Fox's Camerota pushes bogus stat that cap-and-trade would cost "every American family $1,761 annually"
September 30, 2009 2:52 pm ET
From the September 30 edition of Fox News' The Live Desk:
Expand All
Expand 1st Level
Collapse All
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
The Friday Rush: A series of conflicts
Contrary to media hype, Sarah Palin is very unpopular
Obamma has said in a interview with the San Fransisco paper that "energy price will have to skyrocket" plus he said "if someone wants to build a coal plant they will go broke trying because it will cost too much". Those are his words in a interview now i ask you why would he say that???
but any way here is a link to the coal comment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMwBbl6RoIs&feature=related and
the skyrocketing electric rates:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlTxGHn4sH4&feature=related
Please watch with your own eyes and you will see that I don't lie
When CFCs were found to be damaging to our environment, a government ban of it's use was found and every industry fought it, claiming how detrimental it will be to our economy but in the end we all survived.
Alarmist rhetoric is the mainstay for those who profit from the status quo, regardless of the effect of the status quo to our environment and economy.
If cap and trade passes we all will be paying a fortune for our utilities, because the companies will not just pay the tax they will pass it on to the consumer. Again the government is sticking its nose into something it know nothing about but refuses to admit it.
The government does not have all the answers nor will it solve all of our problems when will people get real and understand this.
Here is the report:
http://www.openmarket.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/foia-release.pdf
“Economic costs will likely be on the order of 1 percent of GDP, making them equal in scale to all existing environmental regulation.”
Lets also take into consideration that the government NEVER over estimates and is usually of by a factor of at least 3 when projecting costs.
The H/F has nothing to do with this video, the Treasury report or the CEI report...we shouldn't even be discussing them.
I've seen numbers as high as $3100 to as low as $800 per person!
Which is it? I really wish these blowhards can get their bull crap stories straight... I get tired of having to explain to my right-wing friends just how screwed up these people are!
The CBO number is that the bill will cost and average of $175 per household per year
The breakdown is based upon your income:
First Quintile $-40 ... actually a savings
Second Quintile $40
Third Quintile $235
Fourth Quintile $340
Fifth Quintile $245
As always, when the CBO supports a GOP position they praise it for its fairness and accuracy, when it doesn't they demonize it and refuse to reference it and decide to find another source.
It’s also worth noting that 2020 had the second lowest GDP loss of the 24 years we analyzed. For all years the average was $393 billion or over double the hit in 2020. In 2035 (the last year analyzed by Heritage) the lost GDP works out to $6,790 per family of four and that is before they pay their $4,600 share of the carbon taxes (again, costs are adjusted for inflation to reflect 2009 prices).
It's hard to take this partisan group seriously when they have a history of performing studies that support Republican policies and attack Democratic policies.
They are just like the Heartland Institute and the Lewin Group...organizations that appear to be non-biased but is far from the truth.
Just like the Heartland Institute published "scientific" evidence that nicotine is not addictive and cigarettes are not harmful to people's health. Just like the Lewin Group is funded by United Health Insurance company and has never published anything other than "evidence" that supports the Health Care industry.
My point is, that if I'm given two budget estimates, one from the CBO and one from the Heritage Foundation I will tend to believe the non-partisan organization.
Anything to put the fear of change into people. Fear, to the GOP and its operatives, is an end unto itself.
Randy
If so, fine -- just remember, when you need an iron lung {or a lung transplant}, be sure to pay for either one out of your own pocket, since wingers don't believe in national health care . . .
Well, I've got good news for you, Rich: if it increases enough, you'll be dead from breathing poisoned air -- and won't have to worry about thinking at the barrel of a gun {though I suspect you do little thinking as it is . . . }
TRANSLATION: It interferes with my worldview.
Well, rich -- while you may find climate change claims "quite hyperbolic", those in the national security industry think otherwise; in fact, they consider it a "significant national security threat."
In fact, no less than Pat Robertson now considers himself a "convert" to global warming.
Like I said, your side has your scientists and my side has scientists to back up our claims as well. I will not debate the reality of if for that reason. I shall remain a heretic to the church of environmentalism.
Annual cost of Iraq War per American family: $25,000
Hey, Alyson -- which one do you think the American family would prefer paying?
You said:
"Annual cost of Iraq War per American family: $25,000."
Really? Where did you get that number exactly? Since apparently your cohorts here swallowed your number without question, perhaps a dose of reality would be appropriate.
There are about 115 million households in the U.S. According to your bogus stat, the cost of the Iraq War per year would be $2.875 trillion. According to the Congressional Joint Economic Committee, the cost of the war will reach about $2 trillion by 2017, 14 years into the war. That equals about $143 billion per year. Divide that by 115 million households and what do you get?
Annual cost of Iraq War per American family: $1,242.
At least you were only off by 2000%. Does this make you twice as bad as Fox in your misrepresentation (since your ilk are claiming that their figure is inflated 1000%)?
Sad.
From here . . . specifically, this:
According to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report published in October 2007, the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could cost taxpayers a total of $2.4 trillion dollars by 2017 when counting the huge interest costs because combat is being financed with borrowed money. The CBO estimated that of the $2.4 trillion long-term price tag for the war, about $1.9 trillion of that would be spent on Iraq.[9]
Stiglitz, former chief economist of the World Bank and winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics, has stated the total costs of the Iraq War on the US economy will be three trillion dollars in a moderate scenario, and possibly more in the most recent published study, published in March 2008.[10] Stiglitz has stated: "The figure we arrive at is more than $3 trillion. Our calculations are based on conservative assumptions. They are conceptually simple, even if occasionally technically complicated. A $3 trillion figure for the total cost strikes us as judicious, and probably errs on the low side. Needless to say, this number represents the cost only to the United States. It does not reflect the enormous cost to the rest of the world, or to Iraq."[10]
The CRS estimated in September 2006 that total expenditures had topped half a trillion dollars.[2] Additionally, the extended combat and equipment loss have placed a severe financial strain on the U.S Army, causing the elimination of non-essential expenses such as travel and civilian hiring.[11][12]
As the total passed US$450 billion, the cost for the Iraq war reached approximately $1500 per person in the United States.[13] If the Iraq war were to wind up costing 1.9 trillion dollars, the cost would be over 4.2 times higher ($6,300 per United States citizen.) This would put the expense at $25,000 for an average family of four, or $32,000 per family if Afghanistan is included. [emphasis mine]
For the sake of argument, let's assume that both your figure of $1,242 for the Iraq War and $1,761 for the cap-and-trade is correct.
My point -- which apparently went right by you -- is this:
Which do you think the American family would rather pay?
$1200 for nonexistent WMDs? Or an extra $500 without seeing their loved ones coming back in a body bag?
You brought up the straw man that is Iraq. It has nothing to do with cap and trade. My opposition to cap and trade is many-fold:
1) It is an energy tax no matter which way you slice it.
2) It will lead to ever-increasing heavy-handed government "intervention" in the private sector. Just ask Spain.
3) It diverts attention and resources from the true environmental issues that could be immediately addressed and impacted upon.
4) And related to that and most importantly, it will not in any way change the world's temperatures. And I'm sure I could add a dozen more reasons why I oppose it.
I have a pretty quick solution for this big mess and the clean energy debacle and we already have the technology: nuclear. Look at France (not exactly a conservative country). They have used it for decades and now boast the cheapest energy costs in all of Europe. Their network of plants produces so much energy they are able to export it to a host of European nations.
Why can't that be done here? Oh, that's right. Almost forgot. It's because the environmental movement I have been a part of for two decades has been hijacked by Socialist political climate change hacks disguised in green.
"Sorry Mr. Silverback, we were too busy giving Al Gore awards in science fiction and indoctrinating the world in our new religion to take care of you."
I've said it before, and I'm sure I'll say it again, our eye is way off the ball with this issue. While we play this game of self-flagellation, habitat continues to be destroyed, animals continue to vanish forever, and thousands of good environmental causes are made less important (never mind what damage will be done to the green movement when this fraud is completely exposed).
And if you still believe people have the right to exist, there is the simple fact that billions of people go without. A full quarter of the world doesn't even have electricity, but we sure are busy preaching to developing nations about the evils of fossil fuels (while they cook dinner using rhino dung and you go out for your bluefin sushi).
Cap and trade is a poorly-disguised power grab designed to ultimately "correct" America's nasty little sovereignty issue. "We're all in this together! Michael was right. We are the world!" It's like Watchmen in real life with the monster that is "climate change" replacing Ozymandias' creation.
These liars know full well that cap & trade will not cost that much.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/16/AR2009091603524.html
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/cap-and-trade-cost-inflation/
Republicans work to the 80-year plan. In 80 years, I won't be here, so it doesn't matter to me.
Global climate change is a fact, regardless what Republicans want to "believe" (remember, the also believe in "intelligent design"). It's about time we do something about it!
"Under my plan of a cap and trade system electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket...Regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad, because I'm capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it, whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money onto consumers."
And from the same article that figure was backed by CBO's Dinan: "According to Dinan’s testimony, a 15 percent cut in CO2 emissions could run the average household about $1,600 (in 2006 dollars). The range: $700 for the average household in the lowest one-fifth of all households, according to income, to nearly $2,200 for households in the highest quintile."
"But, but, they'll give us rebates to offset the costs!" you cry.
Aside from the fact that that is crazy talk, the facts do not back this up either (unless we are to believe that a large proportion of the revenue generated will be returned to us - yeah, right). And I always hear talk about offsetting energy costs, but hardly ever hear about how the increase in the cost of energy will cause the cost of every product and service to go up for EVERY AMERICAN regardless of income. Or do you have some fantasy that businesses will eat the loss?
No one said C&T would not cost anything. The point is, as usual they're misquoting the numbers to stop progress. What's THEIR plan to deal with carbon emissions? They deny it's even an issue. Oh, but it IS.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
As conservatives always do, they're making this out to be another costly "tax", with absolutely no benefit. It isn't.
And as conservatives usually do, they think they can "believe" the facts on global climate will go away, and all will be good.
Conservatives keep delaying and putting real issues off for the next generation to deal with. Well, now it's time for us to deal with it. And it will come at a cost. Just not the cost the do-nothings in Congress are distorting.
But, I guess the Conservatives can pat themselves on the back for focusing on real issues like, banning gay marriage, banning abortion, starting necessary wars (wasting $3 trillion of our tax dollars, I might add), and so on.
They think this global warming stuff can wait for the future generations to deal with. By that time, it will be too late.
Democrats - tax and spend. Republicans - no tax and still spend.