Your electricity costs are about to double

[Risen]

I don't usually bother handing out any information here anymore. I already know where things are headed, and it seems beneath me to continue to waste any time or energy (haha, green energy i hope ;) ) explaining things that most wont understand or accept until well after they occur and impact every corner of their lives. Such is human nature, that loathsome creature...

Anyway, the today the House passed the new version of cap and trade legislation, the Waxman-Markey Bill. The heritage foundation estimates that this bill could end up raising electricity costs by over 90% and gas prices by over 50%, in addition to price hikes in every other consumer good due to the inordinate costs to companies. The bill was designed to get people to use less energy by making it too expensive FOR EVERYONE, and will hit low income families especially hard.

The Cap and Tax Fiction - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124588837560750781.html)


The Cap and Tax Fiction
Democrats off-loading economics to pass climate change bill.


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

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

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

Henry Waxman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Risen]

Heritage foundation estimates-

Waxman-Markey Global Warming Bill: Economic Impact by Congressional District (http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm2504.cfm)


June 25, 2009
Waxman-Markey Global Warming Bill: Economic Impact by Congressional District
by Karen Campbell, Ph.D. and David Kreutzer, Ph.D.
WebMemo #2504

It has become quite clear over the past several months that placing a cap on carbon emission--via rationing, taxing, and eliminating consumer choice--will have major implications for American families and the economy.

An analysis of the Waxman-Markey bill (as reported out of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce) by The Heritage Foundation found that unemployment will increase by nearly 2 million in 2012, the first year of the program, and reach nearly 2.5 million in 2035, the last year of the analysis. Total GDP loss by 2035 would be $9.4 trillion. The national debt would balloon as the economy slowed, saddling a family of four with $114,915 of additional national debt. Families would also suffer, as the bill would slap the equivalent of a $4,609 tax on a family of four by 2035.[1]

Heritage is not alone in its assessment. The National Black Chamber of Commerce[2] and the Brookings Institution[3] also project huge job losses. Proponents of a national energy tax will quickly point to a recent Congressional Budget Office memo[4] and Environmental Protection Agency[5] analysis suggesting low per family costs. Those estimates are grossly inaccurate, as both the CBO memo and the EPA's analysis contain flaws too serious for use as measures of the economic impact of the Waxman-Markey bill.

While national numbers are startling, many Members of Congress may be tempted to assume that their congressional districts will not be affected because they "cut a deal" or they have an incomplete view of how the American economy functions. Thus, it is crucially important that the Members making decisions, and the people affected by those decisions, understand how their congressional districts will be impacted by Waxman-Markey, or any type of national energy tax.

The table below lays out six congressional district specific data points:

1. Gross State Product Loss in 2012: This number is the amount of economic destruction that will occur in that district in the first year of the cap-and-trade regime.
2. Average Gross State Product Loss, 2012-2035: Same as above, only it is the average economic destruction in the district for the bill's first 24 years.
3. Personal Income Loss in 2012: This number represents the reduction in consumer spending power in a district in the first year of the cap-and-trade regime.
4. Average Personal Income Loss, 2012-2035: Same as above, only it is the reduction in consumer spending power in the district for the bill's first 24 years.
5. Non-Farm Job Loss in 2012: Jobs are jobs, and in the first year of the cap-and-trade regime, each district will have significantly less than they otherwise could.
6. Average Non-Farm Job Loss, 2012-2035: This number is crucially important because it demonstrates that no district gains jobs, even in the long run; the increase in "green jobs" does not outweigh the decrease in jobs elsewhere.

A Final Note on Jobs

During the "stimulus" debate, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs lamented that "more companies [have] announced mass layoffs."[6] The Bureau of Labor Statistics defines mass layoffs as "where private sector nonfarm employers indicate that 50 or more workers were separated from their jobs for at least 31 days." Under Waxman-Markey, on average each congressional district would experience the equivalent of more than 52 mass layoffs.

Although losing several thousand jobs may not seem like a lot to some politicians who are stuck inside the beltway, the mass layoffs resulting from Waxman-Markey should make any politician--and hard working American--cringe.




The idea behind cap and trade is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by putting a price on the right to emit carbon and other greenhouse gases on businesses. Because fossil fuels emit carbon dioxide, cap and trade becomes a costly tax on fossil fuels and the energy they generate. Since 85 percent of America’s energy needs come from fossil fuels, cap and trade would be massive tax on energy consumption if enacted. How high a tax?

The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis found that by 2035 gasoline prices would increase 58 percent, natural gas prices would increase 55 percent, home heating oil would increase 56 percent, and worst of all, electricity prices would jump 90 percent.

But the direct tax on household energy use is just the beginning. The energy tax also hits producers. As the higher production costs ripple through the economy, the household pocketbooks get hit again and again. When all the tax impacts have been added up, the average per-family-of-four costs rise by $2,979 per year. In the year 2035 alone, the cost is $4,609. And the costs per family for the whole energy tax aggregated from 2012 to 2035 are $71,493.



But just about everything we produce uses energy. As energy prices increase, those costs will be passed onto the consumer and reflected in the higher prices we pay for products. Higher energy prices also result in a slower economy, which means less production, higher unemployment and reduced income.

• Over the 2012-2030 timeline, job losses average over 1.1 million. By 2035, a projected 2.5 million jobs are lost below the baseline (without a cap and trade bill).
• The average Gross Domestic Product (GDP) lost is $393 billion, hitting a high of $662 billion in 2035. From 2012-2035, the accumulated GDP lost is $9.4 trillion.
• The negative economic impacts accumulate, and the national debt is no exception. The increase in family-of-four debt, solely because of Waxman-Markey, hits an almost unbelievable $114,915 by 2035.
• The average of the climate tax revenue, what the government gets to spend or give away, is $236 billion from 2012 through 2035 and adds up to $5.7 trillion in tax collections.

In the name of saving our planet from “catastrophic global warming” for future generations, what we’re really doing is ensuring they live in a world with less opportunity and paying for our mistakes through increased debt, all for a change in the temperature too small to ever notice. All of these costs accrue in the first 25 years of a 90-year program that, as calculated by climatologists, will lower temperatures by only hundredths of a degree in 2050 and no more than two-tenths of a degree at the end of the century.

[Athenian200]

Yes, we all know that's where things are going.

But the question is... what should we do about it? We're already screwed, aren't we?

Great. I guess I won't have electricity this time next year.

[Risen]

Now lets examine how these green policies compare to Spain.

http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf


Every “green job” created with government money in Spain over the last eight years came at the cost of 2.2 regular jobs, and only one in 10 of the newly created green jobs became a permanent job, says a new study released this month. The study draws parallels with the green jobs programs of the Obama administration.

President Obama, in fact, has used Spain’s green initiative as a blueprint for how the United States should use federal funds to stimulate the economy. Obama’s economic stimulus package,which Congress passed in February, allocates billions of dollars to the green jobs industry.

But the author of the study, Dr. Gabriel Calzada, an economics professor at Juan Carlos University in Madrid, said the United States should expect results similar to those in Spain:

“Spain’s experience (cited by President Obama as a model) reveals with high confidence, by two different methods, that the U.S. should expect a loss of at least 2.2 jobs on average, or about 9 jobs lost for every 4 created, to which we have to add those jobs that non-subsidized investments with the same resources would have created,” wrote Calzada in his report: Study of the Effects on Employment of Public Aid to Renewable Energy Sources.


Opinion | Spain's experience with the 'green' economy: Save the planet, lose some jobs | Seattle Times Newspaper (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2009385016_will26.html)


Spain's experience with the 'green' economy: Save the planet, lose some jobs

A sobering report about Spain's experience with green jobs must be false, writes columnist George F. Will, because otherwise the behavior of some American importers, seeking to cash in on the U.S. government's promotion of wind power, might be participating in an economically unproductive project.

By George Will

Syndicated columnist

WASHINGTON — The Spanish professor is puzzled. Why, Gabriel Calzada wonders, is the U.S. president recommending that America emulate the Spanish model for creating "green jobs" in "alternative energy" even though Spain's unemployment rate is 18.1 percent — more than double the European Union average — partly because of spending on such jobs?

Calzada, 36, an economics professor at Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, has produced a report which, if true, is inconvenient for the Obama administration's green agenda, and for some budget assumptions that are dependent upon it.

Calzada says Spain's torrential spending — no other nation has so aggressively supported production of electricity from renewable sources — on wind farms and other forms of alternative energy has indeed created jobs. But Calzada's report concludes that they often are temporary and have received $752,000 to $800,000 each in subsidies — wind-industry jobs cost even more, $1.4 million each.

And each new job entails the loss of 2.2 other jobs that are either lost or not created in other industries because of the political allocation — sub-optimum in terms of economic efficiency — of capital. (European media regularly report "eco-corruption" leaving a "footprint of sleaze" — gaming the subsidy systems, profiteering from land sales for wind farms, etc.) Calzada says the creation of jobs in alternative energy has subtracted about 110,000 jobs from elsewhere in Spain's economy.

The president's press secretary, Robert Gibbs, was asked about the report's contention that the political diversion of capital into green jobs has cost Spain jobs. The White House transcript contained this exchange:

Gibbs: "It seems weird that we're importing wind turbine parts from Spain in order to build — to meet renewable energy demand here if that were even remotely the case."

Questioner: "Is that a suggestion that his study is simply flat wrong?"

Gibbs: "I haven't read the study, but I think, yes."

Questioner: "Well, then. (Laughter.)"

Actually, what is weird is this idea: A sobering report about Spain's experience must be false because otherwise the behavior of some American importers, seeking to cash in on the U.S. government's promotion of wind power, might be participating in an economically unproductive project.

It is true that Calzada has come to conclusions that he, as a libertarian, finds ideologically congenial. And his study was supported by a like-minded U.S. think tank (the Institute for Energy Research, for which this columnist has given a paid speech). Still, it is notable that, rather than try to refute his report, many Spanish critics have impugned his patriotism for faulting something for which Spain has been praised by Obama and others. Judge for yourself: Calzada's report can be read at http://tinyurl.com/d7z9ye. And at http://tinyurl.com/ccoa5s you can find similar conclusions in "Yellow Light on Green Jobs," a report by Republican Sen. Kit Bond.

What matters most, however, is not that reports such as Calzada's are right in every particular. It is, however, hardly counterintuitive that politically driven investments are economically counterproductive. Indeed, environmentalists with the courage of their convictions should argue that the point of such investments is to subordinate market rationality to the higher agenda of planetary salvation.

Still, one can be agnostic about both reports while being dismayed by the frequency with which such findings are ignored simply because they question policies that are so invested with righteousness that methodical economic reasoning about their costs and benefits seems unimportant.

When the president speaks of "new green energy economies" creating "countless well-paying jobs," perhaps they really are countless, meaning incapable of being counted.

For fervent believers in governments' abilities to control the climate and in the urgent need for them to do so, believing is seeing: They see, through their ideological lenses, governments' green spending as always paying for itself. This is a free-lunch faith comparable to that of those few conservatives who believe that tax cuts always completely pay for themselves by stimulating compensating revenues from economic growth.

Windmills are iconic in the land of Don Quixote, whose tilting at them became emblematic of comic futility. Spain's new windmills are neither amusing nor emblematic of policies America should emulate.

The cheerful and evidently unshakable confidence in such magical solutions to postulated problems is yet another manifestation — Republicans are not immune: No Child Left Behind decrees that by 2014 all American students will be proficient in math and reading — of what the late Sen. Pat Moynihan called "the leakage of reality from American life."

[ajblaise]

The right-wing Heritage Foundation doesn't exactly have the best track record when it comes to making accurate predictions, they got almost everything wrong during the Bush years. We've had successful cap-and-trade programs in the past, like with acid rain.

When the economy turns around next year, and we find out that Armageddon isn't going to happen, will this end-of-the-world crap simmer down?

[Risen]

Yes, we all know that's where things are going.

But the question is... what should we do about it? We're already screwed, aren't we?

Great. I guess I won't have electricity this time next year.

Ideally, I'd say, "You get off your buts and stop letting the politicians you elect, then so apathetically ignore, crap on everything." However, I've taken a pessimistic stance where I believe people no longer have have the wherewithal to do anything sensible in this country, and that my energy would be best spent preparing my umbrella so I can stay dry while the rest of this population is s***ing all over the place. At least I can avoid smelling like fecal matter, though i suspect there's nothing I can do to avoid stepping in it .

[Athenian200]

Ideally, I'd say, "You get off your buts and stop letting the politicians you elect, then so apathetically ignore, crap on everything." However, I've taken a pessimistic stance where I don't believe people no longer have have the wherewithal to do anything sensible in this country, and that my energy would be best spent preparing my umbrella so I can stay dry while the rest of this population is s***ing all over the place. At least I can avoid smelling like fecal matter, though i suspect there's nothing I can do to avoid stepping in it .

That's a good plan, I guess. I hope it works for you.

I think the reason we don't have that capacity is because we've been programmed to react rather than think. To the point that the few people who choose to think rather than react can't do anything. Whoever wanted things to end up like this planned it well.

[Risen]

That's a good plan, I guess. I hope it works for you.

I think the reason we don't have that capacity is because we've been programmed to react rather than think. To the point that the few people who choose to think rather than react can't do anything. Whoever wanted things to end up like this planned it well.

Yes indeed :/ .

[simulatedworld]

Wow, doomsday predictions about decisions from a liberal president...

from the Heritage Foundation??

Uncanny!

[Feops]

We in canada will be happy to supply americans with energy as demand stresses local supply.

... for a reasonable price. :coffee:

[Risen]

Wow, doomsday predictions about decisions from a liberal president...

from the Heritage Foundation??

Uncanny!

and...

Heritage is not alone in its assessment. The National Black Chamber of Commerce[2] and the Brookings Institution[3] also project huge job losses.

[FC3S]

Even if my costs do double I'm already planning to cut out my more luxurious bath water and sellin my main computer rig.

That effectively cuts my power in half. WIN.

[Risen]

That effectively cuts my power in half. WIN.

While everything else you buy goes up in price and you become in danger of becoming the next pig to slaughter in the growing unemployment lines. LOSE.

[nebbykoo]

While everything else you buy goes up in price and you become in danger of becoming the next pig to slaughter in the growing unemployment lines. LOSE.

You are controlled by your ego. There is no point in posting 'public services' like this except as ego food.

Go NT!

[Athenian200]

While everything else you buy goes up in price and you become in danger of becoming the next pig to slaughter in the growing unemployment lines. LOSE.

You know what really sucks? I'm actually looking for my first job in this environment. With no experience, no references, and no social connections.

LOL, I'm so screwed. I'm competing with people who have far better qualifications for low-paying jobs.

[Risen]

You know what really sucks? I'm actually looking for my first job in this environment. With no experience, no references, and no social connections.

LOL, I'm so screwed. I'm competing with people who have far better qualifications for low-paying jobs.

I'm pretty much in the same boat, looking for a job with limited experience. Our unemployment is somewhere around 12%, and it's difficult, needless to say.

[FC3S]

While everything else you buy goes up in price and you become in danger of becoming the next pig to slaughter in the growing unemployment lines. LOSE.
You're a [faithful friend]. I'll tell you specifically why before I hand you your ass -

I typically eat fast food - it's expensive. I spend $12 per day on food. That's over $200 per month. My normal store bought food comes from the dollar store. I spend $18 on that and it lasts me over a month. Gasp, cheap as hell. And they've been like that for.... decades. Wow. That is the basic necessity.

What about my other luxuries? I don't have other luxuries outside of a computer. I walk to work, I always have. ZOMG. And until I am required to drive the car to work, I win.

The keyword about your argument is 'if'. It is an armchair theory. You lost because you bit off more than you can chew. Now come up with a valid argument or you can [have a sleepover].

[Edit] Ivy go [enjoy a good book - in the library].

[Risen]

BTW, I'm not bothering to read any of the inflammatory posts, so don't waste your energy... I know I'm not.

In any case, there's a chance this wont pass the Senate. For the thinking people, lets hope not.

[Athenian200]

I'm pretty much in the same boat, looking for a job with limited experience. Our unemployment is somewhere around 12%, and it's difficult, needless to say.

Yeah. Well, the bright side is that at least my parents have a job... for now. Hopefully I can find one while that's still true.

I guess we've got to stay optimistic, even though it's irrational. After all, the motivation to keep trying isn't going to come from dwelling on reality.

In any case, there's a chance this wont pass the Senate. For the thinking people, lets hope not.

My mother and I have been calling them up trying to talk them out of passing it, but the lines are busy.

[FC3S]

BTW, I'm not bothering to read any of the inflammatory posts, so don't waste your energy... I know I'm not.

In any case, there's a chance this wont pass the Senate. For the thinking people, lets hope not.
A pity, I was hoping for a fight. I can see you are just talk then. You're dismissed and on my blocklist.

[Risen]

Yeah. Well, the bright side is that at least my parents have a job... for now. Hopefully I can find one while that's still true.

I guess we've got to stay optimistic, even though it's irrational. After all, the motivation to keep trying isn't going to come from dwelling on reality.



My mother and I have been calling them up trying to talk them out of passing it, but the lines are busy.

Yea, I've gotten the same result. I'm sure they have thousands of people clogging their lines. Thousands who are the only citizens paying attention and are moving to keep things in one piece for the rest of the population.

I tend to be cynical, only because "cynical"is relative to peoples' subjective views on what "optimistic" is. People always want to believe the best in a situation because it's a natural coping mechanism. If I tend to be cynical, it's not because I like to be doom and gloom, it's because I prefer to take an objective view of the situation. I'd rather be a cynical and pessimistic realist than one of a multitude of blind optimists. But for most people, I think I'm speaking a foreign language.

One doesn't have to be optimistic, one need only take action in the direction they believe is correct. Then you can be optimistic in knowing your efforts will yield results in whatever path you choose (and have the power to effect).

[simulatedworld]

and...

Uh huh, and a million other research institutions say it'll be a fantastic boon.

The fact is economics is still a very incomplete "science" at best--even leading authorities disagree dramatically on many major points, so there's clearly a degree of subjectivity here.

You can find whatever prediction you want if you look through all the media out there. That's the point.

[The Decline]

Did the OP fail to mention that the poor will actually save, on average, $40 on their bills? Of course.

Fighting global warming is a necessity, and if you don't realize that, then I can't help you there.. If Repubs are so concerned about big government and spending, why don't they bitch about the 2/3rds of the NATIONAL BUDGET going directly into the Defense Department? Maybe then we could afford more programs without the taxes they bitch about so much.

[Risen]

Did the OP fail to mention that the poor will actually save, on average, $40 on their bills? Of course.

Corroborate this claim with some evidence.


Fighting global warming is a necessity, and if you don't realize that, then I can't help you there.. If Repubs are so concerned about big government and spending, why don't they bitch about the 2/3rds of the NATIONAL BUDGET going directly into the Defense Department? Maybe then we could afford more programs without the taxes they bitch about so much.

If we had a different sort of foreign policy where we aren't spending so much to keep our troops stationed in multiple countries in almost "empire" fashion, then I might be inclined to agree. You should be thankful, however, that we do spend money for defense as those nations which have nuclear weapons and explicitly state that they wish to destroy the US are unlikely to do so because of our military might. So think about that as you sleep comfortably in your bed, taking for granted the sorts of sacrifices people make everyday to keep a nation (of many worthless) safe and at peace in their pajamas. Defense spending is necessary, though I'm sure there is SOME waste that could be cut. Spending on military excursions abroad is something that wont go away anytime soon because of how this nation has operated with its foreign policy since at least WW2, which is actually funny, because both presidents of WW1 and WW2 were from the LEFT, and at least one arguably wished to enter the war. War and military spending has little direct correlation to one party. This is an idea espoused by the political class to confuse the dimwitted population about the parties. Therefore, you should perhaps consider ingesting more caffeine, because you've obviously been sleeping too much to realize what's going on...



Fighting global warming is a necessity, and if you don't realize that, then I can't help you there.. .

Crap. I don't even know why I kept reading your post :/ .

[The Decline]

Corroborate this claim with some evidence.


The bill would grant a majority of the permits free in the early years of the program, to keep costs low. The Congressional Budget Office (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/c/congressional_budget_office/index.html?inline=nyt-org) estimated that the average American household would pay an additional $175 a year in energy costs by 2020 as a result of the provision, while the poorest households would receive rebates that would lower their annual energy costs by $40.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/27/us/politics/27climate.html?scp=3&sq=global%20warming%20bill&st=cse


If we had a different sort of foreign policy where we aren't spending so much to keep our troops stationed in multiple countries in almost "empire" fashion, then I might be inclined to agree. You should be thankful, however, that we do spend money for defense as those nations which have nuclear weapons and explicitly state that they wish to destroy the US are unlikely to do so because of our military might. So think about that as you sleep comfortably in your bed, taking for granted the sorts of sacrifices people make everyday to keep a nation (of many worthless) safe and at peace in their pajamas. Defense spending is necessary, though I'm sure there is SOME waste that could be cut. Spending on military excursions abroad is something that wont go away anytime soon because of how this nation has operated with its foreign policy since at least WW2, which is actually funny, because both presidents of WW1 and WW2 were from the LEFT, and at least one arguably wished to enter the war. War and military spending has little direct correlation to one party. This is an idea espoused by the political class to confuse the dimwitted population about the parties. Therefore, you should perhaps consider ingesting more caffeine, because you've obviously been sleeping too much to realize what's going on...

Yes, your scare tactics will really make me agree to fork over 12% of my income check to buy tanks and faulty intelligence. I mean, look at all those WMDs we've captured from rogue groups already! You do realize that terrorist attacks and anti-American sentiments have increased since the US decided to continually engage its interests in foreign countries using military force, right? In case you've been sleeping too much, AMERICA IS A ROGUE STATE, and if you think that other countries wish to "destroy" the USA for reasons other than its pathetic foreign policy that uses force instead of diplomacy, you're wrong. Stop using straw men arguments by invoking the names of the first two World Wars, which have little to do with the current international relational situation.

Also, I never said that Republicans soley spend on the military, or have interest in it. Instead, I was focusing on the fact that Republicans are historically anti-"big government" and spending (taxes), and yet the Mil. Ind. Complex is the largest vortex of tax dollars, so shouldn't they be concerned about that the most?


Crap. I don't even know why I kept reading your post :/ .

Well then, you must be very against anything rooted in empirical scientific study.

[Risen]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/27/us/politics/27climate.html?scp=3&sq=global%20warming%20bill&st=cse


Which again are based on CBO estimates which have been projected, as in the OP, to be an extremely minimized outlook of the cost to the average household over the coming years for reasons outlined in the OP, so read again sleepy head. :sleeping:

Anyway, we're done.

[snegledmaca]

Did the OP fail to mention that the poor will actually save, on average, $40 on their bills?

Regarding this, is this really relevant? If the average household will be paying double. I mean, helping the poor should not be a priority. Because the poor should be a minority. The majority should be a priority and they should be well off. When their well being is assured should the focus be on the minority groups. Also the way I see it in order for this legislation to be helping people they should be poor. Which is not what is desired at all. And also it will help make people poor. Which is also something that is not desired at all. The price of the ideals represented through this legislation seems too high to me. Surely there is a better way of accomplishing the same thing.

Fighting global warming is a necessityWhy?

Personally I was under the impression that a rise in temperatures and CO2 levels will increase the area on which plants can grow and will increase the health and size of plant life. That is, global warming will result in more plants, more food, more life. As has been the case for every global warming period in earth's history. (To the best of my knowledge. Which is not exact, but an impression I got)

[lowtech redneck]

Fighting global warming is a necessity, and if you don't realize that, then I can't help you there.. If Repubs are so concerned about big government and spending, why don't they bitch about the 2/3rds of the NATIONAL BUDGET going directly into the Defense Department? Maybe then we could afford more programs without the taxes they bitch about so much.

"Fighting" global warming, assuming the (currently declining but still existant) preponderance of evidence is accurate, is necessary, just like "fighting" terrorism is necessary; and like terrorism, the war against global warming can be "fought" counter-productively and irrationally. Effectively subsidizing the productive economy of China, India, and other countries which produce more pollution in proportion to economic production than the United States or Western Europe seems more than a little counter-productive to me. Drastically hindering the productive capacity of the global economy for what would be only marginal gains if industries were somehow chained to their current locations, thereby limiting future resources which could be dedicated to researching economically efficient and non-intrusive means of substantially reducing green-house gases, is likewise counter-productive.

As for the rest, to what extent does the military budget (a public good that is limited in its domestic impact) hinder economic growth or (far more importantly) affect the daily lives of ordinary citizens, either through direct regulation or indirectely by simply increasing the power and reach of the federal government?

[lowtech redneck]

Why?

Personally I was under the impression that a rise in temperatures and CO2 levels will increase the area on which plants can grow and will increase the health and size of plant life. That is, global warming will result in more plants, more food, more life. As has been the case for every global warming period in earth's history. (To the best of my knowledge. Which is not exact, but an impression I got)

In the short-term, its about the alleged effect on glacial run-off in mountains and the regularity of seasonal rainfall, combined with entrenched human settlement patterns. In the long-term, its about rising ocean levels (an alleged threat that has recently been drastically down-graded) and dying coral reefs (a real problem that is allegedly due in large part to global warming).

[Risen]

Stop it. The god damn planet isn't warming, it's cooling. Shit. It can't be called global warming when the f***ing planet is cooling, hence why they had a meeting in the whitehouse over a month ago to agree to stop calling it global warming and start calling it climate change because that's the only way they can keep hooking the idiots on this planet to the idea that we are somehow f***ing up the weather as opposed to f***ing up the collective brain of the population.

[The Decline]

While the bill falls short in many ways, it sets goals in increasing energy efficiency, creating renewable sources of energy, and bringing to light the impracticality of carbon-emitting sources of energy in future sustainability of the planet.

And on those shortcomings, let me say that this bill was an entire letdown for the citizens who will pay the price, simply because it reinforces the bowing of the government to big business interests. Consumers will be footing the bill on carbon capping, simply because business will always complain that the government cannot impede on its continually flourishing profit margins, and they have the power to block any political efforts otherwise.

The reason that other developed countries are able to control their energy costs for citizens is because they regulate energy businesses, whether through subsidies that are actually available because of government budget allocation, or setting regulatory rules. In this circumstance, the US government thinks that it's a good idea to allow business to run as usual, but that the environmental cleanup overhead should be placed on the consumer's tab.

While I agree with Republican leaders that this is essentially a "tax", taxes would assume that money is being taken by citizens in the interest of working for the citizens. In this case, big business is taxing its consumers through government regulation, out of a need for environmental regulation.


As for the rest, to what extent does the military budget (a public good that is limited in its domestic impact) hinder economic growth or (far more importantly) affect the daily lives of ordinary citizens, either through direct regulation or indirectely by simply increasing the power and reach of the federal government?

Personally I think that if I was an ordinary citizen, I'd want that 12% of my paycheck to go towards something else besides directly into military spending. Hey, maybe it could pay for my electricity bill... or better yet, we could maybe create renewable sources of energy so that our failing infrastructure of coal-based electricity doesn't get so damn pricey all of a sudden, thanks to my idiot congress.

And of course the military doesn't hinder economic growth... well, depending on your measurement system. Top companies like Boeing love wars! And isn't the performance of top ranking industries the only measure of economic success?

Which again are based on CBO estimates which have been projected, as in the OP, to be an extremely minimized outlook of the cost to the average household over the coming years for reasons outlined in the OP, so read again sleepy head. :sleeping:

Anyway, we're done.

Yes, except for that prediction that the "lower-income families" will be hit hardest. Perhaps you need a better look yourself.

I understand that, as a fellow human, you have a disdain for me, but could you please respond to at least the points I make? I believe that ideas created by people are separate from them and thus could possibly be less loathsome than you might think.

I mean, I understand that you want to control the perspective of this event as much as possible, hence your constant interruption of any discussion, but you could at least pretend to carry out a discussion. :newwink:

[lowtech redneck]

Personally I think that if I was an ordinary citizen, I'd want that 12% of my paycheck to go towards something else besides directly into military spending. Hey, maybe it could pay for my electricity bill... or better yet, we could maybe create renewable sources of energy so that our failing infrastructure of coal-based electricity doesn't get so damn pricey all of a sudden, thanks to my idiot congress.

And of course the military doesn't hinder economic growth... well, depending on your measurement system. Top companies like Boeing love wars! And isn't the performance of top ranking industries the only measure of economic success?


I would prefer that my paycheck go towards something that does not empower the government to control the minute aspects of my daily life.

If coal-based electricity becomes too pricy, then that will provide incentive for companies to commit further research into renewable energy, and may even provoke a premature switch to currently more expensive and less powerful forms of renewable energy...so, um, what are you complaining about, given your previous statements? I think your real concern is that, barring a "green" technological breakthrough that probably won't occur in the near future, coal-based energy will remain more economically competitive than renewable energy for quite a while.

And economic success is measured in terms of long-term economic growth and productive capacity, other measurements are subjective personal preferences (not that valuing "economic success" is an objective standard, merely an eminently practical one that provides individuals ever-increasing means of pursuing all of their subjective wants and preferences).

Finally, while there is plenty of waste (which should be remedied) taking place within the "military-industrial complex", maintaining a strong military is a highly effective means of pursuing war OR peace, depending on the nature of the governments and society in question. Also, while peace is generally preferable, some circumstances make war a better option, though I suppose that's really a thread unto itself.

In any event, how about addressing my cost-benifits analysis concerns, in which I maintain that the policies in question represent economically crippling measures toward only marginal gains at best, and are wasteful and counter-productive at worst?

[nomadic]

renewable energy is based a little more on macro (global) cost benefit analysis, more than micro(firm view) cost benefit analysis.

the richer country you are, the more "big brother" of a type of responsibility you have to the rest of the "little brothers" of the world when it comes to global warming, etc...

[Risen]

renewable energy is based a little more on macro (global) cost benefit analysis, more than micro(firm view) cost benefit analysis.

the richer country you are, the more "big brother" of a type of responsibility you have to the rest of the "little brothers" of the world when it comes to global warming, etc...

I'm convinced the second coming of Jesus wont be about saving mankind from its sins or war, the second coming will be the death of, and liberation from, the man made global warming hoax and the ignorance that plagues humanity. I can only pray that Jesus is real.

In other words, we will never do anything that makes sense in this area until people stop believing in sci-political fallacies like global warming that give them justification to do things that make absolutely no sense based on a false view of reality. Because of this, the issue truly is barely worth discussing. Possibly, the only thing that will allow a critical mass of people to come to their senses is more or less a full realization of the global warming policies which will culminate in an eventual degradation of the human condition and widespread dissatisfaction in the majority of the population. At that point the political machinery will be forced to modify its stance on global warming, and a full revelation of the actual science behind it will come leading to a final demise of the man made GW myth.

This, again, assumes that ignorance and the government environmental control agenda will prevail over truth in the near term.