Obama lies revealed about cap and trade and no new taxes. Gonna be HUGE

[5412]

Hi,

This blurb was in the Casey report today.  We really need to start hammering congress NOT to pass cap and trade, it is a huge tax and will not accomplish a damn thing other than to destroy wealth.....except for GE and algore....

Then add the article that follows it and you will see that the administration plans HUGE tax increases on all working americans.

regards,
5412




Transparency?



In August of this year the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) released a report on the energy market and economic impacts of cap-and-trade legislation.

According to the EIA:

The overall impact on the average household, including the benefit of many of the energy efficiency provisions in the legislation, would be 23 cents per day ($83 per year). This is consistent with analyses by the Congressional Budget Office which projects a cost of 48 cents per day ($175 per year) and the Environmental Protection Agency which projects a cost of 22 to 30 cents per day ($80 to $111 per year). Even under "High Cost" assumptions for new power plants, EIA only projects a household cost of 34 cents per day ($124 per year). None of these analyses take into account the benefits of reducing global warming.

I'll keep my opinions about the EIA's estimate to myself and instead turn your attention to a story from Tuesday, which reveals that the Obama administration doesn't even buy the EIA's figures.

A CBS News blogger named Declan McCullagh revealed on Tuesday that the Obama administration has privately concluded that a cap-and-trade law would cost American taxpayers up to $200 billion a year, the equivalent of hiking personal income taxes by about 15%.

To quote Mr. McCullagh:

A previously unreleased analysis prepared by the U.S. Department of Treasury says the total in new taxes would be between $100 billion to $200 billion a year. At the upper end of the administration's estimate, the cost per American household would be an extra $1,761 a year.

A second memorandum, which was prepared for Obama's transition team after the November election, says this about climate change policies: "Economic costs will likely be on the order of 1 percent of GDP [about $140 billion], making them equal in scale to all existing environmental regulation."

The documents were obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the free-market Competitive Enterprise Institute and released on Tuesday.

So what we have here is an unreleased administration report that estimates the annual taxpayer burden of cap and trade will be 1,995% higher than the estimate of the publicly disseminated report.

You'd think an administration that prides itself on transparency and openness would be open and transparent enough to release all pertinent reports on such a major piece of legislation. But you'd be wrong.



Click Here for Printer Friendly Version

Transparency?

Dear Readers,

In August of this year the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) released a report on the energy market and economic impacts of cap-and-trade legislation.

According to the EIA:

The overall impact on the average household, including the benefit of many of the energy efficiency provisions in the legislation, would be 23 cents per day ($83 per year). This is consistent with analyses by the Congressional Budget Office which projects a cost of 48 cents per day ($175 per year) and the Environmental Protection Agency which projects a cost of 22 to 30 cents per day ($80 to $111 per year). Even under "High Cost" assumptions for new power plants, EIA only projects a household cost of 34 cents per day ($124 per year). None of these analyses take into account the benefits of reducing global warming.

I'll keep my opinions about the EIA's estimate to myself and instead turn your attention to a story from Tuesday, which reveals that the Obama administration doesn't even buy the EIA's figures.

A CBS News blogger named Declan McCullagh revealed on Tuesday that the Obama administration has privately concluded that a cap-and-trade law would cost American taxpayers up to $200 billion a year, the equivalent of hiking personal income taxes by about 15%.

To quote Mr. McCullagh:

A previously unreleased analysis prepared by the U.S. Department of Treasury says the total in new taxes would be between $100 billion to $200 billion a year. At the upper end of the administration's estimate, the cost per American household would be an extra $1,761 a year.

A second memorandum, which was prepared for Obama's transition team after the November election, says this about climate change policies: "Economic costs will likely be on the order of 1 percent of GDP [about $140 billion], making them equal in scale to all existing environmental regulation."

The documents were obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the free-market Competitive Enterprise Institute and released on Tuesday.

So what we have here is an unreleased administration report that estimates the annual taxpayer burden of cap and trade will be 1,995% higher than the estimate of the publicly disseminated report.

You'd think an administration that prides itself on transparency and openness would be open and transparent enough to release all pertinent reports on such a major piece of legislation. But you'd be wrong.



The Largest Tax Hike Ever

"The Bush tax cuts - people didn't need them, and they weren't even asking for them, and that's why they need to be less, so that we can pay for universal health care and other initiatives," Obama said in a June 2007 Democratic debate.

I don't know about you, but pretty much every, no every, person I know (including me) come mid-April bitches and moans about how taxes are too high. Ergo, people, at least the ones I know, are always asking for tax cuts and they do need these cuts to support their families with their income.

Surely Obama was just grand-standing back in 2007. And he understands that people need these cuts now more than ever. right? Actually, no.

President Obama's senior economic advisor, Lawrence Summers, made clear in an interview on NBC in January that any idea of renewing the Bush tax cuts, set to expire in 2010, is a dead issue.

So how will the expiration of these cuts at the end of next year affect you?

Before we answer that, let's take a look at exactly what is changing with respect to individual income taxes.

The 10% bracket will increase to 15%.


The 25% bracket will increase to 28%.


The 28% bracket will increase to 31%.


The 33% bracket will increase to 36%.


The 35% bracket will increase to 39.6%.

On the surface these may look like small hikes - between 3 and 5 percentage points. But the effect these increases have on the amount you pay is much greater.

Consider that jumping from the 25% bracket to the 28% bracket (a rise of 3 percentage points) results in 12% higher taxes. Don't believe me? Let's quickly check the math.

If you're an individual currently in the 25% tax bracket, you make between $33,950 and $82,250 per year. For simplicity, let's say you're somewhere in the middle, at $50,000 per year. And we're also not going to consider deductions because that muddies a simple issue.

So if you make $50,000 a year and are in the 25% tax bracket (not counting deductions), you'd pay income taxes of $12,500. But if you make that same $50,000 and are taxed at 28%, your tax burden is $14,000. This reflects an increase in the amount you have to pay of 12%.

Back to the bullet points above. Let's go through the list one more time and show the increase in tax burden.

The 10% bracket will increase to 15%... a tax burden hike of 50%.


The 25% bracket will increase to 28%... a tax burden hike of 12%.


The 28% bracket will increase to 31%... a tax burden hike of 10.7%.


The 33% bracket will increase to 36%... a tax burden hike of 9.1%.


The 35% bracket will increase to 39.6%... a tax burden hike of 13.1%.

Even though the Obama administration said it would not raise taxes on the poor or middle class, by letting the Bush tax cuts expire, that's exactly who is going to be impacted the most. For the year 2011, the tax burden of the lowest-wage earners in the country will climb a whopping 50% from where it is today.

As far as I know (and I admittedly have not been able to do all the necessary research yet), by letting the Bush tax cuts expire at the end of 2010, the Obama administration will in effect be responsible for the largest tax hike in history. And that's before cap-and-trade and healthcare legislation
 


 

[ColonialMarine0431]

Cap Congress and Trade Obama to Kenya.

Fortunately, at this point, C&T is pretty much DOA.

[vesta111]

Cap Congress and Trade Obama to Kenya.

Fortunately, at this point, C&T is pretty much DOA.

Fill me in here, would this tax be taken from tax refunds or will the tax be placed on heating oil, gasoline, electricity etc.?

[5412]

Cap Congress and Trade Obama to Kenya.

Fortunately, at this point, C&T is pretty much DOA.

Hi,

I wish I shared your optomism about cap and trade.  My fear is, just like the health care bill, they will have to pass something for BO to save face and whatever it is will be a step in the wrong damn direction.

regards,
5412

[5412]

Fill me in here, would this tax be taken from tax refunds or will the tax be placed on heating oil, gasoline, electricity etc.?

Hi,

No, this is the worst kind of tax because it will not come directly from the citizens, it will be hidden.  The utility companies and businesses that manufacture will be taxed based on their carbon emissions and it will be passed on to the consumer in their charges.  They are calling it anything but a tax but indeed that is what it is.  On top of that the amount of impact it will have on the environment is less that 1/10 of 1%. 

I just spent several hours researching the subject and put together a synopsis for a guy who is running for the senate who I support.  Whole thing is a huge sham that will absolutely do nothing but burden the citizens and Al Gore stands to be the first cap and trade billionaire because he set up the company to handle the credits and GE will make billions because the money will flow through GE Capital.  If anyone is interested I will post the synopsis but it is a tough, long read.

Remember when BO said he was going to shut the coal industry down?  Likely he was not kidding.  He will also shut down a lot of oil refining operations.....because their cost of business will be too high and INCREASE our dependence on foreigners for energy even more.  He refuses to consider nuclear which is by far the best option.

Most of the arguments against nuclear are total myths.  My oldest boy graduated second in his class at Navy then went on to MIT and got a masters degree in nuclear engineering with straight "A"s....he is my source.  He slept next to the nuclear reactor in a submarine for a good long time with absolutely no fear.  The other new technology is they can now recycle most nuclear energy which cuts down on the waste substiantially.  There are 40 nuclear power plants being built in the world today, none in the US.  If their goal was really to help the environment they would just fast track some nuclear plants and we would be fine.

regards,
5412

[vesta111]

Hi,

No, this is the worst kind of tax because it will not come directly from the citizens, it will be hidden.  The utility companies and businesses that manufacture will be taxed based on their carbon emissions and it will be passed on to the consumer in their charges.  They are calling it anything but a tax but indeed that is what it is.  On top of that the amount of impact it will have on the environment is less that 1/10 of 1%. 

I just spent several hours researching the subject and put together a synopsis for a guy who is running for the senate who I support.  Whole thing is a huge sham that will absolutely do nothing but burden the citizens and Al Gore stands to be the first cap and trade billionaire because he set up the company to handle the credits and GE will make billions because the money will flow through GE Capital.  If anyone is interested I will post the synopsis but it is a tough, long read.

Remember when BO said he was going to shut the coal industry down?  Likely he was not kidding.  He will also shut down a lot of oil refining operations.....because their cost of business will be too high and INCREASE our dependence on foreigners for energy even more.  He refuses to consider nuclear which is by far the best option.

Most of the arguments against nuclear are total myths.  My oldest boy graduated second in his class at Navy then went on to MIT and got a masters degree in nuclear engineering with straight "A"s....he is my source.  He slept next to the nuclear reactor in a submarine for a good long time with absolutely no fear.  The other new technology is they can now recycle most nuclear energy which cuts down on the waste substiantially.  There are 40 nuclear power plants being built in the world today, none in the US.  If their goal was really to help the environment they would just fast track some nuclear plants and we would be fine.

regards,
5412

The biggest problem with small country's building Nuke Plants is what the heck do they do with the waste.  You know that some country's dump all their waste in the Oceans and Seas.   Heck we did that ourselves back in the 1950's may still do so, for all I know.


What ever happend to the so called Breeder plants that was controversial in the 1980's.?

Did that idea go the way of the so called Cold Fission.?  From what little I remember there was a big splash that some scientists had developed this concept. Next thing one knew the idea was debunked by our government and I wonder if the government is not in fact working on the very idea that they said was not possible.

[thundley4]

The biggest problem with small country's building Nuke Plants is what the heck do they do with the waste.  You know that some country's dump all their waste in the Oceans and Seas.   Heck we did that ourselves back in the 1950's may still do so, for all I know.


What ever happend to the so called Breeder plants that was controversial in the 1980's.?

Did that idea go the way of the so called Cold Fission.?  From what little I remember there was a big splash that some scientists had developed this concept. Next thing one knew the idea was debunked by our government and I wonder if the government is not in fact working on the very idea that they said was not possible.

We're not concerned about smaller countries, we're concerned about 0Bama trying to drive the US economy farther into the toilet.

[5412]

The biggest problem with small country's building Nuke Plants is what the heck do they do with the waste.  You know that some country's dump all their waste in the Oceans and Seas.   Heck we did that ourselves back in the 1950's may still do so, for all I know.


What ever happend to the so called Breeder plants that was controversial in the 1980's.?

Did that idea go the way of the so called Cold Fission.?  From what little I remember there was a big splash that some scientists had developed this concept. Next thing one knew the idea was debunked by our government and I wonder if the government is not in fact working on the very idea that they said was not possible.

Hi,

The waste issued has been pretty much solved.  There is a ton of data on the Heritage Foundation website.


Check out this website:
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed012909a.cfm

here is a tidbit:


What about waste?

With modern techniques, spent nuclear fuel is safely removed and reprocessed to yield new reactor fuel, drastically reducing the amount of waste needing disposal. In fact, if you used nuclear power for your entire lifetime needs, the resulting waste would only be enough fill a Coke can. And this can be safely deposited in deep repositories. Compare that with the tons of plastic, batteries, tires and motor oil we´ll throw out to be buried in landfills.

Outdated fears about safety drive public concern about nuclear power in the United States. And those fears are misplaced.

The safety level in nuclear-energy production now easily surpasses other energy sources. For example, nobody in America has ever died owing to a commercial nuclear-power accident. But from Jan. 1, 2003 through Dec. 31, 2007, 526 workers were killed in oil and gas extraction and 162 in coal mining. And in the coal industry, thousands of former workers are disabled with black lung and other respiratory diseases.

The fatalities and disabilities associated with coal and oil are real. The dangers of nuclear energy, meanwhile, are largely made up in Hollywood.

regards,
5412

[debk]

The biggest problem with small country's building Nuke Plants is what the heck do they do with the waste.  You know that some country's dump all their waste in the Oceans and Seas.   Heck we did that ourselves back in the 1950's may still do so, for all I know.  A lot of it is buried in the ground about 20 miles from me......probably why there is such a high cancer occurrence here...


What ever happend to the so called Breeder plants that was controversial in the 1980's.?

Did that idea go the way of the so called Cold Fission.?  From what little I remember there was a big splash that some scientists had developed this concept. Next thing one knew the idea was debunked by our government and I wonder if the government is not in fact working on the very idea that they said was not possible.

[Anomalous]

What's worse... is that the house has already passed this bill (they did before the recess).  All that's left is to get it through the Senate. 

That will be no small feat, but they are setting themselves up to push several controversial bills at once using the budgetary parliamentary procedure known as reconciliation.  Health care and the take over of the student load industry will certainly happen that way if not stopped.  I fear that cap and trade will sneak through the same way.

The only saving grace is that the bill's renewable energy sections got so watered-down to get passed that many liberals don't even like it anymore.  [link]

[NHSparky]

5412,

Your example oversimplifies, and doesn't consider that even with a taxable income of 50K, the lower 15 percent rate on income below whatever the 2011 cutoff would be still applies (currently, the 25 percent rate kicks in at $33,950 for a single filer.)

So in 2000, a single filer with a taxable income paid $10,588 in federal tax, while in 2008, if we took that 50K and adjusted for inflation using the CPI, (for a taxable income of $60,290, given inflation has increased prices 20.58 percent from January 2001 to January 2009, see LINK), and we come up with a 2008 tax burden of $11,416.

Wait a second--That's an INCREASE of $828!  Bush LIED!

Well, not quite.  The 2000 tax burden was 21.18 percent of income, while the 2008 tax burden was 18.94 percent of taxable income.  So, if one were to extrapolate and use the 21.18 percent burden level today, we'd have paid $12,769 instead of $11,416, a difference of $1353, or an actual increase of just over 12 percent.

Still significant, but not as bad as you pointed out.  But couple that with the other tax increases (cap and trade, socialized medicine, etc.,) that are coming down the pike, and the effect on the middle class (and our economy) will be that we may NOT see a recovery, or if we do, it may be a "double-bounce" or even triple bounce once all these new taxes kick in.

[5412]

5412,

Your example oversimplifies, and doesn't consider that even with a taxable income of 50K, the lower 15 percent rate on income below whatever the 2011 cutoff would be still applies (currently, the 25 percent rate kicks in at $33,950 for a single filer.)

So in 2000, a single filer with a taxable income paid $10,588 in federal tax, while in 2008, if we took that 50K and adjusted for inflation using the CPI, (for a taxable income of $60,290, given inflation has increased prices 20.58 percent from January 2001 to January 2009, see LINK), and we come up with a 2008 tax burden of $11,416.

Wait a second--That's an INCREASE of $828!  Bush LIED!

Well, not quite.  The 2000 tax burden was 21.18 percent of income, while the 2008 tax burden was 18.94 percent of taxable income.  So, if one were to extrapolate and use the 21.18 percent burden level today, we'd have paid $12,769 instead of $11,416, a difference of $1353, or an actual increase of just over 12 percent.

Still significant, but not as bad as you pointed out.  But couple that with the other tax increases (cap and trade, socialized medicine, etc.,) that are coming down the pike, and the effect on the middle class (and our economy) will be that we may NOT see a recovery, or if we do, it may be a "double-bounce" or even triple bounce once all these new taxes kick in.

Hi Sparky,

You may well be right.  I just cut and pasted from the article.  Whatever, because it is just another lie we have been told by the president.  He said he would not raise taxes and he is and is spending us in to bankruptcy.  I think anyone who is a citizen, who is paying attention, know we can no longer trust the president.  He is a smooth talking marxist who has about as much credibility as Hugo Chavez.  Every time he speaks now his numbers go down.

What really drives me nuts is the lemming democrats who go along with it.  We are in the midst of a communist takeover of our government, which was very spelled out by Beck on Friday, and the democrats just play right along.  When the hell are they going to wake up?  Mark my words, there is going to be some time of event on the horizon where the president tries to declare martial law and suspend the constitution.  Problem is I will not be able to say I told you so because the internet will be shut down in a minute.

Honestly, I think the only possibility we have of stopping this rests with the democrat party and with Pelosi in charge of the house that makes it tough.  A guest on O'Reilly or Hannity last night said she made six attempts to block the house bill on acorn.

regards,
5412

[Thor]

I'd be all for this cap and trade initiative IF the rest of the world followed suit. I don't see us Americans generating as much toxic/ greenhouse gasses as I have seen or read about other countries. China is one of the largest contributors to the greenhouse gas/ toxic waste problems ans yet, they are not participating in any way to reduce their carbon emissions or toxic waste. People can barely breathe in parts of Brazil due to their ethanol production. Mexico, India, and many other countries seem to have become waste depositories and air pollution contributors. Hell, I've flown over Cuba, where they openly burn garbage and other material and I couldn't stand the smell, even at 15,000 feet and I could barely make out the island. 0bama is simply looking to hurt Americans due to his self interest, lining the pockets of major contributors and his endless self-promotion.

[Thor]

Here are some pics of pollution in other countries:



Hong Kong:




Mexico:



And an article of the top 10 places in the world that are problematic with causing pollution:

http://top-10-list.org/2009/08/04/

More pics in the article.

Did anybody notice that there are no cities from the US in that article??

[NHSparky]

Go a little farther.  Take the top 50 polluted cities in the world, and there isn't a single US city among the lot.

NOT ONE.

However, 16 of the top 20 are in China.  Pray tell, did the Kyoto Treaty even affect China or other developing nations?  Hmmmm...I seem to recall it didn't.

[thundley4]

Go a little farther.  Take the top 50 polluted cities in the world, and there isn't a single US city among the lot.

NOT ONE.

However, 16 of the top 20 are in China.  Pray tell, did the Kyoto Treaty even affect China or other developing nations?  Hmmmm...I seem to recall it didn't.

I thought it did effect developing nations.  I thought the Kyoto accords called for the more developed western nations to give the third worlders money to "help" them.

[5412]

I thought it did effect developing nations.  I thought the Kyoto accords called for the more developed western nations to give the third worlders money to "help" them.

Hi,

China has no intention of going along with the Koyoto treaty.  All cap and trade will do is shift more of our jobs out of the country....

regards,
5412