View Poll Results: Do You Support "Cap and Trade?"

Voters
48. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    7 14.58%
  • No

    39 81.25%
  • Undecided / Don't Know

    2 4.17%
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 44

Thread: Do You Support "Cap and Trade?"

  1. #11
    Liberal Fascist For Life!

    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:26 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    86,484
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Do You Support "Cap and Trade?"

    Quote Originally Posted by Dav View Post
    For one thing, how could cap and trade provide anyone with any net benefit?

    Also, from your source: The Cap and Tax Fiction - WSJ.com
    Even going as far as 2020 is risky when making any predictions, with too many variables. However, the CBO has the best information on the subject. Note that WSJ does not deny the numbers, only saying that it is not far enough into the future.

  2. #12
    Liberal Fascist For Life!

    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:26 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    86,484
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Do You Support "Cap and Trade?"

    Quote Originally Posted by Invayne View Post
    Um, of course these folks will spin this in Obama's favor since he sat on the Annenberg Challenge board with his terrorist buddy Billy Ayers. Ayers was a “key founder” of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge.

    In 1995 Obama was appointed Board Chairman and President of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a “branch of the Annenberg Foundation”.

    Care to show any real evidence that Factcheck.org is anything but unbiased? A couple biased aticles in favor of Obama would work...got any?

  3. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Do You Support "Cap and Trade?"

    Care to show the authority written in the Constitution that allows the government to confiscate the nation's energy industry?

    Care to demonstrate the scientific need for allowing the government to control who gets to emit carbon dioxide?
    Last edited by Scarecrow Akhbar; 06-30-09 at 04:50 PM.

  4. #14
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 10:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Do You Support "Cap and Trade?"

    Cost is a poor justification against it. It cost us more to switch from leaded to unleaded gasoline, but the reduction in lead exposure was tremendous as were the associated declines in health related costs and environmental costs.

    If we do nothing, the cost to relocate millions and the destruction of coastal cities well blow past any cost scheme for cap and trade.

    Cap and trade doesn't work for carbon at the moment because India and China aren't in on it and we don't have the same data that we had for the foundation of the sulfur emissions cap and trade.

    What use is reducing carbon emissions in the US when China and India will easily blow past any reductions we do?
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  5. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Do You Support "Cap and Trade?"

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Cost is a poor justification against it. It cost us more to switch from leaded to unleaded gasoline, but the reduction in lead exposure was tremendous as were the associated declines in health related costs and environmental costs.
    You mean the lead the oil companies added to make up for an engineering defect the car companies wouldn't fix, and that the oil companies used as an excuse to boost the price of gasoline? Just why did it cost so must to simply STOP adding lead to the fuel?

    That was a scam.

    Then again, global warming is a scam.

    And Cap and Trade as a response to global warming is a scam based on a scam.

    Anyone see Bernie Madoff involved in this? He's around somewhere. Maybe Ken Lay's ghost is taking a part? Or is it just living crooks like Albore?


    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    If we do nothing, the cost to relocate millions and the destruction of coastal cities well blow past any cost scheme for cap and trade.
    The oceans aren't rising, we're not going to be dying, and Chicken Little was eventually the guest of honor at a barbeque, because no one could stand her crazy sky-is-falling act any more.

    Hint: There are real crises in the economy and in the total lack of leadership in Washington. We CAN'T afford to waste money on BS global warming nonsense. It's past time to pretend the idiots still following these asinine ideas should be treated with respect.

    Also, it's economic suicide to raise energy prices when the economy is still sliding downwards into the Greater Depression.

    How about if we deal with the real problems and we leave the inconsequential elements of the weather and the climate to nature, since we've had no influence on it at all, okay?

  6. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    The Conservative Part of California
    Last Seen
    04-12-11 @ 01:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    285

    Re: Do You Support "Cap and Trade?"

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Cost is a poor justification against it. It cost us more to switch from leaded to unleaded gasoline, but the reduction in lead exposure was tremendous as were the associated declines in health related costs and environmental costs.
    So switching from leaded to unleaded costed consumers somewhere in the same ball park as this? Yes, no, maybe so?

    Besides, you can't just axe the health cost benefits of switching from a clearly harmful mineral to a less harmful formula; that's the main thing seperating that from this. There's no health side affects from carbon dioxide, there may be some for other gases (but if you notice, the more harmful gases don't have a cap and trade system if they're considered 'vital' enough) but not from carbon.

    Global warming debate aside, 'course.

    If we do nothing, the cost to relocate millions and the destruction of coastal cities well blow past any cost scheme for cap and trade.
    We can handle a increase in 10 feet of water; at worst, over the next few centuries with hardly any cost.

    We can handle a few inches over the next century, once again, at hardly any cost.

  7. #17
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 10:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Do You Support "Cap and Trade?"

    Quote Originally Posted by Metternich View Post
    So switching from leaded to unleaded costed consumers somewhere in the same ball park as this? Yes, no, maybe so?
    No. The analogy was that mere cost alone is not an end all argument. If we purely went with what is cheaper, we'd still be using leaded gas and have no conservation methods at all. Cheaper does not equate to better. And as we have seen from Chinese imports, cheaper is often more dangerous. In America so many people think that a pound of cure is cheaper than an ounce of prevention.

    Besides, you can't just axe the health cost benefits of switching from a clearly harmful mineral to a less harmful formula; that's the main thing seperating that from this. There's no health side affects from carbon dioxide, there may be some for other gases (but if you notice, the more harmful gases don't have a cap and trade system if they're considered 'vital' enough) but not from carbon.

    Global warming debate aside, 'course.
    But one cannot remove those potential costs.

    We can handle a increase in 10 feet of water; at worst, over the next few centuries with hardly any cost.
    Hardly any cost? Do you know just how expensive it will be to relocate financial down towns across the US coast? Many of which are on waterfront property. Chicago alone will suffer significant damage and large sections will be underwater. And last projections I saw were in decades, not centuries.

    We can handle a few inches over the next century, once again, at hardly any cost.
    That of course assumes the slowest method predicted.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  8. #18
    Educator
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Last Seen
    02-22-16 @ 07:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    746

    Re: Do You Support "Cap and Trade?"

    Admittedly, I've paid very little attention to this issue so, before I respond to the poll, I wonder if someone might kindly explain to me how cap and trade (which, as far as I can tell, only effects companies) results in a direct tax on American families. Or is this "tax" really just the additional cost to do business for those companies that will be passed on to consumers? Thanks in advance!

  9. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Timbuktu
    Last Seen
    01-30-12 @ 07:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    2,730

    Re: Do You Support "Cap and Trade?"

    What should have been done before it was too late was Americans that went to China to start a factory should have been stripped of U.S. Citizenship and deemed traitors.......

  10. #20
    Advisor wbreese91's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Marietta, Ohio
    Last Seen
    07-08-10 @ 08:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    407

    Re: Do You Support "Cap and Trade?"

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    The democrats also calculated in the cost of government benefits people would recieve. So their formula looked like this:

    Total Cost - Percieved Value of Government Benefits = Low cost estimate

    This means, basically, that the taxpayer is still gettin his pants taxed off, but the government is gonna give him a special new souvenir pen for his trouble.
    “Justitia suum cuique distribuit” Justice renders to every one his due

    - Cicero

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •