. then it will go to big business..

What happened to the extra costs that were associated with banning lead paint?

Lead paint was better paint without lead.

Industry had to figure out what to do, and for a time I'm sure people had to incur higher costs involved with painting with the new products.

The market fixed the problem.

Now, granted, this is on a totally different scale, but so are the possible costs of doing nothing.

I am not sure how much "lead paint" has cost US, but a quick look shows many examples of $1000 and $1500 tax credits.. in the seventies and eighties..

so if you take the 10,5000,000 households and times it just by half the tax credit or $500.. then it shows that $52,750,000,000 went from the taxpayers to business... not to mention the cost of compliance and all the local state federal plans and inspectors that are paid for in taxpayer dollars..

so in reality.. paint manufacturers, that made the paint received a huge bail out.. at our expense..

every government program has a cost and someone gets the benefit of the additional cost.. while I would say we should have banned lead paint.. at $52,750,000,000 it seems a little pricey... and that is slicing the tax credit in half at least....

so the reality is .. we bore the higher cost.. and subsidized industry.. so the market did not bear the burden of it's bad product...

 

[RobertMac]

then what happens to the extra $1700 per household?

so either it is a TAX or it is a corporate welfare scheme..

with 105,500,000 households.. a $17,935,000,000 check has got to go somewhere..

if the government is not getting it.. then it will go to big business..

What happened to the extra costs that were associated with banning lead paint?

Lead paint was better paint without lead.

Industry had to figure out what to do, and for a time I'm sure people had to incur higher costs involved with painting with the new products.

The market fixed the problem.

Now, granted, this is on a totally different scale, but so are the possible costs of doing nothing.

I am not sure how much "lead paint" has cost US, but a quick look shows many examples of $1000 and $1500 tax credits.. in the seventies and eighties..

so if you take the 10,5000,000 households and times it just by half the tax credit or $500.. then it shows that $52,750,000,000 went from the taxpayers to business... not to mention the cost of compliance and all the local state federal plans and inspectors that are paid for in taxpayer dollars..

so in reality.. paint manufacturers, that made the paint received a huge bail out.. at our expense..

every government program has a cost and someone gets the benefit of the additional cost.. while I would say we should have banned lead paint.. at $52,750,000,000 it seems a little pricey... and that is slicing the tax credit in half at least....

so the reality is .. we bore the higher cost.. and subsidized industry.. so the market did not bear the burden of it's bad product...

Isn't it amazing how some big business benefits from the latest environmental hazard. Seems like I remember freon became an environmental hazard about the time DuPont's patent expired. :???:
Truth or coincidence?????