White House Admits Cap-And-Trade Tax Costs Triple Their Official Estimate (Obama, 2009)

[user_id]

Originally Posted by tonyandclaire89

...Im seriously thinking of leaving the country and im not the only one...

Don't let the door hit you in the butt.

[floridasandy]

i bet most people don't know that more bailouts are in the cap and trade:

Bailout Watch 566: DOE Seeks $25 Billion More for Retooling, EVs | The Truth About Cars

The funds are buried inside the 1200-page American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (a.k.a. climate change bill), currently earmarked for Senate debate (so to speak). Whatever. The new funds will bring the total auto industry bailout ever-closer to the $200 billion mark. Anyway, should the legislation pass muster, the entire electric vehicle industry—from manufacturers to fleet buyers—will feel the love.

someone should do a poll on how many americans actually want to buy an electric car before they start throwing taxpayer money at it.

[cobolt]

What happened to the people being able to review these bills for 5 days before they go up for a vote? When people are adding 300 page ammendments at 3am, how is this possible? Where is that transparency?

[HappyTexan]

Originally Posted by cobolt

What happened to the people being able to review these bills for 5 days before they go up for a vote? When people are adding 300 page ammendments at 3am, how is this possible? Where is that transparency?

LOL..the reps voting on this bill didn't even get to review it.

No one can accuse our government of sitting on something too long now, can they ?

Why they may just vote on healthcare reform before the original bill is drafted. Why wait for it to be on paper ?

[HappyTexan]

Originally Posted by cobolt

Where is that transparency?

Oh the transparency is there alright, just not the transparency you thought it would be.

Should now be obvious that they didn't read the bill nor get time to read the amendment and only the Republicans complained and were bashed for it.

Should now be obvious that votes were bought as certain members of the House thanked Waxman on the air for funding their projects.

Should now be obvious that this will benefit the wrong people. (When has big business ever been FOR a regulation bill ?)

See, this is very transparent.

[Philip T]

Originally Posted by user_id

Don't let the door hit you in the butt.

Yep, what user_id said.

[Kaye02]

I'm kind of confused. Business that pollute above the specified amount will probably raise their prices, right? However, businesses that produce less pollution could make money off of those that pollute more, right? So, the businesses that produce less pollution could actually lower their prices to the customer, could they not? Maybe I'm misunderstanding.

[sonarrat]

Originally Posted by Kaye02

I'm kind of confused. Business that pollute above the specified amount will probably raise their prices, right? However, businesses that produce less pollution could make money off of those that pollute more, right? So, the businesses that produce less pollution could actually lower their prices to the customer, could they not? Maybe I'm misunderstanding.

Let's take PG&E here in California.. there is no way in the world they're ever going to be able to come into line, as a company. But they are our only provider of natural gas and electric service. So it's a foregone conclusion that they'll be levied huge fines which will be passed directly onto every Californian.

[reverse]

Originally Posted by Kaye02

I'm kind of confused. Business that pollute above the specified amount will probably raise their prices, right? However, businesses that produce less pollution could make money off of those that pollute more, right? So, the businesses that produce less pollution could actually lower their prices to the customer, could they not? Maybe I'm misunderstanding.

This would be the gist of what you're wondering...

Business A pollutes more than Business B but they make a competing product which they both sell at the same price currently. Enter cap and trade, now Business A needs to buy the rights to pollute more than Business B therefore causing its costs to go up. Now that Business A has higher costs, it can't sell the product at the same price and will now raise it.

Business B has no extra costs due to less pollution and has sold it's extra carbon credits to Business A therefore getting extra capital. Now that Business A has higher costs, Business B's product looks to be the better deal since it cost less. So no need to lower the price since it's already cheaper but they still make the same profit as before plus the extra money they got from Business A.

Now when you're forced to buy from a certain company (in my case I can't choose utility companies), you have no choice but to pay the extra cost that the company endures since there is no competitor. So in that case, the consumer has to pay extra because the company will just shift these fines/costs to the consumer.

I'm all for reducing pollution but this is a horrible idea to say the least as it only hurts the consumer with no end in sight.

[HappyTexan]

If you can make money off pollution, not getting rid of it, then why ever get rid of it ?