Obama: "The Gays"/Healthcare and Slow, Deliberate, Structural Change

[cruztbone]

WillTom is absolutely correct. and i will join him in shaking my Obama pom-poms. obama is seeking structural change, fairly and democratically. HE IS CLEARLY NOT A Dictator. His election was a real one ; he has appointed Repugnantcans to the cabinet.
He seeks our their views. Bush did none of that . HE WAS BOTH A DICK and a dictator based on 2 tainted selections rather than fair elections.
I SLEEP BETTER AT NIGHT KNOWING OBAMA IS PRESIDENT, AND BIDEN IS THE MOST REFRESHINGLY HONEST VICE PRESIDENT WE HAVE EVER HAD!! GOD BLESS BOTH OF THEM AND THEIR WONDERFUL FAMILIES! I am proud to be a gay Latino American!!!

 

[Flashy]

WillTom is absolutely correct. and i will join him in shaking my Obama pom-poms. obama is seeking structural change, fairly and democratically. HE IS CLEARLY NOT A Dictator.

curious...what did you think of him unfairly and undemocratically overturning american bankruptcy laws to use the full power of the presidency to force Chrysler Lenders to accept less then what they were entitled to under the law?

felt a bit dictatorial to me...and to all the pension funds that lost their money when they were legally entitled to receive their restitution before anyone else, since they were secured lenders.

as for that "structural change" you are talking about, i am curious how you are going to feel, when Obama, who promised that nobody who was making under 250,000 a year would have their taxes raised, then passed cigarette taxes which disproportionately hit poorer americans, has been at the forefront of passing cap and trade, which will raise costs on the average american rather substantially, and will, despite taxing the wealthiest of americans first, eventually forced to tax the middle class to pay for the massive gap in financing the new health care plan.

i am just curious how you categorize that as "structural change".

and no, I am not a republican, so spare me the typical canned response if you please.

i would like you to justify your comments based on the two topics i have addressed.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

WillTom is absolutely correct. and i will join him in shaking my Obama pom-poms. obama is seeking structural change, fairly and democratically. HE IS CLEARLY NOT A Dictator. His election was a real one ; he has appointed Repugnantcans to the cabinet.
He seeks our their views. Bush did none of that . HE WAS BOTH A DICK and a dictator based on 2 tainted selections rather than fair elections.
I SLEEP BETTER AT NIGHT KNOWING OBAMA IS PRESIDENT, AND BIDEN IS THE MOST REFRESHINGLY HONEST VICE PRESIDENT WE HAVE EVER HAD!! GOD BLESS BOTH OF THEM AND THEIR WONDERFUL FAMILIES! I am proud to be a gay Latino American!!!

Now, say it again. Only this time tell us how you REALLY feel.

 

[cruztbone]

The so-called bankruptcy reform law passed in 2007 not only was the corporate ripooff of this young century, it was passed late at night with the then-GOP majority in the senate allowing no debate. I am glad Obama recognized the dictatorial actions of a US senate completely beholden to corporate Amerika and responded appropriately to the auto crisis. Unfortunately, when Obama has reached out to the GOP, he receives only scorn and disdain. therefore, he has the right to use his majority in reforming an Ayn Rand on steroids out of control system that threatens both our economic and strategic security.
Cap and trade and the tobacco tax are neither regressive nor do they punish the poor. They do punish those who create an endless supply of carbon , in various forms, for the rest of us to absorb.
In california, it is not the poor or the working class who inflict the most carbon on society; it is the wealthy and the conscience-less. The poor and the working class can no longer afford to smoke. They are the most likely to carpool, use public transit or walk. all of these options create less quantities and varieties of carbon in our atmosphere. Californians are driving less; they are using public transit more, even in LA.
as for tobacco, the city of San Francisco added another 20cent per pack tax to be used just to clean up the mess left by smokers on city streets.
Every year, i participate in the end of summer beach cleanup that is nationwide. what do we pick up more of than anything, year after year at Capitola beach? cigarette butts, by a huge margin. smoking is now illegal on ALL santa cruz county beaches. our beaches are crowded this summer by local folks who are staying close to home because the Bush depression has canceled any plans for out of area vacations. They are, according to my lifeguard friend who works at a local beach, NOT SMOKING, for the most part. Those that do have a conference with the county sheriff.
I do believe that answers your questions. Now, my turn.
HAVE YOU EVER READ ANY BOOKS DEALING WITH US HISTORY? and give me an answer that doesnt simply trash Obama. I have read enough of that bullcrap to last a lifetime.

