• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do You Support "Cap and Trade?"

Do You Support "Cap and Trade?"

  • Total voters
    38
ronpaulvoter

ronpaulvoter

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 9, 2007
Messages
627
Reaction score
111
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Do You Support "Cap and Trade?"

This past Friday, the House of Representitives voted in favor of the controversial bill called "Cap and Trade." Eight Republicans voted for it--enough to get it through.

Neal Boortz calls it "The greatest tax increase in American history." It will cost trillions of dollars.

How do you like it? Vote.
 
No poll there love
 
ronpaulvoter said:
Do You Support "Cap and Trade?"

This past Friday, the House of Representitives voted in favor of the controversial bill called "Cap and Trade." Eight Republicans voted for it--enough to get it through.

Neal Boortz calls it "The greatest tax increase in American history." It will cost trillions of dollars.

How do you like it? Vote.
Click to expand...

Can you provide some sources for your comments to give a better picture? Right now you are doing what is known as "push polling", slanting your information to get a desired result.
 
I vote no to this particular plan. The costs outweight the actual benefits, thus it will hurt the economy without actually making equal strides in protecting the environment.
 
http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/wp6.pdf

Cap and Trade will put the greatest burden on the poor: as a percent of household income, the average burden will be
6.2% for the bottom quintile,
3.2% for the second quintile,
2.4% for the middle quintile,
2.0% for the fourth quintile, and
1.4% for the highest quintile.

The economic impact is calculable. The environmental impact is not.
 
We don't even know if AGW is real. How in the hell can anyone support a policy decision based upon an assumption?
 
Dav said:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/wp6.pdf

Cap and Trade will put the greatest burden on the poor: as a percent of household income, the average burden will be
6.2% for the bottom quintile,
3.2% for the second quintile,
2.4% for the middle quintile,
2.0% for the fourth quintile, and
1.4% for the highest quintile.

The economic impact is calculable. The environmental impact is not.
Click to expand...

This is false.

Source: Cantor Sticking with $3,100 Cost Estimate | The FactCheck Wire

CBO notes, however, that the $175 average cost does “not reveal the wide range of effects that the cap-and-trade program would have on households in different income brackets.” According to CBO, “households in the lowest income quintile [lowest one-fifth] would see an average net benefit of about $40 in 2020, while households in the highest income quintile would see a net cost of $245.” In addition, the report says “[h]ouseholds in the second lowest quintile would see added costs of about $40 on average, those in the middle quintile would see an increase in costs of about $235, and those in the fourth quintile would pay about an additional $340 per year.” Additionally, the CBO says that its analysis does not include the benefits, economic or otherwise, of reducing greenhouse gas emissions — which can be difficult to quantify.
Click to expand...
 
Redress said:
This is false.

Source: Cantor Sticking with $3,100 Cost Estimate | The FactCheck Wire
Click to expand...

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

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."
Click to expand...
 
Redress said:
This is false.

Source: Cantor Sticking with $3,100 Cost Estimate | The FactCheck Wire
Click to expand...



The FactCheck.org Wire and Annenberg Political Fact Check are projects of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania.
Click to expand...

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”.

:spin:
 
Last edited:
Dav said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
Invayne said:
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”.

:spin:
Click to expand...

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?
 
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:
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?
 
obvious Child said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?


obvious Child said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
obvious Child said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Metternich said:
So switching from leaded to unleaded costed consumers somewhere in the same ball park as this? Yes, no, maybe so?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

That of course assumes the slowest method predicted.
 
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!
 
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.......
 
Redress said:
This is false.

Source: Cantor Sticking with $3,100 Cost Estimate | The FactCheck Wire
Click to expand...

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.
 
I didnt read the thread before posting this, but in case nobody said it first cap and trade is nothing more than a government hand out to private business. private firms will be selling these credits and making huge profit while doing at the expense of their weaker competitors. it's not really that different from a farm subsidy, where those subsidies actually do more to prop up the larger competitors and hurt the little guy. it has nothing to do with science or saving the environment, it's about money.
 
obvious Child said:
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?
Click to expand...

The important part to remember is how much more polution EU, USA and other developed countries in the world. That if India and China just got half the CO2/emission per capita the world would be really screwed even if you didn't belive in main made global warming, because their are not enough oil and coal, to support that demand. That an important part for EU and USA is to lead the way and give opportunities for China and India to don't make the same mistake as us. Because that should China and India do if the only way for development is cars, oil and coal, stay poor or polute like crazy and making the world run out of coal and oil at the same time? That you can except third world countries to stand for all the resources and applied testing of new technology.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom