Obama Admin: Cap And Trade Could Cost Families $1,761 A Year
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.
> Obama Admin: Cap And Trade Could Cost Families $1,761 A Year
> 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.
you know it was to pay off the Union and special interest groups. If the money were given to small businesses, that would have picked up the economy. Big Businesses that were too big to fail, should have Failed! It is the small businesses that make up 70 percent of our economy that should be given the money, if any money was to be given!
>> It's a terrible bill and an example of more government regulations >> killing businesses and job growth. It will also result in higher >> energy costs. https://www.doughoffmanforcongress.com/issues.html
>> ---
>> Obama Admin: Cap And Trade Could Cost Families $1,761 A Year
>> 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. >> http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/09/15/taking_liberties/entry5314040... > you know it was to pay off the Union and special interest groups. > If the money were given to small businesses, that would have picked > up the economy. > Big Businesses that were too big to fail, should have Failed!
That is exactly right an it goes to the heart of the reason behind the financial crisis and the government health care take over. Bailing out some of the financial industry may have been a necessary evil in the short term, but the real problem is that any institution is allowed to have "too big to fail" status.
It's the removal of risk that initiated the crazy lending policies that eventually infected the entire industry. Clinton arm twists the GSE's into buying dodgy mortgages, then lenders have no reason _not_ to crank out sub prime crapola loans to anyone with a heartbeat, collect the processing fees, then dump them on GSE's. People say that CRA loans had the same default rate as others, but the point is that when the Government (the one charged with stopping lenders from doing crazy unsafe things) is in the business of incentivizing the housing industry into DOING unsafe things, they set the tone of acceptability for the entire industry to say the least. Then alll lenders want to get into the sub prime act, the bubble is created and inevitably bursts. The healthy fear that kept lenders from making risky loans was removed.
Same with GM. They ran their business into the ground, then Uncle Sam rushes in to save their bacon at taxpayer expense. Again the removal of risk. Now what incentive to they have to build better, run leaner or be more innovative? Obama removed the risk. Hope is fine but fear is important too.
Welcome to Obama's world where there is no risk of doing it the wrong way, and no incentive to excel. Endless economic stagnation and moral malaise. I wonder where America is heading?
Actually, I don't wonder.
END OF THE SOVIET UNION; GORBACHEV, LAST SOVIET LEADER, RESIGNS; U.S. RECOGNIZES REPUBLICS' INDEPENDENCE
Published: Thursday, December 26, 1991
Mikhail S. Gorbachev, the trailblazer of the Soviet Union's retreat from the cold war and the spark for the democratic reforms that ended 70 years of Communist tyranny, told a weary, anxious nation tonight that he was resigning as President and closing out the union.
"I hereby discontinue my activities at the post of President of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics," declared the 60-year-old politician, the last leader of a totalitarian empire that was undone across the six years and nine months of his stewardship.
>>> It's a terrible bill and an example of more government regulations >>> killing businesses and job growth. It will also result in higher >>> energy costs. https://www.doughoffmanforcongress.com/issues.html
========= I have to tell you, remember derivatives? How it help wreck our economy? Well, Wall street is in on this Cap and Trade, why would you ask? Wall Street is going to make trades, derivatives, *legalized gambling, on Caps the Gov. puts on industries. This will be Trillions and Trillions, income for wallstreet and the government while us PEONS (that's us)will be hurting with high electric bill, and on every item we have to buy. We know that industry never pays the higher cost of operations, it is passed onto the consumers. Cap and Trade is another gimmick disguised as Saving the environment and these green peace digbats, that can't think beyond their tofu burgers, sleeping in their mother's basement, are supporting the gimmick, in other words they are being used by the big boys , probably unknown to their feeble brains, to make the big money haul. into their pockets, from our pockets. Think it over, you know I'm right. Look at all the money Gore is rolling in after his Global Warming, hoax. BTW Newt G is a Cap and Trade fellow, as is McCain, this crosses all party lines, the losers, the lowly public .
>>> Obama Admin: Cap And Trade Could Cost Families $1,761 A Year
>>> 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. >>> http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/09/15/taking_liberties/entry5314040... >> you know it was to pay off the Union and special interest groups. >> If the money were given to small businesses, that would have picked >> up the economy. >> Big Businesses that were too big to fail, should have Failed!
> That is exactly right an it goes to the heart of the reason behind the > financial crisis and the government health care take over. Bailing out > some of the financial industry may have been a necessary evil in the short > term, but the real problem is that any institution is allowed to have "too > big to fail" status.
> It's the removal of risk that initiated the crazy lending policies that > eventually infected the entire industry. Clinton arm twists the GSE's > into buying dodgy mortgages, then lenders have no reason _not_ to crank > out sub prime crapola loans to anyone with a heartbeat, collect the > processing fees, then dump them on GSE's. People say that CRA loans had > the same default rate as others, but the point is that when the Government > (the one charged with stopping lenders from doing crazy unsafe things) is > in the business of incentivizing the housing industry into DOING unsafe > things, they set the tone of acceptability for the entire industry to say > the least. Then alll lenders want to get into the sub prime act, the > bubble is created and inevitably bursts. The healthy fear that kept > lenders from making risky loans was removed.
> Same with GM. They ran their business into the ground, then Uncle Sam > rushes in to save their bacon at taxpayer expense. Again the removal of > risk. Now what incentive to they have to build better, run leaner or be > more innovative? Obama removed the risk. Hope is fine but fear is > important too.
> Welcome to Obama's world where there is no risk of doing it the wrong way, > and no incentive to excel. Endless economic stagnation and moral malaise. > I wonder where America is heading?
> Actually, I don't wonder.
> END OF THE SOVIET UNION; GORBACHEV, LAST SOVIET LEADER, RESIGNS; U.S. > RECOGNIZES REPUBLICS' INDEPENDENCE
> Published: Thursday, December 26, 1991
> Mikhail S. Gorbachev, the trailblazer of the Soviet Union's retreat from > the > cold war and the spark for the democratic reforms that ended 70 years of > Communist tyranny, told a weary, anxious nation tonight that he was > resigning as President and closing out the union.
> "I hereby discontinue my activities at the post of President of the Union > of > Soviet Socialist Republics," declared the 60-year-old politician, the last > leader of a totalitarian empire that was undone across the six years and > nine months of his stewardship.
>>> It's a terrible bill and an example of more government regulations >>> killing businesses and job growth. It will also result in higher >>> energy costs. https://www.doughoffmanforcongress.com/issues.html
>>> ---
>>> Obama Admin: Cap And Trade Could Cost Families $1,761 A Year
>>> 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. >>> http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/09/15/taking_liberties/entry5314040... >> you know it was to pay off the Union and special interest groups. >> If the money were given to small businesses, that would have picked >> up the economy. >> Big Businesses that were too big to fail, should have Failed!
> That is exactly right an it goes to the heart of the reason behind the > financial crisis and the government health care take over. Bailing out > some > of the financial industry may have been a necessary evil in the short > term, > but the real problem is that any institution is allowed to have "too big > to > fail" status.
> It's the removal of risk that initiated the crazy lending policies that > eventually infected the entire industry. Clinton arm twists the GSE's > into > buying dodgy mortgages, then lenders have no reason _not_ to crank out > sub > prime crapola loans to anyone with a heartbeat, collect the processing > fees, > then dump them on GSE's. People say that CRA loans had the same default > rate as others, but the point is that when the Government (the one > charged > with stopping lenders from doing crazy unsafe things) is in the business > of > incentivizing the housing industry into DOING unsafe things, they set the > tone of acceptability for the entire industry to say the least. Then > alll > lenders want to get into the sub prime act, the bubble is created and > inevitably bursts. The healthy fear that kept lenders from making risky > loans was removed.
> Same with GM. They ran their business into the ground, then Uncle Sam > rushes in to save their bacon at taxpayer expense. Again the removal of > risk. Now what incentive to they have to build better, run leaner or be > more innovative? Obama removed the risk. Hope is fine but fear is > important too.
> Welcome to Obama's world where there is no risk of doing it the wrong > way, > and no incentive to excel. Endless economic stagnation and moral > malaise. > I wonder where America is heading?
> Actually, I don't wonder.
> END OF THE SOVIET UNION; GORBACHEV, LAST SOVIET LEADER, RESIGNS; U.S. > RECOGNIZES REPUBLICS' INDEPENDENCE
> Published: Thursday, December 26, 1991
> Mikhail S. Gorbachev, the trailblazer of the Soviet Union's retreat from > the > cold war and the spark for the democratic reforms that ended 70 years of > Communist tyranny, told a weary, anxious nation tonight that he was > resigning as President and closing out the union.
> "I hereby discontinue my activities at the post of President of the > Union of > Soviet Socialist Republics," declared the 60-year-old politician, the > last > leader of a totalitarian empire that was undone across the six years and > nine months of his stewardship.
Shocking China Blue wrote: > In article <7VhGm.106316$Jp1.17...@en-nntp-02.dc1.easynews.com>, > "vict0r" <l...@oocom.netb> wrote:
>> Where do you stand on Cap and Trade?
>> It's a terrible bill and an example of more government regulations killing >> businesses and job growth. It will also result in higher energy costs.
> There's a fair chance we will be dead before the oil runs out; so let's ignore > that let our grandchildren deal with it. Also if there is phytoplankton mass die > off, that will be after our time and so not worth worrying about.
Lets build a space ship to get the best and brightest off the planet before a Meteor hits us again.
Pick your poison. --
*BE VERY CONCERNED*
A little liberalism like a little Liquor can be a good thing, but when Liberalism takes control, it becomes self destructive as does liquor. -Poetic-Justice-
> In article <4AECDAE6.6080...@Talk-n-dog.com>, > Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-Everyth...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote:
>> Shocking China Blue wrote: >>> In article <7VhGm.106316$Jp1.17...@en-nntp-02.dc1.easynews.com>, >>> "vict0r" <l...@oocom.netb> wrote:
>>>> Where do you stand on Cap and Trade?
>>>> It's a terrible bill and an example of more government regulations killing >>>> businesses and job growth. It will also result in higher energy costs. >>> There's a fair chance we will be dead before the oil runs out; so let's >>> ignore >>> that let our grandchildren deal with it. Also if there is phytoplankton >>> mass die >>> off, that will be after our time and so not worth worrying about.
>> Lets build a space ship to get the best and brightest off the planet >> before a Meteor hits us again.
> As far as we know there is no threat for one hundred years. One of the projects > some people do keep pushing is to catalog all earth crossing objects to
Global warming is 100 years away....
> determine whether there is threat. Have your Republican congresscritters push > for that spending. If we do find an object that will come too close, we can get > a few nuclear weapon to it and nudge it away.
We didn't see the Shoemaker-Levy Meteors that hit Jupiter till it was near the time it happened, there was no 100 year warning.
>> Pick your poison. > Like energy, earth crossers are a problem that can be solved now and would give > our descendants a safer world. Or we can ignore the threats and let our > descendants, if any, deal with them in a crisis.
We are always in a crisis.
--
*BE VERY CONCERNED*
The existing equation: GDP = C + I + G + (X - M)
Has an error that counts Government printing and Borrowing as Positive GDP when in fact it is a Negative GDP.
> In article <4AECDAE6.6080...@Talk-n-dog.com>, > Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-Everyth...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote:
>> Shocking China Blue wrote: >> > In article <7VhGm.106316$Jp1.17...@en-nntp-02.dc1.easynews.com>, >> > "vict0r" <l...@oocom.netb> wrote:
>> >> Where do you stand on Cap and Trade?
>> >> It's a terrible bill and an example of more government regulations >> >> killing >> >> businesses and job growth. It will also result in higher energy costs.
>> > There's a fair chance we will be dead before the oil runs out; so let's >> > ignore >> > that let our grandchildren deal with it. Also if there is phytoplankton >> > mass die >> > off, that will be after our time and so not worth worrying about.
>> Lets build a space ship to get the best and brightest off the planet >> before a Meteor hits us again.
> As far as we know there is no threat for one hundred years. One of the > projects > some people do keep pushing is to catalog all earth crossing objects to > determine whether there is threat. Have your Republican congresscritters > push > for that spending. If we do find an object that will come too close, we > can get > a few nuclear weapon to it and nudge it away.
That is one of the problems with this entire debate about global warming. There are other things that could happen that would have an equally devastating effect on life on earth. While we spend all of our time and effort in one area, i.e. global warming, we are not spending much time talking about other possible events that could be even more devastating. And one thing scientist are sure about, is that someday, sometime in the future, a large object from space will hit the earth, and someday, sometime in the future a super volcano will blow its top. On the other hand, there is still disagreement among scientist about whether global warming will occur or not occur. As for "nudging" an asteroid so that it won't hit the earth, the scientific community does not agree on whether that would work or not.
>>>> It's a terrible bill and an example of more government regulations >>>> killing businesses and job growth. It will also result in higher >>>> energy costs. https://www.doughoffmanforcongress.com/issues.html > ========= > I have to tell you, remember derivatives? How it help wreck our economy? > Well, Wall street is in on this Cap and Trade, why would you ask? > Wall Street is going to make trades, derivatives, *legalized gambling, > on Caps the Gov. puts on industries. This will be Trillions and Trillions, > income > for wallstreet and the government while us PEONS (that's us)will be > hurting with high electric > bill, and on every item we have to buy. We know that industry never pays > the higher cost > of operations, it is passed onto the consumers. Cap and Trade is another > gimmick disguised > as Saving the environment and these green peace digbats, that can't think > beyond their > tofu burgers, sleeping in their mother's basement, are supporting the > gimmick, in other words they are being used by the big boys , probably > unknown to their feeble brains, to make the big money haul. into their > pockets, from our pockets. > Think it over, you know I'm right. Look at all the money Gore is rolling > in after his Global Warming, hoax. > BTW Newt G is a Cap and Trade fellow, as is McCain, this crosses all party > lines, the losers, the lowly > public > .
>>>> ---
>>>> Obama Admin: Cap And Trade Could Cost Families $1,761 A Year
>>>> 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. >>>> http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/09/15/taking_liberties/entry5314040... >>> you know it was to pay off the Union and special interest groups. >>> If the money were given to small businesses, that would have picked >>> up the economy. >>> Big Businesses that were too big to fail, should have Failed!
>> That is exactly right an it goes to the heart of the reason behind the >> financial crisis and the government health care take over. Bailing out >> some of the financial industry may have been a necessary evil in the >> short term, but the real problem is that any institution is allowed to >> have "too big to fail" status.
>> It's the removal of risk that initiated the crazy lending policies that >> eventually infected the entire industry. Clinton arm twists the GSE's >> into buying dodgy mortgages, then lenders have no reason _not_ to crank >> out sub prime crapola loans to anyone with a heartbeat, collect the >> processing fees, then dump them on GSE's. People say that CRA loans had >> the same default rate as others, but the point is that when the >> Government (the one charged with stopping lenders from doing crazy unsafe >> things) is in the business of incentivizing the housing industry into >> DOING unsafe things, they set the tone of acceptability for the entire >> industry to say the least. Then alll lenders want to get into the sub >> prime act, the bubble is created and inevitably bursts. The healthy fear >> that kept lenders from making risky loans was removed.
>> Same with GM. They ran their business into the ground, then Uncle Sam >> rushes in to save their bacon at taxpayer expense. Again the removal of >> risk. Now what incentive to they have to build better, run leaner or be >> more innovative? Obama removed the risk. Hope is fine but fear is >> important too.
>> Welcome to Obama's world where there is no risk of doing it the wrong >> way, and no incentive to excel. Endless economic stagnation and moral >> malaise. I wonder where America is heading?
>> Actually, I don't wonder.
>> END OF THE SOVIET UNION; GORBACHEV, LAST SOVIET LEADER, RESIGNS; U.S. >> RECOGNIZES REPUBLICS' INDEPENDENCE
>> Published: Thursday, December 26, 1991
>> Mikhail S. Gorbachev, the trailblazer of the Soviet Union's retreat from >> the >> cold war and the spark for the democratic reforms that ended 70 years of >> Communist tyranny, told a weary, anxious nation tonight that he was >> resigning as President and closing out the union.
>> "I hereby discontinue my activities at the post of President of the Union >> of >> Soviet Socialist Republics," declared the 60-year-old politician, the >> last >> leader of a totalitarian empire that was undone across the six years and >> nine months of his stewardship.
|