 

[Flashy]

The so-called bankruptcy reform law passed in 2007 not only was the corporate ripooff of this young century, it was passed late at night with the then-GOP majority in the senate allowing no debate.

since you go on to blast me for lack of knowledge of US history later in your screed, now might be an appropriate time for you to brush up on yours. the "So called Bankruptcy reform Law" did not pass in 2007. thusly the reason it is known as The Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2005. since it was signed into law on April 20th, 2005

Also, the Banruptcy Reform Act, whatever your view of it, did not in fact change the legal status of secured lenders & their rights & priorities in the order of redemption of investment in case of bankruptcy of an entity they have loaned money to.

You might want to brush up on that before your next session of finger wagging.

I am glad Obama recognized the dictatorial actions of a US senate completely beholden to corporate Amerika and responded appropriately to the auto crisis.

that still does not change the fact that Obama thought it was ok to trample on the rights of secured lenders. He responded appropriately to the auto crisis. what he did not respond to appropriately was the complete disregard & trampling of rights of secured lenders, most notably Two large Indiana Police & teachers pension funds, whose rights he smashed in favor of UAW

If you are a police officer or teacher in Indiana, i guarantee you, you likely do not think Obama responded appropriately by saying that even though your legal rights put you 1st for recovery of assets, the UAW's loyalty to him is more important then your legal rights & if you attempt to exercise those rights, he'll use the full weight of his office to crush you.

seems rather Bush-like to me. what was the word you used? Dictatorial?

sounds about right.

Unfortunately, when Obama has reached out to the GOP, he receives only scorn and disdain.

LOL. what do you expect? Hm, you "reach out" by doing things that they completely disagree with & are surprised when they do not go along? Just what do you think people vehemently opposed to your agenda should do in that case? Go along & say, oh he is so sweet, let's do it anyway even if we disagree completely.

If Bush had "reached out" to the Democrats, by suggesting they back his Pro-Life stance & the democrats reacted with scorn & disdain, would you be lauding Bush's efforts to "reach out"?

laughable. The opposition is the opposition for a reason.

therefore, he has the right to use his majority in reforming an Ayn Rand on steroids out of control system that threatens both our economic and strategic security.

he does indeed have the "right" to use his majority. but in crushing the Chrysler lenders, he did not use his "majority". He used the full weight of the executive branch to crush legitimate dissent from people whose rights he had every intention of trampling.

that is dictatorial, no matter your view of Ayn Rand.

Cap and trade and the tobacco tax are neither regressive nor do they punish the poor. They do punish those who create an endless supply of carbon , in various forms, for the rest of us to absorb.

LOL. I see, so the poor smoker, earning 20k a year, is not punished, while the rich smoker earning 500k a year is? laughable. It is absolutely regressive, as it hits people purchasing the same product. A rich person & a poor person go to a convenience store. They each smoke Marlboros. A pack of MArlboros was $6.50 yesterday, today, the price has gone up by the new 62 cent increase in fed tax.

Rich man gets a pack, for $7.12, poor man gets a pack for $7.12

over the year, each buy 400 packs of cigarettes. rich man pays $248 extra in taxes on those 400 packs, poor man pays $248 extra in taxes on those 400 packs

a definition of "Regressive Tax" is as follows - "A tax that takes a larger percentage from the income of low-income people than the income of high-income people."

That, my ignorant friend, is a regressive tax if ever i have seen it. care to explain how it isn't?


As for Cap & Trade, you can try & sidestep it however you want, but it will in fact represent the largest tax hike ever on the American middle & lower classes.

you stated "They do punish those who create an endless supply of carbon , in various forms, for the rest of us to absorb"

In fact, they don't. What Cap & trade does, is create a scarce new commodity> "Carbon Credits". the "right" to emit carbon. that businesses are mandated to buy. That "punishment" will never hit those who create the supply. they will simply charge the consumer for what they are losing in terms of revenue, passing along cost increases to the consumer, 95% of whom are not "rich".

Peter Orzsag, Obama's Budget Director said "Those price increases are essential to the success of a cap-and-trade program."

You might want to ask the average or poor family when their energy costs rise massively across the board, whether those increases were "essential"

You can sidestep it all you want, but the CBO has already estimated the 10 year tax cost of Cap/Trade at 842 Billion dollars. a rather conservative estimate. the net cost to *EVERY* household is $175 a year & *That* is very conservative.

It is a massive, regressive tax hike, no matter how you cut it, that hurts the average & lower income people disproportionately hard.


and don't use the "you are an anti-environment/pro-polluter" type. I am a passionate environmentalist/conservationist. there are ways to do it right. this is not it.

In california, it is not the poor or the working class who inflict the most carbon on society; it is the wealthy and the conscience-less.

i see, so if you if you have two computers in your home for 4 people, 2 cars instead of 1, a 46 inch TV & not a 32 inch TV, you somehow are a bad person who has no conscience?

Spare me.

it is strange, that as you say, "it is not the poor or the working class who inflict the most carbon on society"

If that is true, it would make little sense to punish them by taxing them more heavily, which cap/trade does. it raises taxes across the board. The difference is, the poor & working class cannot *AFFORD* to pay those increases, wheras the wealthy can. The 95% of people Obama claims will not see their taxes rise, will in fact see them rise through cap/trade. ergo, they will suffer disproportionately more of a loss of income than the 5% who can afford to.

That, again, is regressive.

The poor and the working class can no longer afford to smoke.

strange. i was walking around New York all week & saw plenty of poor & working class folks smoking. only problem is they are going to have to pay an extra $248 this year if they are smoking about a pack a day.

They are the most likely to carpool, use public transit or walk. all of these options create less quantities and varieties of carbon in our atmosphere.

indeed, but they still use electricity in their homes, and that is where they will be hit badly. just because you take public transit, does not mean you do not turn on your television, lights & air conditioning does it?

or is public transportation linked to home energy use in your world?

Californians are driving less; they are using public transit more, even in LA.

it matters not, see above. Californians don't drive or use public transit when they turn on their lights, TV's, Computers & Air Conditioners.

they will be hit with the new taxes, regardless.

President Obama himself said: “I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, natural gas, you name it—whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers under my plan of a cap-and-trade system. Electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”

as for tobacco, the city of San Francisco added another 20cent per pack tax to be used just to clean up the mess left by smokers on city streets.

wonderful story. another regressive tax though. Rich man earning $500k buys 400 packs of cigarettes a year in San Fran, pays $80 extra. Poor man earning $20k buys 400 packs of cigarettes a year in San Fran, pays $80 extra.

Ipso facto, Regressive tax.

Every year, i participate in the end of summer beach cleanup that is nationwide. what do we pick up more of than anything, year after year at Capitola beach? cigarette butts, by a huge margin.

that is wonderful & thoughtful of you. Still does not change the fact that tobacco tax is regressive, that hurts poor & working class smokers far worse than wealthier ones.

smoking is now illegal on ALL santa cruz county beaches.

Congratulations. are great white shark attacks now illegal at Davenport? Who cares? It is irrelevant, like your talk about smoking being illegal there. it has nothing to do with regressive taxation of people with less money.

 

[Flashy]

our beaches are crowded this summer by local folks who are staying close to home because the Bush depression has canceled any plans for out of area vacations.

there it is, the typical turn when faced with a loss of facts-when all else fails blame Bush.

Bush was one of the worst presidents in American history. but he was not responsible for this tobacco law that Obama put forward, nor was he responsible for cap and trade which Obama put forward.

you have an inability to deal with the present & with reality. Scream about Bush all you want, but these two are *OBAMA* plans, put forth by him & him alone & nothing you can say can pin either of these two on Bush.

They are, according to my lifeguard friend who works at a local beach, NOT SMOKING, for the most part. Those that do have a conference with the county sheriff.

thank heavens. how again, does this relate to the fact that Obama has proposed & ridden shotgun on two regressive taxes that disproportionately are now & will in the future, hurt the average & poorer american?

It sounds to me that your lifeguard friend, is better served by keeping an eye out for big fins and naughty smokers at 4 Mile, then commenting on the nature of regressive taxation.

I do believe that answers your questions.

not even close. You told wonderful stories about cleaning up beaches & poor folks car pooling. but that did not in any way refute the fact that the poor & the working class, are in fact being hit with regressive taxes under the tobacco & cap/trade system

no dice.

still a massive tax on the poor/working class.

Now, my turn.

HAVE YOU EVER READ ANY BOOKS DEALING WITH US HISTORY? and give me an answer that doesnt simply trash Obama. I have read enough of that bullcrap to last a lifetime.

i have read plenty of books on US history & you still have not managed to refute the statements at all.

you complained about cigs on the beach, but did not address how the tax on cigarettes unfairly hit the poor.

you complained about thoughtless rich people's carbon footprint, but of course sidestepped the fact, that the carbon tax price affects will hit the poor far more disproportionately than the rich since it will be passed on by cost to consumers. someone earning 500k a year, will not be too bothered by at minimum an extra $175 per year on their energy bill. a person making $20,000 a year, will indeed feel it. or does that near 1% of total gross income not hurt that average person?

as for reading "bullcrap" you may find that with posters such as Trinity, who are pro-Bush, but you won't find it here & you answered nothing, because it is undeniable

 

[cruztbone]

what is interesting is that you make some of the same arguments against cap and trade that the right wing Heritage foundation makes.
youre right; no di, no dice , no deal with your poorly -disguised argument to kill cap and trade.
As to smoking, the poor , according to US dept of health and human services data, are hurt MORE by cheaper tobacco prices than anyone else. Why? this makes it easier to stay addicted and purchase even more of this carbon monoxide menace to everyone around the smokers, not to mention the increased health care costs.
and it is all too clear you havent read a US history book , or care to, on any relevant topic to our nation today, in a long time, if ever. HOW sad for you.

 

[Flashy]

what is interesting is that you make some of the same arguments against cap and trade that the right wing Heritage foundation makes.

what is interesting, is how you managed to completely ignore the fact that i based my arguments on the barest, most minimal predicted effects...the CBO numbers. As you may or may not know ( i would lean towards you not knowing, since your ignorance of facts run through this thread with alarming regularity)

the CBO is not the Heritage Foundation

Peter Orszag, is Obama's budget director, not someone who works at the Heritage Foundation

President Obama does not work for the Heritage Foundation

What do these 3 have in common? All have said absolutely, in quotes that i have sourced, that electricity prices will rise dramatically.

I dont care what the Heritage arguments are. they based their scenario on a "worst case" study. The real numbers, which i used, based on the CBO, are the most conservative numbers you'll find & indicate exactly what i've said & refute your stance

Since you likely will attempt to now bring someone absurd like Palin into the argument, look at the CBO numbers yourself, that way you can't attempt to make more excuses by trying to link non-partisan CBO numbers, to more partisan Heritage numbers


here are some lowlights:

By itself, a cap-and-trade program would lead to higher prices for energy and energy-intensive goods. Those price increases would impose a larger burden on low- and moderate-income households than on higher-income households, relative to either their income or total spending. Lawmakers could choose to offset the price increases experienced by low- and moderate-income households by providing for the sale of some or all of the CO2 emission allowances and using the revenues to compensate such households.

-

Under a cap-and-trade program, firms would not ultimately bear most of the costs of the allowances but instead would pass them along to their customers in the form of higher prices. Such price increases would stem from the restriction on emissions and would occur regardless of whether the government sold emission allowances or gave them away.

-
Price increases would be essential to the success of a cap-and-trade program because they would be the most important mechanism through which businesses and households would be encouraged to make investments and behavioral changes that reduced CO2 emissions. Those increases, however, would impose a larger burden, relative to their income, on low-income households than on high-income households.

-

Designing programs that protect low-income households could be challenging: No program could address all the region- and household-specific circumstances that could affect families’ costs.

-

The rise in prices would impose a larger burden, relative to income, on low-income households than on high-income households for two reasons. First, low-income households spend a much larger fraction of their income than do high-income households. In addition, energy-intensive items compose a greater share of low-income households’ total expenditures. Data collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics indicates that, measured as a share of income, spending on energy-intensive items by households in the lowest income quintile averages more than five times that by households in the highest income quintile

-

youre right; no di, no dice , no deal with your poorly -disguised argument to kill cap and trade.

LOL. no dice with another of your sloppy, ignorant, baseless, poorly thought out knee-jerk statements that defy reality.

please go ahead & attempt to link the Heritage Foundation with the CBO, Peter Orszag & President Obama who have all acknowledged what you so actively deny & dont understand

I need no right wing loonies to tell me this is a terrible bill. The numbers & facts bear it out without any assistance from idiots of the Limbaugh variety who, in their stubborn silliness, mirror you quite clearly.

the CBO states that from lowest to highest of amereican households (5 quintiles) the poor & middle class will suffer disproportionately based on the fact that they spend far more as a percent of their incomes on energy intensive items. these are the numbers based on the CBO consumer energy survey taken by the Bureau of Labor

Total spending on energy intensive items per household by income bracket ($ per year)

Lowest - $2,249
Second - $3,364
Middle - $4,258
Fourth - $5,169
Highest -$6,543

Energy spending as percentage of Total Income for each of those household classes (%)

Lowest - 21.4%
Second -12.2%
Middle - 9.2%
Fourth - 7.1%
Highest - 4.1%


what do you think of those numbers, professor? Or did the Heritage Foundation take over the CBO while nobody was looking? Obviously they can't put it past the knowledgeable folks in Capitola.


once again, these numbers are from the

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE

so don't lie & say it is the Heritage Foundation, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, George W. Bush, The Green Lantern or aliens from the Eta Karinae Nebula.

More from the CBO report-

Although the price of energy-intensive items such as electricity, natural gas, home heating fuels, and gasoline would increase the most, the price of most items would rise in response to the imposition of a cap-and-trade program (because energy is an input for almost all goods and services). The price increases (as a percentage of income) for items that were not energy-intensive would account for approximately 40 percent of the total price increases for households.
The price increases caused by a cap-and-trade program would impose additional costs on households. For example, without incorporating any benefits to households from lessening climate change, CBO estimates that the price increases resulting from a 15 percent cut in CO2 emissions could cost the average household roughly $1,600 (in 2006 dollars), ranging from nearly $700 in additional costs for the average household in the lowest one-fifth (quintile) of all households arrayed by income, to about $2,200 for the average household in the highest quintile.


and of course, the most important thing to note from the CBO STUDY:

"The resource cost does not indicate the potential decrease in gross domestic product (GDP) that could result from the cap."




Of course, this could all be alleviated, if the government decides to redistribute all that tax money, in credits and lump sums, in effect, charging business more, who then charge consumers more, who then pay higher taxes, that the government takes, then gives back to the same consumers they forced the hikes on in the first place...makes perfect sense...give the federal government *MORE* money, and let them tax it once, milk it through the always efficient federal system, then send back to the same consumers it just took it from.

genius.

As to smoking, the poor , according to US dept of health and human services data, are hurt MORE by cheaper tobacco prices than anyone else. Why? this makes it easier to stay addicted and purchase even more of this carbon monoxide menace to everyone around the smokers, not to mention the increased health care costs.

oh , i see.

Indeed, the poor are hurt more *PHYSICALLY* by cheaper prices, but they are hurt more *ECONOMICALLY* by higher taxes. So what about the poor folks that *CANNOT* quit, and do stay addicted?

and what about other tobacco products? you are aware, that tobacco is sold in cigars, and smokeless forms, are you? you are aware, that people roll their own cigarettes, when looking for a cheaper alternative, aren't you? what about people who smoke tobacco from pipes? what about cigar smokers, who do not traditionally inhale cigar smoke?

you think all this will suddenly stop when the taxes rise? Of course it won't.

when i used to smoke, 9 years ago, i would simply go buy my cigarettes by the carton at Indian reservations, which were far cheaper.

and, if you are so smart, why don't you take a look at what the Harvard School of Public Health, published in the American Medical Association had to say:

Decline in Cigarette Smoking In U.S. Significantly Offset by Increase in Use of Cigars, Snuff, Roll-Your-Own and Other Tobacco Products



Decline in Cigarette Smoking In U.S. Significantly Offset by Increase in Use of Cigars, Snuff, Roll-Your-Own and Other Tobacco Products - June 10, 2008 -2008 Releases - Press Releases - Harvard School of Public Health

JAMA -- Trends in the Use of Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products, 2000-2007, June 11, 2008, Connolly and Alpert 299 (22): 2629

and it is all too clear you havent read a US history book , or care to, on any relevant topic to our nation today, in a long time, if ever. HOW sad for you.

Indeed, how sad...and it is all too clear, that you haven't read *ANYTHING*, not even a pamphlet, while i have provided nothing but fact based numbers, issues and problems, and you have waxed poetic about the right wing, cigarettes on beaches, lifeguards and capitola.

As for reading a "US HIstory Book", a US history book does not have the negative effects of the cap and trade disaster written in it yet...you see, that is the *FUTURE* which renders any description of Cap and Trade as part of US History, moot...then again we could look to recent European History, where a cap and trade system is already in place...and see that per household, energy prices have all risen dramatically...look at Great Britain:

Britain's Taxpayer Alliance estimated the avg family is paying nearly $1,300 a year in green taxes for carbon-cutting programs in effect only a few years.


how is that for history? Oh, wait...the Heritage Foundation took over Europe too, right?

Write back when you grow a brain and have some facts at your disposal.

 

[cruztbone]

Flashy, your nasty bitterness against me notwithstanding, you choose to ignore the letter from Richard Elmendorf, director of the CBO of july 9 of this year , which clearly estimates the net cost of cap and trade. The net cost to the lowest fifth of the population? a net GAIN of $40 per year. the next highest fifth? a net LOSS of $340 per year. Overall, all quintiles included in the average? $175 Loss per year. I will take those averages in place of your misguided and foolish assertion that we dont institute cap and trade.
As to non-cigarette tobacco, the studies you site DO NOT take into account the lost days to illness caused by smokers, their increased health care costs to themselves and/or their employers. YES, lets raise taxes of all tobacco products so they are equivalent.
And i will longer choose to respond to someone who continues to insult me at every turn. You arent worth my time or my attention. and clearly, your personal qualities are anything BUT flashy.

 

[Flashy]

Flashy, your nasty bitterness against me notwithstanding, you choose to ignore the letter from Richard Elmendorf, director of the CBO of july 9 of this year , which clearly estimates the net cost of cap and trade.

you know cruz, i was going to peg you as just another ignoramus, but what i finally saw you say in another thread clearly outlines the full picture for me. You worked for the Obama campaign...i should have known...not only are you an ignoramus, but a star-struck, love crazed and unobjective one at that

enough said on that...

if you would like me to take you seriously about CBO numbers, and your accusations of me choosing to "ignore things" and my "misguided and foolish assertions" you might consider challenging me with sourced facts, which you still have not done once.

There is no such person directing the CBO named Richard Elmendorf, genius. You choose to ignore that the Director of the CBO, is in fact named Douglas W. Elmendorf.

you are an idiot.

The letter you speak of, from *DOUGLAS* Elmendorf, CBO Director, of July 9th, I assume you are referring to, was adressed to Senator Inhofe, the ranking Republican on the Senate Committee for Environment and Public Works.

The net cost to the lowest fifth of the population? a net GAIN of $40 per year. the next highest fifth? a net LOSS of $340 per year. Overall, all quintiles included in the average? $175 Loss per year. I will take those averages in place of your misguided and foolish assertion that we dont institute cap and trade.

Hmmmmmm, i see...

I assume this is the letter you were referring to, since you neither bothered to provide a link and also managed to get the name wrong of the CBO Director who sent it. We'll just call that another of your "oversights" in conveniently managing to not provide links or sources or correct facts.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10432/07-09-RegionalEffects_Cap-Trade.pdf

I assume that this is the paragraph you were referring to, since you could not be bothered to print it or link it yourself:


To facilitate a comparison with households’ current income, CBO analyzed the capand-trade program under H.R. 2454 as it would be implemented in 2020 but scaled those costs to the size of the current economy.2 Using that approach, CBO estimated that the gross annual cost per household would be $890 and the net annual cost(accounting for both the gross cost and the distribution of allowance value) would be $175.3 The net annual cost per household would range from a $40 gain in income for households in the lowest one-fifth of the income distribution to a $340 loss for households in the second highest quintile.4 As CBO stated in its analysis, those figures reflect costs associated with producing and consuming goods in a manner that results in lower GHG emissions, but they do not include the transition costs of moving to a less carbon-intensive economy, such as those that could occur because of job losses or business closings.


It is very cute that in your analysis, you managed to leave out the costs to the 2nd lowest and middle quintiles as well, which are all net losses. 2nd lowest quintile is a loss of $40. and it goes up to the $340 loss in the "second highest quintile"

these numbers are all presuming that *ALL* people receive the relief the government has promised to make up for the average gross costs, because you see,
"CBO finds that people in the bottom quintile would incur an average gross cost of $425 per household but would incur no net loss, on average, because they would receive back an average of $465 per household in relief."


so, it is interesting that the poorest people in our nation are going to incur an average cost hike of *$425* and i guess we'll just have to count on the government coming through with all the money to offest *EVERYONE'S" higher gross cost, from all the money the government will allegedly have. I mean, forget possible unemployment, job losses or any of that...I am sure the government plans for rebates and paybacks will work out *EXACTLY* like they are supposed to...since they always do.





The provision in the legislation that uses 15 percent of the allowance value for low-income assistance is critical to achieving this outcome.
There would be a net cost in all other income quintiles, but it would be small. It ranges from an average of $40 per household in the second (i.e., the next-to-the-bottom) quintile to an average of $340 in the fourth (the next-to-the-top) quintile.




And before you begin your ignorant whining further, why don't you check out the ranges of CBO quintiles, since you do not seem to know much about them.


these are the other income quintiles cost:


Lowest +$40

2nd Lowest -$40
middle -$235

2nd Highest -$340
Highest -$245




and before you talk about how only the rich are getting hit, and those higher quintiles should just suck it up, maybe you should look at the income ranges per quintile that you so flippantly were saying would not suffer too badly



these are CBO income quintiles:


Minimum household income:
Lowest Quintile $0
Second Quintile $17,900
Middle Quintile $30,500
Fourth Quintile $45,200
Highest Quintile $67,400



So, in fact, unlike your pathetic attempts to say people would not be suffering under the plan, the quintiles bear out just who is getting hit

The *ONLY* people who do not take the hit, are the most abjectly poor in the nation, those earning between 0$ to $17,900 a year...they get that whopping $40 gross *IF* everything goes right. Of course, since they will be paying more for food, because of increased production and shipping costs, it is doubtful that the whopping 77 cents a week they will be "getting" will be enough.

as for the other quintiles, the "Second lowest" households earning $17,900-$30,500, see a net loss of $40 a year...*IF* everything goes right.
Now, are those folks rich? Upper middle class? Middle Class? NO way...those are the poor and the working poor unless of course you think that people earning 17,900-30,500 are somehow rich or upper middle class or even middle class.

The "Middle" Quintile, household earning $30,500-$45,200, are not rich either are they? That is working class, and maybe lower middle class. According to the numbers that you agreed on, they lose *NET* $235 dollars year! That is *IF* everything goes right

The 4th quintile, households earning $45,200-$67,500, are not rich...that is the heart of the lower middle class...and they take a net loss of $340 a year! *IF* everything goes right.

the Highest Quintile, those earning $67,500 and up (+ the top 1% which earn over $307,500) take a net loss of $245 a year. *IF* everything goes right.

So sorry, anything under $250,000 a year, according to Obama, are people that should not have their taxes raised...but, according to the numbers that you agreed on, as indicated in the July 9th CBO letter that you stated and sourced, it is in fact, completely true, in their words and yours, that, in fact, everyone under 250,000 a year, will be eating a tax hike, except for the very poorest americans, earning under $17,900 a year.

How is that for a fact? They are your approved CBO numbers, as stated by The Director in the July 9th letter you mentioned.

So, admit that you were wrong since the very numbers you listed killed your points and slit your own arguments' throat.




so do not tell me that the middle class, working folks and poor folks don't get hit, unless you plan on being proven a complete and total liar.



of course, you did not mention the increased costs in *CONSUMER GOODS* that are bought that are affiliated with energy costs...you know, like *FOOD* and other non direct energy related costs.





but then again, that would require you actually doing a bit more digging and less whining.


go on, let's hear you insult me again, since you cannot debate the stark facts of the issue either on Cap and Trade or Tobacco, and that is that the poor, working and middle classes are going to have to eat it hard. This is an absolute regressive tax, where the lower class eats it, while the upper class has to do far less...


i never thought i'd see the day when an Obamanut like you would *ACTUALLY DEFEND* the middle, lower, working and poor classes getting utterly hosed by a regressive tax that hurts them far worse than the upper classes.


Utterly pathetic. Friend of the working folk and middle class indeed.

As to non-cigarette tobacco, the studies you site DO NOT take into account the lost days to illness caused by smokers, their increased health care costs to themselves and/or their employers. YES, lets raise taxes of all tobacco products so they are equivalent.

and you still have not pointed out how tobacco taxes are not regressive. another failure on your part.

I will say it again as plainly as possible.

Rich man + Poor man both pay the same tax, when they each buy:
1 pack of cigs
1 pack of cigars
1 tin of snuf
1 pack of chew
1 packet of loose tobacco.

same tax, disparate incomes...

ipso facto, regressive tax.

And i will longer choose to respond to someone who continues to insult me at every turn. You arent worth my time or my attention. and clearly, your personal qualities are anything BUT flashy.

of course it is not worth your attention, because you still failed completely to point to any single fact that refutes the notion that both cigarette tax and cap and trade are regressive, and hurt the poor and working and middle class far worse than the rich.

as a campaign worker, your hypocrisy is understandable...after all, if my hero who i worked for and believed in, had passed two bills that dramatically increase future costs for the 95% of the people he claimed he would not tax, i would be reeling and upset too.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Rich man + Poor man both pay the same tax, when they each buy:
1 pack of cigs
1 pack of cigars
1 tin of snuf
1 pack of chew
1 packet of loose tobacco.

Except the rich man wouldn't buy just one pack from a convenience store. They would in turn by it by bulk (or wholesale), using one of their companies (and its Tax ID number for exemption or resale) to not only get it at a heavy discount, but to also avoid paying tax. Or, they can just purchase a large order of tax-exempt tobacco and get free shipping. Perhaps befriending a native American would suffice? Tobacco -Tax Exempt Shops - iReport.com

You know, if we're going to get technical as to what a rich man does to get things versus the poor. But carry on... :biggrin:

 

[Flashy]

Except the rich man wouldn't buy just one pack from a convenience store. They would in turn by it by bulk (or wholesale), using one of their companies (and its Tax ID number for exemption or resale) to not only get it at a heavy discount, but to also avoid paying tax. Or, they can just purchase a large order of tax-exempt tobacco and get free shipping. Perhaps befriending a native American would suffice? Tobacco -Tax Exempt Shops - iReport.com

You know, if we're going to get technical as to what a rich man does to get things versus the poor. But carry on... :biggrin:

obviously, you know i was making a like for like comparison.

indeed, most smart people do buy in bulk, rich and poor alike, but, that still doesn't change the cost when two people buy the *same* amount :wink:

when i used to smoke, (quit cold turkey, August 2001) i used to always purchase cartons out at an indian reservation on Long Island near my summer home. It was far cheaper, and there was no difference in class as about 50 people stood on line at the small roadside stands at a time, all day, every day...I ( a wall street trader) stood on line with mechanics, my friend (a hedge fund manager), truckers, gas station attendants, teachers, salesmen, musicians, etc, bus drivers, waitresses, small business owners, and we wold all sit there grumbling watching as the new taxes came along...the only difference would be, was that i knew that ultimately, the 550 packs of cigs i bought a year (roughly at my highest level of smoking, about 1.5 packs a day) would hurt me less costwise, if taxes went up 50 cents a pack, than it would hurt the trucker or teacher or waitress.

Ultimately, i did turn to the internet, but then again, so did most resourceful smokers. being thrifty and trying to get the best deal possible on cigarettes is not nearly a rich-person only strategy.

After all, remember the days of mobsters highjacking cigarette trucks and selling them "out the back" of a truck to everyone from cops, to teachers etc...everyone likes a "bargain" (remember goodfellas?)

but it still doesn ot change the fact that tax hikes on products that are bought in equal measure by rich and poor, are in fact, by definition regressive.

the tax on sugary sodas that was proposed would be regressive as well. As would a tax on fast food (such as mcdonalds or Burger King etc.).

no matter what anyone tries to do to buy things mroe cheaply, taxes that do hurt the poor more than the rich are in fact, by definition, regressive.

 

[441873]

If you think that Obama actually cares about GLBT people you are dead wrong. Just look at how his DOJ equated same gender marriage with incest. Obama is more of the same old anti-GLBT politics we've had for awhile.