PDA

View Full Version : Cap and Tax bill up for vote, economy doesn't suck enough



Red
25 Jun 2009, 10:05am
Apparently our economy is doing so well that they're ready to introduce more taxes and costs to consumers and manufacturers with the facade of "preventing global warming".

What was that little thing Obama said about no new taxes for people making under 250K? Oh yeah, he's a fucking liar just like every other politician before him, he's no change, the sack of shit.

And as the article states, this will buttfuck low income consumers the most, because we all use energy and that's going to be greatly affected by this retarded bill. But they'll just say "republicans did it" and continue to win votes from these poor dumb saps.

How do these fuckwads get reelected over and over?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124588837560750781.html


House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has put cap-and-trade legislation on a forced march through the House, and the bill may get a full vote as early as Friday. It looks as if the Democrats will have to destroy the discipline of economics to get it done.

Despite House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman's many payoffs to Members, rural and Blue Dog Democrats remain wary of voting for a bill that will impose crushing costs on their home-district businesses and consumers. The leadership's solution to this problem is to simply claim the bill defies the laws of economics.

Their gambit got a boost this week, when the Congressional Budget Office did an analysis of what has come to be known as the Waxman-Markey bill. According to the CBO, the climate legislation would cost the average household only $175 a year by 2020. Edward Markey, Mr. Waxman's co-author, instantly set to crowing that the cost of upending the entire energy economy would be no more than a postage stamp a day for the average household. Amazing. A closer look at the CBO analysis finds that it contains so many caveats as to render it useless.


Associated Press
Henry Waxman
For starters, the CBO estimate is a one-year snapshot of taxes that will extend to infinity. Under a cap-and-trade system, government sets a cap on the total amount of carbon that can be emitted nationally; companies then buy or sell permits to emit CO2. The cap gets cranked down over time to reduce total carbon emissions.

To get support for his bill, Mr. Waxman was forced to water down the cap in early years to please rural Democrats, and then severely ratchet it up in later years to please liberal Democrats. The CBO's analysis looks solely at the year 2020, before most of the tough restrictions kick in. As the cap is tightened and companies are stripped of initial opportunities to "offset" their emissions, the price of permits will skyrocket beyond the CBO estimate of $28 per ton of carbon. The corporate costs of buying these expensive permits will be passed to consumers.

The biggest doozy in the CBO analysis was its extraordinary decision to look only at the day-to-day costs of operating a trading program, rather than the wider consequences energy restriction would have on the economy. The CBO acknowledges this in a footnote: "The resource cost does not indicate the potential decrease in gross domestic product (GDP) that could result from the cap."

The hit to GDP is the real threat in this bill. The whole point of cap and trade is to hike the price of electricity and gas so that Americans will use less. These higher prices will show up not just in electricity bills or at the gas station but in every manufactured good, from food to cars. Consumers will cut back on spending, which in turn will cut back on production, which results in fewer jobs created or higher unemployment. Some companies will instead move their operations overseas, with the same result.

When the Heritage Foundation did its analysis of Waxman-Markey, it broadly compared the economy with and without the carbon tax. Under this more comprehensive scenario, it found Waxman-Markey would cost the economy $161 billion in 2020, which is $1,870 for a family of four. As the bill's restrictions kick in, that number rises to $6,800 for a family of four by 2035.

Note also that the CBO analysis is an average for the country as a whole. It doesn't take into account the fact that certain regions and populations will be more severely hit than others -- manufacturing states more than service states; coal producing states more than states that rely on hydro or natural gas. Low-income Americans, who devote more of their disposable income to energy, have more to lose than high-income families.

Even as Democrats have promised that this cap-and-trade legislation won't pinch wallets, behind the scenes they've acknowledged the energy price tsunami that is coming. During the brief few days in which the bill was debated in the House Energy Committee, Republicans offered three amendments: one to suspend the program if gas hit $5 a gallon; one to suspend the program if electricity prices rose 10% over 2009; and one to suspend the program if unemployment rates hit 15%. Democrats defeated all of them.

The reality is that cost estimates for climate legislation are as unreliable as the models predicting climate change. What comes out of the computer is a function of what politicians type in. A better indicator might be what other countries are already experiencing. Britain's Taxpayer Alliance estimates the average family there is paying nearly $1,300 a year in green taxes for carbon-cutting programs in effect only a few years.

Americans should know that those Members who vote for this climate bill are voting for what is likely to be the biggest tax in American history. Even Democrats can't repeal that reality.

LegalSmash
25 Jun 2009, 10:28am
Meanwhile, rather than capitalize on this gem, and nail them sideways, we have argentinian whore hunts.

Someone PLEASE ressurect Eisenhower.

LegalSmash
25 Jun 2009, 12:30pm
http://kilo.naurunappula.com/nn/0/292/055/402214.jpg

Democratic method of pushing taxes, if not one way, then another.

Slavic
25 Jun 2009, 03:08pm
If this new taxation agenda is being crafted to lower industry carbon emissions, why don't they just let the market continue what it is doing? From what I've been seeing, green energy related industries have been expanding fairly rapidly lately and are going to become quite a competitor against industries that run off of fossil fuel energies. This will either drive the fossil fuel using industries out of business, or force them to adapt to the changing market which is demanding cheaper and cleaner renewable resources; both of which will reduce nationwide carbon emissions.

To create an arbitrary emission cap now while there is no fully functional and affordable green energy alternative for the masses will as Red showed trickle the expenses down to the lower classes as the fossil fuel using industries make up for increases costs.

Red
25 Jun 2009, 03:27pm
Because it's a way for government to steal more money from the masses, instead of cutting expenditure like they should.

The way they're spending money now they need every extra penny they can squeeze out of us, but with the same party (the one that likes to tax and spend) controlling the whitehouse/congress/senate that sure as shit ain't gonna happen.

Astrum
26 Jun 2009, 05:55pm
What was that little thing Obama said about no new taxes for people making under 250K? Oh yeah, he's a fucking liar just like every other politician before him, he's no change, the sack of shit.

Don't be silly, his exact quote was:


"I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes...you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime."
--Barack Obama
Dover NH, Sept 12, 2008See, he's not raising taxes at all, merely... making a new one. Aren't you glad for precisely worded statements intended solely to give a false impression?


From what I've been seeing, green energy related industries have been expanding fairly rapidly lately and are going to become quite a competitor against industries that run off of fossil fuel energies.

Wait, you mean capitalism at work? What utter nonsense! More government is always the answer, we all know that.

Drox
26 Jun 2009, 07:01pm
Someone PLEASE ressurect Eisenhower.

lol Amen to that

broncoty
27 Jun 2009, 11:12pm
Someone PLEASE ressurect Eisenhower.

Meet me at the volcano. Ill bring the virgin. Your bring the beer.

PotshotPolka
28 Jun 2009, 09:28am
Lol, Boehner came right out and called it a POS bill.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/boehner-climate-bill-a-pile-of-s--t-2009-06-27.html

MtrxMn
28 Jun 2009, 05:27pm
Meet me at the volcano. Ill bring the virgin. Your bring the beer.

You have to sacrifice an animal too. Pfft don't you know anything

broncoty
28 Jun 2009, 07:14pm
You have to sacrifice an animal too. Pfft don't you know anything

I found the virgin.

PotshotPolka
28 Jun 2009, 07:32pm
I found the virgin.

We have lots of virgins around here, it is a gaming forum after all.

broncoty
28 Jun 2009, 07:42pm
We have lots of virgins around here, it is a gaming forum after all.

Very good point.

And just to be on topic.

I hate liberals.

trakaill
28 Jun 2009, 11:59pm
funny thing is, MJ is all over the news and I barely heard about this...when it sounds to me to be a crucial vote...but hey what ever, keep the public unaware....

Italian Jew
29 Jun 2009, 12:15am
funny thing is, MJ is all over the news and I barely heard about this...when it sounds to me to be a crucial vote...but hey what ever, keep the public unaware....

It was a few days ago and before MJ. You had this, then Iran, then Farrah for 10 minutes, then MJ. Not surprisingly, more people care about MJ than about politics, so the news outlets will of bombard as many hours of MJ tribute as possible.

Until MJ, this was a pretty important story for most news outlets. You'll see it again once the Senate votes on it, which could be a while from now because I think it isn't even scheduled for a discussion yet (at least that's what I read a few days ago in an article).

Everyone caring about Iran is feeling shafted too, but many are just too naive about the situation and are just griping because that is what they do in life. Just the Twitter folk who will complain in 140 characters or less, but refuse to actually do anything about it.

PingPong
29 Jun 2009, 02:53am
We have lots of virgins around here, it is a gaming forum after all.

Not all of us are virgins :wink:

MtrxMn
29 Jun 2009, 09:59am
Very good point.

And just to be on topic.

I hate liberals.

how dare you stick on the topic of the forum :angry:

Jazz
29 Jun 2009, 10:43am
I think Barack Obama did a good step by making the "poor" people pay less taxes. To be honest.

I belived in Astrum's Obama quote and my post was dedicated to it.

sheriff
29 Jun 2009, 10:50am
You have to sacrifice an animal too. Pfft don't you know anything

YOU ALSO NEED TO CHANT AND BURN INCENSE

SO I'LL GO TO ZUMIEZ AND GET SOME INCENSE BRB
THINK OF A CHANT WHILE I'M GETTING THE INCENSE GUISE

Red
29 Jun 2009, 12:21pm
I think Barack Obama did a good step by making the "poor" people pay less taxes. To be honest.


But then he goes ahead and pushes for this bill that will increase their cost of living across the board. So the "less taxes" will be moot if this pile of shit passes.

Jazz
29 Jun 2009, 03:25pm
But then he goes ahead and pushes for this bill that will increase their cost of living across the board. So the "less taxes" will be moot if this pile of shit passes.

Ah, ah true that. I agree.

But what if the "poor" people cannot afford to pay anymore taxes? Finally they will become broke and loose their house/apartment w/e they live into. Later they will beg for money on the trains and last but not least... They might commit a crime because of their boringness and brokeness (might rob a bank, steal food from supermarket's) and that's because they have no other choices left. They have to get some money sooner or later. Believe me, this has happened in some of the areas in my city. [They have nothing left to do.] Wouldn't that be worse?

REALLY THOUGHT ABOUT THIS FOR A LONG TIME NOW: WHY CAN't THEY JUST PRINT EXTRA MORE CASH?! WUTT

Italian Jew
29 Jun 2009, 04:02pm
REALLY THOUGHT ABOUT THIS FOR A LONG TIME NOW: WHY CAN't THEY JUST PRINT EXTRA MORE CASH?! WUTT

A host of economic problems would occur if they did that. Just look at the Wiki page for economy and even that would make you understand why.

Jazz
29 Jun 2009, 04:03pm
A host of economic problems would occur if they did that. Just look at the Wiki page for economy and even that would make you understand why.

Read and understood!

Red
29 Jun 2009, 04:04pm
REALLY THOUGHT ABOUT THIS FOR A LONG TIME NOW: WHY CAN't THEY JUST PRINT EXTRA MORE CASH?! WUTT

Because inflation will go through the roof and money will be worth less.

A big mac will cost 20 dollars and unless companies increase your pay to keep up with inflation (which they're already NOT doing) you'll actually be poorer.

Think about it, if they print trillions of dollars, then the dollar becomes worth less to us and to other countries which will never lend us money again. We're already facing that problem now.

LegalSmash
1 Jul 2009, 04:39pm
Re: actual bill:
I don't think that the overall concept of environmental regulation as BAD... however, I think that higher than minimal standards should be left to the states to govern their own land, so long as the land is not near a border with another state.

For example: Florida is home to the everglades, a fresh water aquifer, and other vitally important environmental features to the state's well being and overall natural health. Florida complies with EPA's bottom line regulations, but has higher standards than say, Michigan, which is essentially the dirty brown ring of the United States' Asshole.

Each state has a different level of environmental sensitivity. I can, however, understand that the US Govt would want some more control in the area, after the debacle that is CA's air problems. Like it or not, we ARE a huge ass country with a LOT of huge ass people who insist in driving huge ass cars. You cannot possibly ignore the effects of this activity in places like Miami, NY, and LA, where congestion is SO problematic, and air problems are so pronounced as to cause actual detriment to resident's health.


Re: taxes on poor

Taxing the poor will only result in even more reliance on social programs

Re: Taxes on upper class

Are not entirely productive, but to be honest, after 8 years of their standard of living rising, and mine falling, despite my working and education, I could care less than they do with less personally. Trickle down economics did not work the last 8 years the way it did in the 80s, and perhaps that is because education in this country has rapidly deflated in value (in 1980, living a good life with a HS education, and living an upper class one on a 4 year degree was VERY plausible, whereas now, every cocksucker has a goddamn masters.

This being the case, I think that like in WWII, the top rate should apply at a much higher value, but to VERY large incomes, I'm talking about professional athletes and actors... who "talk" about giving back, but never do. Raise the rate to 90% for persons in nonscience and non professional service professions (leaving fine arts, CEOs of businesses that are farm hired (AIG anyone?), and entertainers both sport and media), and tax the FUCK Out of them... let the people and businesses making 250K+ at a 20-25% rate, and you will see more money come in from the right areas.

Re: Economic fallacies involved in printing money:

Two words: Mass Inflation, Two more: Jimmy Carter, three more: We be fucked.

PotshotPolka
1 Jul 2009, 09:03pm
The only time I would ever condone expansion of emission sanctions would be if was (truly) and international treaty, not this Kyoto bullshit. If the entire world was held to such requirements there would be no comparative advantage in say... Taiwan, China, or Korea for manufacturing because of less overhead due to lower levels of regulation.

Some people would call this a blatant objection to the free market, but I also do know that there is such a thing as externalities, and while I can't say these externalities in climate change or global warming, which is the basis on which many of these policies are being implemented, I can say that there extensive health hazards caused by air pollution world wide, and it is the government's business in preventing the actions of people, even if it is the many and not the few, from damaging the people.


Of course the chances of such regulation ever being created on these non-fucktarded reasons is minimal. Carcinogens make less of an emotional "spark" than polar bears drowning, Florida sinking, and the entire world becoming one giant set for the film "Waterworld".

http://imagesource.allposters.com/images/pic/153/933656%7EWaterworld-Posters.jpg




On taxes, I personally wish for a flat tax, not percentage, but flat rate, since this WOULD actually inspire a tighter budget. But I do know that such a plan with the government's rate of expenditures could not be affordable, and would surely only force more people to file for welfare benefits and is under current conditions, unfeasible.

zero
2 Jul 2009, 12:26pm
Because inflation will go through the roof and money will be worth less.

A big mac will cost 20 dollars and unless companies increase your pay to keep up with inflation (which they're already NOT doing) you'll actually be poorer.

Think about it, if they print trillions of dollars, then the dollar becomes worth less to us and to other countries which will never lend us money again. We're already facing that problem now.

Exactly... its called hyperinflation. One of the more popular examples was Germany after World War I.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_in_the_Weimar_Republic

Nighthawk
2 Jul 2009, 01:52pm
Global warming is not a big concern in this economy, and it shouldn't be. I know Obama sucks, McCain would have been better.

PotshotPolka
2 Jul 2009, 02:27pm
Global warming is not a big concern in this economy, and it shouldn't be. I know Obama sucks, McCain would have been better.

Oh, you really are in for a shock and a half.

Red
2 Jul 2009, 03:17pm
The suckage has only just begun with Obama, he still has 3.5 years.

RedOctober
2 Jul 2009, 07:59pm
The suckage has only just begun with Obama, he still has 3.5 years.

you could properly add another 4 years to that. I would bet my right arm that he will be re-elected!
:\-

Italian Jew
2 Jul 2009, 08:02pm
you could properly add another 4 years to that. I would bet my right arm that he will be re-elected!
:\-

If they get a sensible Republican up for election, then maybe not.

PotshotPolka
2 Jul 2009, 08:13pm
If they get a sensible Republican up for election, then maybe not.

Or a libertarian that doesn't scare everyone off.

LegalSmash
2 Jul 2009, 11:30pm
Or a libertarian that doesn't scare everyone off.

HAHA HAHA HAHA HAHAHAHAHAH

Nighthawk
4 Jul 2009, 12:16pm
Or a libertarian that doesn't scare everyone off.

Chance: 1 in 10 billion.

Jazz
5 Jul 2009, 03:16pm
Chance: 1 in 10 billion.

LOL

Red
6 Jul 2009, 10:16am
Or a libertarian that doesn't scare everyone off.

Oh man my ribs still hurt from my boating accident and that didn't help.:rlol::rlol::rlol::rlol::rlol::rlol: