Well looks like they are about to push this through.
Seriously read the entire article then…
Discuss.
Nice unbiased link. :rolljerk:
Here, lets look at what the public thinks.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/24/AR2009062403648.html?hpid=topnews
The truth hurts, that is why people don’t bother to learn it. YAY let’s save the planet YAY! I am for it no matter what!!!
The truth as told via the wall street journal editorial page, which is just behind fox news.
Why not post an actual news article if you wanted the truth, not OPINION?
You’re funny. The DC gang could tell you the sky is falling and you would just throw money to them wouldn’t you?
The Heritage Foundation did a study, is that just right wing opinion to you?
Do you believe this is a good bill or are you just trolling?
uh, yes. Do you even know what the Heritage Foundation is?
Off their web site:
The Heritage Foundation is a conservative think tank created to formulate and promote conservative public policy research and analysis.
Yeah, thanks I get their mailings. I guess that means they don’t tell the truth.
So you like this idea then?
Speaking of biased links…
In a November 19, 2008 column, Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell stated: “I’ll bet that most Post journalists voted for Obama. I did. There are centrists at The Post as well. But the conservatives I know here feel so outnumbered that they don’t even want to be quoted by name in a memo”.
:mamoru:
They distort the facts to tell their version of the truth. If they have 50 different projection models on a given topic, you bet your balls they choose the one that most favors the desired outcome. When I took statistics in B-school, we actually had a project where you could take the same sample data, and using different statistical analyses, reach any conclusion you wanted to.
In terms of this actual idea, I can see both sides. Something has to be done, I don’t know if they got it right.
“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.”
You can’t argue with numbers.
Sure you can, you can argue them with CORRECT numbers. The Heritage Foundation analysis was way off from ANY of the several other studies done and does not account for the rebates to consumers included in the bill, only the cost side. :bloated:
http://www.reuters.com/article/gwmCarbonEmissions/idUS328745854820090625
Three analyses released over the past week confirm the bill will cost far less than some predictions, although the cost estimates vary. A U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) analysis released Tuesday concludes the overall impact of the energy efficiency provisions in the bill would cost American households between $80 and $111 per year. That breaks down to between 22 cents and 30 cents per day.
A report (PDF) released last week by the Congressional Budget Office estimated the bill would cost American households $175 per year by 2020.
Another analysis released Wednesday by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) predicted U.S. households would enjoy cumulative savings of about $1,050 by 2020 under the bill due specifically to its energy efficiency provisions; by 2030, the savings could reach $4,400. The Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit estimates the bill may generate more than 300,000 jobs from the energy efficiency provisions. By 2030, the total of new jobs could reach 770,000, according to the analysis, which only considers the energy efficiency provisions and some emissions allowances in the legislation and not the entire bill. It is also based on the newest iteration released Wednesday.
So sorry if i believe the Congressional Budget Office over a bunch of right-wing nutjobs.
Well it has also been debunked that Carbon causes global warming.
The Earth is cooler now since we are now producing 10 times the amount of carbon.
Joe answer the question. I want to know if you support this new tax based on scare tactic BS.
LOLJUAT
So CO2 is no longer a greenhouse gas?
I already told you, I don’t care. I’ll say for since I like pissing you off 
:banghead: to thinking any kind of government tax and/or economic restriction will increase economic activity and GDP.
Go read the broken window fallacy.
We will see how it helps the people of Springville when I start buying all of my parts offshore and shut down my mfg facility.
Oh, wait, they can all be doctors and lawyers.
:blah: You’d do that anyway if you could get quality parts. Now you just have an excuse.
No, now I have 1001 excuses. You forgot the NYS Gestapo factor making it as hard as possible for me to compete on top of all of the Federal reasons.
But we have great schools! Look at the NYS legislature, they are all products of NYS schools. BIG:tup: