Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Logo
Search Members FAQ Portal
  • Navigation
  • Our Hoosier Board
  • →
  • Other
  • →
  • Politics
  • →
  • Are you in favor of Cap & Trade
Welcome to Our Hoosier Board!

Most of the posters here have been around for nearly a decade now. You'll find their knowledge and insight to be second to none. We have a really strong community and value everyone's opinions.

Feel free to jump into any thread and voice your opinion with conviction. We love heated debates and even some fanbase ribbing from time to time. We pride ourselves on the lack of moderation needed to make this board successful.

Please remember that we have been around many years and have an astute ability to tell the difference between an immature, childish, trash-talking troll and a passionate fan voicing his or her opinion. It is at the discretion of Jazen and myself whether any moderating actions should be taken at any given time. It's a very, very rare thing. In other words, no worries....you'll be fine!

Cheers,
sirbrianwilson

Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
Are you in favor of Cap & Trade?
Yes 0 (0%)
No 13 (100%)
Total Votes: 13
Are you in favor of Cap & Trade
Tweet Topic Started: Jun 27 2009, 09:48 PM (277 Views)
Mr Gray Jun 27 2009, 09:48 PM Post #1
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
Cap & Trade will cost the average American family anywhere from $175/year to $11,390/year depending on who you ask, and if you are including indirect costs and inflation. None the less, it will be expensive, and much of it will result in an international transfer of wealth via taxation. It's stated goal is to encourage clean energy and reduce dependency on foreign oil, however it is certainly debatable whether or not this legislation will actually achieve that goal.

If you were in Congress last Friday, how would you have voted?
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Jun 27 2009, 11:55 PM Post #2
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
http://www.factcheck.org/politics/cap-and-trade_cost_inflation.html

I have stated in the past that I feel that the effects of global warming are overrated; but I think that the $11000 numbers are way off base.

The CBO has it at $175 by 2020; the GOP has been citing $3100/per year, but that study is being discredited by one of its' authors; even the Heritage Foundation, an ultra-conservative group, is saying it would be $1500/year by 2035.

I bring this up because I think it is important to look at the most credible sources when analyzing it. The EPA says less than $100, but obviously they want the legislation passed; the GOP has it at $3100, and they don't want it passed.

For the record, I didn't vote in the poll. The legislation is incredibly long (1200 pages) and there certainly are more details in it than will be reported by the media.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
yawnzzz Jun 28 2009, 08:16 AM Post #3
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
4,964
Group:
Members
Member
#58
Joined:
February 6, 2008
I voted no. I don't agree with the whole idea, so whether it's $1 or $1 million, my vote is no.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
IUCOLTFAN Jun 28 2009, 01:17 PM Post #4
Coach
Posts:
10,098
Group:
Members
Member
#131
Joined:
February 9, 2008
No. It really doesnt matter what the cost is. Many average americans are struggling and unemployment is still going up, more taxes of the average citizen and their employers is not a smart idea. If other industrialized nations are not onboard, it is just another way to tax the poor and give to the rich. Its nothing more than theft, just like federal income taxes.
Edited by IUCOLTFAN, Jun 28 2009, 01:18 PM.
Posted Image

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HoosierLars Jun 28 2009, 02:12 PM Post #5
Member Avatar
3 in a row
Posts:
22,916
Group:
Members
Member
#20
Joined:
February 5, 2008
brumdog44
Jun 27 2009, 11:55 PM
http://www.factcheck.org/politics/cap-and-trade_cost_inflation.html

I have stated in the past that I feel that the effects of global warming are overrated; but I think that the $11000 numbers are way off base.

The CBO has it at $175 by 2020; the GOP has been citing $3100/per year, but that study is being discredited by one of its' authors; even the Heritage Foundation, an ultra-conservative group, is saying it would be $1500/year by 2035.

I bring this up because I think it is important to look at the most credible sources when analyzing it. The EPA says less than $100, but obviously they want the legislation passed; the GOP has it at $3100, and they don't want it passed.

For the record, I didn't vote in the poll. The legislation is incredibly long (1200 pages) and there certainly are more details in it than will be reported by the media.
I didn't look at the voting record, but I doubt if Ron Paul was one of the eight.
http://ronpaulnews.net/2009/06/oppose-cap-and-trade-tax-increase-bill.html
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Jun 28 2009, 04:08 PM Post #6
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
HoosierLars
Jun 28 2009, 02:12 PM
brumdog44
Jun 27 2009, 11:55 PM
http://www.factcheck.org/politics/cap-and-trade_cost_inflation.html

I have stated in the past that I feel that the effects of global warming are overrated; but I think that the $11000 numbers are way off base.

The CBO has it at $175 by 2020; the GOP has been citing $3100/per year, but that study is being discredited by one of its' authors; even the Heritage Foundation, an ultra-conservative group, is saying it would be $1500/year by 2035.

I bring this up because I think it is important to look at the most credible sources when analyzing it. The EPA says less than $100, but obviously they want the legislation passed; the GOP has it at $3100, and they don't want it passed.

For the record, I didn't vote in the poll. The legislation is incredibly long (1200 pages) and there certainly are more details in it than will be reported by the media.
I didn't look at the voting record, but I doubt if Ron Paul was one of the eight.
http://ronpaulnews.net/2009/06/oppose-cap-and-trade-tax-increase-bill.html
I'm sure he wasn't. But to assume that someone would agree with everything one candidate would vote for is as illogical as simply just following a party's platform.

I haven't stated where I stand on it because I don't know all of the facts of the issue. I think I've already established that I don't simply follow the party line in terms of environmental issues. I think I made the clear when I was not opposed to offshore drilling.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HoosierLars Jun 28 2009, 06:24 PM Post #7
Member Avatar
3 in a row
Posts:
22,916
Group:
Members
Member
#20
Joined:
February 5, 2008
brumdog44
Jun 28 2009, 04:08 PM
HoosierLars
Jun 28 2009, 02:12 PM
brumdog44
Jun 27 2009, 11:55 PM
http://www.factcheck.org/politics/cap-and-trade_cost_inflation.html

I have stated in the past that I feel that the effects of global warming are overrated; but I think that the $11000 numbers are way off base.

The CBO has it at $175 by 2020; the GOP has been citing $3100/per year, but that study is being discredited by one of its' authors; even the Heritage Foundation, an ultra-conservative group, is saying it would be $1500/year by 2035.

I bring this up because I think it is important to look at the most credible sources when analyzing it. The EPA says less than $100, but obviously they want the legislation passed; the GOP has it at $3100, and they don't want it passed.

For the record, I didn't vote in the poll. The legislation is incredibly long (1200 pages) and there certainly are more details in it than will be reported by the media.
I didn't look at the voting record, but I doubt if Ron Paul was one of the eight.
http://ronpaulnews.net/2009/06/oppose-cap-and-trade-tax-increase-bill.html
I'm sure he wasn't. But to assume that someone would agree with everything one candidate would vote for is as illogical as simply just following a party's platform.

I haven't stated where I stand on it because I don't know all of the facts of the issue. I think I've already established that I don't simply follow the party line in terms of environmental issues. I think I made the clear when I was not opposed to offshore drilling.
The fact that conservatives and Ron Paul are against it means I would likely be against it too. That and the fact that frauds like Al Gore are 100% behind it...
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
thePhilosopher Jun 28 2009, 06:32 PM Post #8
Member Avatar
All-Star
Posts:
1,400
Group:
Members
Member
#130
Joined:
February 9, 2008
I really don't understand how Democrats can't see cap and trade/a carbon credit system will only really affect individuals, families, and small businesses. The large companies have the resources needed to buy whatever silly thing the gov't sets up in their system, and they'll simply pass those costs on to the consumer (i.e. individuals and small businesses). Meanwhile, small businesses that do not have the resources of large companies will not be able to play the game, and will either need to cut personnel or again pass their costs onto consumers. These consumers will opt for the still cheaper goods produced by the large multinationals, further hurting the small business.

Ultimately, you'll see consolidation. More companies will grow to be too big to fail, and individuals will be weakened and carry the burden of this whole green agenda. Corporations are quite good at finding loopholes, and I'm sure some system hatched up by Washington will be ripe with them. Bad, bad news all around, as far as I can see.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
thePhilosopher Jun 28 2009, 06:35 PM Post #9
Member Avatar
All-Star
Posts:
1,400
Group:
Members
Member
#130
Joined:
February 9, 2008
One more thing: when this hurts the economy (let me count the ways), capitalism will take the rap. When big companies become even bigger through the scenario I've briefly laid out, it will be said that it is a failure of free markets and capitalism, which requires even more regulation. And when that regulation has negative effects, capitalism again takes the blame, and more regulation is "required." See where this is going?
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HoosierLars Jun 28 2009, 08:19 PM Post #10
Member Avatar
3 in a row
Posts:
22,916
Group:
Members
Member
#20
Joined:
February 5, 2008
Excellent points, Phil, and I totally agree.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Jun 29 2009, 08:37 AM Post #11
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
brumdog44
Jun 27 2009, 11:55 PM
For the record, I didn't vote in the poll. The legislation is incredibly long (1200 pages) and there certainly are more details in it than will be reported by the media.
Brum, if you were in Congress last Friday, would you have voted no given how much you currently understand about the bill?
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
eelbor Jun 29 2009, 03:15 PM Post #12
Member Avatar
Zen Master
Posts:
10,606
Group:
Members
Member
#30
Joined:
February 5, 2008
Can I change my vote to yes? It is boring when everyone agrees.
Posted Image

"Liberal, shmiberal. That should be a new word. Shmiberal: one who is assumed liberal, just because he's a professional whiner in the newspaper. If you'll read the subtext for many of those old strips, you'll find the heart of an old-fashioned Libertarian. And I'd be a Libertarian, if they weren't all a bunch of tax-dodging professional whiners." - Berkeley Breathed


Meat is Murder. Sweet, delicious murder.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
thePhilosopher Jun 29 2009, 04:01 PM Post #13
Member Avatar
All-Star
Posts:
1,400
Group:
Members
Member
#130
Joined:
February 9, 2008
eelbor
Jun 29 2009, 03:15 PM
Can I change my vote to yes? It is boring when everyone agrees.
Boring? I'd opt for either terrifying or reassuring. :p
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Jul 2 2009, 05:44 PM Post #14
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
aaronk2727
Jun 29 2009, 08:37 AM
brumdog44
Jun 27 2009, 11:55 PM
For the record, I didn't vote in the poll. The legislation is incredibly long (1200 pages) and there certainly are more details in it than will be reported by the media.
Brum, if you were in Congress last Friday, would you have voted no given how much you currently understand about the bill?
bump to brum
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Jul 2 2009, 09:06 PM Post #15
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
From what I know of it, know. But what I will admit to is simply not knowing enough about it.

In NW Indiana, we have to get our car's emissions tested because of the polution that the steel mills cause....the mills simply find it more practical to pay the fines that to change their emissions. In the end, I think cap and trade doesn't really solve the problem.

Then again, I'll admit that I really am behind on this one and haven't looked into that much.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2

Track Topic · E-mail Topic Time: 7:44 PM Jul 10
Hosted for free by ZetaBoards · Privacy Policy