[luchabee]

Actually, based on additional estimates I have seen, albeit from conservative/libertarian groups like Heritage, it may lead to the loss of over 1,000,000 jobs in the US.

Moreover, actual net costs for households may be as high as $1,600 based on the Washington Post article.

I’m sure the estimates from proponents, however, are right on target. The government never underestimates the costs of any program, right?

Besides what is $175 to a working class family in CA who is fighting foreclosure and a possible job loss? So does the left ever think this stuff adds up? Loss of a state child exemption here, $175 there, a car tax, there, maybe a national value added tax, too. After a while, we are talking about real money and then, suddenly, every state turns into California.

[luchabee]

Actually, based on additional estimates I have seen, albeit from conservative/libertarian groups like Heritage, it may lead to the loss of over 1,000,000 jobs in the US.

Moreover, actual net costs for households may be as high as $1,600 based on the Washington Post article.

I’m sure the estimates from proponents, however, are right on target. The government never underestimates the costs of any program, right?

Besides what is $175 to a working class family in CA who is fighting foreclosure and a possible job loss? So does the left ever think this stuff adds up? Loss of a state child exemption here, $175 there, a car tax, there, maybe a national value added tax, too. After a while, we are talking about real money and then, suddenly, every state turns into California.

[luchabee]

Actually, based on additional estimates I have seen, albeit from conservative/libertarian groups like Heritage, it may lead to the loss of over 1,000,000 jobs in the US.

Moreover, actual net costs for households may be as high as $1,600 based on the Washington Post article.

I’m sure the estimates from proponents, however, are right on target. The government never underestimates the costs of any program, right?

Besides what is $175 to a working class family in CA who is fighting foreclosure and a possible job loss? So does the left ever think this stuff adds up? Loss of a state child exemption here, $175 there, a car tax, there, maybe a national value added tax, too. After a while, we are talking about real money and then, suddenly, every state turns into California.

[luchabee]

Actually, based on additional estimates I have seen, albeit from conservative/libertarian groups like Heritage, it may lead to the loss of over 1,000,000 jobs in the US.

Moreover, actual net costs for households may be as high as $1,600 based on the Washington Post article.

I’m sure the estimates from proponents, however, are right on target. The government never underestimates the costs of any program, right?

Besides what is $175 to a working class family in CA who is fighting foreclosure and a possible job loss? So does the left ever think this stuff adds up? Loss of a state child exemption here, $175 there, a car tax, there, maybe a national value added tax, too. After a while, we are talking about real money and then, suddenly, every state turns into California.

[luchabee]

Actually, based on additional estimates I have seen, albeit from conservative/libertarian groups like Heritage, it may lead to the loss of over 1,000,000 jobs in the US.

Moreover, actual net costs for households may be as high as $1,600 based on the Washington Post article.

I’m sure the estimates from proponents, however, are right on target. The government never underestimates the costs of any program, right?

Besides what is $175 to a working class family in CA who is fighting foreclosure and a possible job loss? So does the left ever think this stuff adds up? Loss of a state child exemption here, $175 there, a car tax, there, maybe a national value added tax, too. After a while, we are talking about real money and then, suddenly, every state turns into California.

[luchabee]

Or perhaps more taxes passed on to the American household:

From the Washington Post:

The Congressional Budget Office recently estimated that the resulting increases in consumer prices needed to achieve a 15 percent CO2 reduction — slightly less than the Waxman-Markey target — would raise the cost of living of a typical household by $1,600 a year. Some expert studies estimate that the cost to households could be substantially higher. The future cost to the typical household would rise significantly as the government reduces the total allowable amount of CO2.

Americans should ask themselves whether this annual tax of $1,600-plus per family is justified by the very small resulting decline in global CO2. Since the U.S. share of global CO2 production is now less than 25 percent (and is projected to decline as China and other developing nations grow), a 15 percent fall in U.S. CO2 output would lower global CO2 output by less than 4 percent. Its impact on global warming would be virtually unnoticeable. The U.S. should wait until there is a global agreement on CO2 that includes China and India before committing to costly reductions in the United States.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/31/AR2009053102077.html

[luchabee]

Or perhaps more taxes passed on to the American household:

From the Washington Post:

The Congressional Budget Office recently estimated that the resulting increases in consumer prices needed to achieve a 15 percent CO2 reduction — slightly less than the Waxman-Markey target — would raise the cost of living of a typical household by $1,600 a year. Some expert studies estimate that the cost to households could be substantially higher. The future cost to the typical household would rise significantly as the government reduces the total allowable amount of CO2.

Americans should ask themselves whether this annual tax of $1,600-plus per family is justified by the very small resulting decline in global CO2. Since the U.S. share of global CO2 production is now less than 25 percent (and is projected to decline as China and other developing nations grow), a 15 percent fall in U.S. CO2 output would lower global CO2 output by less than 4 percent. Its impact on global warming would be virtually unnoticeable. The U.S. should wait until there is a global agreement on CO2 that includes China and India before committing to costly reductions in the United States.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/31/AR2009053102077.html

[luchabee]

Or perhaps more taxes passed on to the American household:

From the Washington Post:

The Congressional Budget Office recently estimated that the resulting increases in consumer prices needed to achieve a 15 percent CO2 reduction — slightly less than the Waxman-Markey target — would raise the cost of living of a typical household by $1,600 a year. Some expert studies estimate that the cost to households could be substantially higher. The future cost to the typical household would rise significantly as the government reduces the total allowable amount of CO2.

Americans should ask themselves whether this annual tax of $1,600-plus per family is justified by the very small resulting decline in global CO2. Since the U.S. share of global CO2 production is now less than 25 percent (and is projected to decline as China and other developing nations grow), a 15 percent fall in U.S. CO2 output would lower global CO2 output by less than 4 percent. Its impact on global warming would be virtually unnoticeable. The U.S. should wait until there is a global agreement on CO2 that includes China and India before committing to costly reductions in the United States.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/31/AR2009053102077.html

[luchabee]

Or perhaps more taxes passed on to the American household:

From the Washington Post:

The Congressional Budget Office recently estimated that the resulting increases in consumer prices needed to achieve a 15 percent CO2 reduction — slightly less than the Waxman-Markey target — would raise the cost of living of a typical household by $1,600 a year. Some expert studies estimate that the cost to households could be substantially higher. The future cost to the typical household would rise significantly as the government reduces the total allowable amount of CO2.

Americans should ask themselves whether this annual tax of $1,600-plus per family is justified by the very small resulting decline in global CO2. Since the U.S. share of global CO2 production is now less than 25 percent (and is projected to decline as China and other developing nations grow), a 15 percent fall in U.S. CO2 output would lower global CO2 output by less than 4 percent. Its impact on global warming would be virtually unnoticeable. The U.S. should wait until there is a global agreement on CO2 that includes China and India before committing to costly reductions in the United States.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/31/AR2009053102077.html

[luchabee]

Or perhaps more taxes passed on to the American household:

From the Washington Post:

The Congressional Budget Office recently estimated that the resulting increases in consumer prices needed to achieve a 15 percent CO2 reduction — slightly less than the Waxman-Markey target — would raise the cost of living of a typical household by $1,600 a year. Some expert studies estimate that the cost to households could be substantially higher. The future cost to the typical household would rise significantly as the government reduces the total allowable amount of CO2.

Americans should ask themselves whether this annual tax of $1,600-plus per family is justified by the very small resulting decline in global CO2. Since the U.S. share of global CO2 production is now less than 25 percent (and is projected to decline as China and other developing nations grow), a 15 percent fall in U.S. CO2 output would lower global CO2 output by less than 4 percent. Its impact on global warming would be virtually unnoticeable. The U.S. should wait until there is a global agreement on CO2 that includes China and India before committing to costly reductions in the United States.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/31/AR2009053102077.html

[luchabee]

JPJones: And Why? Perhaps you didn’t read the critical comments by Krugman, et. al . . .

[luchabee]

JPJones: And Why? Perhaps you didn’t read the critical comments by Krugman, et. al . . .

[luchabee]

JPJones: And Why? Perhaps you didn’t read the critical comments by Krugman, et. al . . .

[luchabee]

JPJones: And Why? Perhaps you didn’t read the critical comments by Krugman, et. al . . .

[luchabee]

JPJones: And Why? Perhaps you didn’t read the critical comments by Krugman, et. al . . .

[Author]

Posts