Obama Admin: Cap And Trade Could Cost Families $1,761 A Year, page 2

reply to post by nixie_nox

---

No, I didn't say a letter. I said a publication. I'll go look for it online and see if I can find it.

And no, I don't think they're biased. Not anymore so than the people for cap and trade.



[edit on 10/25/2009 by soldiermom]

reply to post by nixie_nox

---

Where is the link to the article? And in your first paragraph alone, you used a nice scare tactic and amped up 2-3 times what people are going to pay for power in just one short paragraph, with absolutely no proof whatsoever.

You could always click on the link in the OP that says "cbs.com......",
or I could post it again:
www.cbsnews.com...

(ever tried google? you could type "Obama" and "1,761", but then you'd only get 13,500 hits.)

As for the numbers changing, the W.H. originally redacted certain figures from the release. It was later released UNREDACTED, revealing that the estimate was about 3X too LOW!

AS time goes by, and the fog lifts, the true costs are getting clearer.

The initial source for the estimate was the Obama admin., itself.

Then they did it again. After so much time has passed, the lies no longer ring true, and the experineces of others have been looked over a little as well.

jw

I went to the archives section of Oklahoma Living online, but since the chart was an insert, it's not included in the online version. I wish I'd saved it now.

Anyway, here's an article that's on par with what was stated in the Oklahoma Living publication regarding Missouri.

MO utilities, co-ops say cap-and-trade bill too costly

Missouri residents can expect their electric bills to jump 12 percent to 50 percent by 2012 if the U.S. Senate passes a bill that caps carbon dioxide emissions and establishes a system for trading and buying emissions allowances, according to a study by the state's utilities.

And by 2020, the study suggests, average electric rates in Missouri could soar from 25 percent to a staggering 77 percent if a cap-and-trade system forces utilities to switch to natural gas from coal - the primary energy source for the Show-Me State and several others, including Ohio, Iowa and Utah. Missouri generates some 82 percent of its electricity by burning coal.

sbj.net

I should point out that the chart in the publication we received, showed different increases for different states. Again, all depending on what the credits auction for.

reply to post by nixie_nox

---

You got a letter from your power company stating that?

No, she got a brochure from her "Co-Op." Ever heard of them?

Not every corporation or power company is a greedy monster. Some are "public" companies, some are "non-profit"and some are "mutually owned."

soldiermom is a part-owner of her co-op.

Don't you think that their information is going to be a little biased?

Don't you think before you post?

Everyone is "biased" toward their own best interests. If I was part owner of a utility and depended on them for my power, I'd expect them to be keeping me advised of potential problems.

Do you know ANYBODY who says bills will go DOWN?

Even Steven Chu (Energy Sec.) and the OMB (government budget office) say U.S. consumers can expect to be, or should be, paying "European prices" for gasoline (about $7.50 to $10.00/gal. diesel) and electricity (about 3X avg. U.S. costs per Kwh).
(As the dollar drops, the costs go up in Euros, Pounds Sterling, and Francs)

Who says "cap and trade" will be cheaper?

Isn't that the point of your "critique?" That because a utility says they'll be higher, they must be lower.

Show me who agrees with you.

Deny ignorance.

jw

reply to post by jdub297

---

Can you give me 1 example of when the government was under what they originally thought the cost of something would be. They are way off every time.

So, you are saying that our electric bills are not going to go up? Get your head out of your A*SS. Seriously, are you that out of touch with reality? God help us all.

I can't wait till you get your bill, once all this goes through, and you can't afford to pay it because it is so high. Then, when you are sitting in a house that is pitch black I can laugh at you for being so ignorant and stupid.

reply to post by Victoria 1

---

I would like to hear from all the liberals on cap and trade, why they think that it is a good idea. All the obama supporters what do ya think of that. Are you okay with your energy bill going up more then $1,000 a year? What logical reason do you have to support this disaster? Let me hear it.

The liberals will support it because they HAVE to support Obama's agenda.

He's made it clear since 2008 that he intends for the federal government to control our health, energy, and education.
www.necn.com...

Add to that, the recent emphasis on federal control of information.

I have yet to hear of any legitimate source for the claim his energy and environmental programs will save anyone anything.

jw

reply to post by Victoria 1

---

So, you are saying that our electric bills are not going to go up? Get your head out of your A*SS. Seriously, are you that out of touch with reality? God help us all.

I can't wait till you get your bill, once all this goes through, and you can't afford to pay it because it is so high. Then, when you are sitting in a house that is pitch black I can laugh at you for being so ignorant and stupid.

You obviously haven't read, or cannot understand, anything I've ever posted on this issue.

Maybe when you find someone who can do this for you, we can discuss which of us is " so ignorant and stupid."

deny ignorance

jw

reply to post by jdub297

---

my point stands.

you can cry about CT all you want. it will not change the fact that all the while your personal 'wealth' and the like are under full frontal assault. the only reason you and so many like you choose CT and it's like as your target is based primarily if not souly on your political point of view. its bad when the government is taking your money (regardless of the reason) yet you willingly give it up to the corporate spawn of cancer-capitalism.

but those dam green liberals must be stopped, right. . .

reply to post by ANNED

---

thanks for proving my point.

Originally posted by Animal
reply to post by jdub297

---

...
but those dam green liberals must be stopped, right. . .

You might want to explain this to Obama's CBO:

The head of the Congressional Budget Office on Wednesday countered Obama administration claims that a landmark climate bill would be a boost to the economy.

President Barack Obama and Senate Democrats championing the bill have said mandating greenhouse-gas caps, renewable energy and efficiency standards would be a boon to an ailing economy, creating new low-carbon industries. Millions of so-called green jobs would be created under the cap-and-trade legislation being considered in the Senate, Democrats say.
...

The CBO estimates that the House-passed climate legislation, a template for the Senate version, would reduce gross domestic product by up to 0.75% by 2020 and 3.5% by 2050.

online.wsj.com...

As for your homage to marxist ideology, I will bet that you cannot support rationally an explanation of your sloganism, and "straw man":
"the corporate spawn of cancer-capitalism."

Tell us how you propose Americans proceed next year with your alternative. You (like so many others so far) can not and will not.

You will respond with political and moralistic-sounding blather that has no place in real lives and real jobs and families.

I challenge you: Show us your valid alternative to "the corporate spawn of cancer-capitalism."

Deny ignorance.

jw

[edit on 2-11-2009 by jdub297]

reply to post by jdub297

---

jdub:

Tell us how you propose Americans proceed next year with your alternative. You (like so many others so far) can not and will not.

First off I did not present an alternative just a simple critique of the current system. As you your self stated:

jdub:

I challenge you: Show us your valid alternative to "the corporate spawn of cancer-capitalism."

To which I offer the beginnings of a very simple solution. Maintain the capitalist roots of our economy but add one simple factor: regulation.

regulation that would prevent investors from taking risks they themselves cannot explain or rationalize which bankrupt the nation.

regulation that prevents the creation of monopolies that prevent competition in the market place - competition that creates quality goods and services.

regulate trade so that we dont give all our jobs and wealth to other nations. (curb free-trade and globalization to a sane level)

regulate, regulate, regulate. for the last 30 years the tendency of every leader has been de-regulation and as a direct result we have seen the systematic dismantlement of the middle class; the accumulation of the majority of the wealth within the smallest percentile of our population; the financial ruin of our government; and the control of our government seized by the ultra-wealthy individuals and corporations.

this is my point and how it relates back to this thread. so many people are so caught up fighting along party lines for what their party and their preferred media gate keepers are telling them are the real issues that are going to destroy the middle class. sadly these issues, on both sides, are distractions from the real issues that are destroying the middle class.

i honestly question the commitment of any politician or party of ensuring CT is instated. there are so very few instances of it in practice in the world today anyway. as far as i am concerned it, like abortion / gay rights / civil rights / health care and the other issues (all important in their own right) that politicians and the corporate media have us in a frenzy over are all nothing more than wedge issues, attention grabbers, or tools used to keep us preoccupied with in terms of who is stealing our cash while the corporations who dominate our political system continue to reap their massive profits at the expense of the nations well being.

This is not "political and moralistic-sounding blather" and it has a very good place in "real lives and real jobs and families" and if we were to turn the clock back 30 years in terms of regulation and trade policy we would see massive economic changes for the betterment of the nation.

you can call it marxist, fine what ever... i agree it does have tones of communism in it. however my ability to evaluate issues beyond a dualistic nature allows me to see not only the benefits of the current system but also in alternative practices and thoughts. it even allows me to see how in the current US system of governance and policy they all exist already to one degree or another.

like the people of the world our governments are all pure bred mutts.

and to end, i always enjoy participating in your threads, you have an obvious innate ability to debate issues and you tend to make good sense, sadly as i have mentioned before you come across as aggressive and angry and that really detracts from my ability to enjoy discourse with you. just to let you know.



[edit on 2-11-2009 by Animal]

[edit on 2-11-2009 by Animal]

reply to post by Animal

---

regulate, regulate, regulate. for the last 30 years the tendency of every leader has been de-regulation and as a direct result we have seen the systematic dismantlement of the middle class; the accumulation of the majority of the wealth within the smallest percentile of our population; the financial ruin of our government; and the control of our government seized by the ultra-wealthy individuals and corporations.

Many people seem to equate the term "regulate" with 'slow down' or 'contain' or 'stop' when that is not the meaning at all.

A "regulator" CONTROLS the flow, moderating for or against an excess or lack of whatever is being "regulated."

In economics, "regulate" only means that certain policies permit the flow of capital and certain others restrict it.

In so far as (that was never a good "word") consumer lending is concerned, LIBERAL "regulation" dictated the free flow of capital to less-than-qualified borrowers with less-than-legitimate "collateral."

In so far as "banking" is concerned, LIBERAL regulation required that lending institutions be allowed to compete with "investment" banks, thus enabling your local S&L to engage with Lehman Bros. (Bad results)

When you decide to learn a little about banking, investing, and saving, I wil be happy to discuss the rationales justifying each on its own terms.

When you conflate them, as liberal legislators determined to do, you invite trouble.

This is not "political and moralistic-sounding blather" and it has a very good place in "real lives and real jobs and families" and if we were to turn the clock back 30 years in terms of regulation and trade policy we would see massive economic changes for the betterment of the nation.

PRECISELY!

30 years ago, your bank did not buy CDOs or CDS's to "keep up with the Jones's". Bill Clinton and Barney Frank and Chris Dodds thought it would be best if they did. That way, you and your neighbors would get the same "opportunities" to reap windfall profits as the other guys. WHAT IDIOTS!

Again, when you have learned enough basic economics, we can probably have a really neat-o chat.

'til then, get your basics in order.

deny ignorance

jw

reply to post by jdub297

---

Originally posted by jdub297
In economics, "regulate" only means that certain policies permit the flow of capital and certain others restrict it.

An interesting view on the issue but it is simply incorrect. At its most basic level ‘regulate’ refers to the flow of capital or more specifically the control prices (think health care); however, in reality regulation is sets of policy and laws, or you could say government intervention, that governs or influences the BEHAVIORS, ACTIONS and INTENTIONS of individuals and firms that operate in or out of the economy. For example the Sherman (Anti Trust) Act, Environmental Regulation, Trade Regulation, Health and Safety Regulation and on and on.

But back to economic regulation and the assertion that all economic regulation does is permit or restrict the flow of capital, which again at its most basic level is true, yet such a description of economic regulation is over simplified and hides the NATURE of economic regulation and its intended and witnessed impacts.

For instance the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. An act whose two main goals was to:

require that investors receive financial and other significant information concerning securities being offered for public sale

and

prohibit deceit, misrepresentations, and other fraud in the sale of securities.

Link

Clearly economic regulation that has little to do with the regulation of the flow of capital.

Originally posted by jdub297
In so far as (that was never a good "word") consumer lending is concerned, LIBERAL "regulation" dictated the free flow of capital to less-than-qualified borrowers with less-than-legitimate "collateral."

If by this you are referring to the ‘hands off approach’ of the Bush administration to the lending policy of the nation then yes, your correct. The LIBERAL approach Bush took to overseeing lending led to the increase in ‘interest only loans’ (sub-prime) from 2% in 200 to 26% in 2006. Link

Then there is also this:

MBA’s Vice President for Research and Economics. “For example, while subprime ARMs represent 6 percent of the loans outstanding, they represented 39 percent of the foreclosures started during the first quarter. Prime ARMs represent 15 percent of the loans outstanding, but 23 percent of the foreclosures started. Out of the approximately 516,000 foreclosures started during the first quarter, subprime ARM loans accounted for about 195,000 and prime ARM loans 117,000, but the increase in prime ARM foreclosures exceeded subprime ARM foreclosures with increases of 29,000 and 20,000 respectively over the previous quarter.”

Link

So yes, the liberal approach to regulating consumer lending, meaning Bush’s hands off policy did cause the flow of capital to less than qualified borrowers, with catastrophic consequences.

It also allowed borrowers to make KNOWINGLY unsafe loans in order to make MORE profits. In fact they even were giving out unsafe (sub prime) loans to people who would have qualified for regular loans because these sub prime loans made more MONEY for them.

You can throw around the term LIBERAL all you want to make this as politically charged as you like but the fact remains CONSERVATIVES are equally to blame let us not forget the 80s.

In so far as "banking" is concerned, LIBERAL regulation required that lending institutions be allowed to compete with "investment" banks, thus enabling your local S&L to engage with Lehman Bros. (Bad results)

Oh, you must be referring to the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, or more specifically the G-S passed in 1933 known as the Banking Act of 1933, which by the way was done via a bill introduced by R-Phil Gramm and R-Jim Leach and carried by a Republican majority in both the House and Senate. Link


A good example of the loss of just the type of regulation I am talking about.

30 years ago, your bank did not buy CDOs or CDS's to "keep up with the Jones's". Bill Clinton and Barney Frank and Chris Dodds thought it would be best if they did. That way, you and your neighbors would get the same "opportunities" to reap windfall profits as the other guys. WHAT IDIOTS!

Of course you are referring to Gramm and Leach who thought up the legislation that repealed Glass-Steagall (Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 also known as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act) and the Republican voting majority that passed the repeal thus allowed such behavior. I can’t really see how you got them confused with Clinton and Frank, but hey we all make mistakes. Link

Again, when you have learned enough basic economics, we can probably have a really neat-o chat.

'til then, get your basics in order.

And again, I am not sure what your issue is and why you feel the need to be rude and condescending, it really is rather childish and has no place in civilized discussion or in ‘denying ignorance’ and it would be a benefit to everyone if you could contribute without it, thanks.






[edit on 4-11-2009 by Animal]

[edit on 4-11-2009 by Animal]

reply to post by ProfEmeritus

---

He is systematically destroying everything that hard working Americans spent centuries building.

I didn't want to believe it was so calculated, but yes, he is trying to bury us.

“politicians are all alike. They promise to build a bridge, even where there is no river.”
Khrushchev

www.youtube.com...

"The pilot is intentionally steering it into the trees."

Breaking News: Judge Doesn\'t Rule, Secretary of State Doesn\'t Agree - Obama NOT off
  Posted 15 days ago with 39 member flags

On why America is in denial and Ron Paul will not be elected
  Posted 18 days ago with 21 member flags

Study says racists and conservatives are dumb
  Posted 7 days ago with 16 member flags

As of feb 9th, Canada\'s own version of SOPA: Bill C-11 will kill more of your freedom
  Posted 13 days ago with 11 member flags

Is ‘anti-Canadianism’ the new ‘anti-Americanism?’
  Posted 17 days ago with 8 member flags

Councilman wants sheriff to stop urging people to get pistol permits
  Posted 15 days ago with 7 member flags

Clarification on the definition of "natural born citizen"
  Posted 15 days ago with 7 member flags

ATS is not as awake as it should be. You might still be sleeping...
  Posted 6 days ago with 7 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: