We're In His Debt
So President Obama surveyed the situation and made a speech. He clearly saw what the problem was: Americans have too much money.
He's confident if only the government takes more of it, things will be okay.
posted by LAGuy @ 12:05 AM
17 Comments:
I would appreciate you pointing out where he said anything like that, because in a quick read I didn't see it.
And you never will. With luck, in your very old age, after Obama's Great Works have all collapsed and free markets and free minds are once again giving us prosperity, you'll be one of those people reflected in polls calling for the restoration of Obama's vision.
I didn't listen to the speech, but the response I've seen from the left and right does not seem very positive. Among the clips I've heard, I don't understand who Obama is trying to impress by saying he will order BP to set up a payment fund under third party control. The first question that jumps into virtually everyone's mind is "Can he do that?" That is, can he order a non-US, private company to do anything?
I suppose he is trying to sound tough and forceful, but he might as well have said I'm going to grab the BP execs by the scruff of their necks and personally insert them into the well head to stop the leak.
"When I was a candidate for this office, I laid out a set of principles that would move our country towards energy independence. Last year, the House of Representatives acted on these principles by passing a strong and comprehensive energy and climate bill..."
He's talking about cap and trade. There are various estimates as to how much it'll cost America, from a few hundred to several thousand per household per year.
Still guessing QueensGuy doesn't find that persuasive. What could be wrong with
strong
comprehensive
independence
energy
principles
our country
What are you, LAGuy? Some sort of crazed radical, looking into Obama's thoughts? What's your solution? Huh? Huh? Can't you just give him a chance? And what's wrong with paying your fair share, anyway?
Ok, I see what you were referring to, but does cap and trade necessarily amount to the government taking more of Americans' money? I wasn't aware there was necessarily a transfer of wealth from private industry to government implied by that general set of strategies.
Note that this is a serious question, notwithstanding anon's skepticism of my capacity for learning.
If you look at the speech, the next thing he says is "Now, there are costs associated with this transition. And some believe we can’t afford those costs right now."
So yes, everyone admits this involves the government taking more of American's money. A whole lot more, in fact. Of course they believe in the long run it's worth it. But then, they believe all taxes are worth it.
So there is no way there could be "costs" without those costs being taxes? If the government tells you that you must drive a car that gets at least 35mpg there will be "costs" associated with compliance, none of which necessarily must be taxes.
My original post didn't mention taxes. This is about the government imposing a heavy regulatory system which will raise the amount everyone pays for energy by billions if not trillions.
Anon, here, queensguy. Now I'm thinking I shouldn't have doubted your capacity for learning and should have wondered whether there is any bottom (ceiling if you like) to your irony.
Tell you what, why don't you try this: Obama is neither taxing nor imposing costs. He is reallocating assets to improve efficiency. In reality, it's a massive tax cut.
So you meant "if only the government takes more of [Americans' money]" as referring to a regulatory burden rather than taxation? I think it's fair to say I'm skeptical that was what you originally meant. A writer as good as you would have said "costs them" or the like rather than "takes."
When "government takes" money from Americans that means taxes, pure and simple. So maybe now anon can understand my failure to follow your original post? Nah.
Forget li'l old me, queensguy, and keep your eye on the ball. You are so very close, real tip of the tongue stuff.
All you need to do is apply that same skepticism you have toward LAGuy, your knowledge of his true intentions despite any literal evidence, toward Obama, and you'll have it. (I'm not saying you think Obama is nice, honest, effective, anything at all; I'm challenging only your denial of LAGuy's simple premise: that he'd very much like to raise taxes, thinks it's the very thing to do.)
"So you meant "if only the government takes more of [Americans' money]" as referring to a regulatory burden rather than taxation? I think it's fair to say I'm skeptical that was what you originally meant."
I'm sorry if you're skeptical, but that's precisely what I meant. Excatly how many hundreds of billions dollars more must the public pay for a government program for you to consider it taking their money? Cap and trade, and other White House concepts of creating greater energy efficiency, are no different in effect from taxation. The government plans to ensure basic, traditional forms of energy become far more expensive so it can redistribute that money (I won't go into how well these plans have worked when tried elsewhere) and create something they're betting will work better at some time in the future. And that's Obama's solution to our problem. Does he think this will cost the American public a lot of money up front? I'd be more scared if he doesn't think it. It may not work, but it least he knows it'll end up with more government possession and control of the money the public has to spend on energy.
Ok, I get how cap'n'trade CAN result in government control of the broader energy market, but I still don't follow how you think it MUST.
Can we go back to my automobile mileage example for a moment? Because I think this is more than semantics. Assume "every new car must get 35mpg" is now the law of the land. If GM or Honda want to sell me a car, they will have to use (probably) expensive technologies to meet that mandate before they can sell me a car. Some or all of the cost of those additional technologies will be passed on to me, making cars more expensive for me to buy. But, absent fines for noncompliance, the government does not directly "take" any of that money other than the increased sales tax on the purchase price (which partially offset by lower taxes on the reduced quantity of fuel I'll use). It's moving between private citizens -- me, Honda, Honda's technology vendors, their shareholders, etc. Agreed so far?
If so, my question remains, can cap and trade be done in a way that resembles mpg mandates? Even just theoretically, rather than necessarily any of the plans that have been proposed? Assuming yes, are you suggesting that every mandated redistribution (ahem) of wealth between private citizens is a government "taking"? If so, what about the, you know, "receiving" part of the equation? It will "cost" America thousands per family but won't it "profit" us the same amount.
It's a delicious irony that cap and trade is the mechanism proposed by Republicans and free marketers to provide a market based mechanism as a substitute for the command and control methods used for utility air pollution (ie. acid rain) in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments.
Nice little judo move by the libs. Define every freedom as a property right and then limit it. Next we'll have leave your house vouchers, write on the internet vouchers, the works.
I might buy cap and trade if they just gave the rights away and allowed the market to trade them, without any government revenue, apart from nondiscriminatory income tax receipts.
"Nice little judo move by the libs. Define every freedom as a property right and then limit it. Next we'll have leave your house vouchers, write on the internet vouchers, the works."
Pollution is different than any of those. In a word: externalities.
"I might buy cap and trade if they just gave the rights away and allowed the market to trade them, without any government revenue, apart from nondiscriminatory income tax receipts."
Now we're talking. I'm on board for that as well. Sadly, every proposal that makes it to committee in Congress turns into a self-defeating loophole-fest. There's times I agree with Terry Pratchett that enlightened dictatorship would be ever so much more efficient...
You think Obama won't call your obnoxious speech an externality? Probably way more dangerous and expensive to remediate than Gulf oil.
Post a Comment
<< Home