Will We See More of This?

[calfoxwc]

FDR's actions made the depression WORSE and last longer.

 

Well, I guess Obammy learned how to do THAT pretty well from his

 

admittedly favorite professors - socialist.

[Kosar_For_President]

I remember the early Reagan years very well, I got to see my parents loose almost everything they had worked so hard for. Remember (Jimmy Carter? and he didn't have to fund any wars either) But the biggest difference between Obama & Reagan are Reagan encouraged american to save their money what little they had and work at paying off their debts.

 

Obama, he is telling people to go spend their money same as "W" did. That is why I really dont consider "W" a conservative.

 

 

 

You cannot borrow your way out of this economic recession it dosn't make any since. All you end up doing is create more debt.

 

Yea barely remember Carter.

 

Agreed, the problem with Reagan and "saving money" though, is the upper class were the only ones able to save, no?

[Pumpkin Eater]

Even after reading all of the excuses from everyone pointing fingers the thing that is sadly laughable is boy wonder obama wont own up to this mess, he wants to lay claim to he inherited this mess while all along him and his fellow democrat whiners only dumped barrells of gasoline on this fire with their stimulus bill that was nothing more than a big assed spending bill failed to resurrect anything for the economy.

 

 

 

 

and they still dont have a clue, other than taking over all of the failing businesses like a good marxist will do.

 

 

know they can lord over all. while many families start pitching tents, in tent cities across the USA.

 

 

You're hopeless. Obama could show up at your door and save you from a fire and then give you one million dollars from his personal savings and you'd blame him for starting the fire and still hate him.

 

I will just say that the majority of the projects resulting from the stimulus bill are still in pre-planning stages. From there the projects will have to be engineered and passed through government entities for approval. Sometimes the whole process from started to engineer projects to final approval can take over a year. Engineering the projects will get some money flowing, and when they go to construction, even more will be flowing.

[Pumpkin Eater]

You cannot borrow your way out of this economic recession it dosn't make any since. All you end up doing is create more debt.

 

But apparently you can borrow your way out of an expansion.

[Mr. T]

That is an irresponsible expansion. That is what little obama and his commi democrat pals are doing.

 

 

 

 

[heckofajobbrownie]

Steve, that was comical as always. Simply stating that there was a recession in 2001 (it lasted eight months) and that we're currently in one now and that it started in December of 2007, and that it's the deepest and most prolonged since the Great Depression, is obviously too much for you too handle. This must be some liberal plot to get you to admit ...something. I don't know.

 

In the real world people agree on the facts and then debate from there. Recessions are things you can measure with economic data. There was a recession in 2001 not because someone wanted there to be one for political purposes. There was a recession in 2001 because economic conditions met the definition of a recession. Same for the economy since December of 2007. Saying that the current recession is the longest and deepest since the Great Depression is also something you measure. It's like saying 7 is a bigger number than 5, or that 30 days is longer than 20. It's not an opinion.

 

I can't believe we're having this discussion. I'm going to stop now.

 

 

 

[Westside Steve]

Steve, that was comical as always. Simply stating that there was a recession in 2001 (it lasted eight months) and that we're currently in one now and that it started in December of 2007, and that it's the deepest and most prolonged since the Great Depression, is obviously too much for you too handle. This must be some liberal plot to get you to admit ...something. I don't know.

 

Nah the LOL was just how much I love you guys using the talking points from the phrase book.

Hey, shoot me a "tax cuts for the rich!!!" I love that one too.

 

In the real world people agree on the facts and then debate from there.

 

No, acctually in the real world people spin like hell to make the candidate of their party seem cool and the other guy a fool.

Do you recall how this started?

Recessions are things you can measure with economic data. There was a recession in 2001 not because someone wanted there to be one for political purposes. There was a recession in 2001 because economic conditions met the definition of a recession. Same for the economy since December of 2007. Saying that the current recession is the longest and deepest since the Great Depression is also something you measure. It's like saying 7 is a bigger number than 5, or that 30 days is longer than 20. It's not an opinion.

 

And sadly it seems the same type of policies that prolonged it will stretch this one out too. That should bother you.

 

I can't believe we're having this discussion. I'm going to stop now.

 

C'mon Heck.

We still need 6 posts of the same shit to hit the predicted mark of 20.

 

But no matter about that, I don't know why you're so angry.

Obama has the situation in hand and happy days are just around the corner.

 

Maybe your own doubts are making you irritable.

I've noticed you're avoiding the cap and trade meltdown and the looming healthcare bust.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Actually, I was on vacation with my family. And if I were to have a discussion about either of those subjects I can't imagine what the benefit of having them with you would be, and people like Cal even less. You don't know anything about either of them beyond what you read in the summary of an article you found online. It's never a discussion about issues. It's an excuse for you to get mad at people you don't like, or to express one of the seven ideas in your head, then repeat them. It elucidates nothing.

 

You're a bit like Sarah Palin, in that you enjoy being the smartest person in a room full of Retards, but get all flustered and nonsensical when called on your bullshit by anyone who knows more than you. Ex: spending two days arguing that the recession didn't start in December of 2007, or that there wasn't a recession in 2001, simply because you once learned a fact: that one definition of a recession is two quarters of negative growth.

 

Apparently, that's all you can handle at once.

 

But hey, at least it allowed you to get to a few more posts about how all people ever do is spin. That never gets old.

 

 

 

[Westside Steve]

Actually, I was on vacation with my family. And if I were to have a discussion about either of those subjects I can't imagine what the benefit of having them with you would be, and people like Cal even less. You don't know anything about either of them beyond what you read in the summary of an article you found online. It's never a discussion about issues. It's an excuse for you to get mad at people you don't like, or to express one of the seven ideas in your head, then repeat them. It elucidates nothing.

 

That and the fact it'd be hard to defend the crap with a straight face.

And who's angry?? You're the little cranky boy.

And seven ain't bad compared to zip.

 

You're a bit like Sarah Palin, in that you enjoy being the smartest person in a room full of Retards, but get all flustered and nonsensical when called on your bullshit by anyone who knows more than you. Ex: spending two days arguing that the recession didn't start in December of 2007, or that there wasn't a recession in 2001, simply because you once learned a fact: that one definition of a recession is two quarters of negative growth.

 

The main and accepted one. But we can repeat that over and over.

 

Apparently, that's all you can handle at once.

 

But hey, at least it allowed you to get to a few more posts about how all people ever do is spin. That never gets old.

 

Nope. Keep feeding the fire Heck.

But Kudos.

While crying I'm repetetive you've hit on many of your reqirements.

Insult Cal, check.

Brag, check.

Insult Sarah Palin, check.

Brag some more, check.

 

Four more posts left.

Make em count.

WSS

 

 

[heckofajobbrownie]

I'd be happy to defend the cap and trade legislation, warts and all. I just wouldn't want to do it with someone who only knows how to come back with the same shit about India and China over and over again.

 

Or the one about how people won't make personal sacrifices and the population is growing so why bother.

 

It's all so insightful. What a wonderful way to spend one's time.

[ballpeen]

Yea barely remember Carter.

 

Agreed, the problem with Reagan and "saving money" though, is the upper class were the only ones able to save, no?

 

I have always been upper class, and that has nothing to do with how much money I made.

 

The way you act and think goes a long way with how you finally turn out.

 

 

That is a tip you can live by if you are open.

[Mr. T]

You're hopeless. Obama could show up at your door and save you from a fire and then give you one million dollars from his personal savings and you'd blame him for starting the fire and still hate him.

 

 

I would call INS Are you a citizen?

 

 

I will just say that the majority of the projects resulting from the stimulus bill are still in pre-planning stages.

 

 

Is that what they are saying now? I thought that the money would go to programs that have already had the plans made and were waiting to be funded. $46 billion for transportation and mass transit projects, out of $787 billion, that leaves $741 billion for Special Intrest groups and Pelosi's swamp mouse $30 Million.

 

 

Maybe there will be some money left over for these families living in tents?

 

 

But you have the right to keep on voting for those limousine liberals!

[Guest mz.]

I have always been upper class, and that has nothing to do with how much money I made.

 

Of course it won't be pressed under federal hate crime laws...those are reserved for African victims.

 

Stay classy.

 

[calfoxwc]

Stay classy.

**********

practice what you preach, he is staying classy.

 

But do go ahead, as usual, and put your own self-serving words and intentions where none are.

[calfoxwc]

I see Heck is locked into wanting to discuss things, only when he can go out, and research

 

issues at length, and then come back and nitpick and misdirect conversations toward his research.

 

Then, as usual, he drags me into it unprovoked, and T, and puts Steve down, and postures himself as brilliant.

 

No workee.

 

(Hecksies gots childishsies regressies, little fella ?)

