Get Ready for the Largest Tax Increas in History

This will pretty much do it...

Quote :

Wide-ranging energy measure ready for floor vote
By H. JOSEF HEBERT and DINA CAPPIELLO, Associated Press Writers H. Josef Hebert And Dina Cappiello, Associated Press Writers 17 mins ago

WASHINGTON – The House has set the stage for a historic vote on hotly contested legislation to combat global warming and overhaul U.S. energy policy.

The House Rules Committee cleared the bill for floor action early Friday after working through most of the night. Debate on the measure, which Republicans largely oppose as too costly, has been set for three hours.

It was still uncertain whether House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has the votes to get the measure through. The bill would impose the nation's first limits on greenhouse gases linked to global warming and would shift the country away from reliance on fossil fuels.

A handful of undecided Democrats hold the key to passage of the bill that the leadership has sought to act on before Congress departs for a weeklong Fourth of July recess.

President Barack Obama, in both individual phone calls and in remarks from the White House Rose Garden on Thursday, urged lawmakers to pass the bill, calling it "a vote of historic proportions ... that will open the door to a clean energy economy" and green jobs.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090626/ap_on_go_co/us_climate_bill_26

Quote :

Get Ready for the Largest Tax Increas in History

Based on what?

Heretic wrote:

Quote :

Get Ready for the Largest Tax Increas in History

Based on what?

On her failure to actually read what she posted

Quote :

Democrats argue that much of the cost increase could be offset by other provisions in the bill.

Two reports issued this week — one from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and the other from the Environmental Protection Agency — seemed to support that argument. They showed household energy costs likely would increase only modestly, with most of the increase erased by improvements in efficiency, energy rebates and pollution allowances to energy-intensive sectors of the economy.

The CBO analysis estimated that the bill would cost an average household $175 a year, while the EPA put it at between $80 and $110 a year.

Artie60438 wrote:

Heretic wrote:

Quote :

Get Ready for the Largest Tax Increas in History

Based on what?

On her failure to actually read what she posted

Quote :

Democrats argue that much of the cost increase could be offset by other provisions in the bill.

Two reports issued this week — one from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and the other from the Environmental Protection Agency — seemed to support that argument. They showed household energy costs likely would increase only modestly, with most of the increase erased by improvements in efficiency, energy rebates and pollution allowances to energy-intensive sectors of the economy.

The CBO analysis estimated that the bill would cost an average household $175 a year, while the EPA put it at between $80 and $110 a year.

From what I've read, your gasoline will increase by 75%, and your electric bill will pretty much double. But Nobama will not be taxing the poor...right. Who do you think is going to pay for all the crap this clown is ramming down our throats? Is it free? Print more money? Take a reality break, then answer.

Artie60438 wrote:

Quote :

Democrats argue that much of the cost increase could be offset by other provisions in the bill.

Two reports issued this week — one from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and the other from the Environmental Protection Agency — seemed to support that argument. They showed household energy costs likely would increase only modestly, with most of the increase erased by improvements in efficiency, energy rebates and pollution allowances to energy-intensive sectors of the economy.

The CBO analysis estimated that the bill would cost an average household $175 a year, while the EPA put it at between $80 and $110 a year.

You actually swallow everything this congress rams down your throat, don't you? You really believe the $175 a year per average household? Where are YOU going to come up with $175? Nasty Pelosi is involved, isn't she? I don't know, but I feel for you unfortunates.

Do you STILL want to believe some damned politician, or would you rather trust someone who actually knows what he is talking about?

The Heritage Foundation wrote:

There have been a lot of numbers floating around measuring the costs of cap and trade. For instance, a study by MIT professor John Reilly shows a carbon cap and trade would cost the average American household $3,900 a year. $800 of that figure comes from, according to Reilly, “the cost to the economy [that] involves all those actions people have to take to reduce their use of fossil fuels or find ways to use them without releasing [Green House Gases].”

Our analysis shows it will cost the average family closer to $4,300 per year. Here’s how:

Our $1,500 number is just the direct impact of household energy bills. Your electricity bill. Your natural gas bill. Your home heating oil bill. And of course, the amount of gas you use in your tank. The increased cost of your direct energy use is $1500 per year.

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 $4,300 per year. In the year 2035 alone the cost is $8,276. And the costs per family for the whole energy tax aggregated from 2012 to 2035 is $116,680. And this doesn’t even include the impact of the 844,000 lost jobs.

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. Families will suffer directly and indirectly from a higher energy tax.

As President Obama warned us on his campaign trail, electricity prices will “necessarily skyrocket.” So will everything else, except for our income and standard of living.

Senior Policy Analyst in Energy Economics and Climate Change David Kreutzer co-authored this post.

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/05/15/the-4300-energy-tax/

LoisLane wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Quote :

Democrats argue that much of the cost increase could be offset by other provisions in the bill.

Two reports issued this week — one from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and the other from the Environmental Protection Agency — seemed to support that argument. They showed household energy costs likely would increase only modestly, with most of the increase erased by improvements in efficiency, energy rebates and pollution allowances to energy-intensive sectors of the economy.

The CBO analysis estimated that the bill would cost an average household $175 a year, while the EPA put it at between $80 and $110 a year.

You actually swallow everything this congress rams down your throat, don't you? Nasty Pelosi is involved, isn't she? I don't know, but I feel for you unfortunates.

Uh. no, Nancy Pelosi is not "involved" with the operation of the Congressional Budget Office. What part of nonpartisan don't you understand?

LoisLane wrote:

Do you STILL want to believe some damned politician, or would you rather trust someone who actually knows what he is talking about?

The Heritage Foundation wrote:

There have been a lot of numbers floating around measuring the costs of cap and trade. For instance, a study by MIT professor John Reilly shows a carbon cap and trade would cost the average American household $3,900 a year. $800 of that figure comes from, according to Reilly, “the cost to the economy [that] involves all those actions people have to take to reduce their use of fossil fuels or find ways to use them without releasing [Green House Gases].”

Our analysis shows it will cost the average family closer to $4,300 per year. Here’s how:

Our $1,500 number is just the direct impact of household energy bills. Your electricity bill. Your natural gas bill. Your home heating oil bill. And of course, the amount of gas you use in your tank. The increased cost of your direct energy use is $1500 per year.

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 $4,300 per year. In the year 2035 alone the cost is $8,276. And the costs per family for the whole energy tax aggregated from 2012 to 2035 is $116,680. And this doesn’t even include the impact of the 844,000 lost jobs.

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. Families will suffer directly and indirectly from a higher energy tax.

As President Obama warned us on his campaign trail, electricity prices will “necessarily skyrocket.” So will everything else, except for our income and standard of living.

Senior Policy Analyst in Energy Economics and Climate Change David Kreutzer co-authored this post.

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/05/15/the-4300-energy-tax/[/quote]

Hey Lois! Look what I found.........

How do Republicans figure American households will be out $3,100? The figure is based in part on a 2007 study by the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change. The study estimated that a cap-and-trade market for 2015 would be worth $366 billion in revenue. Republicans, figuring that that amount would be passed from the energy companies to consumers, calculated the average cost per household by dividing $366 billion by 117 million households (a population of 300 million divided into households of 2.56 persons) to get $3,128, or roughly $3,100.

However, one of the authors of the MIT study disputes that figure.

In a letter sent to House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) on April 1, John Reilly, associate director for research at the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, said that the study he coauthored had "been misrepresented in recent press releases distributed by the National Republican Congressional Committee." He said the GOP's calculation fails to account for Obama's stated intent to provide rebates to consumers to cushion the effect of increased prices: "[M]any of the proposals currently being considered by Congress and as proposed by the Administration have been designed to offset the energy cost impacts on middle and lower income households and so it is simplistic and misleading to only look at the impact on energy prices of these proposals as a measure of their impact on the average household."

Reilly at first estimated the average annual cost of implementing a cap-and-trade program to each household to be about $340, but he later wrote a follow-up letter to Boehner on April 14 correcting what he said was an error in his calculations and increasing his estimate to about $800. He said his corrected estimate "includes the direct effects of higher energy prices, the cost of measures to reduce energy use, the higher price of goods that are produced using energy, and impacts on wages and returns on capital."

Despite Reilly's objections, Republicans continue to use the $3,100 figure. An April 2 "Leader Alert" on the House Republican Leader's Web site reads: "An MIT professor has questions about the $3,100 figure but his letter makes assumptions that are factually inaccurate." Boehner disputes Reilly's assumption that revenue from a cap-and-trade program would be returned to households: "[W]e all know that Democrats have no intention of using a cap-and-trade system to deliver rebates to consumers; they want the tax revenue to fund more government spending."
http://www.factcheck.org/politics/cap-and-trade_cost_inflation.html

Artie60438 wrote:

Hey Lois! Look what I found.........

Heretic already pointed this out, in the "Science for Sale" thread...

https://nofree.forumotion.com/nation-world-f11/science-for-sale-t877.htm#13534

I don't think that Republicans or their supporters are really interested in the truth.

LoisLane wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Hey Lois! Look what I found.........

Heretic already pointed this out, in the "Science for Sale" thread...

https://nofree.forumotion.com/nation-world-f11/science-for-sale-t877.htm#13534

I don't think that Republicans or their supporters are really interested in the truth.

lemmings...

Feel free to actually dispute what I've posted. This is a discussion forum after all.

Don't worry. I'll wait.

Heretic wrote:

Feel free to actually dispute what I've posted. This is a discussion forum after all.

Don't worry. I'll wait.

Personally, I'd like to be enlightened as to how a message board drone can convince me when all of congress cannot be convinced that this tax increase will be the downfall of this nation. How can someone posting on a message board be privy to all that is right? Why aren't you an adviser to the president? Please, convince me...

LoisLane wrote:

Personally, I'd like to be enlightened as to how a message board drone can convince me when all of congress cannot be convinced that this tax increase will be the downfall of this nation. How can someone posting on a message board be privy to all that is right? Why aren't you an adviser to the president? Please, convince me...

Personally, I'd like to be enlightened as to how a juvenile partisan hack has the knowledge and expertise to dispute the findings of a report done by MIT. Please convince me...

LoisLane wrote:

...when all of congress cannot be convinced that this tax increase will be the downfall of this nation.

All of Congress isn't convince evolution is real. Unfortunately for you, they are not our benchmark for reality.

LoisLane wrote:

How can someone posting on a message board be privy to all that is right?

I'm not, which is why I cited the actual authors. The Republicans keep citing this MIT report with interpretations that even the authors are saying are wrong (a common tactic from denialists - Citing a report as if it supports your conclusions when it says exactly the opposite). I don't think it's unreasonable to think that the authors themselves would be "privy to such information" that you're seeking. But true to form, instead of actually offering what inside information that you must have that the authors at MIT either didn't have or didn't want to share ("It's a conspiracy! Yes, another one.") and assailing us with the awesome and envied power of your intellect and wisdom, you preferred to simply call us... "lemmings".

:shakehead:

Well Heretic/Scorpion, when Nobama and the Nasty Pelosi gang runs over the cliff, will you still follow?

LoisLane wrote:

Well Heretic/Scorpion, when Nobama and the Nasty Pelosi gang runs over the cliff, will you still follow?

Yeah, well personally, I follow no man (or woman). I base my opinions on the facts, not partisanship.

Judging from the tenor of your posts, you seem totally consumed by your hatred of the President and the Democratic party. IMHO, that hatred makes it virtually impossible for you to analyze policies rationally.

You have my pity.

Scorpion wrote:

LoisLane wrote:

Well Heretic/Scorpion, when Nobama and the Nasty Pelosi gang runs over the cliff, will you still follow?

Yeah, well personally, I follow no man (or woman). I base my opinions on the facts, not partisanship.

Judging from the tenor of your posts, you seem totally consumed by your hatred of the President and the Democratic party. IMHO, that hatred makes it virtually impossible for you to analyze policies rationally.

You have my pity.

I seem to remember your (Heritic/Scorpion) extreme hatred you expressed about George W. Bush and the Republican Party. THAT hatred makes it virtually impossible for you to analyze policies rationally. And your pity is not warranted.

LoisLane wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

LoisLane wrote:

Well Heretic/Scorpion, when Nobama and the Nasty Pelosi gang runs over the cliff, will you still follow?

Yeah, well personally, I follow no man (or woman). I base my opinions on the facts, not partisanship.

Judging from the tenor of your posts, you seem totally consumed by your hatred of the President and the Democratic party. IMHO, that hatred makes it virtually impossible for you to analyze policies rationally.

You have my pity.

I seem to remember your (Heritic/Scorpion) extreme hatred you expressed about George W. Bush and the Republican Party. THAT hatred makes it virtually impossible for you to analyze policies rationally. And your pity is not warranted.

Let us know when you catch either Scorpion or Heretic posting something false or misleading,like you do regularly. :bball:

Quote :

Well Heretic/Scorpion, when Nobama and the Nasty Pelosi gang runs over the cliff, will you still follow?

If you have evidence they'll take us over a cliff, I'd love to see it.

LoisLane wrote:

I seem to remember your (Heritic/Scorpion) extreme hatred you expressed about George W. Bush and the Republican Party.

Yes. Just as you do, remember? "One of the worst Presidents ever." as you put it. Most of their policies predictably ended in disaster since so few of them were based on logic, reason, or science, costing us billions of dollars as well as thousands of American lives in the process. Why does that "hatred" blind me but makes you such an objective investigator?

I don't know much about the environmental legislation in question, which is why I've asked for further information everytime it's been brought up... especially in light of the Republican "it'll cost families thousands" talking point that the authors of the study cited say is wrong. But despite my efforts, no one I've asked, you included, has offered an explanation and instead goes all Jar Jar Binks on us... "WEESA GONNA DIE!!!!!!!11122!!!"

There are legitimate arguments one can make against the Obama administration. Unfortunately, you're not making any.

Heretic wrote:

Yes. Just as you do, remember? "One of the worst Presidents ever." as you put it. Most of their policies predictably ended in disaster since so few of them were based on logic, reason, or science, costing us billions of dollars as well as thousands of American lives in the process. Why does that "hatred" blind me but makes you such an objective investigator?

Admittedly, Bush was one of the worst presidents in history. No argument there. I didn't like MOST of his policies, but some were good. (Let's NOT go there) Keep in mind, I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat. But when it comes to spending BILLIONS of dollars, don't ignore the quagmire Nobama is putting us in. Your grandchildren's grandchildren will be paying for bank and automobile bailouts. Was it worth it? And just where is this stimulus money coming from? We are borrowing 50 cents for every dollar spent, maybe more by now. That, my friend, defies logic. Especially when the money we are borrowing is coming from China. Do you trust the Chinese? They could turn against the U.S. in a heartbeat. Remember, they are allies with North Korea. Always have been, always will be.

You didn't answer my question.

I wrote:

Why does that "hatred" blind me but makes you such an objective investigator?

LoisLane wrote:

Keep in mind, I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat.

As I've stated before, neither am I.

LoisLane wrote:

But when it comes to spending BILLIONS of dollars, don't ignore the quagmire Nobama is putting us in.

I'm not. Perhaps I just see it differently. Growth based economies are precariously fragile and doomed to failure; it's inherent to the design. Whatever President's watch it occurs under will really be nothing more than a matter of chance. If this were an argument between Plan A and Plan B where the latter clearly led to our salvation, perhaps I'd be more concerned. But that's not the case. Any of the proposed "solutions" are simply a return to growth as usual, which will lead us straight back to our current crisis.

LoisLane wrote:

Your grandchildren's grandchildren will be paying for bank and automobile bailouts.

Of course they will. That's how it works. They pay for everything. The entire nature of our civilization is a Ponzi scheme at the expense of future generations. Peak oil, AGW, resource depletion, the energy crisis... They're f**ked.

LoisLane wrote:

Was it worth it?

It never is.

Heretic wrote:

I don't know much about the environmental legislation in question, which is why I've asked for further information everytime it's been brought up... especially in light of the Republican "it'll cost families thousands" talking point that the authors of the study cited say is wrong. But despite my efforts, no one I've asked, you included, has offered an explanation and instead goes all Jar Jar Binks on us... "WEESA GONNA DIE!!!!!!!11122!!!"

The environmental legislation in question will not be answered here. It will be answered as it is "played out". My point is/was that with the Cap and Trade issue and private polluting industry buying credits, major companies like BP, NIPSCo, and other major polluters buying credits, will naturally kick up our (the consumer) energy bills, which will also be taxed to the increased costs. That, my friend, is logical.

LoisLane wrote:

I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat.

You're not?
You sure had me fooled. I'm curious to hear which Democrats on a national or state level that you voted for.

LoisLane wrote:

My point is/was that with the Cap and Trade issue and private polluting industry buying credits, major companies like BP, NIPSCo, and other major polluters buying credits, will naturally kick up our (the consumer) energy bills, which will also be taxed to the increased costs.

We've used the cap and trade system before, haven't we? Did such implementations translate to increased prices for consumers?

Artie60438 wrote:

LoisLane wrote:

I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat.

You're not?
You sure had me fooled. I'm curious to hear which Democrats on a national or state level that you voted for.

Unlike your pathetic self, I don't just "pull one lever". I don't have to stick to a primary declaration...
(Civics 101)