It's over, folks! Kiss America goodbye!

[fossten]

Obama’s new budget: $25,000 per taxpayer

posted at 7:43 pm on February 26, 2009 by Allahpundit

I have nothing to offer you except links and despair. $3.6 trillion in spending divided by 139 million taxpayers equals $25,573.48 apiece. Just put it on my tab along with my student loans. Or better yet, put it on your kids’ tab: According to Boehner’s office, by 2019 the annual deficit will still be north of $700 billion and the national debt will stand a shade over … $15 trillion, almost double what it is now.

New taxes? Tapper’s run the numbers and says they’ll hit $1 trillion over the next 10 years, but (a) evidently that doesn’t include another $600 billion businesses will have to cough up as part of the new cap-and-trade program and (b) it assumes that the only new taxes levied will be on individuals making more than $250,000 and corporations, which of course is absurd. Read the Journal’s analysis of The One’s “2% lie” to see why. Quote:

Even the most basic inspection of the IRS income tax statistics shows that raising taxes on the salaries, dividends and capital gains of those making more than $250,000 can’t possibly raise enough revenue to fund Mr. Obama’s new spending ambitions…

[A]s a thought experiment, let’s go all the way. A tax policy that confiscated 100% of the taxable income of everyone in America earning over $500,000 in 2006 would only have given Congress an extra $1.3 trillion in revenue. That’s less than half the 2006 federal budget of $2.7 trillion and looks tiny compared to the more than $4 trillion Congress will spend in fiscal 2010. Even taking every taxable “dime” of everyone earning more than $75,000 in 2006 would have barely yielded enough to cover that $4 trillion.

Fast forward to this year (and 2010) when the Wall Street meltdown and recession are going to mean far few taxpayers earning more than $500,000. Profits are plunging, businesses are cutting or eliminating dividends, hedge funds are rolling up, and, most of all, capital nationwide is on strike. Raising taxes now will thus yield far less revenue than it would have in 2006.

How bad is it? Even Olympia Snowe sounds unhappy.

For good measure, one of the bill’s 9,000 earmarks comes courtesy of The One himself, left over from his Senate days when he was off on the trail every day railing against earmarks. And I haven’t even mentioned TARP II, which they’ve gone ahead and allotted $250 billion for on the assumption that most of the money given to the banks will be recouped. If it isn’t, then the true cost’s more like $750 billion, which would be slightly more than the original TARP that blew everyone’s mind back in September. That’s my only comment on this, really — how completely and dangerously inured I am now to unbelievably extravagant spending. And given the fact that 63% of the public’s already blessed the idea of a second stimulus, I can only assume they feel the same way. Gulp.

 

[alexfranke]

So what do you think will become of it? Where will you be living when it's gone?

 

[fossten]

We'll all be living under tyranny.

 

[Calabrio]

So what do you think will become of it? Where will you be living when it's gone?

First, it's not an issue of leaving, the question becomes what are you going to do in response. A lot of very intelligent, very sensible people are talking about an impending depression and a possible break down in society. The question isn't where do you go, it's what do you do. The problems aren't going to be isolated to just the U.S. Nor would most of us leave the country or abandon the principles it was founded on.

But, let me ask you, can you think of a good way to reconcile the situation we're in. Are you concerned about the monetary policy? I don't think the vastness of the sums is really impressing upon the public. Trillions of dollars. It was said that he's spent $36,000,000,000 each day he's been in office. Borrow all of that from China? Just print it?

And when the trillion dollar stimulus, and the 2 trillion dollars of Tarp, and the other 7 trillion or so in banking guarantees fail to work, how exactly are we going to pay for the "universal healthcare" with the aging baby boomers, not to mention social security?

Raising taxes on the top 5%? (already up from the originally stated 2%)

The CBO has already said that the Obama stimulus is going to hurt the country in the long term. And the defecit figures that the administration is presenting to the public are outrageous, but it's made worse when you realize that they are basing them on 6% growth!

Of course, we're looking at a world wide problem here, so the next question is- with oil being so inexpensive, and the populations of the middle east, Russia, and Venezuela become restless and unstable because the governments can't afford the social programs to keep them appeased, and U.S. buying unable to support the billion poor chinese, which one will go to war first?

So, it's not crazy to anticipate civil unrest or a world war.

YouTube - ' Worst economic collapse ever'

 

[alexfranke]

But, let me ask you, can you think of a good way to reconcile the situation we're in. Are you concerned about the monetary policy? I don't think the vastness of the sums is really impressing upon the public. . . . Borrow all of that from China? Just print it?

No re reconcile, yes re monetary policy. I hope there will be borrowers or we'll end up with runaway inflation and a run on the American dollar.

Here's one: Take a trillion crisp, new one dollar bills and stack them face to face (as you would normally stack dollars -- not end to end, e.g.). Then lay that stack down on its side. It will circle Earth about 2.75 times at the equator. Leave the stack upright and it will extend up about 30% of the distance to the moon. $3.3 trillion and you hit the moon. (Actually about $3,324,519,320,000.)

...how exactly are we going to pay for the "universal healthcare" with the aging baby boomers, not to mention social security?

Raising taxes on the top 5%? (already up from the originally stated 2%)

I have no idea. Taxing the top 5% alone sure won't cover it.

So, it's not crazy to anticipate civil unrest or a world war.

I don't disagree.

So do you think we'll have civil unrest, possibly a world war, and challenges to our form of government, but then we will emerge at the end perhaps leaner and meaner? Or am I reading too far into your comments?

 

[Calabrio]

No re reconcile, yes re monetary policy. I hope there will be borrowers or we'll end up with runaway inflation and a run on the American dollar.

I'm noticing a lot of "hope" in your world view, here and in other threads, but I'm not sure what you're basing it on. If we print and spend money like this, who will continue to borrow it? The Chinese? At what point do they cut their loses? I don't think it's smart to have an economic policy based on hoping the Chinese will keep us stable. It's also ironic and tragic that we need the money the Chinese are earning through aggressive capitalism to fund us as we shift towards socialism.

Here's one:

I think those "visualizations" are so vast that people don't understand them. Look at how casually someone, even interested people like yourself, can watch the government commit trillions of dollars towards policies based on nothing but hope.

So do you think we'll have civil unrest, possibly a world war, and challenges to our form of government, but then we will emerge at the end perhaps leaner and meaner? Or am I reading too far into your comments?

Anything is possible.

But just as I've been critical in the past, and used foxpaws as the example, the socialist left works in the shadows. Knowing that their ideas and agenda will be rejected by the public, they find subversive ways of implementing it. Knowing full well that the public has rejected socialized medicine, and noting Hillary's failure in the 90s, they've broken up the program into pieces and have begun inserting it into unrelated spending bills. The ground work was laid in the "stimulus," there's a $700,000,000,000 investment in it in this years budget... And in doing so they've avoided all debate and discussion. Their just going to foist it on the public.

This is the change we can believe in. An aggressive policy of socialism that is being advanced it a blitzkrieg on the public, at a rate that is so aggressive and so intense that defenders of the Americanism can't address it all.

Everything is happening so fast right now, the democrats have effective avoided all debate on it as well, and that's by design.

So, yes.
I do think things are going to bad soon.

You know the example of the frog in the pot of hot water? If you take a frog and throw him into boiling water, he'll jump out. But if you put him in warm water and gradually turn up the temperature, he'll sit there and cook? I'm hoping that's what's going to happen here. That these socialist on the left overplay their hand and the coup advances fast enough, or they turn the temperature up, for everyone to notice the water temperature is increasing and enough of us can jump out and do something about it.

I also think the international instability is going to present even greater challenges. It will further damage the world economy, and it will give government an even greater opportunity to expand their power.

Right now is a critical time to follow events and to go back and rediscover what makes America so different, so special. They don't teach that in school, so most adults weren't even taught that. Find the federalist papers, and the anti-federalist papers (which were more federalist than the federalist papers, but I digress). Knowing who we are and what we really stand for is going to be critical.

 

[foxpaws]

So, yes.
I do think things are going to bad soon.

So, how Cal – war, depression, civil unrest, revolution? Where are we going?

And couldn’t we take the viewpoint ‘it is going to get bad for you’ – perhaps, but does that also entail bad for the rest of the US? What is good for you might not be good for your neighbor down the street. And what is bad for you, might be good for your siblings.

The people voted in Obama. They voted him in on the promise he would get us out of the economic recession we are now in. They voted him in on the idea he would end the war in Iraq. They voted him in on the platform he would change the current health care system.

The people have spoken already with their selection of president. He is now doing the job, in the way he pretty much outlined in his campaign. The truly awful economic situation wasn’t totally taken into account, but I don’t think anyone knew how bad, and how quickly, things would deteriorate.

I believe you are thinking this hearkens the end of the US as we know it. Lincoln ended the US as the people in that time period knew it. LBJ ended the US as the people knew it. Reagan ended the US as we knew it before.

Lincoln ended slavery, the US changed completely.
LBJ enacted the civil rights act, changing the face of America.
Reagan ended the cold war, not only changing the US but the world.

You can label Obama’s changes as bad – but you wouldn’t label the changes as bad that those other president’s enacted. But, at the time, there were lots of people who would have labeled the changes that the president was invoking as ‘bad’.

America changes, constantly. If America doesn't like Obama's changes the pendulum will swing.

 

[luxuryrules]

You know the example of the frog in the pot of hot water? If you take a frog and throw him into boiling water, he'll jump out. But if you put him in warm water and gradually turn up the temperature, he'll sit there and cook?

As luck would have it, I've tried this and it doesn't work. The frog jumps out regardless

 

[foxpaws]

Ah, Monsieur Luxury you live up to your name...

Escargots Aux Grenouilles perhaps?

 

[Calabrio]

foxpaws,
You know full well that it doesn't matter how far the pendulum swings, if it's even possible, it can take DECADES to role back the size of the government or the entitlement spending that it's committed to. At the same rate, it took only a few days for the Socialist blitzkrieg you're a part of to put something like that into effect. This can't be "undone" in 2010, 2012, or 2016, any easier than it would be to just swing that pendulum and "fix" the failed social security programs of the New Deal or the entitlements of the Great Society. You're fully aware yet you have no reservations repeating something so deceitful like that in public..

People voted for Obama, but they didn't vote for his agenda, and you know that. They don't even know what his agenda is. The projected their concerns and hopes upon him. That does not give him, or Nancy Pelosi, justification for thrusting their "progressive" agenda upon the population from the shadows.

If Obama were just doing what he were elected to do, then why hide these programs inside spending bills? Why limit debate on them? If he had a clear mandate on these things and he was simply doing the work he was called upon to do, why do it in the shadows?

If we as the public want socialized medicine, why hide it in a "stimulus" plan,
and then set aside funding for it, quietly, in the back of an omnibus budget?

Why not have a debate on cap and trade policy? Do you think most people in the public really understand what it is? Do you think they'd support such a thing during a recession? Doesn't matter, it's IN THE BUDGET. No debate.

Just as I've accused you, the national Democrats are doing precisely the same. They are advancing their agenda through deception and trickery. If they were doing this in the open, their efforts would be rejected. But because of the the underhandedness, because of the speed, because of the volume, the political opposition has no ability to respond to it all and the public has no idea just how radically the future has changed. And to make it even more difficult, the media is in bed with him and cheering him on.

 

[luxuryrules]

Just as I've accused you, the national Democrats are doing precisely the same. They are advancing their agenda through deception and trickery. If they were doing this in the open, their efforts would be rejected. But because of the the underhandedness, because of the speed, because of the volume, the political opposition has no ability to respond to it all and the public has no idea just how radically the future has changed. And to make it even more difficult, the media is in bed with him and cheering him on.

You're missing your foil hat dude In all honesty, I expected better from you - you disappoint me with shady conspiracy theories. This is government, plain and simple. I'm sorry it does not yield the outcome that you wanted, but that's part of the system. When GW was voted into office in 2000, students on college campuses across the country recoiled in horror. And, largely, the Right told them to sit down and shut up. Now that the pendulum has swung the other way, I have to say, I am disappointed because the Right is whining just as much as the Left did when GW took office. I don't know how much of it took place here, but I saw a lot of the Right looking down on the Left as a bunch of activists complaining that they did not get what they wanted. Now that the roles are reversed, the Right is doing the exact same thing the Left did.

Fox, I have to say, too salty for me. To be honest, escargots is wasted on me - it's not bad, but there are many other things I'd rather eat. Frog legs, on the other hand, are a delicacy not often found in my state, but I do enjoy whenever I can find them. Do you like them? Mostly, I would die for a good bruschetta, which also happens to be much easier to prepare.

 

[shagdrum]

You're missing your foil hat dude In all honesty, I expected better from you - you disappoint me with shady conspiracy theories. This is government, plain and simple. I'm sorry it does not yield the outcome that you wanted, but that's part of the system. When GW was voted into office in 2000, students on college campuses across the country recoiled in horror. And, largely, the Right told them to sit down and shut up. Now that the pendulum has swung the other way, I have to say, I am disappointed because the Right is whining just as much as the Left did when GW took office. I don't know how much of it took place here, but I saw a lot of the Right looking down on the Left as a bunch of activists complaining that they did not get what they wanted. Now that the roles are reversed, the Right is doing the exact same thing the Left did.

The thing is, with Obama it is proving to not be mere "consipiracy theory" as you are trying to imply. His actions and policies since being in office are pretty self explainatory. There is no doubt that he is a radical socialist in all by name.

He is enacting policies that have no realistic justification as anything other then a political power grab.

Why do you think Judd Gregg withdrew his nomination? According to this article it was due to, "irresolvable conflicts".

He cited the stimulus package and a dispute over control of the 2010 Census as prompting his dramatic withdrawal, a move that pushed the White House into full damage-control mode.

“Prior to accepting this post, we had discussed these and other potential differences, but unfortunately we did not adequately focus on these concerns,” Gregg said in a statement. “We are functioning from a different set of views on many critical items of policy. … Obviously the president requires a team that is fully supportive of all his initiatives..”
​

If you know anything about Gregg, you know that he is someone who has a history of working with the opposite side of the isle. The fact that he cannot work with Obama should say something about Obama's radical nature.

 

[Calabrio]

You're missing your foil hat dude In all honesty, I expected better from you - you disappoint me with shady conspiracy theories. This is government, plain and simple. I'm sorry it does not yield the outcome that you wanted, but that's part of the system.

The smiley face isn't going to cut it. You have demonstrated repeatedly that you don't have a damn clue what is going on in the country, how it works, or the history that preceded it. Don't even attempt to chastise me on issues you've been too lazy or too disinterested in to understand.

This is not "government, plain and simple." This is not to be tolerated, this is an exploitation of the system, and they are relying on overconfident and dense people like you for it to work.

If Obama and the Democrats want to debate socialism, socialized medicine, cap and trade policy- that'd be great. Let's do that in the light of day. Let's have that discussion out in the opinion. But that isn't what's being done here.

Do you know what cap and trade is without Googling it right now? Do you know what it's going to do to industry in the country, or how it's going to effect each of our budgets? Do you know what they intend to do with the nearly $700,000,000,000 that they've budgeted for universal healthcare in this years budget? Do you have a clue what's in the "stimulus" bill, specifically the things that have nothing to do with stimulating the economy? Of course you don't, but you seem to wear your "open minded" ignorance as a badge of honor.

It's not.

When GW was voted into office in 2000, students on college campuses across the country recoiled in horror. And, largely, the Right told them to sit down and shut up. Now that the pendulum has swung the other way, I have to say, I am disappointed because the Right is whining just as much as the Left did when GW took office.

Explain to me how this is the same.
Explain to me how George W. Bush took steps during his first months, with the help of a radical majority in the Congress, advanced an agenda full of radical changes to the country. Show me where he moved to limit debate. Show me where he advanced radical legislation through the system without debate that hidden inside huge spending bills. And show me the day when he had the MSM media kissing his backside, saying it was their duty to make sure his presidency was a success.

Make the argument, tell me how it's the same.

For the record, I WAS NOT one of the alarmists when Obama was elected. I "kept hope alive" rationalizing that perhaps he was an opportunist, more along the lines of a Bill Clinton, rather than a radical leftist as his biography tended to indicate he was. I know people who worked on his campaign, I've even had coffee with his campaign in Alexandria, VA. And one of my best friends had him as a lecturer at University of Chicago. So, not only do I know him through the media, I know him through people who have been close to him as well.

However, his actions in the past few weeks have left NO DOUBT in any thinking person's mind where and how he's going to govern. And we have to be able to discuss what's going on candidly.

I don't know how much of it took place here, but I saw a lot of the Right looking down on the Left as a bunch of activists complaining that they did not get what they wanted. Now that the roles are reversed, the Right is doing the exact same thing the Left did.

And it was right to do so.
The claims made against Bush were absurd and completely unfounded. There were plenty of failings of the Bush administration to be upset over, but those leftist clowns never protested those things.

If you would like to argue otherwise, do so and I will prove you wrong. Otherwise, you're talking out of your arse again, attempting to be a clever "devil's advocate" yet lacking the knowledge to do so.

This is not politics as usual we're experiencing.
And there are going to be consequences for the policies we pursue.

I also don't want to blame Obama for all of the problems were facing, that wouldn't be honest either. But he's in a position to make things vastly worse.
I think we'd in a world of pain regardless who was elected, things are already a mess. And it took us decades and decades to get here.

The last year of the Bush administration made some huge mistakes that I opposed at the time, including the "stimulus" plan last spring and then the bank bailout this fall.
I think the monetary policy and the federal reserve are completely out of control right now. I think all of these things, plus the international political problems around the world are creating an atmosphere that could reshape the world and make things go south so fast you won't know what hit us.

All of this, the fact that Obama and the Democrats are pushing an agenda that is doomed to fail, and the fact that he and the democrat leadership are advancing their agenda through dishonest politics should alarm and outrage you. And if you can't prevent something from happening if you refuse to recognize it as being possible. And the sooner we identify the problem, the soon we can accept our medicine, and start the recovery. The longer we wait, the more we spend, the longer and more intense the pain is going to be.

 

[alexfranke]

I'm noticing a lot of "hope" in your world view, here and in other threads, but I'm not sure what you're basing it on.

This might just be semantics. I'm not really basing my hopes on anything. For example, I hope my friend's baby is born alive this weekend, even though I can't even begin to understand what the baby or they are going through. (Prayers are welcome.) I just know I want it to turn out in a way that I believe is best. Maybe that's what I'm basing it on -- is that what you mean?

If we print and spend money like this, who will continue to borrow it? The Chinese? At what point do they cut their loses?

I don't know the answers to these, but this is why I brought up the concern about runaway inflation and a run on the American dollar.

I don't think it's smart to have an economic policy based on hoping the Chinese will keep us stable. It's also ironic and tragic that we need the money the Chinese are earning through aggressive capitalism to fund us as we shift towards socialism.

I pretty much agree with both of these statements.

Look at how casually someone, even interested people like yourself, can watch the government commit trillions of dollars towards policies based on nothing but hope.

I'm sure our government is basing its policies on more than just hope. I may not agree with all of them, but I don't think any of them want to see America go the way of the dodo.

Everything is happening so fast right now, the democrats have effective avoided all debate on it as well, and that's by design.

I guess this is where we have to rely on the wisdom of the Framers, and hope (there I go again) that our country can weather the tempest for long enough to change its leaders if all hell breaks loose.

 

[Calabrio]

YouTube - Economic Collapse Peter Schiff explains 2.1.09

Two quick notes-
1. She mentions auto industry failing in the U.K. but failed to realize that was the result of nationalization.
2. She spoke about the positive stock market response. In hindsight, we know that the market has lost almost 2000 points since this interview.

 

[shagdrum]

This is not "government, plain and simple." This is not to be tolerated, this is an exploitation of the system, and they are relying on overconfident and dense people like you for it to work.

In short, luxuryrules, you are a "useful idiot" as far as the Obama camp is concerned.

 

[Calabrio]

In short, luxuryrules, you are a "useful idiot" as far as the Obama camp is concerned.

I wouldn't take it that far, I don't think he's sympathizing or working on behalf of the goal. I'd prefer to think that he's merely complacent and lulled into a false sense of security. Many people are so disinfranchised by the political system that they've decided they have no voice, there's nothing they can do, and what we're seeing is just the partisan back and forth that they've grown deaf to over the years. But this isn't, what we're seeing in government is radical change, but worst of all, they are using the economic crisis as a means of stabbing the country in the back with their agenda, in the meantime, the very crisis they are exploiting will be worsened because of their "solution."

The crisis was critically bad enough WITHOUT the socialist touch of the out of control Democrats in the three branches of government.

The problem I don't think Lux understands is that these "changes" that are taking place, without discussion, without debate, and hidden from the public, are not things that can just be rolled back in two or four years if they don't work out. These are fundamental changes that deserve to be debated and discussed, not imposed upon us by the leftist academics and idealist who took power under the false pretense that they were moderate, sensible, and supported responsible government and full transparency.

 

[shagdrum]

I wouldn't take it that far, I don't think he's sympathizing or working on behalf of the goal.

I would agree. But he is being effectively, "manipulated by a political movement, terrorist group, or hostile government".

 

[fossten]

So, how Cal – war, depression, civil unrest, revolution? Where are we going?

And couldn’t we take the viewpoint ‘it is going to get bad for you’ – perhaps, but does that also entail bad for the rest of the US? What is good for you might not be good for your neighbor down the street. And what is bad for you, might be good for your siblings.

The people voted in Obama. They voted him in on the promise he would get us out of the economic recession we are now in. They voted him in on the idea he would end the war in Iraq. They voted him in on the platform he would change the current health care system.

The people have spoken already with their selection of president. He is now doing the job, in the way he pretty much outlined in his campaign. The truly awful economic situation wasn’t totally taken into account, but I don’t think anyone knew how bad, and how quickly, things would deteriorate.

I believe you are thinking this hearkens the end of the US as we know it. Lincoln ended the US as the people in that time period knew it. LBJ ended the US as the people knew it. Reagan ended the US as we knew it before.

Lincoln ended slavery, the US changed completely.
LBJ enacted the civil rights act, changing the face of America.
Reagan ended the cold war, not only changing the US but the world.

You can label Obama’s changes as bad – but you wouldn’t label the changes as bad that those other president’s enacted. But, at the time, there were lots of people who would have labeled the changes that the president was invoking as ‘bad’.

America changes, constantly. If America doesn't like Obama's changes the pendulum will swing.

Sounds like you're already hedging your bets, making excuses for Obama, and backpedaling.

So much for Obama being the Messiah.

 

[foxpaws]

Sounds like you're already hedging your bets, making excuses for Obama, and backpedaling.

So much for Obama being the Messiah.

Nope, however I never claimed he was.

And Cal, we have to enforce cap and trade if we want to export to the rest of the world. More and more countries are looking at cap and trade as a prerequisite to trading with them.

It isn't that different than the Clean Air Act of 1990 under BushI.

 

[shagdrum]

Nope, however I never claimed he was.

And Cal, we have to enforce cap and trade if we want to export to the rest of the world. More and more countries are looking at cap and trade as a prerequisite to trading with them.

It isn't that different than the Clean Air Act of 1990 under BushI.

We still have enough purchasing power that they will make an exception for us.

 

[Calabrio]

And Cal, we have to enforce cap and trade if we want to export to the rest of the world. More and more countries are looking at cap and trade as a prerequisite to trading with them.

Not true. However it will hurt our economy.

It isn't that different than the Clean Air Act of 1990 under BushI.

This isn't true either. But since you're making the claim, you can make the argument explaining how they are so similar. Using your logic, any restriction on pollution "isn't that different" than this. Again, using you're hype, the Kyoto treaty "isn't that different' from the Clean Air Act of 1990 either.

Also, how much revenue was the Clean Air Act supposed to generate?
And how much did it increase the cost of living for the average household?

 

[foxpaws]

Not true. However it will hurt our economy.

As far as cap and trade restrictions - The WTO could enforce the Kyoto restrictions using trade sanctions.
According to according to February 20 report in the Independent of London, Stiglitz believes that "the US could be forced to take action on climate change using world trade laws....The EU and others should apply to the WTO for a ruling which declares that America's refusal to participate in carbon curbs constitutes a de facto subsidy to US industry, which is illegal under trade rules."

The WTO, a Geneva-based body that presently has 148 member nations, is--in effect--the UN of global trade. Unlike the UN itself, the WTO actually has the power to enforce its decrees. When a country or region wins a case before a WTO arbitration panel arbitration panel it is authorized to impose punitive trade sanctions against the loser. The effectiveness of this enforcement mechanism was demonstrated in late 2003, when President Bush, in compliance with a WTO ruling, rescinded a set of tariffs on European steel imports.

And here is a good paper on the upcoming affects of carbon taxes and international trade.

Also, how much revenue was the Clean Air Act supposed to generate?
And how much did it increase the cost of living for the average household?

And what was the savings in 'human life'? Perhaps in your mind Cal not as important as how much it 'cost' in dollars, but even health care has costs... 4 million lost work days does add up when you are talking the bottom line.

Using a sophisticated array of computer models and the latest emissions and cost data, the EPA study shows that in the year 2010 the Amendments of 1990 will prevent 23,000 Americans from dying prematurely, and avert over 1,700,000 incidences of asthma attacks and aggravation of chronic asthma. In addition, in 2010, they will prevent 67,000 incidences of chronic and acute bronchitis, 91,000 occurrences of shortness of breath, 4,100,000 lost work days, and 31,000,000 days in which Americans would have had to restrict activity due to air pollution related illness. Plus, 22,000 respiratory-related hospital admissions would be averted, as well as 42,000 cardiovascular (heart and blood) hospital admissions, and 4,800 emergency room visits for asthma.

The report, the most comprehensive and extensive assessment of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments ever conducted, was the subject of extensive peer review, during which independent panels of distinguished economists, scientists, and public health experts provided in-depth assessment and advice throughout the study's design, implementation, and documentation.

For those health and ecological benefits which could be quantified and converted to dollar values, EPA's best estimate is that in 2010 the benefits of Clean Air Act programs will total about $110 billion. This estimate represents the value of avoiding increases in illness and premature death that would have prevailed without the clean air standards and provisions required by the Amendments. By contrast, the detailed cost analysis conducted for this new study indicates that the costs of achieving these health and ecological benefits are likely to be only about $27 billion, a fraction of the economic value of the benefits.

So, cost for everybody in the US - $88 each.

And whether or not you agree with the concept of global warming, the idea of 'fouling your own nest' should be understood by everyone.

 

[fossten]

And what was the savings in 'human life'? Perhaps in your mind Cal not as important as how much it 'cost' in dollars, but even health care has costs... 4 million lost work days does add up when you are talking the bottom line.

How many human lives are lost due to countries not being able to feed themselves due to lack of economic growth in THIS COUNTRY? So the United States cuts its emissions, forcing us to buy from other countries who DO NOT CUT THEIR EMISSIONS, thus causing loss of life in THOSE COUNTRIES.

So what's the difference? Wouldn't it be better to produce things here, where the standards for cleanliness are already high?

More taxes, less disposable income, fewer goods purchased.

More cap and trade, third world countries cannot industrialize. Their children continue to starve.

The United States not only continues supporting the entitlement/pork state when times are tough economically, but in fact increases the amount spent. Moreover, the federal government BORROWS FROM CHINA TO ACCOMPLISH THIS.

Can you say 'house of cards?'

 

[Calabrio]

No. The WTO can not make us meet the arbitrary, unfair standards of Kyoto. There are better ways to reduce emissions than the so-called "cap and trade policy" that Obama is going to charge us with. And if the WTO attempts to undermine our sovereignty, then we have the ability to leave the organization at any time, something NONE of the countries involved with it want to see happen.

So, in short, you're wrong on all counts.

And what was the savings in 'human life'?

Destroying the economy will cost more lives and reduce the quality of life of far more people. So take that propaganda else where.

so, cost for everybody in the US - $88 each.

That's the 1990 bill, let's talk about the COST of the Obama plan-

And whether or not you agree with the concept of global warming, the idea of 'fouling your own nest' should be understood by everyone.

Short sighted enviromentals fail to understand that poor countries aren't very green. Prosperity is the only way to lead to better preservation, new technologies, and people with the free time to worry about "green" issues. Did you notice how quickly "the environment" fell on the list of American priorities once they realized we were in a recession/depression?