[Westside Steve]

I'd be happy to defend the cap and trade legislation, warts and all. I just wouldn't want to do it with someone who only knows how to come back with the same shit about India and China over and over again.

 

Don't forget Mexico.

You'd rather have the issue and I haven't heard any new info from you have I?

That's certainly a fact but actually, stuck on the island with only PBS, I'd seen Mark Shields and David Brooks (the guy the left invites when they want to pretend they have a conservastive) bemoaning the fact that the bill has been stripped of a key element, that is the ablity to sell those "credits" in order t6o offset a little of the losses sure to come.

Those two either supported or at least didn't vigorously oppose that bill before.

But I didn't hear a peep from the lefties who believe this tax will be good for America.

We've been over the reasons I say it won't work. You can't deny those but sure you can gripe they get repeated.

So does the premise.

 

But this was a different question.

 

Or the one about how people won't make personal sacrifices and the population is growing so why bother.

 

Well that's also quite true, but it's just the hypocrisy like anti smoking and drinking zealots who smoke and drink, or one you'll agree with gay bashers getting a blowjob in the mens room.

It's that simple.

 

If you tell me the earth is dying because of my Subaru and cheap gas then don't live in a house the size of a mall.

 

It's all so insightful. What a wonderful way to spend one's time.

 

 

You decided to waste your time.

I presented the accepted definition and you went to bat for PB.

 

The rest you'll avoid since it should seem to all that Obama's plan is not delivering.

The projections are being rewritten and it looks worse in the long run.

 

And I'm even on board with health care reform and distressed to see that empty promise go to shit.

But those issues should be on a seperate thread.

WSS

 

WSS[/b]

[Kosar_For_President]

I see Heck is locked into wanting to discuss things, only when he can go out, and research

 

issues at length, and then come back and nitpick and misdirect conversations toward his research.

 

Then, as usual, he drags me into it unprovoked, and T, and puts Steve down, and postures himself as brilliant.

 

No workee.

 

(Hecksies gots childishsies regressies, little fella ?)

 

Yea, because you wouldn't want ta' actually know about a subject bafore discussin'

[Westside Steve]

Yea, because you wouldn't want ta' actually know about a subject bafore discussin'

 

 

So tell him where he's wrong Kos.

 

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Steve, let's get something straight. You think your two reasons it won't work "can't be denied." I certainly don't. I've written about them both extensively. They're both mostly irrelevant points that simply highlight how little you know about cap and trade and how it works.

 

As for your point about the participation of other countries, we've also gone over this a million times. Of course we need other countries to participate. That's why there's a giant meeting of all the industrialized world in Copenhagen in December. Everyone understands this. This is not a critique of cap and trade.

 

Honestly, do you imagine that somewhere there's a climate change negotiator who doesn't understand that we need all countries to participate? That the population is going to grow? Do you really imagine that someone is going to be stunned to learn these two points of yours?

 

It's the equivalent of going to the other board and saying "In order for the game to be played we need both teams to show up." And then repeating it endlessly. You've got to get past this "victory" of yours.

 

What you also don't seem to be able to get is that the United States emits more greenhouse gases, and is more responsible for the past emissions that are currently trapped in the atmosphere, than any other country in the world, and by a sizable margin. While you continue to worry about whether China and India and Mexico are on board, trust me, the biggest concern in the rest of the world is whether the United States is going to get on board. China won't if we won't. India won't if we won't. We won't if China won't. And this is why you have big international gatherings and sign big international agreements. Get it? (...Please?)

 

And that's part of the reason why it's absolutely essential for the United States to be able to demonstrate that it can pass climate change legislation in its own Congress before the December meetings in Copenhagen. Absolutely essential. Because if you're really worried about China and India and Mexico participating, the easiest way to make sure they don't is to show up in Copenhagen empty-handed, basically saying to the rest of the world, "Hey, I know we're the world's biggest polluter, but you should really reduce your emissions. We're not going to, but you really should!"

 

Does this make sense to you?

 

As for the bill itself, there are things to like about it, and there are things that are infuriating, and there are things that had to be given up, and lots of goodies for members were added on to get their support. Sometimes this has to happen in order to get the thing passed. That's just the way things are. It passed the House by only 6 votes, with over 40 Democrats voting against it. This doesn't make me happy. The bill could be a lot better. But some of the essential pricing and trading mechanisms are still intact, and the Senate might be able to improve on the bill. You can also fix the thing as you go along. The important thing is passing the bill.

