It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


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

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 02:10 PM
reply to post by jdub297

So, while as your link in the OP states Cap and Trade Legislation "the bill faces an uncertain future" due to its enormous costs in its current form the republican party under the direction of Bush and now the Democratic party under the direction of Obama have given away the majority of the wealth of this nation to banks, corporations, and wealthiest citizens. All supporting my point, while you cry about what the LIBERALS are doing in terms of CT or the like ALL the politicians have pulled the financial rug out from under you.

posted on Nov, 7 2009 @ 02:23 AM
reply to post by Animal

CBO: Cap and Trade Will Cost Jobs

First Doug Elmendorf undercut the Obama administration on health care. Now his Congressional Budget Office is going off message on cap and trade:
The CBO director added that although the risks of climate-related impacts on the economy were very difficult to quantify, "many economists believe that the right response to that kind of uncertainty is to take out some insurance, if you will, against some of the worst outcomes."

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.

"The net effect of that we think would likely be some decline in employment during the transition because labor markets don't move that fluidly," Mr. Elmendorf said, testifying before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee...

And as for capitalists "robbing" the people, others (including the World Bank and history) disagree:

The new name for anti-capitalism is environmentalism. The most important political trajectory of the past two decades has been from the rubble of the [Berlin] Wall to the forthcoming climate conference in Copenhagen.

Virtually every other politician and member of the chattering classes is not only a True Believer in catastrophic man-made climate change, but has spent the past year bemoaning the “greed” that allegedly led to the 2008 economic “crisis.”

They assiduously avoid the role of government policies and regulations in creating the crisis. Above all, they make no mention of the “greedy” market’s stunning success in bringing billions out of poverty since 1989. According to the World Bank, global per capital income, at constant prices, has grown from $3,615 in 1989 to $8,613 in 2008. Wall Street bonuses, which have been the focus of so much Sturm und Drang, account for a minuscule portion of 1% of that income figure... .


posted on Nov, 7 2009 @ 10:15 AM
reply to post by jdub297

your funny.

keep ignoring my point which is well supported.

and for future reference, using the world bank to support your claim that capitalists have not robbed the people is like using Bonny and Clyde. structural adjustment and GATT (global agreements of tariffs and trade) have been systematically exploiting and robbing the third world for decades.


In the United States at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth, and the top 1% controlled 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation's wealth

Sounds a lot like the wealthy (think capitalists) have done a pretty good job of accumulating all the wealth for themselves mate. Don't think of them as ital either, with that money they are running this nation, its media, and thus YOU.

cap and trade is just one more farce used to rile the mindless troops of the right, so the right, just like the left can continue to control you and rob you.

and it is just so easy to see but for some reason so many just like you, chanting 'deny ignorance', refuse to.

enjoy the box

posted on Nov, 7 2009 @ 12:23 PM
Still waiting for the proof that I am going to be paying 1700 plus more.*foot tapping*

[edit on 7-11-2009 by nixie_nox]

posted on Nov, 7 2009 @ 01:45 PM

Originally posted by nixie_nox
Still waiting for the proof that I am going to be paying 1700 plus more.*foot tapping*

Have someone read you the OP and show you how the link works.

Or try this:

The Obama administration has privately concluded that a cap and trade law would cost American taxpayers up to $200 billion a year, the equivalent of hiking personal income taxes by about 15 percent.

A previously unreleased analysis prepared by the U.S. Department of Treasury says the total in new taxes would be between $100 billion to $200 billion a year. At the upper end of the administration's estimate, the cost per American household would be an extra $1,761 a year.

Or, the original, suppressed documents:

...Economic costs will likely be on the order of 1 percent of GDP, making them equal in scale to all existing environmental regulation. ...

Or CBO's Elmendorf's testimony:

CBO Director Douglas W. Elmendorf emphasized that his estimates contained significant uncertainties and "do not include any benefits from averting climate change," but his message nevertheless contrasted sharply with those of President Obama and congressional Democratic leaders, who have suggested that a cap on carbon emissions would help revive the U.S. economy.

Elmendorf testified before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee that the cap-and-trade provisions of the House bill -- in which emitters of greenhouse gases would be able to buy and sell pollution credits -- would cut the nation's gross domestic product by 0.25 to 0.75 percent in 2020 compared with "what it would otherwise have been," and by 1 to 3.5 percent in 2050.

Elmendorf also pointed to disruptions that would occur as Americans sought employment with industries that would benefit under a carbon cap, such as solar and wind power.

"The shifts will be significant," the CBO director said. "We want to leave no misunderstanding that aggregate performance -- the fact that jobs turn up somewhere else for some people -- does not mean that there are not substantial costs borne by people, communities, firms in affected industries and affected areas. You saw that in manufacturing, and we would see that in response to changes that this legislation would produce."

Any of that plain enough?


Deny ignorance.


new topics

top topics
<< 1  2   >>

log in