Will We See More of This?

[calfoxwc]

Again, man made global warming is just a theory that is becoming more and more invalid over time.

[calfoxwc]

You're right. We should just pluck our numbers out of thin air. Heckleberry

 

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

 

I'll stop pulling them out of thin air when you stop pulling them out of your ass.

[Westside Steve]

Steve, I'm not sure what you're saying there. I'm really not. But a good percentage of every tax on business is passed on to the consumer. Cap and trade would be no different.

 

That's just what I'm saying Heck.

And that's why I personally don't buy the minor $175.00 cost per family.

I don't think I'm alone in that even among people you agree with and respect.

 

I think that it is inevitable that it will be much higher and that in itself will be a drag on an already reeling economy.

Also US business will be less competetive and the weaker earnings will be a drag on the Dow.

 

That's about it as I see it.

 

And can we agree that oil is very important as a backing commodity for the US dollar?

And can we agree that the sale of green technology to countries who hAve shown no fear of ignoring US patent law is at least a long shot to replace it?

WSS

 

 

 

 

 

Also, the point of attaching a price to carbon emissions is attaching a price to carbon emissions. From what I can tell you've gone from arguing that the costs would kill the economy, to that the costs aren't big enough to matter, and now we're back to that they're going to cause a lot of pain. Well, we have estimates of how much pain there would be and it doesn't appear to be much, thanks in large part to how the bill is written.

 

But since we can't get away from your individual sacrifice idea, let's try this: say you sacrifice and buy a plug-in hybrid car. They use little or no gas and as a result emit much less or no CO2. But you still have to plug them into a wall socket to recharge the batteries every night. That uses electricity, which in this country is most likely generated by coal, but also natural gas, petroleum. Only about 13% currently comes from renewables. I think nuclear accounts for 17% or so. So 70% of the energy we produce is carbon-based.

 

While you belabor that red herring I'm saying that if someone thinks they're destroying mankind as we know it they might actually cut back if they were serious.

But I'm guessing you're only pretending to misunderstand.

[/b]

 

Point being, if that car is still being recharged by electricity generated from carbon-based energy it's not going to have any impact on greenhouse gas emissions. You're just shifting the source of your emissions from your car to the smokestack.

 

How long have I been calling for nukes and LED?

C'mon be honest.

Just remember that the hundreds of thousands of people who earn a living delivering carbon basede power need to find another way if and when nearly free (in comparison) methods emerge. If they emerge.

 

 

Now, it does have other benefits, namely that it wouldn't require any imported oil, but it doesn't really change the greenhouse gas dynamic. Electricity generation accounts for the most greenhouse gas emissions, around 40%. Transportation is second, but individual Americans driving their cars is only a fraction of that.

 

So you just made one of these sacrifices you've been demanding and it didn't do a thing to reduce your personal contribution to global warming, at least from your car.

 

What we need to do to cut greenhouse emissions is to generate electricity more cleanly, and we need to start making that transition fairly quickly. That means more nuclear power. And that means making it alternative energy projects more economically feasible. And that means carbon pricing on an international scale.

 

And this is why you see the move toward plug-in hybrids or electric cars. Because if you can get to a future where you recharge that thing with mostly renewable energy sources it's not going to generate greenhouse gas emissions on either end, and it's not going to need any foreign sources of energy. It's all (or mostly all) going to be generated here in the US, and pollute next to nothing.

 

True enpough.

I think the market is working toward that. Whipping a hortse who is running as fast as he can is counter productive.

(please; no "Huh???" here)

 

BTW I like the fuel cell idea better but that really will take some refitting.

 

And I like the Pickens Plan as I see it.

 

And that's why until we change how we generate power it doesn't matter much what kind of car you, me, or Al Gore drives.

 

Just to his credibility Heck.

You guys made him a hero, not me.

WSS

 

Of course, because of all the batteries we're going to be dependent on lithium from South America, but that's a smaller problem.

[heckofajobbrownie]

But Steve, that's how they get the $175 figure! By figuring how much of this will be passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices. Then they subtract the effects of the credits and came to $175 a household.

 

There is no direct charge to the consumer, only charges passed on by producers. They couldn't figure in anything else if they tried.

 

They're saying "10 minus 4 equals 6" and you're saying "they haven't figured out that it's going to cost 10."

 

They're measuring exactly what you suggest they should measure. Your point is invalid.

 

As for this: "I'm saying that if someone thinks they're destroying mankind as we know it they might actually cut back if they were serious."

 

What do you think this is? It's a serious plan to cut back on emissions worldwide. Being for it is a lot more important than switching what you drive.

 

It's even more important than the feeling you get by calling someone a hypocrite.

 

[calfoxwc]

It's foolish to pick the very lowest estimate of the cost, which is only a projection,

 

out of political expediency.

 

I guess Heck figures the MIT folks who calc'ed $800 as the more accurate estimate are white, uneducated morons who are part of a right wing Republican conspiracy.

[Westside Steve]

But Steve, that's how they get the $175 figure! By figuring how much of this will be passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices. Then they subtract the effects of the credits and came to $175 a household.

 

There is no direct charge to the consumer, only charges passed on by producers. They couldn't figure in anything else if they tried.

 

They're saying "10 minus 4 equals 6" and you're saying "they haven't figured out that it's going to cost 10."

 

Nope. It's purposely overlooking variables. Remember Obama calling the CBO out on his healthcare deficit? Do you?

 

They're measuring exactly what you suggest they should measure. Your point is invalid.

 

Great then.

So it won't cost dick.

That means it won 't accomplish dick.

Thanks. We're doomed. Again.

Just an excuse for a meaningless tax.

 

>>QUOTE (heckofajobbrownie @ Jul 17 2009, 12:03 PM) *

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.<<<

 

As for this: "I'm saying that if someone thinks they're destroying mankind as we know it they might actually cut back if they were serious."

 

What do you think this is?

 

A way to squeeze a few mor tax dollars out of the ass of the US citizens. Under a fake banner of saving the world.

 

It's a serious plan to cut back on emissions worldwide. Being for it is a lot more important than switching what you drive.

 

It's even more important than the feeling you get by calling someone a hypocrite.

 

 

Just not quite important enough huh?

I mean Sarah Palin speaks of morality but her daughter gets pregnant!!

That's hot news to you and your dim apostles.

But hey when Obama's zombies spread bullshit...whew!

 

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Haha. Okay, now it's missing variables. What would those be, Steve? Do tell us.

[Westside Steve]

Haha. Okay, now it's missing variables. What would those be, Steve? Do tell us.

 

Let's try again Heck.

Obama says the CBO is way off on the projections for his health care plan.

OK.

So they are infallible or he is. You pick.

 

Is your C and T bill ready to be signed or does it face a pile more "bumps and bruises" before he rushes to sign it?

 

So answer me.

Will the cost grow as it's "amended" or will it pass exactly as it is now. (since that estimzate at this point is rock solid )

 

If it's two is that enough punishment for America or will we need more as Toop suggests?

 

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Big surprise. You couldn't back that up.

 

Now we're going to pretend we're arguing that they haven't scored the eventual bill that would end up on the president's desk.

 

No shit.

 

Me: "The CBO says 10 minus 6 equals 4."

Steve: "I think it's more than 4."

Me: "Why?"

Steve: "Never mind that. Did you know 2 plus 2 equals 4?"

 

Stop wasting my time.

 

As for whether or not it's going to end up being more or less expensive to the average American household, I have no idea. We have to wait and see what emerges from the process. Maybe they'll include more protections for consumers in order to get it passed, making it cheaper. Maybe they'll stiffen the emissions targets, or decide to auction of a greater percentage of permits, which could make it more expensive.

 

As for this binary "infallible" stuff, really. Can we grow up a little bit?

 

The CBO projections are the best ones we have, but they're not perfect and no one is alleging projections can be perfect. But they are what Congress goes by when debating legislation. And I take them more seriously than you saying, "I think it's going to be more expensive." It's not like you've got some beancounters crunching numbers in your garage, Steve.

 

As for health care, when the CBO comes out and says you aren't going to control health care costs with the bill you have on the table that's not a good day for your plan.

 

If the White House thinks they can show how the CBO is wrong they can show how the CBO is wrong. Merely saying so isn't good enough.

[Westside Steve]

Big surprise. You couldn't back that up.

 

Bak what up? That I sincerely doubt this thing will wind up cheap and or effective?

I guess we'll see.

 

Now we're going to pretend we're arguing that they haven't scored the eventual bill that would end up on the president's desk.

 

No shit.

 

Yep.

No shit.

 

So your projections mean nothing.

Nada.

Zip.

 

 

 

Stop wasting my time.

 

Just be a little honest and we can.

 

 

As for whether or not it's going to end up being more or less expensive to the average American household, I have no idea.

 

No shit.

 

We have to wait and see what emerges from the process. Maybe they'll include more protections for consumers in order to get it passed, making it cheaper. Maybe they'll stiffen the emissions targets, or decide to auction of a greater percentage of permits, which could make it more expensive.

 

No shit.

 

As for this binary "infallible" stuff, really. Can we grow up a little bit?

 

So who's wrong about the healthcare mistake? Obama or the CBO?

Pick one if you're so grown up.

What's so hard?

 

 

But in the end Heck.

I don't for a minut think this will come to pass at that cheap a price.

Highly touted "programs" never seem to.

If it does it won't do anything that it's supposed to do.

I doubt you'd be wearing the rose garden colored glasses if it was, ahhh you know.

WSS

 

[heckofajobbrownie]

CBO projections don't mean anything. Gotcha.

 

As for the bill "won't do what it's supposed to do"... Hmm. Thought I addressed that one here. But never mind.

 

Here's the CBO projection of the emissions reductions that would result from Waxman-Markey. Get them on the horn, Steve. They've got it all wrong! The bill doesn't do anything because an average of $175 a household at the outset is too little! Someone like you should tell them.

 

Obviously, the bill does something, and clearly it's because the cap gets more restrictive over time, making the price of emitting carbon more expensive. (Again.) Much of this happens after the ten-year window. What happens inside the ten-year window is one of the parts of the bill that got watered down.

 

But again, just pretend you didn't receive that new information. Continue insisting that it does nothing. Except kill the economy.

 

As for Obama and health care, we're back to the binary nonsense. Let's try to get beyond that. It's beneath even you.

 

The first batch of CBO cost projections dealt a major blow to Obama's cost-cutting claims. The White House's response was that the CBO wasn't scoring the effects of additional cost-cutting programs, which was true.

 

Then today, the CBO released an additional scoring of a White House plan called IMAC, which they say would control costs over the long-term. The CBO says it only saves $2 billion over 10 years, if that, which deals another blow to the White House's claims. And the White House's response today was to say that the cost-curve bends more beyond the 10-year window that the CBO looks at. The CBO acknowledges as much in the report, but still says the savings will be "larger but still modest" after 10 years. It also adds their two cents on ways they think the plan could save much more money.

 

So while you think you've got Obama in a lie, and me torn between two lovers, what Obama said is not only true, but not questioned by the CBO: that it's "simply not true" to say that this proposal doesn't bend the cost curve over time. It does. The CBO says so much. It's just not as big of a game-changer as the White House had hoped.

 

It's not a death blow to the plan, because there are still additional proposals to lower costs that aren't included in these projections. The CBO acknowledges that in the report as well: "For reasons outlined in those earlier letters, our analysis to date does not represent a formal or complete cost estimate for the draft legislation."

 

How's that? Happy? Somehow I doubt it.

 

One of these days we should stop this. I don't know what the point is.

[calfoxwc]

Well now, ... now that we have Heckleberry knowing that the CBO knows what it is talking about, maybe we

 

can get him to admit the Obama health care bill is a freakin disaster:

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

 

CBO deals new blow to health plan

For the second time this month, congressional budget analysts have dealt a blow to the Democrat's health reform efforts, this time by saying a plan touted by the White House as crucial to paying for the bill would actually save almost no money over 10 years.

 

A key House chairman and moderate House Democrats on Tuesday agreed to a White House-backed proposal that would give an outside panel the power to make cuts to government-financed health care programs. White House budget director Peter Orszag declared the plan "probably the most important piece that can be added" to the House's health care reform legislation.

 

 

 

But on Saturday, the Congressional Budget Office said the proposal to give an independent panel the power to keep Medicare spending in check would only save about $2 billion over 10 years- a drop in the bucket compared to the bill's $1 trillion price tag.

 

 

 

"In CBO's judgment, the probability is high that no savings would be realized ... but there is also a chance that substantial savings might be realized. Looking beyond the 10-year budget window, CBO expects that this proposal would generate larger but still modest savings on the same probabilistic basis," CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf wrote in a letter to House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer on Saturday.

 

 

 

On his White House blog, Orszag – who served as CBO director in 2007 and 2008 – downplayed the office's small probable savings number in favor of the proposal's more speculative long-term benefits.

 

 

 

"The point of the proposal, however, was never to generate savings over the next decade. ... Instead, the goal is to provide a mechanism for improving quality of care for beneficiaries and reducing costs over the long term," Orszag wrote. "In other words, in the terminology of our belt-and-suspenders approach to a fiscally responsible health reform, the IMAC is a game changer not a scoreable offset."

 

But scoreable offsets are the immediate savings that fiscally conservative Blue Dogs and other Democratic moderates have been pushing for precisely because they will help offset the bill's cost.

 

 

 

The proposal's meager savings are a blow to Democrats working furiously to bring down costs in order to win support from Blue Dogs, who have threatened to vote against the bill without significant changes. The proposal was heralded as a breakthrough on Tuesday after Blue Dogs and House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman emerged from the White House with agreement on giving the independent panel, rather than Congress, the ability to rein in Medicare spending.

 

Republicans pounced on CBO's analysis as another demonstration that Democratic proposals don't control costs.

 

 

 

"The President said that rising health care costs are an imminent threat to our economy and that any reform must reduce these long-term costs. But CBO has made clear once again that the Democrats' bills in Congress aren't reducing costs and in fact could just make the problem worse," said Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell.

 

Saturday's CBO analysis caps a tough week of blown deadlines, partisan bickering and fierce intra-party fighting among Democrats. On Friday, the tension between the Blue Dogs and Waxman exploded when Waxman threatened to bypass his committee and bring the reform bill straight to the House floor without a vote. The move infuriated Blue Dogs who have used their crucial committee votes to leverage changes to the bill.

 

 

 

But by late Friday, Waxman said their colleagues had pulled the two groups "back from the brink" and back to the negotiating table.

 

 

 

Still, Hoyer said there was little chance that that the House would pass a health reform legislation before Friday when lawmakers are expected to leave Washington for summer recess.

 

House Republican Leader John Boehner's office said that it's time to hit the legislation's reset button.

 

 

 

"This letter underscores the enormous challenges that Democrats face trying to pay for their massive and costly government takeover of health care. In their rush to pass a bill, Democrats continue to ignore the stark economic reality facing our nation," said Boehner spokeswoman Antonia Ferrier. "Let's scrap the current proposal and come together in a meaningful way to reform health care in America by reducing cost, expanding access and at a price tag we can afford."

 

 

 

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25415.html#ixzz0MQfqIRJk

[heckofajobbrownie]

Cal, are you the mule-driver who took Kevin Costner out to the frontier in Dances With Wolves?

[Westside Steve]

CBO projections don't mean anything. Gotcha.

 

As for the bill "won't do what it's supposed to do"... Hmm. Thought I addressed that one here. But never mind.

 

Here's the CBO projection of the emissions reductions that would result from Waxman-Markey. Get them on the horn, Steve. They've got it all wrong! The bill doesn't do anything because an average of $175 a household at the outset is too little! Someone like you should tell them.

 

Toop mentioned that.

Do you disagree?

 

Obviously, the bill does something, and clearly it's because the cap gets more restrictive over time, making the price of emitting carbon more expensive. (Again.) Much of this happens after the ten-year window. What happens inside the ten-year window is one of the parts of the bill that got watered down.

 

But again, just pretend you didn't receive that new information. Continue insisting that it does nothing. Except kill the economy.

 

Harm the economy, yes.

 

As for Obama and health care, we're back to the binary nonsense. Let's try to get beyond that. It's beneath even you.

 

Why is it nonsense? He says they're wrong on another issue.

That doesn't concern you?

 

The first batch of CBO cost projections dealt a major blow to Obama's cost-cutting claims. The White House's response was that the CBO wasn't scoring the effects of additional cost-cutting programs, which was true.

 

Then today, the CBO released an additional scoring of a White House plan called IMAC, which they say would control costs over the long-term. The CBO says it only saves $2 billion over 10 years, if that, which deals another blow to the White House's claims. And the White House's response today was to say that the cost-curve bends more beyond the 10-year window that the CBO looks at. The CBO acknowledges as much in the report, but still says the savings will be "larger but still modest" after 10 years. It also adds their two cents on ways they think the plan could save much more money.

 

So while you think you've got Obama in a lie, and me torn between two lovers, what Obama said is not only true, but not questioned by the CBO: that it's "simply not true" to say that this proposal doesn't bend the cost curve over time. It does. The CBO says so much. It's just not as big of a game-changer as the White House had hoped.

 

 

Which is pretty much what I say.

I'm saying that it'll probably cost more than planned, hurt the economy and that I don't think the effect will be worth it. It isn't really that outrageous.

 

I also think there are a lot of thinking people who believe in it so it does give me pause.

(which I'll guess you aren't willing to admit the opposite)

 

But:

 

You, sir, while certainly not a moron, regularly take any idea contrary to Obama's and hyperbolize it to the extreme in what I see as an over zealous and constaant vigil to protect the guy.

 

It's not a death blow to the plan, because there are still additional proposals to lower costs that aren't included in these projections. The CBO acknowledges that in the report as well: "For reasons outlined in those earlier letters, our analysis to date does not represent a formal or complete cost estimate for the draft legislation."

 

How's that? Happy? Somehow I doubt it.

 

One of these days we should stop this. I don't know what the point is.

 

I think I stated it clearly.

 

We both think the plan is to make CO2 emissions more costly for business and consumer as a deterrent to using technologies higher in production.

Is that much correct at least?

Can you admit that?

 

I'll admit it will have some effect on the output of the US.

However I think it will be a minute change worldwide and that I do not think the projected problems will be improved in a major way.

 

Also I think the free market will develop more effective uses for energy as a matter of natural progress.

 

 

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Yeah. I disagree (and agree) with Tupa on that. We talk about this stuff on our own. Looking at the $175 tag is looking at a very small window of the legislation. The reason it's so low is because of the rebate program, and because the first years of the bill were watered down to get people to sign on. Neither of us were entirely happy with the bill, but are hoping the subsequent amendments to the bill make it better.

 

And if you read his post he's also disagreeing with you. He's saying it's a bit ludicrous to suggest that $175 a household is going to kill the economy and that opponents are going to have to come up with a better line of attack, instead of what you're doing, which is to keep the same line of attack even in the face of new evidence. (You simply discount the estimate, which is rather convenient. In the face of inconvenience.)

 

As for Obama, why don't you find me what specific quote you're talking about. The one I'm thinking about isn't what you say it is.

 

As for your last line, if you're worried about global warming it's a total cop out. No one would ever claim that we'd reduce enough CO2 to make a difference simply by letting the market handle it. It's complete nonsense.

 

Markets create externalities that aren't self-correcting. One of them is pollution. You'd have to be thinking about this stuff on such a basic, bumper sticker level to think otherwise.

[Westside Steve]

Yeah. I disagree (and agree) with Tupa on that. We talk about this stuff on our own. Looking at the $175 tag is looking at a very small window of the legislation. The reason it's so low is because of the rebate program, and because the first years of the bill were watered down to get people to sign on. Neither of us were entirely happy with the bill, but are hoping the subsequent amendments to the bill make it better.

 

Hope's nice.

 

And if you read his post he's also disagreeing with you. He's saying it's a bit ludicrous to suggest that $175 a household is going to kill the economy and that opponents are going to have to come up with a better line of attack, instead of what you're doing, which is to keep the same line of attack even in the face of new evidence. (You simply discount the estimate, which is rather convenient. In the face of inconvenience.)

 

I never said he agreed with me.

Just pointing out that you berate me for the same statement.

 

As for Obama, why don't you find me what specific quote you're talking about. The one I'm thinking about isn't what you say it is.

 

There is no quote saying you want to suck Obama off or anything.

It's the fact that (like here) you fight tooth and nail against even mild statements that suggest he isn't a god.

 

As for your last line, if you're worried about global warming

 

Not really.

it's a total cop out. No one would ever claim that we'd reduce enough CO2 to make a difference simply by letting the market handle it. It's complete nonsense.

 

The free market's aim isn't to reduce CO2.

It's to build shit people want to buy.

 

Example: LPs used a lot of pertoleum.

CDs are better but they sell BERCAUSE THEY'RE BETTER.

Sound better easier to access and store etc.

It wasn't a green decision.

That was a by product.

 

If somebody builds a car that gets 100 mpg that isn't a toy people will line up to buy it even if gas is 2.60.

 

WSS

 

 

 

Markets create externalities that aren't self-correcting. One of them is pollution. You'd have to be thinking about this stuff on such a basic, bumper sticker level to think otherwise.

 

Unless the sticker reads "Hope."

[heckofajobbrownie]

"The free market's aim isn't to reduce CO2.

It's to build shit people want to buy."

 

Thanks for making my point for me.

 

The rest of this is your usual carping about we all think Obama's a God, yada, yada. More goldfish.

 

Where's your quote on Obama and the CBO?

[calfoxwc]

Cal, are you the mule-driver who took Kevin Costner out to the frontier in Dances With Wolves? Heckleberry

 

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

 

No, are you Michelle Obumbly's butler? (I guess Al deleted my retort about asking if Heck was one of the Wizard of Oz's lollipop kids)

[heckofajobbrownie]

[calfoxwc]

I knew you were calling me an old, obnoxious fart, hence my original retort, which was deleted.

 

Libs can quip, but they are defended by the lib's mod, I guess.

 

Though, the video is funny, dammit.

 

OTH, I was drafted to be an adult assistant at a

 

Jr. Sailing camp for kids over the weekend. I was the #1 choice of the two kids,

 

since the primary twisted his back a bit. (on purpose probably)... ggg

 

but it was a lot of fun, watching the kids sail Sunfish sailboats out on the lake.

 

And, I'm sitting here with our new little 9 week old calico kitty on my right shoulder

 

purring in my ear.

 

I'm more of a dog person, though.

 

Yeah, in real life I'm a whole lot more like Kevin Costner, in attutude.

 

I dance with "Woofs", like Flugels does.

[heckofajobbrownie]

I'm just giving you a hard time. And don't worry, I saw your original retort. I don't really know what it meant, but I got it.

[calfoxwc]

I'm just giving you a hard time. And don't worry, I saw your original retort. I don't really know what it meant, but I got it. Heck

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

And I'm sure I deserve it a bit.....

 

and, my original retort? I didn't have a meaning for it, but I had to come up with something , I have to go to an auction.

 

[Legacy Fan]

Why is the cost of this cap & trade anything but $0???

 

What are the grimey shit-bags who are getting their hands on the $175, or 400, or $800, or whatever it is, going to do with it?

 

It's very fcuking basic.

 

Company A emits _x_ tons of carbon by making _y_ number of widgets. We will be taxing them _z_ dollars for this emission. American households consume _d_ widgets every year. You should expect an increase of _e_ dollars per widget which you may claim on your taxes to receive _f_ dollars back (sum of e_n).

 

 

And before we counter with the "what if not everybody consumes widgets?" argument, sub in kilo-watts to make this scenario thread-specific

[heckofajobbrownie]

I'm not really sure what you're getting at here, Leg. But the $175 cost represents the increase in the price of goods and services Americans will see due to the increased price of emitting carbon minus the rebates that American taxpayers will receive from the auction of the permits.

 

For people on the low end of the spectrum, they actually make money on this, according to the CBO. You can look at the breakdown here.

[Legacy Fan]

I'm not really sure what you're getting at here, Leg. But the $175 cost represents the increase in the price of goods and services Americans will see due to the increased price of emitting carbon minus the rebates that American taxpayers will receive from the auction of the permits.

 

For people on the low end of the spectrum, they actually make money on this, according to the CBO. You can look at the breakdown here.

 

Yeah, I've read it a couple of times, and I'm still scratching my head. But I know what the MO of the C&T is.

 

What I'm hinting at, is that somebody *ahem* is skimming cash from the kitty. The rebates ought to zero out the costs. The price of "carbon" is being gouged, and they're offering the larger, less educated voting block a handout to go along for the ride.

 

Another example: Budweiser (inBev) makes 10 cases of beer a year and emits 10 tons of carbon a year. They get taxed $1 per ton and therefore increase the price of a case by $1 (affecting the consumer). I happen to drink 5 cases a year, therefore as I see the $5 increase, that is what my rebate should equal.

 

This still has the effect of forcing the producer (hopefully, as his increased costs are covered in the $1/case increase), to switch to a greener form of production. He can sell his excess carbon permits to those who haven't figured it out yet, and increase his rev/profit.

 

Shady math/accounting is the only explanation for the scaled rebates - is all I'm saying that I have a problem with.

 

An effective Cap & Trade bill is one we don't know about, or notice.

[heckofajobbrownie]

I don't think you're right about that. If you don't notice, you don't have any incentive to change.

 

As for the rebates, they're not buying lower educated people off to go along, they're easing the amount of economic pain this will cause on people who aren't doing as well in the first place. It's no different than what we do with the income tax.

[Legacy Fan]

I don't think you're right about that. If you don't notice, you don't have any incentive to change.

... I do notice. It wasn't any coincidence I used the word "hope" when describing the potential lack of incentive to change (I would count revenue from permit sales as incentive but you're right - there ain't much).

 

As for the rebates, they're not buying lower educated people off to go along, they're easing the amount of economic pain this will cause on people who aren't doing as well in the first place. It's no different than what we do with the income tax.

 

I think my definition applies to a graduated income tax system also. It's not completely unfounded.

[Westside Steve]

"The free market's aim isn't to reduce CO2.

It's to build shit people want to buy."

 

Thanks for making my point for me.

 

But I didn't.

Enjoy the fantasy.

 

You could re read the CD/LP example but rational discussion isn't your aim.

Here's another (if you're astute enough to understand) ...

We didn't go from horses to cars specifically to eliminate horseshit from the streets.

But it happened.

 

The rest of this is your usual carping about we all think Obama's a God, yada, yada. More goldfish.

 

You , not "we."

 

Where's your quote on Obama and the CBO?

 

 

Don't know Heck.

Make one up and argue against it.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Wow. That was pathetic on all three counts. Even for you this is a particularly pathetic effort. Clearly you are completely out of facts and ideas and are left with arguing points that aren't the least bit germane. Except that you seem intensely proud of their worth, which makes this all the more pathetic.

 

Do you honestly mean to tell me that after spending years (quite literally) trying to tell me that there's nothing we can do about reducing emissions because of population growth, and because of India and China - I mean, these are arguments you've made in the last 72 hours, in this very thread - now you're going to try to tell me that the market will take care of it? And your example backing this up is ...because we went from albums to CDs? Because we went from horses to cars?

 

Shouldn't you just give up at this point? You're literally making the point that technology advances over time and then taking a victory lap. This should be embarrassing for you.

 

Then after saying these three things:

 

"last night Obama said the CBO is full of shit in considering his health care plan. Agree or disagree?"

 

"Obama says the CBO is way off on the projections for his health care plan."

 

"So who's wrong about the healthcare mistake? Obama or the CBO?

Pick one if you're so grown up"

 

I asked you to find a quote so we can have a discussion about what he actually said, not you mischaracterizing what he said. I even tried to supply you with part of the quote. Your response: to admit that you can't find it, and to suggest that I make things up.

 

Really, I think we're done here.

 

But one last thing. I want to know if you know just how ridiculous you sound. Here are all the mentions of you suggesting that I worship Obama ...in a discussion about the definition of a recession and Waxman-Markey/cap and trade. And these are just from this thread. Here we go:

 

"We have all the Obamapologists we need."

 

"I'll assume your reasons are to help take heat off the failed economic policies and misjudgements of the current president."

 

"Surely you have other Obama failures to defend."

 

"For the entire campaign you and Obama repeated the mantra that it was caused by the failed economic policies of George Bush."

 

" I don't know why you're so angry.

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

 

"I mean I know Obama is a deity but how can both boasts be true?"

 

"That's hot news to you and your dim apostles.

But hey when Obama's zombies spread bullshit...whew!"

 

"Obama says the CBO is way off on the projections for his health care plan.

OK.

So they are infallible or he is. You pick."

 

"I doubt you'd be wearing the rose garden colored glasses if it was, ahhh you know."

 

"You, sir, while certainly not a moron, regularly take any idea contrary to Obama's and hyperbolize it to the extreme in what I see as an over zealous and constaant vigil to protect the guy."

 

"There is no quote saying you want to suck Obama off or anything.

It's the fact that (like here) you fight tooth and nail against even mild statements that suggest he isn't a god."

 

I'll just leave you with this:

 

Description of Ad Hominem

 

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

 

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

 

Person A makes claim X.

Person B makes an attack on person A.

Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

[calfoxwc]

Person A makes claim X.

Person B makes an attack on person A.

Therefore A's claim is false.

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

Let it be known, that Heck has accurately described the libs

 

on this board, when anyone posts any opinion that ticks them off.