 

In other words, if I've got to add $50 million for a Museum of Farts in order to secure a critical vote, and it doesn't endanger the essential provisions of the bill, I don't mind adding $50 million for the Museum of Farts.

[calfoxwc]

Yea, because you wouldn't want ta' actually know about a subject bafore discussin' K

*******************************************************************

 

I can know a little, or a lot, but at some time, I figure I can have an opinion without your

 

smart ass permission !

 

 

But, all the research and articles etc is ignored if it goes against the liberal talkie-points.

 

 

You can never know everything about a subject, so I don't get where legit discussion is so wrong.

 

 

A lot of us have different experiences, information... etc, therefore, we discuss.

 

 

Like ot try it in earnest some time, K ?

[calfoxwc]

In other words, if I've got to add $50 million for a Museum of Farts in order to secure a critical vote, and it doesn't endanger the essential provisions of the bill, I don't mind adding $50 million for the Museum of Farts. Heck

***********************************

of the taxpayer's money?

 

for a museum of farts?

 

so you can get a vote to pass a climate change bill? When man made climate change

 

is, in the minds of MANY people around the world, a God-forsaken, man-made-up politically manipulative theory?

 

As in bogus? So maybe like China will then do the same?

 

China will be exempt, just like the Kyoto treaty, fool.

 

So, Heck, you want to be going to toss billions of TAXPAYERS' money around like you're angry, spoiled, children, so you

 

can get some bogus legistlation passed, even it is dangerously destructive to our country' way of life for no good reason,

 

so you can get other countries to shoot themselves in the foot, too?

 

And you think you are so right on the issue?

 

Liberal lefists want to turn the whole world upside.

 

but wanting to fund farts make Heckleberry look like one of the worst and most foolish koolaid drinkers on the board. bar none.

 

Perhaps little Hecksies would like some prunsies ?

 

 

 

 

 

[Westside Steve]

Steve, let's get something straight. You think your two reasons it won't work "can't be denied." I certainly don't. I've written about them both extensively. They're both mostly irrelevant points that simply highlight how little you know about cap and trade and how it works.

 

As for your point about the participation of other countries, we've also gone over this a million times. Of course we need other countries to participate. That's why there's a giant meeting of all the industrialized world in Copenhagen in December. Everyone understands this. This is not a critique of cap and trade.

 

Honestly, do you imagine that somewhere there's a climate change negotiator who doesn't understand that we need all countries to participate? That the population is going to grow? Do you really imagine that someone is going to be stunned to learn these two points of yours?

 

It's the equivalent of going to the other board and saying "In order for the game to be played we need both teams to show up." And then repeating it endlessly. You've got to get past this "victory" of yours.

 

What you also don't seem to be able to get is that the United States emits more greenhouse gases, and is more responsible for the past emissions that are currently trapped in the atmosphere, than any other country in the world, and by a sizable margin. While you continue to worry about whether China and India and Mexico are on board, trust me, the biggest concern in the rest of the world is whether the United States is going to get on board. China won't if we won't. India won't if we won't. We won't if China won't. And this is why you have big international gatherings and sign big international agreements. Get it? (...Please?)

 

And that's part of the reason why it's absolutely essential for the United States to be able to demonstrate that it can pass climate change legislation in its own Congress before the December meetings in Copenhagen. Absolutely essential. Because if you're really worried about China and India and Mexico participating, the easiest way to make sure they don't is to show up in Copenhagen empty-handed, basically saying to the rest of the world, "Hey, I know we're the world's biggest polluter, but you should really reduce your emissions. We're not going to, but you really should!"

 

Does this make sense to you?

 

Of course but I think the ideology works against it.

Here's why.

Sure we set the example and we can claim the moral high ground.

But those who stand to profit from our sacrifice aren't likely to give that advantage away.

You understand that too don't you?

Other countries main concern is their own benefit, even if Obama is a popular guy.

Paul McCartney's a genius but I'm eating meat. Sorry.

Personally I'm not too concerned with all the Danish goods flooding the US markets or losing our manufactuuring base to Luxembourg.

And shall we say I'm leery of the "fix it in the mix" plan as we careen toward a bill.

 

I used to be the guy never late to rehearsal so I could bitch at the guys who were.

It didn't stop then, only made me waste time waiting.

WSS

 

 

As for the bill itself, there are things to like about it, and there are things that are infuriating, and there are things that had to be given up, and lots of goodies for members were added on to get their support. Sometimes this has to happen in order to get the thing passed. That's just the way things are. It passed the House by only 6 votes, with over 40 Democrats voting against it. This doesn't make me happy. The bill could be a lot better. But some of the essential pricing and trading mechanisms are still intact, and the Senate might be able to improve on the bill. You can also fix the thing as you go along. The important thing is passing the bill.

 

In other words, if I've got to add $50 million for a Museum of Farts in order to secure a critical vote, and it doesn't endanger the essential provisions of the bill, I don't mind adding $50 million for the Museum of Farts

[heckofajobbrownie]

Steve, I don't know what this is supposed to prove about cap and trade, but at least we got somewhere.

 

If your point is that we have to make sure no one is gaming or cheating the system once it's in place (including us) I obviously wouldn't have any problem with that. It's pretty vital. It's also part of the reason why these negotiations are as difficult as they are necessary.

 

Your other point about how people don't sacrifice is also an argument in favor of cap and trade, not against it. Some people do things because they want to help out, or for altruistic reasons, or because they're concerned about the issue, but the majority of people respond to economic incentives.

 

I'd also add that the realities of the American political system make it essential that we decide on an agreement before Copenhagen, rather than have Copenhagen decide one for us. The latter won't fly, even if it were exactly the same agreement.

[calfoxwc]

The only way you can justify cap n tax is to say you don't care that it will cause hyper-inflation,

 

to the entire country.

 

There will be real trouble in this country if libs get control and tax every freakin thing, albeit,

 

left-handedly, of every single thing Americans do.

 

Before Heck cries, here's a hankie and an explanation:

 

cap n tax will be passed down to consumers. Unless Obama takes over ALL industry in this country.

 

Freeze prices, and cap n tax, and profit goes out the window, companies lay people off, go out of business,

 

or leave the country. Which is also why libs want the socialist movement to be global. And, global warming fraud

 

is their vehicle.

 

Whatever - we are headed for some very bad times in this country, I think. Everyday survival may not be a joke

 

anymore, a few years of this un-Godly direction we're heading because of Obumbly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[heckofajobbrownie]

The CBO says cap and trade will cost the average American household $175 a year, less for people on the lower end of the spectrum.

 

Just remember that when people say it's going to "destroy the American economy". It won't. That's a fraction of what people spend on their cell phones every year, or about what they spend on coffee.

[Guest BillyJack]

The CBO says cap and trade will cost the average American household $175 a year, less for people on the lower end of the spectrum.

 

 

BullShit TOO! Only the village idiot would believe that shit! As Steven Colbert says.. Facts have a liberal bias. .... It estimates average american household burden would be about $1200. ... But cap and trade will cost us more than that.

This is the same CBO that claimed Medicare would only cost 500 million dollars a year over 50 years. More BS! They were only 1000 times off! Cap and trade is a bad idea, and coming up with some BS estimate of how little it will cost does not justify it!

 

Obama’s cap and trade is just another giant step towards Marxism

[heckofajobbrownie]

There was a story recently about conservatives who didn't realize Steven Colbert was parody. I never thought I'd run into one.

 

Once again, the Browns Board: bringing people together.

[We need Tom Tupa]

The CBO says cap and trade will cost the average American household $175 a year, less for people on the lower end of the spectrum.

 

Just remember that when people say it's going to "destroy the American economy". It won't. That's a fraction of what people spend on their cell phones every year, or about what they spend on coffee.

$175 per household? Anyone think that's going to have much affect on how we behave?

 

There just isnt any upside here. Maybe the fact that they pass a bill that can be used in a real way in the future? But of course, using it in a real way means a tax of more than $175 per household...and then we need a new answer for people afraid that it will cripple the economy.

 

Dammit.

[calfoxwc]

175 bucks is bogus.

 

MIT now says, it will be 800 bucks.

 

But cap n taxlikehell, will have costs, passed on to consumers.

 

That's what the Obama admin doesn't want anyone to know.

 

And if you think that's bull, watch where you're walkin, cause

 

you may step in it.

 

**************************

 

The Truth-O-Meter Says:

 

Says the Congressional Budget Office estimates a cap-and-trade program would cost the average family the equivalent of "a postage stamp a day."

Edward Markey on Saturday, June 20th, 2009 in a press release.

 

Claims that the CBO predicts cap-and-trade will cost about as much as a stamp a day

Bookmark this story:

 

 

Responding to Republicans who have said a cap-and-trade bill could cost thousands of dollars a year for the average family, the Democratic sponsors of the bill are citing a new study from the Congressional Budget Office that they say shows their plan will be affordable.

 

"For the cost of about a postage stamp a day, all American families will see a return on their investment as our nation breaks our dependence on foreign oil, cuts dangerous carbon pollution and creates millions of new clean-energy jobs that can't be shipped overseas," Rep. Edward Markey said in a June 22, 2009, news release jointly issued with the co-sponsor, Rep. Henry Waxman.

 

Waxman and Markey, from California and Massachusetts respectively, are the authors of a bill that would set up a market for power companies and other polluters to buy and trade carbon credits. The goal is to force them to cut their harmful emissions and lower carbon pollution 83 percent by 2050. But critics say polluters will inevitably pass the cost of buying credits or cleaner technologies on to the consumer.

 

Putting a price tag on such a complex plan is tricky and controversial, as we note in our article Your Guide to the Cap-and-Trade Estimates . The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, says that cap-and-trade could raise the average family's annual energy bill by $1,241. House Republicans have said that cap-and-trade could cost consumers up to $3,100, a figure they say came from a Massachusetts Institute of Technology report. But the writers of that report admonished the GOP for incorrectly interpreting their work; intially, the authors predicted it would cost consumers about $340 annually, and have since updated that estimate to $800.

 

Waxman and Markey are relying on a June 19 Congressional Budget Office analysis of their bill. The CBO is a well-respected, independent arm of Congress, but we have found its findings are occasionally mischaracterized by members of Congress. So we wanted to check whether Waxman is correctly summarizing the CBO's findings.

 

Indeed, the report cited by Markey and Waxman predicts the bill would have a net annual economywide cost of $22 billion — or about $175 per household — in 2020. Divide that number by 365 days, and you get about 48 cents. A first-class stamp costs 44 cents, so Waxman is close.

 

The CBO's estimate includes several assumptions about important decisions that still must be made by Congress, such as how much energy companies will pay to buy and trade polluting credits. But it's worth reading the fine print on this one, because CBO notes that the actual cost per family will vary depending on income. For example, low-income consumers could expect to save $40 a year, while wealthy people will see a net increase for energy costs of $235 to $340 every year. And the analysis does not include the costs or benefits of other parts of the bill, such as government efforts to quickly develop new technology, wrote CBO director Douglas Elmendorf in a June 20 blog post.

 

It's also important to note that the costs will vary year to year. As the bill stands, polluting allowances will initially be given away for free. But by 2035, about 70 percent of those allocations will be sold by the government. Supporters of the bill say federal revenue from the program would be used to pay for tax credits and rebates for the middle class.

 

CBO chose 2020 as a milestone for its analysis because it's a point at which the program would have been in effect for eight years, giving the economy and polluters time to adjust. But had CBO chosen a later date, the cost per family may have been higher because the government would gradually be charging polluters more.

 

Waxman and Markey are clear about these variables and omissions in their press statement. They note that the poorest people will gain from the bill, and point out that the study does not include every element that could contribute to cap-and-trade's cost.

 

But critics are more skeptical of the report. By not including all variables, the CBO report "grossly underestimates costs of cap-and-trade," said a memo from the Heritage Foundation, which has published many articles opposing the proposal. Among other things, Heritage says the study is flawed because it doesn't address economic changes resulting from restricted energy use and potential job losses.

 

For this Truth-O-Meter item, we are not addressing which study is best, but focusing on whether Markey correctly described the CBO's findings. He was close — off by just 4 cents — and he indicated it was an approximation because he said "about a postage stamp a day." So we find the statement True.

 

Published: Thursday, June 25th, 2009 at 2:13 p.m.

 

Sources:

 

House Energy and Commerce Committee, Reps. Henry Waxman and Edward Markey comment on CBO report , accessed June 20, 2009

 

Congressional Budget Office, Director's Blog post on cap-and-trade estimate , accessed June 22, 2009

 

Congressional Budget Office, The Estimated Costs to Households From the Cap-and-Trade Provisions of H.R. 2454 , accessed June 22, 2009

 

Heritage Foundation, comments on CBO report , accessed June 23, 2009

 

Written by: Catharine Richert

Researched by: Catharine Richert

Edited by: Bill Adair

 

 

 

 

 

[Westside Steve]

There was a story recently about conservatives who didn't realize Steven Colbert was parody. I never thought I'd run into one.

 

Once again, the Browns Board: bringing people together.

 

I'll bet there was.

Ironic in a place where Jon Stewart is used regularly as source material.....

 

 

 

WSS