House advances Cap & Trade bill

To me this is a major piece of legislation that needs to be acknowledged and talked about more than it is before it's too late (for bad or good)....


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.


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

Change we can believe in. Good job again America. We elect people with bad ideas and then we get bad ideas. It's our fault. Keep voting for the guys who make you feel all warm and cozy and ignore their positions. We're doomed.

From what I just heard on the news they are still 12 votes short on getting this bill passed. I believe I heard 17 undecided so we know they are getting hammered to vote yes for the bill and I'm sure promises of $ going to their home town for a yes vote. I also heard that last night the Dems added another 300 pages to the bill but I'm sure everyone has had plenty of time to read those additional 300 pages.

Im not all that up on politic lingo. I was going off this article that says the House Advances Cap and Trade bill to the Floor. I am assuming Floor is short for the Senate Floor?

House Narrowly Advances Climate Bill to the Floor - Political News - FOXNews.com (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/26/house-narrowly-advances-climate-floor/?test=latestnews)

It would be great news if this does get defeated.

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.

As always doing analysis from a business angle and not the right and fair angle. I wonder if The Heritage Foundation (http://www.heritage.org/research/middleeast/iraq/iraq.cfm) did the same GDP analysis with respect the Iraq war and the Wall St. Journal reported it? In 2020 our GDP is expected to be 29 trillion and while 161 billion is real money the real question should be does the cost (0.0055 % of the GDP) justify the result?

The only cost that matters to me and you is direct out of pocket cost because that's real money you will lose.


p.s. I wonder what the GDP cost of bailing out Florida every time a hurricane strikes is?

Change we can believe in. Good job again America. We elect people with bad ideas and then we get bad ideas. It's our fault. Keep voting for the guys who make you feel all warm and cozy and ignore their positions. We're doomed.

Your not the only one who feels this way.

A MINORITY VIEW (http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/09/AmericansLoveGovernment.htm)

As always doing analysis from a business angle and not the right and fair angle. I wonder if The Heritage Foundation (http://www.heritage.org/research/middleeast/iraq/iraq.cfm) did the same GDP analysis with respect the Iraq war and the Wall St. Journal reported it? In 2020 our GDP is expected to be 29 trillion and while 161 billion is real money the real question should be does the cost (0.0055 % of the GDP) justify the result?

The only cost that matters to me and you is direct out of pocket cost because that's real money you will lose.


p.s. I wonder what the GDP cost of bailing out Florida every time a hurricane strikes is?
All the storms in FL over the past 5 year was probably 1/1000 the cost of NO.

Change we can believe in. Good job again America. We elect people with bad ideas and then we get bad ideas. It's our fault. Keep voting for the guys who make you feel all warm and cozy and ignore their positions. We're doomed.

Better luck next time, assuming there will be a next time.

The only cost that matters to me and you is direct out of pocket cost because that's real money you will lose.
The out of packet cost has been estimated as low as $ 175 / yr. per family of four to $ 3K per year. Realistically the amount is likely around $ 1,000 - $ 1,200 / yr. per family.

.....but Obama wasn't going to increase taxes "not one cent" on those making under $ 250K :yeahright

and the left saw Cheney/Rove as the Emperor from Star Wars.

The out of packet cost has been estimated as low as $ 175 / yr. per family of four to $ 3K per year. Realistically the amount is likely around $ 1,000 - $ 1,200 / yr. per family.

.....but Obama wasn't going to increase taxes "not one cent" on those making under $ 250K :yeahright

and the left saw Cheney/Rove as the Emperor from Star Wars.

I have said this before, Obama was specifically talking about income tax and if you weren't aware that he was for cap and trade you're a fool. His policy position was no secret wouldn't you agree?

I must say though, to the untrained eye (looking in your direction TTL) your grouping of taxes makes perfect sense.