Other than trying to pick a pointless fight over an issue about which you are woefully ignorant, what other purpose did your comment serve? Just asking.”

Yes if I were the least bit informed I’d know that when the government taxes me they will give it back to me in efficient programs that I use……. and that makes it logical to state an amount of a tax increase much less than it is….. Americans are truly stupid.

RP2012 Says:

You know what’s even funnier? That the post explaining exactly why you’re wrong is like three posts down the home page. You know that little game you used to play where you’d lie about what someone said, spread the lie around with cross-citations and then when they spoke up about what they really said, you’d claim they were lying and use each other as citations? Yeah, that’s over now.

I’d like to see where that post explained why I’m wrong.

Cap and trade is one of the most ridiculous ideas ever proposed by this brain dead government.

this sissy doesnt pay taxes so he doesnt care!
He is a zit infested 17 year old community college kid who knows all the answers except how to pay his own bills, wash his own laundry and why he has two mommies

Talking in the third-person again?…(if you don’t know what that means…ask your community college “professor”).

this sissy doesnt pay taxes so he doesnt care!
He is a zit infested 17 year old community college kid who knows all the answers except how to pay his own bills, wash his own laundry and why he has two mommies

Here we go with the TAXES again! You stupid neocon Rethuglicans just seem to forget how much your damn WARS cost! 7-years of WAR have and will increased your damn TAXES

and yet another democratic debate tactic comes to rear its head…unfortunately for you, Right/Left…it wasn’t just the “bushies” who authorized the wars…and it damn sure wasn’t just the “bushies” who voted to continue funding the wars.

You’re boring…how ’bout stop spouting left-wing soundbites to make your argument and come up with something original?

History of TAXES

= “I have no documentary evidence that he has shifted his position since then.”

Because there is no evidence that he’s shifted positions on cap and trade. meaning, he’s stayed pretty consistent on this one campaign pledge at least…

Fair enough. But his position is/wasn’t so bad. You aren’t even looking at enery alternatives. Or did you assume we’d be on coal/oil forever as a basis of everything else we’ll ever do…?

Hmmm…I’d like you to take a second and realize what you just did…suppose that I’m not all for alternative energies…I am…but I don’t think taxing the crap outta the energy sources that 99.9% of Americans use is the answer.

You’re just repeating the Dem mantra: “tax everyone…tax the crap out of ‘em…and we’ll worry about the effects later”

Well then, let’s now award jared the platinum “duh” award. The consumer ultimately pays for everythang! After all, companies don’t have magical money trees – they can only get money from you! And me! DUH!

uh…you just rephrased what I wrote. Congratulations…you do know how to read!

Atleast it could go to some quality porn or something slightly interesting…

I know. I wouldn’t know how to do anything there if I wanted to. I didn’t realize anybody in the world was still paying for pageviews. This sort of thing is why everybody else stopped.

I’ve been working for months with Chairman Waxman and Chairman Markey to put together a plan that will halt global warming and create American jobs, and I think we’re pretty close to completing a package that can be approved by a majority of Members in both the Committee and the full House. A couple of radio ads aren’t going to change my mind.

And we’ll thank you to stop posting this same message over and over and over and over again. Is there some legitimate purpose to your doing this?

It’s an automated script, posts a pregenerated comment to every page once a day. I keep flagging, but TP mods (if there are any) don’t seem to notice. Funny thing, all the links go to a website in some other language anyways.

I THANK…

And we’ll thank you to stop posting this same message over and over and over and over again. Is there some legitimate purpose to your doing this? Why are you posting multiple links to the same website? Please stop doing that, or else go away and do it somewhere else. May I suggest FreeRepublic?

You’re referring to MIT professor John Reilly’s debunking of the $3100 per year claim? Have you read what he said lately? He dubunked his earlier debunk. Himself. He now says his estimate of $215 per household was wrong. Even the $3100 per household was wrong. Now, Reilly says the cost is more like $3900 per family per year.

Read it for yourself in Reilly’s words, not mine.

It’s just another inconvenient truth: If Americans want any of the government remedies that would supposedly save a planet allegedly imperiled by global warming, it’s going to cost them.

Just how much it will cost them has been a point of contention lately. Many congressional Republicans, including members of the GOP leadership, have claimed that the plan to limit carbon emissions through cap and trade would cost the average household more than $3,100 per year. According to an MIT study, between 2015 and 2050 cap and trade would annually raise an average of $366 billion in revenues
(divided by 117 million households equals $3,128 per household, the Republicans reckon).

But on March 24, after interviewing one of the MIT professors who conducted the study on which the GOP relied to produce its estimate, the St. Petersburg Times fact-check unit, Politifact, declared the GOP figure of $3,100 per household was a “Pants on Fire” falsehood. The GOP claim is “just wrong,” MIT professor John Reilly told Politifact. “It’s wrong in so many ways it’s hard to begin.”

According to Politifact, Reilly’s report included an “estimate of the net cost to individuals” that “would be $215.05 per household. A far cry from $3,128.”

This is where YOU get your “It’s been debunked” claim. But now, Reilly himself admits “Oops.”

During a lengthy email exchange last week with THE WEEKLY STANDARD, MIT professor John Reilly admitted that his original estimate of cap and trade’s cost was inaccurate. The annual cost would be “$800 per household”, he wrote. “I made a boneheaded mistake in an excel spread sheet. I have sent a new letter to Republicans correcting my error (and to others).”

While $800 is significantly more than Reilly’s original estimate of $215 (not to mention more than Obama’s middle-class tax cut), it turns out that Reilly is still low-balling the cost of cap and trade by using some fuzzy logic. In reality, cap and trade could cost the average household more than $3,900 per year.

The $800 paid annually per household is merely the “cost to the economy [that] involves all those actions people have to take to reduce their use of fossil fuels or find ways to use them without releasing [Green House Gases],” Reilly wrote. “So that might involve spending money on insulating your home, or buying a more expensive hybrid vehicle to drive, or electric utilities substituting gas (or wind, nuclear, or solar) instead of coal in power generation, or industry investing in more efficient motors or production processes, etc. with all of these things ending up reflected in the costs of good and services in the economy.”

In other words, Reilly estimates that “the amount of tax collected” through companies would equal $3,128 per household–and “Those costs do get passed to consumers and income earners in one way or another”–but those costs have “nothing to do with the real cost” to the economy. Reilly assumes that the $3,128 will be “returned” to each household. Without that assumption, Reilly wrote, “the cost would then be the Republican estimate [$3,128] plus the cost I estimate [$800].”

Will you now issue a retraction to correct your blog entry? $3900 a year is a lot for some families to come up with for a cap and trade scheme that hasn’t worked in Europe, and will send even more jobs to China and India who have said under no circumstances will they participate in such a scheme.