The meaning of the 2009 elections - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Cimarron29414 · 11-05-2009, 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dippin

Having to argue with people's feelings and what they think are their recollections can be tiring.

Here's the info you are looking for:

Cap And Trade Will Cost Households Just $175 Annually

And here's the info on taxes:

Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP

One year increases in spending are nothing compared to tax cuts without corresponding spending cuts in the long run.

Alright Derwood and dippin, here it is:

http://www.openmarket.org/wp-content...2009-09-11.PDF

This is from the Department of the Treasury. In the overview, the administration says federal tax receipts from the program will generate $100 to $200 Billion annual revenue. Divided among TAX PAYERS, that is $1761 / per year - which is the equivalent of an average 15% increase in federal income taxes.

---------- Post added at 11:10 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:39 AM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

I'm talking about the bigger picture. Those things you buy with the money in your pocket...the factors that go into their production have far-reaching implications. It's not about balancing personal budgets; it's about how Americans have had it good in terms of globalization. This whole cap & trade is just one of many factors. The American way of life will only get more expensive and out of reach as time goes on.

I am framing this response specifically to production/consumption of consumer goods, since that is what you brought up. As I see it, there is a problem with your assertion: because Americans are considered the end user or consumer of these goods - the environmentalists consider us the sole criminal in the pollution of the Mother. This is incredibly unfair. For 50 years, we have gotten a huge percentage of our goods from other nations. Those nations "could have" produced those products in an environmentally friendly method. To say that those who demand the goods are the reason for the environmental damage as opposed to those who actually produced those goods is unjust. I say this in response to the fact that many of these measures used to punish America for its way of life does not apply to those other countries who were, at very least, complicit in the pollution.

Baraka_Guru · 11-05-2009, 08:42 AM

This doesn't change the fact that it will be more expensive to make things more environmental, it will be more expensive when labour gets more costly, it will be more expensive when energy gets more costly...resources more costly....etc. It doesn't matter how complicit or not the end user is in the environmental matters of producers. The end user will need to pay more if it will generally cost more to produce.

America's way of life will be punished mostly by the market. And there is little that government can do to stop it. Raising taxes, making cuts. Either way, it won't make anyone happy.

dippin · 11-05-2009, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

Alright Derwood and dippin, here it is:

http://www.openmarket.org/wp-content...2009-09-11.PDF

This is from the Department of the Treasury. In the overview, the administration says federal tax receipts from the program will generate $100 to $200 Billion annual revenue. Divided among TAX PAYERS, that is $1761 / per year - which is the equivalent of an average 15% increase in federal income taxes.

So taking the higher number (from an internal memo based on 9 month old information) of what could be the revenue and simply dividing it among tax payers, even though this isnt a direct tax and everyone would have to pay the costs, reach a number that is quite a bit less than what you said originally?

And fyi, no, that is not how you calculate the cost of the program to the average person. You have to take into account the economic impacts of higher costs, the benefits of additional investments, how much of the costs will be diluted in the exports of good produced in the US, and so on. Because yes, the US exports quite a bit of what it produces, so the costs of this program will affect people outside the US as well.

That is why the latest official word on the costs of the program come from the CBO, which puts the cost at 175 per person. You might not like it, you might prefer the heritage foundation estimates, but that is what the administration has estimated the cost to be.

Aladdin Sane · 11-05-2009, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djtestudo

That's almost Shakespearean in it's awesomeness as an insult.

Insult? Was it? I suppose I should spend time watching those movies. Besides, I was under the impression insulting fellow TFP'er was not permitted. Or is it?

Cimarron29414 · 11-05-2009, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dippin

So taking the higher number (from an internal memo based on 9 month old information) of what could be the revenue and simply dividing it among tax payers, even though this isnt a direct tax and everyone would have to pay the costs, reach a number that is quite a bit less than what you said originally?

And fyi, no, that is not how you calculate the cost of the program to the average person. You have to take into account the economic impacts of higher costs, the benefits of additional investments, how much of the costs will be diluted in the exports of good produced in the US, and so on. Because yes, the US exports quite a bit of what it produces, so the costs of this program will affect people outside the US as well.

That is why the latest official word on the costs of the program come from the CBO, which puts the cost at 175 per person. You might not like it, you might prefer the heritage foundation estimates, but that is what the administration has estimated the cost to be.

As an aside, the only reason it is 9 month old information is because it required a freedom of information act to get. It is based on the Bill which was written back then and passed the House 3 or 4 months back - so you are really being quite nitpicky, but that's just what you do.

I don't know what the Heritage Foundation is. I will look it up.

Finally, your number...I mean the CBO's number...times 300M people = $52.5B in federal tax receipts. Of course, you are assuming our government will actually COLLECT $175 from every person which is absurd, but even if they do: Somehow, you think that the other $147.5B is going to be made up in export tariffs and increase in prices to foreign consumers?? I'm the one that's not based in reality? Hmm.

---------- Post added at 01:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:12 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

This doesn't change the fact that it will be more expensive to make things more environmental, it will be more expensive when labour gets more costly, it will be more expensive when energy gets more costly...resources more costly....etc. It doesn't matter how complicit or not the end user is in the environmental matters of producers. The end user will need to pay more if it will generally cost more to produce.

America's way of life will be punished mostly by the market. And there is little that government can do to stop it. Raising taxes, making cuts. Either way, it won't make anyone happy.

I agree with everything you said. However, as far as the Cap and Trade bill goes - it represents a tax directly on the American people and American production. At the consumer level, it represents our government sticking it to us for buying goods that were not made in America under the standards that they(the environmentalists and the government) expect. Doesn't that seem unjust? As far as American production is concerned, the companies will do what they have always done - move to a place they can make money. So on the American production side, the environment will actually get worse since the standards where the production will move will be less than what the U.S. currently has.

dippin · 11-05-2009, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

As an aside, the only reason it is 9 month old information is because it required a freedom of information act to get. It is based on the Bill which was written back then and passed the House 3 or 4 months back - so you are really being quite nitpicky, but that's just what you do.

I don't know what the Heritage Foundation is. I will look it up.

Finally, your number...I mean the CBO's number...times 300M people = $52.5B in federal tax receipts. Of course, you are assuming our government will actually COLLECT $175 from every person which is absurd, but even if they do: Somehow, you think that the other $147.5B is going to be made up in export tariffs and increase in prices to foreign consumers?? I'm the one that's not based in reality? Hmm.

It is not nitpicking. It is pointing out the dishonesty of choosing the high range of a possible number mentioned in a memo without any backing from 9 months ago over the actual report from the CBO that addresses this issue.

And it seems like you have absolutely no idea how the cap and trade works. The government will not be collecting anything directly from the tax payer. It will sell carbon permits to companies. How much of that the company will pass on to the consumer is up to the companies. And since this companies trade on the global market, at least part of them live outside the US. So it has nothing to do with tariffs.

Cimarron29414 · 11-05-2009, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dippin

It is not nitpicking. It is pointing out the dishonesty of choosing the high range of a possible number mentioned in a memo without any backing from 9 months ago over the actual report from the CBO that addresses this issue.

And it seems like you have absolutely no idea how the cap and trade works. The government will not be collecting anything directly from the tax payer. It will sell carbon permits to companies. How much of that the company will pass on to the consumer is up to the companies. And since this companies trade on the global market, at least part of them live outside the US. So it has nothing to do with tariffs.

Bullshit. The memo addresses the bill which congress voted on. If they are saying the bill is deficit neutral, then they HAVE to get the $200B from somewhere, so it's fair game to use it in my example.

I know exactly how cap and trade works. You imply that a company will absorb the costs out of the goodness of their hearts and not pass it on to their customers as a way to ridiculously counter that this bill isn't going to mean significantly less money in MY pocket. Who are these mythical people that will pay it, if not us? When coal electric plants pay 90% more taxes, you think they are just going to eat that price as the "cost of doing business"? When they build the nuclear plant to replace the coal plant, do you think it's going to be paid for through the American exports to the Chinese or French consumer? Ridiculous.

I know you are not naive, so one can only assume you are deliberately being dishonest in your support of the bill. Spend, spend, spend. It's always someone else's money.

Tying this all back up, my original assertion was that people would vote for a governor who was going to give them some of their state taxes back, since they believe they are going to pay (in my opinion) the equivalent of 20% more to the feds soon enough. Whether I pay my electric company so they can pay the feds doesn't change the fact that I paid it to the feds. I still have $175 to $1761 less dollars in my pocket and we are absolutely no closer to solving this global warming hoax than we were before they made it up in order to grow government and control the people.

dippin · 11-05-2009, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

Bullshit. The memo addresses the bill which congress voted on. If they are saying the bill is deficit neutral, then they HAVE to get the $200B from somewhere, so it's fair game to use it in my example.

I know exactly how cap and trade works. You imply that a company will absorb the costs out of the goodness of their hearts and not pass it on to their customers as a way to ridiculously counter that this bill isn't going to mean significantly less money in MY pocket. Who are these mythical people that will pay it, if not us? When coal electric plants pay 90% more taxes, you think they are just going to eat that price as the "cost of doing business"? When they build the nuclear plant to replace the coal plant, do you think it's going to be paid for through the American exports to the Chinese or French consumer? Ridiculous.

I know you are not naive, so one can only assume you are deliberately being dishonest in your support of the bill. Spend, spend, spend. It's always someone else's money.

Tying this all back up, my original assertion was that people would vote for a governor who was going to give them some of their state taxes back, since they believe they are going to pay (in my opinion) the equivalent of 20% more to the feds soon enough. Whether I pay my electric company so they can pay the feds doesn't change the fact that I paid it to the feds. I still have $175 to $1761 less dollars in my pocket and we are absolutely no closer to solving this global warming hoax than we were before they made it up in order to grow government and control the people.

Which reality do you live on?
You do know that cap and trade hasn't been voted on yet, right?

That what they had was a budget proposal that included some sort of cap and trade as generating revenue in the future. And that no one has ever claimed that it would be "deficit neutral" because it was never supposed to be.

And I never said that the companies would not pass the cost on to the consumer, but how much of it they would pass on to the American consumer (as opposed to foreign consumers, and as opposed to how much they would rather invest in alternative technology) is not a simple matter of dividing the proposed revenue by the number of tax payers.

And if I am being dishonest, prove it, back it up with something more than the bullshit you have been spewing so far. By your own admissions your 20% number was bullshit. And to reach your "15%" number, you had to get a non technical internal memo, choose the higher number of a range given and in a completely nonsensical manner divide it by the number of taxpayers, ignoring completely that the economy doesn't work like that. And then you completely ignore the technical report that actually looks at the dynamics of how it works. And even then you are just wrong. If it generates 200billion a year, current federal tax revenue is a bit over 2 trillion. You do the math.

And I never said anything about supporting cap and trade in its current form, I merely pointed out how much bullshit you are saying about its costs.

Cimarron29414 · 11-05-2009, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dippin

Which reality do you live on?
You do know that cap and trade hasn't been voted on yet, right?

That what they had was a budget proposal that included some sort of cap and trade as generating revenue in the future. And that no one has ever claimed that it would be "deficit neutral" because it was never supposed to be.

And I never said that the companies would not pass the cost on to the consumer, but how much of it they would pass on to the American consumer (as opposed to foreign consumers, and as opposed to how much they would rather invest in alternative technology) is not a simple matter of dividing the proposed revenue by the number of tax payers.

And if I am being dishonest, prove it, back it up with something more than the bullshit you have been spewing so far. By your own admissions your 20% number was bullshit. And to reach your "15%" number, you had to get a non technical internal memo, choose the higher number of a range given and in a completely nonsensical manner divide it by the number of taxpayers, ignoring completely that the economy doesn't work like that. And then you completely ignore the technical report that actually looks at the dynamics of how it works.

And I never said anything about supporting cap and trade in its current form, I merely pointed out how much bullshit you are saying about its costs.

Cap and trade has been voted on in the House. It was approved on June 26,2009. Suck it.

http://energycommerce.house.gov/Pres...usesummary.pdf

I used the phrase "deficit neutral" instead of "fully funded". Any bill should be both, and this bill is neither. Again, it's somebody else's money so who cares, right?

You take the lowest possible number which can be found in support cap and trade and minimize its expense to the consumer. I take a higher number (not even the highest I have seen) to show why it will hurt Americans and an economic recovery. Yet somehow, in your mind what I am doing is worse than what you are doing.

dippin, you can not read that cap and trade bill and conclude that the actual cost to you, dippin, is going to be $175 per year. If you want to talk about honesty and bullshit, start by being honest with yourself.

dippin · 11-05-2009, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

Cap and trade has been voted on in the House.

I used the phrase "deficit neutral" instead of "fully funded". Any bill should be both, and this bill is neither. Again, it's somebody else's money so who cares, right?

You take the lowest possible number which can be found in support cap and trade and minimize its expense to the consumer. I take a higher number (not even the highest I have seen) to show why it will hurt Americans and an economic recovery. Yet somehow, in your mind what I am doing is worse than what you are doing.

dippin, you can not read that cap and trade bill and conclude that the actual cost to you, dippin, is going to be $175 per year. If you want to talk about honesty and bullshit, start by being honest with yourself.

I am sorry, but this is hopeless. The whole point of the bill is that it is not deficit neutral. And the "fully funded" part is incredibly puzzling to me, since this is a bill that is not about government spending, but about government revenue. I think you don't really understand these concepts.

And I am not taking the lowest possible number, as I am not basing anything I said on that memo. I am simply saying that every single figure you've quoted so far is a lie that has no basis on anything. The 20% tax increase, the 15% tax increase.

As far as me concluding what the cost of cap and trade for me will be, so far the only reliable figure Ive seen is the projection from the non-partisan CBO projection. And so far no one has given me a good reason not to trust that.

So if you want to keep talking about honesty, why don't you back it up with something?

---------- Post added at 01:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:14 PM ----------

Great job on the edit.
Suck it? Is that really your tone from now on?

The house passed the bill, that now has to go to the senate and then back to the house before it is really approved by congress (and it is modified by both houses, so unless that memo was written by someone who is clairvoyant). You know, that bicameral institution that includes both the house and the senate?

I am done with you. Your dishonesty knows no bounds. I am sure mods will soon take action here, but on my part I give up.

Cimarron29414 · 11-05-2009, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dippin

I am sorry, but this is hopeless. The whole point of the bill is that it is not deficit neutral. And the "fully funded" part is incredibly puzzling to me, since this is a bill that is not about government spending, but about government revenue. I think you don't really understand these concepts.

And I am not taking the lowest possible number, as I am not basing anything I said on that memo. I am simply saying that every single figure you've quoted so far is a lie that has no basis on anything. The 20% tax increase, the 15% tax increase.

As far as me concluding what the cost of cap and trade for me will be, so far the only reliable figure Ive seen is the projection from the non-partisan CBO projection. And so far no one has given me a good reason not to trust that.

So if you want to keep talking about honesty, why don't you back it up with something?

---------- Post added at 01:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:14 PM ----------

Great job on the edit.
Suck it? Is that really your tone from now on?

The house passed the bill, that now has to go to the senate and then back to the house before it is really approved by congress. You know, that bicameral institution that includes both the house and the senate?

I am done with you. Your dishonesty knows no bounds. I am sure mods will soon take action here, but on my part I give up.

Really, so this is simply the Federal Government taking $200B from the people and doing exactly WHAT with it? If that is the case, it doesn't offend you that your government would just TAKE $175 from you for NOTHING?

Ah, so you conceed that the bill has been voted on. Great, that's all I wanted after you insulted me by asking me if I am in reality. The "suck it" was "suck on this PDF". Welcome to the "reality" that I was being perfectly honest and you didn't know what you were talking about.

I am aware that the bill has to go to the Senate. A portion of the Senate version left committee today, but I am sure you already knew that too.

Senate panel approves Democratic climate bill | Politics | Reuters

I am also aware of the process by which a bill becomes a law, but thanks for the refresher.

It amuses me that a number that I pulled from the Department of the Treasury is a made up number and the CBO number is engraved in stone. My "dishonesty" is fractional compared to the dishonesty of attempting to convince people this will cost a mere $175. None of that changes the fact that people can see this coming and will mitigate their tax obligation at the state level in preparation of greater taxes on the federal level.

Derwood · 11-05-2009, 01:44 PM

Unless the government asks every taxpayer to send them a check for $175, your methodology is dishonest. You can't treat every tax payer the same (as a taxee or a spender). It's amazingly over-simplified and completely intellectually dishonest.

dippin · 11-05-2009, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

It amuses me that a number that I pulled from the Department of the Treasury is a made up number and the CBO number is engraved in stone. My "dishonesty" is fractional compared to the dishonesty of attempting to convince people this will cost a mere $175. None of that changes the fact that people can see this coming and will mitigate their tax obligation at the state level in preparation of greater taxes on the federal level.

I didn't question whether that memo had the right figures. I mentioned that it was outdated, non-technical, and that it was dishonest to pick the high value. I also questioned your 20%... err... 15% estimates, which you still have not provided any support for, and, according to even your own numbers and your own math are wrong. In other words, even nitpicking sources and values, and using your own "methodology," you are still full of crap.

Is the $175 correct? Maybe, maybe not. But it is certainly a much better projection than pulling numbers out of one's ass.

Cimarron29414 · 11-05-2009, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dippin

I didn't question whether that memo had the right figures. I mentioned that it was outdated, non-technical, and that it was dishonest to pick the high value. I also questioned your 20%... err... 15% estimates, which you still have not provided any support for, and, according to even your own numbers and your own math are wrong. In other words, even nitpicking sources and values, and using your own "methodology," you are still full of crap.

Is the $175 correct? Maybe, maybe not. But it is certainly a much better projection than pulling numbers out of one's ass.

Tell you what, I will look at HR 2454 and see if I can determine just how much revenue they intend to collect from "the people". That will clear up the whole argument, eh?

I wish you good health. I hope that 10 years from now I can say "You were right dippin, my federal taxes did not go up by 20%." However, I believe they will if cap and trade, healthcare reform, and all the other measures the federal government is proposing pass. If 10 years from now, that's not the case - I will happily admit I am wrong. I don't have a problem admitting that, never have on here. Just like you happily admitted you were wrong about it being voted on...oh, wait...

11-05-2009, 08:42 AM	#42 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	This doesn't change the fact that it will be more expensive to make things more environmental, it will be more expensive when labour gets more costly, it will be more expensive when energy gets more costly...resources more costly....etc. It doesn't matter how complicit or not the end user is in the environmental matters of producers. The end user will need to pay more if it will generally cost more to produce. America's way of life will be punished mostly by the market. And there is little that government can do to stop it. Raising taxes, making cuts. Either way, it won't make anyone happy. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

11-05-2009, 01:44 PM	#52 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	Unless the government asks every taxpayer to send them a check for $175, your methodology is dishonest. You can't treat every tax payer the same (as a taxee or a spender). It's amazingly over-simplified and completely intellectually dishonest.