TPMDC
Salazar: 'Cap And Trade' Not In The Lexicon Anymore
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar
Share
Send to a friend!
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, on CNBC this morning, suggested the administration will no longer use the term "cap and trade" to describe climate change legislation.
"I think the term 'cap and trade' is not in the lexicon anymore," Salazar said, adding that supporters -- including senators working on legislation -- will focus more on ideas such as slowing pollution, creating jobs and becoming energy independent. "It's in that context" the Senate will move forward, he said.
Climate change legislation has stalled in the Senate and faces an uphill political climb. Conservatives and tea partiers have been railing against "cap and trade," also known by opponents as "cap and tax," for months.
Salazar was making the TV rounds this morning to announce the White House's decision to open parts of the East Coast up to offshore oil drilling.
"Our announcement today is about the administrative authorities we have in the executive branch," he said, adding that "there is great conversation going on" in the Senate.
Watch:
(H/T The Hill)
Late update: Salazar spokeswoman Kendra Barkoff tells TPMDC that there are no plans to drop cap and trade provisions from the administration's climate change agenda.
"Cap and trade is part of a larger energy plan," Barkoff said. "It's part of a whole comprehensive legislation."
"He was talking about the actual phrase, not the concept," she added.
Comments (113) | Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
Most Popular
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2010 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
shooter242
March 31, 2010 9:58 AM
Yes indeed, cap and tax is dead.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Andrew Weakland
March 31, 2010 10:09 AM in reply to shooter242
Not sure why 'Cap and Tax' is the preferred 'conservative' term. Cap and trade should die as a simple 'pollution tax' gets the job done just as well and is easy enough to be understood by the simpleton electorate, much like a cigarette tax.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
KeithL
March 31, 2010 11:43 AM in reply to Andrew Weakland
It's also known as a carbon tax! With dweebs loke Salazar in charge of the process, I'm not going to hold out much hope, but a simple tax on carbon emissions has ALWAYS been the better solution to accomplishing the goal of accurately pricing the various energy choices we face.
My boy Al has always been for it, as have most, serious climate change-concerned economists. The absurd, hidden subsidies for petroleum/gas producers have masked the true cost for decades. Renewables are already competitive against the true costs of carbon fuels. If we taxed them honestly, the cost of cleaning up their messes would be more affordable. What we DON'T need is yet another commodities "market" for the Wall Street Gang to pillage.
Unfortunately, this seems to be more of President Obama "compromising" with industry and their Republican tools in the (highly) unlikely hope for "cooperation". As a poster on Dkos put it so eloquently, "drilling for climate change is like fucking for virginity". Likewise, surrendering on any constraints on carbon spewing for the sake of comity is like eating for weight loss.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
shooter242
March 31, 2010 11:50 AM in reply to Andrew Weakland
Tax is the operative word here.
We now have a new medicare tax.
We now have a new medicare tax on investment.
We now have a new tax on healthcare plans.
We now have a new medical equipment tax.
We now have a new excise tax on cosmetic surgery.
We now have a new caps on deducting medical expenses.
We are going to have a huge bump back to Clinton income rates.
We are going to have a huge bump back to Clinton capital gains rates.
We are going to have additional surcharges on incomes over $200,000
We now have a new tanning tax. Which only applies to white people. Heh.
This is only a partial list and you want MORE taxes? And people wonder why employment is not looking good. Let's hear it for the VAT where at least everyone pays.
But the real problem is that nobody believes in anthropomorphic GW now. Worse the two biggest "greenhouse gases" are water vapor and CO2, necessary for life. Sorry bud, but taxing in the name of junk science just isn't going to happen.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
A Missouri voter
March 31, 2010 12:00 PM in reply to shooter242
At the risk of appearing as dense as I really am, what is the "GW" in "anthropomorphic GW."?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
shooter242
March 31, 2010 12:13 PM in reply to A Missouri voter
Global Warming
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Barney
March 31, 2010 12:44 PM in reply to A Missouri voter
Umm...no...that'd be "anthroprogenic"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
BillMcD
March 31, 2010 2:33 PM in reply to Barney
No, he's right. I certainly don't believe in anthropomorphic global warming. I don't know anyone who believes in a vaguely humanoid (potentially furry) global warming... unless maybe as some kind of comic book supervillain... HRMmmmm....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
shooter242
March 31, 2010 3:37 PM in reply to Barney
Drat.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bibimimi
March 31, 2010 4:31 PM in reply to shooter242
Curses. Tin-foiled again!
[I like ur dog.]
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cah89
March 31, 2010 2:11 PM in reply to shooter242
We don't have a new Medicare tax. If you hadn't noticed earlier by looking at your pay stubs, there's been one for a while now. Cosmetic and tanning taxes amount to taxing luxury, and neither is onerous. The Clinton tax brackets will only apply to the wealthy, and in case you hadn't noticed, it makes sense to tax where the money is, not vice versa like what Paul Ryan wants to do.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rbe1
March 31, 2010 2:24 PM in reply to shooter242
Time for your medicine, shooter.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
March 31, 2010 9:32 PM in reply to shooter242
A parliamentary panel investigating allegations that scientists at one of the world's leading climate research centers misrepresented data related to global warming announced Wednesday that it had found no evidence to support that charge.
Isn't it a little Stalinist of you to declare that the bulk of the scientific community are non-persons?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ws84
March 31, 2010 12:22 PM in reply to Andrew Weakland
Cap and trade is (now was) a Republican idea. The idea was to use market forces to reduce pollution. George H.W.Bush signed into law the first cap and trade program. Sooooo they were for it before they were against it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
shooter242
March 31, 2010 12:36 PM in reply to ws84
Not quite. I like this article on the differences. Primarily industry owned the credits in the first program, Government owns the credits in the current proposal. What a shocker!
http://hnn.us/articles/89526.html
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Captain Obvious
March 31, 2010 5:00 PM in reply to shooter242
hardly a difference between gov't and corporations anymore. Cap and trade was always a joke, and an incentive to keep the worst polluting plants online (not shutting them down completely at least) in order to get "credits" at the start of such a program. Cap n trade will never be done seriously.
I hope Fred Moolten is in this thread somewhere..... lmfao
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Barney
March 31, 2010 10:10 AM in reply to shooter242
So is Wee Wee's presidency...
This is such a laughable flippity-flop in response to his poll numbers dropping faster than Bawney Fwanks size XXXL BVD's at a bathhouse
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dswx
March 31, 2010 10:51 AM in reply to Barney
What a lie. Poll numbers have been around 50 percent for many, many weeks.
Why do you think blatant lying is acceptable behavior? Does your family? Seriously.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
njlib
March 31, 2010 12:31 PM in reply to dswx
wanna bet they go down lower now. Repubs will never poll favorably for him and now liberals have more reason to jump ship.
I've said it b4 and now again, the only way to get what you want from this president is to let him know that he isn't guaranteed a job next pres election cycle, we need a primary challenger.
Treat him like Blanche, he's a conservative Democrat and lied to make it look like he wasn't, if it's good enough for Blanche lincoln it should be good enough for him.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Hominine
March 31, 2010 10:18 AM in reply to shooter242
Hope you boys are holding your breath, me thinks you are about to get something else shoved down your throat.
Try not to enjoy it to much you silly masochists.. ;~)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
A Missouri voter
March 31, 2010 10:32 AM in reply to shooter242
As a term, yes. As a concept? I guess that remains to be seen. Remember when the Bush administration and the Republican party were honest enough to admit that they wanted to "privitize" social security? Polling quickly made clear that this was not popular, so the administration and the think tanks dropped that language and began speaking of "Social Security choice." The substance of the proposed changes remained exactly the same, but the label used to refer to these changes was substituted with something else.
This is a long way of saying that it is clear that the administration is changing the vocabulary used to describe their climate and energy policy proposals. It remains to be seen whether this change in vocabulary signals any substantive policy change, however.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dswx
March 31, 2010 10:49 AM in reply to shooter242
Lying again re: cap and "tax". Wow, your family must be so proud of your apparent thinking that lying is acceptable behavior.
Fact (you really should look the word up, sport): Cap and trade was used to reduce acid rain precursor emissions in the 1990s as a result of the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990, signed by George Bush. All industry estimates re: costs and economic calamity were completely wrong. Not even close. What happened? The *free market* worked! Perfectly. Cap and trade resulted in substantial emission reductions. While the economy *grew* at a substantial pace through the decade. The government estimates re: cap and trade were spot on. Industry (and Republican) estimates were not even in the ball park. It turned out to be a win/win/win: for the environment, the economy and industry.
It is quite laughable that you are against the free market from doing what it did so well in the 1990s! Leave it to a Repub/Teabagger like you to hate America so much that you are against something that is a positive for all. LOL!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Barney
March 31, 2010 10:16 AM
Payrolls dropped again in March..
...so is Wee Wee still saying that his $1.2 trillion stimuls created jobs??
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
March 31, 2010 10:42 AM in reply to Barney
Housing declines dropped too. Funny how you wingnuts cherry pick economic news. Kind of like how you cherry picked "good news" out of Iraq. Get that 'Mission Accomplished' banner ready!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
A Missouri voter
March 31, 2010 11:00 AM in reply to AnswerFrog
I carry no brief for Barney, but your reply misses his point. The stimulus funds were never intended to bolster housing prices. They were intended to curb unemployment. Job numbers, therefore, are the only sensible metric by which to evaluate the success or failure of the stimulus. The mention of housing starts is simply irrelevant.
Of course, Barney's point is vacuous. It seems clear beyond cavil that payroll numbers would look even worse had we not passed the stimulus.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Barney
March 31, 2010 11:04 AM in reply to A Missouri voter
"Of course, Barney's point is vacuous. It seems clear beyond cavil that payroll numbers would look even worse had we not passed the stimulus"
You're basing that on what exactly??
200 economists signed a letter to Bammie saying not to sign this monstrosity into law as it will do nothing to improve employment...that it woud actually make it worse.
They instead said taxes should be cut to stimulate demand..
...but do not regurgitiate that stupid lefty talking point saying 95% of Americans got a tax cut...$8 bucks a week doesn't mean shit
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Majorajam
March 31, 2010 12:22 PM in reply to Barney
All due respect Barney, but those economists either purchased their doctorates online, signed post-lobotomy, or are willing to sell their academic integrity to the highest bidder. One hopes they didn't settle for less than a pack of chewing gum. It goes without saying that each constituency of which is well represented amongst the 'experts' conservatives cite to support their largley meritless policies across the entire spectrum from the environment to education, etc. etc.
Government spending and borrowing are indeed stimulative, and unambiguously so in a zero interest rate environment such as what our economy is currently mired in. We have theory to explain why that is, in particular the mutlipligative effect of deleveraging. We also have empirical evidence out the wazoo: from what eventuated the end of the Great Depression, (i.e. the colossal public spending involved in mobilizing the country for war), to the effect of GSE balance sheet operations in every recession for 20 years, to contemporaneous private loan demand surveys (note that the only way in which public spending would not be stimulative is if it crowded out private investment, a laughable assertion when one examines the actual data).
None of this proves that counter-cyclical 'stimulus' measures are prudent. But it does prove that it works to stimulate economic growth, which 'creates jobs', i.e. increases aggregate employment. It is worth pointing out that even Herbert Hoover realized this. He implemented many public works programs (including, e.g. the Hoover dam), with the express purpose of lifting economic activity.
What's most telling about this particular lie is not the fact that dumb-as-a-bag-of-hammers folks like you are keen to repeat it, but that our media is so piss poor that it has become prevalent across even constituencies with mild levels of intelligence. Of course it's not their fault that the public is so totally misinformed. Nothing's their fault. So what if their 'journalists' never bothered to minimally inform themselves of even recent economic history? Meanwhile, they cannot be accused of not representing 'both sides of the argument'- the one in which the world is round, and the other in which it is not.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Barney
March 31, 2010 1:16 PM in reply to Majorajam
Jeez...you think the sub-literate majority here will take the time to read what you wrote?? Nah, me neither. But, the ones that do will most likely believe that crap.
Using the mobilization for War World II is not analogous to Bammie's boondoggle. In the 40's industries were hugely expanded.. new ones were created...and ran the gamut of type. There was demand for business across the spectrum of the American economy. We did not have the military infrastructure in place.
Deficits were huge...but because of the expanded across-the-board economic expansion, they were quickly overcome.
Obammie's spending was just a payoff to his union buddies...nothing more because of the Davis Bacon Act and the preferences for union labor on government projetcs
The Hoover and FDR work programs did very little to ease unemployment and had almost no effect on the economy as a whole. It's was like pissing into the ocean. Taking that money out of the people's hands..and his stupid fiscal and monetary policies like extended the Depression by at least seven years
Unfortunately, today we are a very dehydrated country and the American body economic doesn't have any piss left. The stimulus only limited the possibilty of private sector growth.....and expolded deficits. There was a very temporary bump in GDP..which is expected to fall again next quarter.
Keynesianism is just a fairy tale to dupe the easily deluded into socialism. Remember the stimulus was supposed to limit uneployment to 8%??? How'd that work out??
We are looking at a debt to GDP ratio of 90% in the next decade. We have a very mature country and would need huge expansion rate to overcome that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Majorajam
March 31, 2010 1:54 PM in reply to Barney
*sigh* Indeed Carny, new industries were created in WWII. Industries like munitions, fighter and tank manufacture, etc. Unfortunately, those industries did not produce much of use to the post-WWII world, beyond its far more meager defense requirement. This helped to explain the high inflation and massive economic retrenchment of the post-war period.
So what? None of that matters at all to your original assertion, repeated if obliquely in your inane response, that the stimulus didn't increase employment. Indeed, it did, as indeed all public spending that does not crowd out private consumption/investment will. If you know of any other mechanism by which public spending is not stimulative, I'd sure like to hear about it. If you have any, repeat ANY, evidence that private spending was crowded out by federal borrowing, I'd really like to see that. I alluded to private loan demand surveys- actual, quality underlying evidence. They support my assertions and unequivocally put the lie to yours. Put up, or shut up.
As to WWII, as I say, nothing in your stream of consciousness fact- and cite-free mumbo jumbo response is of any consequence to the underlying point: public spending unambiguously undeniably and undoubtedly ended the Great Depression. That is true whatever the merits of the spending in question. It is true whatever the magnitude of the spending in question. It's just true (it's also true that FDR's public spending, and Hoover's, had an impact and in FDR's case, led to some heady GDP growth. They were up against a MASSIVE output gap. Put that one in the google and smoke it).
I won't get into Keynesianism- that will forever be a politically charged term, even as it is indisputable that his insights lay at the foundation of each of the schools of modern economics. You should learn something about something before you embarrass yourself publically, even under such an uninspired pseudonym as you use here.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Barney
March 31, 2010 2:52 PM in reply to Majorajam
Huh..gosh darn it ya got me..I emabarrassed myself
...jus' kiddin'
Wait...what?? First youi said WWII was responsible...now not so much?? Man..you flip faster than Obammie
Oh..and your assertion that Bammie's $1.2 trillion boondoggle created jobs because it was supposed to create jobs is pretty darned silly, dontcha think? Where's the evidence? Huh?
Doogie Elmendorf used the same logical fallacy. He was forced to admit that they had no evidence whatsoever that the ridiculously named stimulus created any jobs...but rather made the claim that 1.5 million were created because their "models" predicted so.
My "model" says you're a lying dumbshit.
Besides all the munitions, fighters, tanks...blah, blah, blah.there were rubber, steel, foodtsuffs, textiles, electronics, drygoods, wood products, building, ..(oh God..there are too many to list) business created not to mention the suppler infrastructure...which HUGELY expanded the economic profile...and the basis for growth
As far as your "alluded to" but not cited loan surveys...let's see 'em
Consumer spending is about 2/3rds of GDP...I don't know about you...but even though I have a real gosh darned good credit rating, my rates went up on my credit cards pretty severly..(I protested and got thenm down, but those with a little lower credit scores i imagine had some difficulty doing so) i even had one of my credit card companies drop my limit fro $10,000 down to $5000...even though I paid it off every month...I called and they said they had a total aggregate exposure and had to take my allotment away to use for others
You seem to be a rather angry little feller...and say I'm fact and cite free...I speak from common sense and retained knowledge..but to spend time cutting and pasting source material is silly..but if you want i should spend time doing it I shall..not right now though
(sigh) The point that really sticks out in your argument..and the one that makes you look most silly is that you reiterated the same claim about stimulus job creation that Obammie and the CBO made;
...that jobs were created becuase it was supposed to
...cites?? ...facts??
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sophie
March 31, 2010 3:25 PM in reply to Barney
"My "model" says you're a lying dumbshit."
The only lying dumbshit I'm reading on this particular thread is you.
Why don't you try making your point (whatever that is?), without the name calling? But then, that's all wingnuts EVER do, as they do not have any idea what the truth is.
Name calling and attacking others is all you've got dude.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Barney
March 31, 2010 3:37 PM in reply to sophie
"What's most telling about this particular lie is not the fact that dumb-as-a-bag-of-hammers folks like you"
...sound familiar??...it should
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Majorajam
March 31, 2010 5:17 PM in reply to Barney
Yea Carny, there's this thing called a google. You being unfortunately ignorant should take better advantage of this resource. 5th one down is not the most recent, but it will do: http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/SnLoanSurvey/201002/
This is the difference between what I write and what you do. There are easily verifiable facts that I specifically allude to in my posts. Yours, well, I doubt you'd be able to repeat back what it is you've written if someone asked you after the fact. As an aside, are you Mormon?
In any case, the report linked there, btw, it's not the kind of thing that you would expect to see if what was burbling from your corner contained an ounce of validity
By weakened further, fyi, they mean that this is part of a trend. Ooops.But you say, my credit card interest rates went up! Oh my, that must be crowding out... except that, no, this bank credit tightening is actually consistent with the deleveraging story that public risk taking, i.e. stimulus, is meant to counteract- i.e. it is an outcome that this type of policy mitigates, not a side-effect. If banks are offloading assets/risk/loans the problem is asset prices and liquidity, two things that are bolstered by federal deficit spending.
For evidence of crowding out you have to look either at private loan demand all else equal, as I have, or at the cost of funds for banks. As to the latter, I'll defy you, for a second time, to show me where the stimulus has led to an increase in the cost of funds for intermediaries. Again, looking at everything from COFI data to equity and bond markets, quite the contrary.
Carny, it's not escaped my attention that you are terribly afflicted by what's known as the Dunning-Kruger effect. This happens when the largest impediment for an unskilled rube to become less so is in fact, his own mind-bending ignorance. The mechanism, paradoxically, is that the affected suffer from an illusory superiority born entirely of not knowing that they know nothing, which prevents them from ever becoming informed. I suggest you look that up in the hopes that one day you might wake up to the embarrassment that goes under your byline here, and no doubt where you can't hide behind a pseudonym.
When you do investigate that, you might also want to reconsider if the unambiguous statement that, "the underlying point [is that] public spending unambiguously undeniably and undoubtedly ended the Great Depression." really represents a backtrack of my claim that public spending of mobilizing for WWII ended the Depression. This word, I'm fairly certain it doesn't mean what you think it means.
And you might consider what it means that someone would have to point that out to you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Barney
March 31, 2010 6:11 PM in reply to Majorajam
Seriously...do you just google things you have no effing clue about??
regurgitating wikipedia information is useless unless you understand it
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Barney
March 31, 2010 6:15 PM in reply to Majorajam
""Carny, it's not escaped my attention that you are terribly afflicted by what's known as the Dunning-Kruger effect. This happens when the largest impediment for an unskilled rube to become less so is in fact, his own mind-bending ignorance. The mechanism, paradoxically, is that the affected suffer from an illusory superiority born entirely of not knowing that they know nothing, which prevents them from ever becoming informed.""
The term, I believe, "is projection"
seriously, dude...you can't just quoting shit without knowing what the hell it means...ya just look stupid
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Majorajam
March 31, 2010 2:05 PM in reply to Barney
Btw, about debt to GDP of 90%, that's not the half of it. That's federal debt. What matters most to our capacity to bear a debt burden is national savings, especially net international indebtedness. National savings rates were negative for years under President Bush and Republican Congresses- that was unprecedented except during deepest darkest years of THE GREAT DEPRESSION, when people didn't have a pot to piss in. Meanwhile, net international indebtedness exploded to the tune of circa 7% of GDP per annum. Likewise unprecedented for this nation, and most nations outside of 1990s era Latin America.
Those were the years when we were eating our seed corn, and destroying the prosperity of future generations, not now that savings rates are finally creeping back to something like respectability (so fast as it happens we have an employment problem on our hands). Look no further than your own corrupt ignorant hateful and hopeless party for the fiscal ruination that is likely to befall this nation.
Here endeth the lesson.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Barney
March 31, 2010 3:05 PM in reply to Majorajam
*blink* why the hell would anyone save when you lose money doing so...interest rates set by Greenspan..and continued by Bernanke were lower than inflation???
You must be an econon instructor or professor...cuz you don't seem to know shit...
Saving is up now because..paradoxically as it sounds...people cannot afford to spend
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Majorajam
March 31, 2010 5:25 PM in reply to Barney
No, savings is up because illusory wealth has disappeared, and to a lesser extent because of ongoing credit/risk intermediation issues. Short-term interest rates- interest rates across the board actually- were substantially higher five years ago than they are now back when savings rates were negative. So you're wrong. Again. Even excepting the fact that the whole misguided line of argument is besides the point. See my previous comment for directions on where to let the healing begin.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Barney
March 31, 2010 6:02 PM in reply to Majorajam
Jesus, Murray, and Yusef..WTF are you talking about??
God..ADD much?? Seriously...how fucking stupid are you?
What would consumers take loans out for??Homes?? Cars?? That's why the demand for personal loans is down, dumbass..
Why is other spending down ?
1) increased lending rates
2) uncertainty
...aaaarrrrggghhhhhhh...God, now I know what a special ed teacher feels like. You quote these dumb fucking abstracts...and they sail right over your head.
Why aren't businesses borrowing? Cuz there is no fucking market for their goods and/or services?? Whay aren't they hiring?? Cuz there is no market for their goods and/or services?
Why is there no market for their goods and/or services?? Cuz their is a reduced consumer demand ase for their goods and/or services??
Why is there a reduced demand for goods and/or services?? Cuz fewer people have jobs...cuz many are working reduced hours...cuz they are saving because of the fear that the good s and/or services will be more costly in the future...
You wrote "I'll defy you, for a second time, to show me where the stimulus has led to an increase in the cost of funds for intermediaries"
I never, ever said that it did, nitwit. The banks have to shift risk somewhere...and that's where it landed.
Your "private loan survey" only reinforced my argument...no wonder you were so hesitant to cite it
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
emears
March 31, 2010 9:44 PM in reply to Barney
You can parse it like the sales pitches do by sayiing something will only cost you so much per day or week. Truth is that a $400 billion tax cut is a big cut. Save me $500 on my tax return and it means something. Jack ass.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Scott in PacNW
March 31, 2010 4:41 PM in reply to Barney
According to ADP, not the Labor Dept. ADP does not include Census jobs they say (& who knows what else).
Compared to hemorrhaging under GWB, even a loss of 20k jobs is a walk in the park. Yep, Mr Market sure was 'efficient' pre-stimulus.
http://www.writingshop.ws/assets/images/job-losses.gif
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Why oh why
March 31, 2010 10:17 AM
Back in the lexicon:
- Drill baby drill!
- Bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
March 31, 2010 10:20 AM
So the President once again retreats in the face of corporate resistance and instead of doing as he promised on climate change has adopted the battle cry: "Drill Baby Drill!"
Isn't it great to have given a mandate for changing the status quo to a faux Democrat? The Republicans should be very pleased with his implementation of their platform.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 31, 2010 11:40 AM in reply to oleeb
I challenged you to a duel but you retreated like the chickenshit pussy you are.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
March 31, 2010 11:53 AM in reply to FreeRider
LMAO!!!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Captain Obvious
March 31, 2010 5:06 PM in reply to lousgirl84
all the other 8th graders in the cafeteria: "oooooooooo!" "fight! fight! fight!"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
March 31, 2010 5:44 PM in reply to oleeb
Have you ever noticed how must the Republicrat trolls have in the common with the Freepers?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kevin Sutton
March 31, 2010 10:21 AM
The term 'cap and trade' sometimes polls better than belief in global warming in the US. This certainly won't convince recalcitrant senators to back an anti-pollution strategy. Strange decision.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
njlib
March 31, 2010 12:42 PM in reply to Kevin Sutton
it's an attempt at "bi-partisan" support for climate change votes from republicans who will run when the party threatens them. once again, like health care, the pres gives away his negotiating tool, next the reps will be saying "no" unless there's a tax break for the oil industry to build these oil rigs on the publics dime, before you know it libs will have nothing the conservatives will have everything, we'll be supportive, the pres will get no rep votes, they'll call him a socialist and he'll lose more popularity. the reps play this guy like a violin.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
njlib
March 31, 2010 1:47 PM in reply to njlib
in case you were wondering
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/03/31/bruce-bartlett-gop-appeased/
Dan Bartlett:
"Now, do I think that this measure here will help grease the path for a climate change bill and bring Republicans on board? No. Republicans in the Congress have made a calculation that cooperating with this administration at this time is not necessary for them to pick up seats."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
justaJ0e
March 31, 2010 10:22 AM
Can't wait to see what insane, "flip flop" reasoning the Republicans will come up with for being against drilling.
This should be fun.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wwstaebler
March 31, 2010 10:23 AM
It's increasingly hard to understand the hue and cry from Republicans about "taking back" THEIR country when, apparently, they haven't lost it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
A Missouri voter
March 31, 2010 11:04 AM in reply to wwstaebler
No joke.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Maritza
March 31, 2010 10:23 AM
"Cap & trade" is DEAD
It is now called "Energy Independence".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Barney
March 31, 2010 10:27 AM
Bammie in 2008...NO OFFSHORE DRILLING!!!!
http://www.lcrga.com/news/200010251159.shtml
Bammie in 2010 with 45% approval rating....Drill, baby, drill
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
A Missouri voter
March 31, 2010 10:36 AM in reply to Barney
What is it about your posts that always makes me think of Orwell?
Oh yes, now I remember.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Barney
March 31, 2010 10:38 AM in reply to A Missouri voter
Is it my clever prose and allegory about lefty fascism??
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Brownbagger
March 31, 2010 10:59 AM in reply to Barney
Barney, that's not half bad. Misinformed, but sans any 'tards or profanities. You are learning, you old cowpoke. Regards.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Red XIV
March 31, 2010 4:41 PM in reply to Barney
"Lefty fascism" is a contradiction in terms. All fascists are conservatives.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
nedbalzer
March 31, 2010 10:41 AM in reply to A Missouri voter
Doesn't remind me of Orwell; reminds me of a certain purple dinosaur.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
nova voter
March 31, 2010 11:27 AM in reply to Barney
what?
august 2008: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/01/AR2008080103199.html
Obama, through his Senate office, issued a written statement welcoming a proposal sent to Senate leaders Friday by 10 senators -- five from each party -- that would lift drilling bans in the eastern Gulf of Mexico within 50 miles of Florida's beaches and in the Atlantic off Virginia, the Carolinas and Georgia, but only if the states agree to oil and gas development along their coasts. The states would share in revenue from the development.as far as the rest of your bullshit about "flip-flops," here's something a bit more credible than some NRO pile of dung:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dswx
March 31, 2010 11:32 AM in reply to Barney
Wow, you posted two blatant lies in just two sentences. Congratulations.
A. From August 2008: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/01/AR2008080103199.html
"Obama, through his Senate office, issued a written statement welcoming a proposal sent to Senate leaders Friday by 10 senators -- five from each party -- that would lift drilling bans in the eastern Gulf of Mexico within 50 miles of Florida's beaches and in the Atlantic off Virginia, the Carolinas and Georgia, but only if the states agree to oil and gas development along their coasts. The states would share in revenue from the development."
Of course we know you are much too coward to be able to admit being completely wrong on this. Plus the fact that you reference an article from 2000.
B. Obama has been polling around 50 percent for a long, long time now. Many weeks. There is no "falling". Only in your dreams. Or the ones told you so that you will think they are "falling" by Faux News, Drudge, Hannity and Rush. Or Republican outlier pollsters such as Rasmussen (learn something about statistics too). BTW, he won the presidency by not much more percentage-wise than what he is currently polling! Deal with the fact, sport. Okay, I realize you will have to look the word "facts" up first since you clearly do not understand the difference between that word and "opinion" and "dream".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
VictorLH
March 31, 2010 10:33 AM
This is about the only good news from the Republican President Obama we have gotten today. Cap and Trade was just another way to allow the market to screw us just as they did with CDS's.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
A Missouri voter
March 31, 2010 10:38 AM in reply to VictorLH
Is that really fair? Cap and trade, after all, worked wonders with sulfur dioxide pollution. Personally I prefer a simple carbon tax, but the mere fact that someone, somewhere makes a profit off of cap-and-trade is a rather silly objection to the idea.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
VictorLH
March 31, 2010 10:55 AM in reply to A Missouri voter
Yes, it is fair. A trading scheme on this scale would be ripe for corruption (Soros and others have said as much). The plan as it was would have given credits away, creating an aristocracy from the get go.
The way to go is invest in low emissions cars and alternative energy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
A Missouri voter
March 31, 2010 11:15 AM in reply to VictorLH
I guess that I am not really much worried about corruption or aristocracies. My only concern is effectiveness - will a proposed reform actually reduce carbon output and thus save us from the worst ravages of global warming. Cap-and-trade worked for acid rain, so we know that it can be effective. Effectiveness is really the only measurement about which we can afford to concern ourselves. If you are going to object to a plan simply on the basis that someone, somewhere out there will grow undeservedly wealthy as a result of the plan, then you are focusing on the wrong problem.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dswx
March 31, 2010 10:56 AM in reply to VictorLH
Flat out wrong. Cap and trade worked very well in the 1990s to reduce acid rain precursor emissions. While the economy grew strongly. Industry, the environment and the economy benefited from the free market working. While the Repubs were dead set against it. Fortunately, George Bush signed the Clean Air Act Amendments in 1990 and the free market worked.
Funny how Republicans are now against the free market working; they just hate America.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
nedbalzer
March 31, 2010 10:39 AM
Good. Replace cap and trade with real strict limits on greenhouse gas emissions.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
March 31, 2010 10:46 AM in reply to nedbalzer
Zero emissions automobiles would do more than most any taxing scheme to reduce greenhouse gases and we could easily have them being produced in a couple of years while phasing out autos that do produce emissions. It's our automobile use that is driving the extremely dangerous levels of carbon being released annually.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Brownbagger
March 31, 2010 11:17 AM in reply to oleeb
I'm pushing my pickup near 200,000 miles. How long before we get an electric pickup? You up on this stuff?
p.s. What is your avatar?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
nova voter
March 31, 2010 11:29 AM in reply to Brownbagger
eye of horace
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
nova voter
March 31, 2010 11:30 AM in reply to nova voter
oops. horus
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Brownbagger
March 31, 2010 11:38 AM in reply to nova voter
Explain please.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
nova voter
March 31, 2010 12:44 PM in reply to Brownbagger
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_of_horus
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Brownbagger
March 31, 2010 1:05 PM in reply to nova voter
Thanks.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Derek Stodghill
March 31, 2010 1:27 PM in reply to nedbalzer
I read about cap and dividend here. It sounds more promising especially when you consider Susan Collins (R-ME) has co-sponsored it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
March 31, 2010 10:45 AM
Cap and trade was a conservative idea from decades ago. It was free market style reform instead of a strict regulatory reform.
Just shows how rightwing the Thugs have gotten, they now view their old ideas as "liberal".
Well, if they no longer believe in market solutions (cap and trade actualyl worked very well for acid rain), then I guess we can go back to the old govt regulation model.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
A Missouri voter
March 31, 2010 11:09 AM in reply to AnswerFrog
The mind simply reels, doesn't it. Cap-and-trade, once the proof to which the Right pointed to demonstrate the superiority of market-oriented solutions, has now become the poster child for "Big Government." I wish that the FOX news crowd could get their talking points straight.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wyt
March 31, 2010 10:45 AM
The real question: Will they sell carbon tax + rebate? Several senators are considering it, and it's Hansen's preferred policy. "Cap + trade" didn't have the word "tax" in it, so was preferred politically ... but then its enemies put the word "tax" in it. With "tax" in both options, the carbon tax + rebate looks politically betters, because it taxes the carbon-intensive industries in order to give a rebate directly to the citizens who use the energy. At 100% rebate it's revenue-neutral (although recent suggestions are the government may keep 15%). It bribes the public to agree to tax the companies who are poisoning the atmosphere, who then are motivated by pure market forces to cut their carbon emissions. Meanwhile the net cost to the public is zero - the rebates more than cover raised energy costs, and low-carbon companies gain a strong competitive advantage.
And there's far less by way of openings to game the system.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcc
March 31, 2010 11:09 AM in reply to wyt
I think Obama's old spin on cap and trade-- where the emissions permits were sold rather than given away-- was kind of neat because it WAS a stealth tax. Taxing carbon emissions is good! It's the whole point! You want to associate a cost with what is currently a negative externality. But that version of cap and trade has been off the table for a long time.
I actually wonder if the democrats could actually get more mileage if they just did as you suggest and called it a tax upfront. Never mind carbon. Call it a "polluter's tax". We're going to tax the polluters! See how the republicans feel about that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
energymv
March 31, 2010 12:18 PM in reply to wyt
ding ding ding ding!!! Zactly!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
energymv
March 31, 2010 12:24 PM in reply to energymv
"Tax and dividend" or "Tax and rebate" are the answer. Basically in a just society, you need to tax the polluters, and use that tax revenue to compensate the "polluted on".
You want to change my clean air? You gotta compensate me for it. You want my stable climate? You gotta compensate me for it.
The status quo is a moral hazard in which the more you polllute the world, the richer you get. We need to manage incentives. Tax and rebate or "Fee and dividend" is the easiest, most transparent way to do that...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Former Federal Employee
March 31, 2010 10:47 AM
Give it a few weeks and see what it was that we traded for. If you're still dissatisfied, feel free to indulge your apoplexy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
njlib
March 31, 2010 12:59 PM in reply to Former Federal Employee
guaranteed we traded for a bipartison climate change deal the seanate will vote on and we'll see one or two rep votes.
I'm more and more convinced this is a conservative democrat president using bipartisanship as cover for a conservative agenda. he thought he could get some repugs to go along with him and they fucked him, now he's bending over again. just like health care he will give away every liberal/progressive idea the trash can and liberal progressives will support it while reps call him a socialist for passing republican policies. he's an a-hole who has either no spine, no negotiating skills, or never was what he sold us on. I take the last option. We need a primary challenge, period. it's the only way to make the man live up to his campaign promises. ican't even keep up with his less than stellar performance so far, he'll only get a slight bump for passing HCR because its all he deserves. I believe his whole agenda falls right in line with what Rahm Emanuel said a long time ago, and I'm paraphrasing, obviously "run to the left an when you get in office you can fuck the liberals because who else are they going to go with?"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
njlib
March 31, 2010 1:52 PM in reply to njlib
Dan Barltett agrees with me:
"Now, do I think that this measure here will help grease the path for a climate change bill and bring Republicans on board? No. Republicans in the Congress have made a calculation that cooperating with this administration at this time is not necessary for them to pick up seats."
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/03/31/bruce-bartlett-gop-appeased/
remember, he may get the one or two votes in the senate but there is no benefit whatsoever for a housememeber to buck his party line "NO" stance
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcc
March 31, 2010 11:01 AM
So wait is cap and trade going away or being renamed?
This story talks about a bunch of framing changes. What happens to proposals in congress?
There have been rumors about the senate going forward with a slimmed down climate change bill which drops the big cap and trade proposal and does a bunch of smaller things instead. Do I take it from TPM's vague story that this is happening?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
A Missouri voter
March 31, 2010 11:07 AM in reply to mcc
That is exactly what I was wondering. I think that Former Federal Employee has it right. We should wait a few weeks and see what comes. It is unclear right now whether the administration is being sloppy or sly.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcc
March 31, 2010 11:17 AM in reply to A Missouri voter
I think if you can't figure out what the hell they're proposing, then by definition that means they're being sloppy.
But a sloppy messaging strategy is less interesting than whatever their legislative strategy is.
Where's Repower America on this?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
A Missouri voter
March 31, 2010 11:24 AM in reply to mcc
Fair enough.
I agree. If this means that energy reform is going to become nothing more than a capitulation to "drill, Baby, drill," then I am disgusted. If it means, on the other hand, that we are simply going to re-brand our efforts to curb fuel consumption, then I am delighted. Given that I cannot tell which is emerging at the moment, I am waiting to see.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
njlib
March 31, 2010 1:19 PM in reply to mcc
it's a give to republicans for "bi-partisan" support of an otherwise completely republican bill because the minority runs this congress. he'll get tepid support from some on this one, maybe, from the senate. the rest of the republicans and the entire house will call him a SOCIALIST!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Barney
March 31, 2010 11:06 AM
Just add this to the already long list of Bammie flip-flops
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MzI4MjQ3Mzk4MWJkNDkwNWZlYzcwNDA3NmQyNmIxYmI=
Change you can believe in...when the polls count are down
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
A Missouri voter
March 31, 2010 11:20 AM in reply to Barney
Er, o.k. You got us there. Pres Obama has reversed himself on a number of campaign promises. Given that most of those promises were of the sort that your ilk never liked in the first place, I am not sure why you would want to castigate the man for this, but I will be the first to agree that he has disappointed a number of his supporters by adopting positions that he campaigned against.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
decisivemoment
March 31, 2010 11:18 AM
I strongly prefer a carbon tax to cap and trade. Cap and trade is simply another vehicle for Goldman Sachs to bleed everyone else dry. A carbon tax is transparent, and because it's the government and not GS, it can always be rebated back for non-polluting activities. Whereas Cap and Trade monies go into a Goldman partner's pocket, never to emerge again until an imported yacht or something catches his eye.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
energymv
March 31, 2010 12:05 PM in reply to decisivemoment
I can not agree more. I work in the industry. I am an engineer who could easily find a job in private industry "verifying" the offsets upon which the traded derivatives and securities would be based.
Basically I would have big powerful VP bosses, trying to meet quarterly earnings, pressuring me to produce carbon offset figures favorable to their bottom line.
I would become the equivalent of a bad mortgage broker putting a stamp of approval on bad mortgages to make a quick profit! I would be pressured to put my stamp of approval on bad offset projects so my bosses and I could make a quick buck! Don't do it my countrymen! It's a scam! I speak from the heart!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
energymv
March 31, 2010 11:57 AM
I work for a major utility in the US. I also happen to be someone who cares deeply about the environment. Cap and Trade with Offsets would be a major giveaway to out-of-work securities traders. I won't go into to detail. But put it this way. There is no incentive for anyone actually working inside a "cap and trade" system to blow the whistle when offsets are forged or overly optimistic. From the "offsets" project developers, to the consulting engineers, the certification agencies, the derivatives traders, regulators lining up for the revolving door, all the way up the chain... there is way too much money to go 'round. Silence can be bought. Fraud can be bought.
I work in this industry. I know how it works. Everyone is bought. You can't trust the agencies who award the certifications. They are paid good money to accept whatever figures the project developers give them. There are other problems.
Suffice it to say that "fee/tax and dividend" is simple, logical, much less bureaucratic, much more manageable and safe, and much more transparent than "cap and trade". Environmentalists please take notice. We will lose this battle if we endorse cap and trade. Fee and dividend is the way to go. Cap and trade on the other hand could lead to the next major financial scandal. Cap and trade is a banker's dream. There is a great deal of money to be made by securities traders if they can pass cap and trade.
Cap and trade is a trojan horse for Wall Street's next big table game.
Keep it simple folks. Fee and dividend is the way to go. Some people say that it doesn't matter how you address the problem. These people obviously don't know the people I know. Gimmicky salespeople are licking their chops to sell, bundle, resell, rate, certify, and securitize green tags, white tags, carbon offsets, you name it and they will crate a piece of paper. These gimmicky pieces of paper will make these people rich. I work with these people. They know how to get rich off this crap.
Meanwhile global melting/warming will continue unabated. It absolutely matters how we address the problem.
In terms of the environment in the long term, I would argue that doing nothing would be better than a cap and trade system riddled with layers of Wall Street fraud and abuse. They love to trade shit. But we can't afford to let them crate another table game out of our environment.
The answer is simple. Tax/fee and dividend.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
A Missouri voter
March 31, 2010 12:03 PM in reply to energymv
I also prefer a straightforward carbon tax, and for the same reason you propose - because it is simple to administer. I do rather wonder, however, why you suppose that cap-and-trade would not be an effective means of carbon control. I has proven itself to be an effective means of sulfur dioxide control. Why would it work for one pollutant and not for another?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
energymv
March 31, 2010 12:13 PM in reply to A Missouri voter
@ "A Missouri Voter" I will tell you why...
How much was Wall Street involved in cap-and-trade of SOX emissions?
There is waaaaaaaaay more money in cap and trade of CO2 emissions. Wall Street is licking their chops! And anywhere you find that much money, you find fraud and abuse securitized and traded on Wall Street. Imagine the general public investing in over hyped offset-backed-securities derivatives.
There is just to much money involved in the system. There is no way to avoid abuse. It would require massive new federal and international regulatory regimes and they still wouldn't be able to find bad estimates.
There is waaaaaaay to much money involved for their to be real, honest, independent verification.
Fee and dividend just makes sense. It's easy, transparent, non-political in terms who benefits from the pollution tax revenue, and it's fairly easy to implement.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
KeithL
March 31, 2010 12:45 PM in reply to A Missouri voter
I agree with energymv wholeheartedly. Two other reasons to not be sanguine about how "well" Cap'n Trade did with SOX. One, the market was/is TINY compared to CO2; by many orders of magnitude. Therfore, the money involved is too.
Second, Post '98/2000 deregulations, the entire structure of Wall Street Casinos has changed. The fraudulent market models are all well developed, experienced and proven. The banks are too big to fail and they just made record profits, less than a year after being bailed out by Trillions of taxpayer risk.
Now the idea is to establish Cap & Trade "markets" and, most of the ideas I've heard floated lately, would involve GIVING AWAY the bulk of the "Credits" to heavy polluters initially, and slowly, ever so slowly, decreasing the allowable pollution while ratcheting up their cost. This is a loser on every level!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Viva!America!
March 31, 2010 1:19 PM
Cap and trade by any other name............
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
energymv
March 31, 2010 1:32 PM in reply to Viva!America!
Cap and trade =/= fee and dividend
Cap and trade =/= tax and rebate
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
energymv
March 31, 2010 1:36 PM in reply to Viva!America!
Cap and trade of CO2 and securitization of CO2 offsets would be so susceptible to corruption, fraud and abuse.
Fee and dividend and tax and rebate are far, far superior in so many ways. I hope that people educate themselves, and learn the differences between these different policies.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AlphaLiberal
March 31, 2010 2:42 PM
The battle cry of Democrats: "RETREAT!"
And whatever term they take up next will also be smeared by opponents. And they will, again, retreat.
Rinse and repeat.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
March 31, 2010 5:48 PM in reply to AlphaLiberal
They don't even bother to retreat anymore. Their mission statement is "What would Nixon do?".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
energymv
March 31, 2010 6:00 PM in reply to AlphaLiberal
@ AlphaLibe -
Retreating is sometimes a good thing. In this case retreating from cap-and-trade is definitely good policy! Fee and Dividend is far superior strategy!
Drilling offshore is very much a political maneuver, and that's about it. Most of the easy-to-get offshore oil is already totally accessible. Expanded access won't significantly help this country reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
FL has a good pot of oil offshore in the Eastern Gulf, but you have to pipe it onshore. FL residents won't be so quick to trade-in existing tourism jobs for new oil-extraction jobs not to mention the environmental hazards of new oil infrastructure in hurricane alley. Floridians would need to a agree to a deal with the Admin.
People mistakenly think that any additional oil from expanded offshore fields would lower prices in the US. This is not true. We wouldn't even notice the price drop. The multi-national corporations that extract and sell our country's oil sell it for profit at world oil prices, and the additional fraction of a million bpd, would be too insignificant to affect world prices. It might create a couple thousand jobs in a few states, but don't expect to see any other major benefit at the tank. If we nationalized our oil like most other oil producers do, then the citizenry would benefit, but that's not how we sell our oil. We get some royalties and that's about it.
So if we are going to be honest with ourselves, this is almost totally a political issue. Producers in Saudi Arabia and Iran won't even notice it. This is insignificant. It's just very political. It always has been.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Capt Elaine
March 31, 2010 2:46 PM
I like to call it CRAP & TAX... Crappy science to tax the very AIR you breath... what a concept... and to think it almost passed...
Opening up Drilling... ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.... it's A LIE... he's CLOSED drilling in almost every location where it is know to exist and is going to open exploration in the places where there is no oil... Does our comrade President think the slaves of the government will be fooled by this?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AlphaLiberal
March 31, 2010 2:53 PM in reply to Capt Elaine
How very interesting, Elaine. So you don't buy global warming. Do you also reject the greenhouse effect?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Red XIV
March 31, 2010 4:48 PM in reply to AlphaLiberal
It's the typical conservative contempt for science. Elaine probably doesn't believe in gravity either.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FlownOver
March 31, 2010 6:22 PM in reply to Capt Elaine
Yeah, don't exert any control to sustain breathable air. Just give it away to old rich guys who'll be dead soon anyway. Yeah, that's the ticket.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Wahrheit
March 31, 2010 3:37 PM
Let Cap and Trade slip away. Cap and Dividend sounds like a much better solution anyway.
It is much simpler to implement to reach the desired goals, needs a much smaller bureaucracy,
will not allow Wall Street to game the system, and puts the market power in the hands of
individuals, not corporations. Read about it here:
http://www.policyinnovations.org/ideas/policy_library/data/cap_dividend
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Red XIV
March 31, 2010 4:51 PM
Cap and trade is dead? Good. Forget the "trade" part and just cap.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DetroitMark
March 31, 2010 9:34 PM
Ugh. How did all of these bloodsucking teabagger idiots get in here. They're infesting everything. And they only make up 23% of the population. They're like a f******g cancer.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?