8 Oct
Why are people lying about the costs of the energy bill that just passed the House?
The Non-Partisan CBO says 175 dollars more per year in 2020 and EPA at 80 dollars to 110 a year and the costs will be offset by tax rebates and credits. 175 dollars a year is about 50 cents a day. A cap and trade system was put in place in 1990 Clean Air ACt to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions which was successful and was signed by President George H.W. Bush. Investing in clean energy, having more energy efficient buildings and green jobs and reducing CO2 emissions.
(I am posting this on behalf of Steelers Girl whose answer was deleted by Obama sycophants.)
Posted by Steelers Girl on 08.10.09 at 5:21 am
This is neither a LEFT or RIGHT issue.
Why did Obama and the Democrats deny putting in a "cap" on how much American tax-payers pay per year? If they project it will be an
average of $175, then why did they Deny putting in a cap of an average
of $300, or putting a STOP to the bill if unemployment reaches 15%.
There are not ANY Lies, there are 3 Sides to every story. The Democrats side, the Republicans Side and then the truth.
You need to stop looking at it from EITHER sides point, and just look at the facts, and then ask yourself the questions I put above
Posted by Blame Bush on 08.10.09 at 5:21 am
Its costs about what youd pay for a newspaper to save the planet, its a good deal
Posted by RT on 08.10.09 at 5:21 am
proof and sources please….
Posted by El Tecolote on 08.10.09 at 5:21 am
And that entire bill was carefully read by all who voted on it within the time they had allotted to them. Ha! What a joke.
That’s like saying they had plenty of time to hand-count eleven million votes within three hours in Iran.
Posted by AnneCoultersnemesis on 08.10.09 at 5:21 am
Clean Air act works too. Sulfur dioxide emission which cause acid rain has reduced those pollutants. Let’s keep going until we can get rid of our dependence on coal and oil.
This bill actually doesn’t go far enough. I’d like to see it reduce emissions by 40% by 2020 instead of 4% that it was watered down to.
Posted by 100ShotCalicoTopLoader on 08.10.09 at 5:21 am
Are you referring to Senator Obama? He lies whenever he opens his mouth.
Posted by J P on 08.10.09 at 5:21 am
The CBO study contains a footnote that explains that the $175 per year cost is only for the administrative costs of the program itself and does NOT include the effect it may have on the economy by increasing the cost of energy.
From the Wall Street Journal:
The biggest doozy in the CBO analysis was its extraordinary decision to look only at the day-to-day costs of operating a trading program, rather than the wider consequences energy restriction would have on the economy. The CBO acknowledges this in a footnote: "The resource cost does not indicate the potential decrease in gross domestic product (GDP) that could result from the cap."
Since the most important part of this debate is the effect it will have on the economy, what does it say about Democrats who continue to cite this false and misleading study which entirely omits any analysis of its effect on GDP? It’s a bare faced lie.
Posted by Joan S on 08.10.09 at 5:21 am
To bolster their point of view…as usual
Posted by dougavatar on 08.10.09 at 5:21 am
With the government there is always hidden cost to every program and other negative effects on the peoples and if you say no then you know nothing of the government!!!!!!!!!!!