Cap and Trade

Cosmo

prfctlefts wrote:

Of course The EPA is going to say that. They're part of Obama's administration. Maybe not yours but $150 is a lot of money to some families

...
Facts only:
$150.00 per year is $.41 per day.
$175.00 per year is $.47 per day.
So, in the course of a day... how can I cut out 41 to 47 cents per day? That Snickers bar or bag 'o chips i get out of the vending machine sets me back .85 per day. I think i can afford to cut that down to one, every other day. And i'm a family of one.
...
I don't know about the rest of you... but, if the cost of half a snickers bar per day will actually get us on track to real energy efficiency... I'm willing to give it a shot.

gimmesometruth27

Cosmo wrote:

prfctlefts wrote:

Of course The EPA is going to say that. They're part of Obama's administration. Maybe not yours but $150 is a lot of money to some families

...
Facts only:
$150.00 per year is $.41 per day.
$175.00 per year is $.47 per day.
So, in the course of a day... how can I cut out 41 to 47 cents per day? That Snickers bar or bag 'o chips i get out of the vending machine sets me back .85 per day. I think i can afford to cut that down to one, every other day. And i'm a family of one.
...
I don't know about the rest of you... but, if the cost of half a snickers bar per day will actually get us on track to real energy efficiency... I'm willing to give it a shot.

thanks for the info Cosmo.

i can definitely afford that. if you cut out one meal of fast food a week it will save you $40 a month to pay towards it.

Sludge Factory

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

prfctlefts wrote:

Of course The EPA is going to say that. They're part of Obama's administration. Maybe not yours but $150 is a lot of money to some families

...
Facts only:
$150.00 per year is $.41 per day.
$175.00 per year is $.47 per day.
So, in the course of a day... how can I cut out 41 to 47 cents per day? That Snickers bar or bag 'o chips i get out of the vending machine sets me back .85 per day. I think i can afford to cut that down to one, every other day. And i'm a family of one.
...
I don't know about the rest of you... but, if the cost of half a snickers bar per day will actually get us on track to real energy efficiency... I'm willing to give it a shot.

thanks for the info Cosmo.

i can definitely afford that. if you cut out one meal of fast food a week it will save you $40 a month to pay towards it.

I don't think the question should be if you can do it but, rather, should you be coerced by the federal government to do it? This is where the problem lies for many people.

VINNY GOOMBA

Sludge Factory wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

thanks for the info Cosmo.

i can definitely afford that. if you cut out one meal of fast food a week it will save you $40 a month to pay towards it.

I don't think the question should be if you can do it but, rather, should you be coerced by the federal government to do it? This is where the problem lies for many people.

Yes, and will it actually be as cheap as they say it's going to be? I sincerely doubt it. What reason do we have to believe anything our government tells us anymore? How many times do we have to be lied to before we put a stop to the bullshit? Even if they weren't outright lying about the cost, what are the chances that they've underestimated the costs completely on accident? Government on all levels have proven time and time again that budget planning is NEVER their strong point. Let's face it, they are being optimistic, as they always are when talking about taxes and costing people / companies' money. $150 a year is an absolute best case scenario.

Everyone who is talking about we the people cutting back (no matter how big or how small) is missing the point. Why is it always us who have to concede when our government spends our money about as frugally as the crackhead living under the interstate overpass would? Until the government (or the junkie) can prove that they can spend our money wisely, there is no sense in giving them any more.

Also, I would like to add that no true environmentalist should be in favor of this bill. It essentially makes pollution OK if the company in question can pay for it, and buy more carbon credits. Who are the costs going to get passed onto? The consumer. It's kind of like how the Yankees exceed the MLB salary cap every year, and pay the luxury tax. Raise the cost of caps, tickets, concessions, charge more for advertising, and it pays for itself. That is, THE CONSUMER pays for it.

Pepe Silvia

we'll continue to pay more no matter how cheap/expensive it is, the energy industry will continue to post profits and the environment will getting fucked.

it was a near worthless idea when Gore did it and it's just as ridiculous now. it's the appearance of something being done while keeping the racket going that is government

Cosmo

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

... Yes, and will it actually be as cheap as they say it's going to be? I sincerely doubt it. What reason do we have to believe anything our government tells us anymore? How many times do we have to be lied to before we put a stop to the bullshit? Even if they weren't outright lying about the cost, what are the chances that they've underestimated the costs completely on accident? Government on all levels have proven time and time again that budget planning is NEVER their strong point. Let's face it, they are being optimistic, as they always are when talking about taxes and costing people / companies' money. $150 a year is an absolute best case scenario.

Everyone who is talking about we the people cutting back (no matter how big or how small) is missing the point. Why is it always us who have to concede when our government spends our money about as frugally as the crackhead living under the interstate overpass would? Until the government (or the junkie) can prove that they can spend our money wisely, there is no sense in giving them any more.

Also, I would like to add that no true environmentalist should be in favor of this bill. It essentially makes pollution OK if the company in question can pay for it, and buy more carbon credits. Who are the costs going to get passed onto? The consumer. It's kind of like how the Yankees exceed the MLB salary cap every year, and pay the luxury tax. Raise the cost of caps, tickets, concessions, charge more for advertising, and it pays for itself. That is, THE CONSUMER pays for it.

...
How do we know whether or not it will work or fail? We don't. And is government inept? Yes... but, isn't big business just as inept? You need not look any further than General Motors, Chrysler, AIG, Lehmann Brothers, Bear Sterns, Enron, et al... The Private Sector has proven that it is incapable of regulating itself and the cosequences of their mismanagement has lead us to the brink of financial ruin. Maybe they ARE capable... but, they have a proven track record that they are unwilling.
We pay... either way. We either pay in taxes to the Government or profits to the Energy company executives. We have been conditioned to get all up in arms when it's taxes... but, why do we continually just pay the companies without protest when it's rate hikes? Either way, it's money out of pocket.

VINNY GOOMBA

Cosmo wrote:

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

... Yes, and will it actually be as cheap as they say it's going to be? I sincerely doubt it. What reason do we have to believe anything our government tells us anymore? How many times do we have to be lied to before we put a stop to the bullshit? Even if they weren't outright lying about the cost, what are the chances that they've underestimated the costs completely on accident? Government on all levels have proven time and time again that budget planning is NEVER their strong point. Let's face it, they are being optimistic, as they always are when talking about taxes and costing people / companies' money. $150 a year is an absolute best case scenario.

Everyone who is talking about we the people cutting back (no matter how big or how small) is missing the point. Why is it always us who have to concede when our government spends our money about as frugally as the crackhead living under the interstate overpass would? Until the government (or the junkie) can prove that they can spend our money wisely, there is no sense in giving them any more.

Also, I would like to add that no true environmentalist should be in favor of this bill. It essentially makes pollution OK if the company in question can pay for it, and buy more carbon credits. Who are the costs going to get passed onto? The consumer. It's kind of like how the Yankees exceed the MLB salary cap every year, and pay the luxury tax. Raise the cost of caps, tickets, concessions, charge more for advertising, and it pays for itself. That is, THE CONSUMER pays for it.

...
How do we know whether or not it will work or fail? We don't. And is government inept? Yes... but, isn't big business just as inept? You need not look any further than General Motors, Chrysler, AIG, Lehmann Brothers, Bear Sterns, Enron, et al... The Private Sector has proven that it is incapable of regulating itself and the cosequences of their mismanagement has lead us to the brink of financial ruin. Maybe they ARE capable... but, they have a proven track record that they are unwilling.
We pay... either way. We either pay in taxes to the Government or profits to the Energy company executives. We have been conditioned to get all up in arms when it's taxes... but, why do we continually just pay the companies without protest when it's rate hikes? Either way, it's money out of pocket.

Agree 100%. That's why both completely inept government and big business (or any business outside of competitive public bidding) should not be allowed to merge EVER. GM and Chrysler should have failed decades ago. Government regulations that permitted banks and investment firms to operate on fractional reserves, create derivatives, etc... are exactly what permits big business to grow to unsustainable size in the first place. When they are on the verge of failing, the end results are catastrophic, so what choices are we left with? Bail them out, or watch the whole (fake) "backbone" of our economy come crashing down?

And of course we get all up in arms when it comes in the form of taxes. It's always a tax. Who's at the top of this pyramid with cap and trade? It's the government. Companies will be pocketing their fair share as well, but you can't take away the fact that it begins with the government.

And again, on principle, this may not even eliminate our environmental problems. Someone posted what Kucinich said about the whole thing, I like his take on it, for the most part.

Sludge Factory

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

... Yes, and will it actually be as cheap as they say it's going to be? I sincerely doubt it. What reason do we have to believe anything our government tells us anymore? How many times do we have to be lied to before we put a stop to the bullshit? Even if they weren't outright lying about the cost, what are the chances that they've underestimated the costs completely on accident? Government on all levels have proven time and time again that budget planning is NEVER their strong point. Let's face it, they are being optimistic, as they always are when talking about taxes and costing people / companies' money. $150 a year is an absolute best case scenario.

Everyone who is talking about we the people cutting back (no matter how big or how small) is missing the point. Why is it always us who have to concede when our government spends our money about as frugally as the crackhead living under the interstate overpass would? Until the government (or the junkie) can prove that they can spend our money wisely, there is no sense in giving them any more.

Also, I would like to add that no true environmentalist should be in favor of this bill. It essentially makes pollution OK if the company in question can pay for it, and buy more carbon credits. Who are the costs going to get passed onto? The consumer. It's kind of like how the Yankees exceed the MLB salary cap every year, and pay the luxury tax. Raise the cost of caps, tickets, concessions, charge more for advertising, and it pays for itself. That is, THE CONSUMER pays for it.

...
How do we know whether or not it will work or fail? We don't. And is government inept? Yes... but, isn't big business just as inept? You need not look any further than General Motors, Chrysler, AIG, Lehmann Brothers, Bear Sterns, Enron, et al... The Private Sector has proven that it is incapable of regulating itself and the cosequences of their mismanagement has lead us to the brink of financial ruin. Maybe they ARE capable... but, they have a proven track record that they are unwilling.
We pay... either way. We either pay in taxes to the Government or profits to the Energy company executives. We have been conditioned to get all up in arms when it's taxes... but, why do we continually just pay the companies without protest when it's rate hikes? Either way, it's money out of pocket.

Agree 100%. That's why both completely inept government and big business (or any business outside of competitive public bidding) should not be allowed to merge EVER. GM and Chrysler should have failed decades ago. Government regulations that permitted banks and investment firms to operate on fractional reserves, create derivatives, etc... are exactly what permits big business to grow to unsustainable size in the first place. When they are on the verge of failing, the end results are catastrophic, so what choices are we left with? Bail them out, or watch the whole (fake) "backbone" of our economy come crashing down?

And of course we get all up in arms when it comes in the form of taxes. It's always a tax. Who's at the top of this pyramid with cap and trade? It's the government. Companies will be pocketing their fair share as well, but you can't take away the fact that it begins with the government.

And again, on principle, this may not even eliminate our environmental problems. Someone posted what Kucinich said about the whole thing, I like his take on it, for the most part.

You guys both hit the nail on the fucking head so hard...so hard