(08-30-2018, 06:50 PM)jagibelieve Wrote:

(08-30-2018, 12:05 PM)JaguarKick Wrote: Obama never had 3% GDP, but the current growth is a direct result of his policy.  If the economy were terrible, it would be his fault.  I wasn't an Obama voter.  I just happen to know and understand how economics works.

Can you explain how the current growth seen today is a direct result of one or more of President Obama's policies?  Please don't use the "he brought us out of a recession" argument.  The bank bailouts and the bailouts of the auto industry were already pretty much put into place before he even took the Oath of Office.

His "cash for clunkers" policy was a total failure and a waste of money.

Obamacare (aka The Affordable Care Act) was also a failure, especially when it comes to the economy.

So please explain how the current growth of the economy is a "direct result" of President Obama's policy(s).

(08-30-2018, 05:21 PM)mikesez Wrote: A) I don't think any of this is relevant to the point that either of us are trying to make.

B) a cap-and-trade scheme doesn't necessarily involve anybody giving more money to the government. The government does a one-time auction of pollution licenses, but the amount of money the government raises this way is not significant to the plan and the initial price is supposed to be low. These licenses can then be traded on the private Market as the individual needs of the companies that bought the licenses change. this gives you greater certainty about the amount of carbon dioxide going into the atmosphere in a given year, but the companies that have to buy and trade these licenses will not have very much certainty about the price from year to year.  so as they do anything that is energy-intensive, they will face the uncertainty about the cost of the fuel itself plus the uncertainty of the cost of the license. and the government will not collect any revenue on an ongoing basis, just one time.  The carbon tax allows the government to collect revenue on an ongoing basis and does not add to uncertainty.

C) the only thing that I know about Obama in his State Senate years were is speech against the Iraq War. so you tell me what he believed and advocated for and how that played out.

A pollution license.  Just think about that concept for a minute.

Meanwhile, you stated under B) that it "doesn't involve anybody giving more money to the government".  Then towards the end of your statement you state that the government will not collect any revenue on an ongoing basis, just one time, yet your very next sentence states "The carbon tax allows the government to collect revenue on an ongoing basis"...  It's all in the underlined part of your quote.

So here are direct questions for you.

1)  Does another tax involve someone giving more money to the government?

2)  Will the government collect any revenue on an ongoing basis or would it be a one time tax?

3)  Are you saying that releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere should be taxed?  Is that what a "pollution license" is supposed to be for?

You are tripling down on your error.  The terms "cap and trade" and "carbon tax" are not interchangeable.

Cap  and Trade: government gets a small amount of revenue one time, and maybe intermittently after that. Amount of CO2 released within that country's borders does not exceed the cap. Cost impacts are not predictable, the value of the licenses/permits may vary widely, but the money is all changing hands between banks, insurers, and polluters, not the government.

Carbon tax: government gets a continuous stream of revenue.  Fuels cost a bit more, like when they raise the gas tax. There is no cap and people can pollute more, they'll just pay more tax.

---