"A Cap and trade would hand Congress trillions of dollars in new spending from the auction of carbon credits, which it would use to pick winners and losers in the energy business and across the economy."
how would the congress pick a winners and losers? that doesn't even make remote sense. the auctioning of credits is designed to level the playing field. big polluters can buy time to ramp down carbon emissions, while clean companies are rewarded. that's not picking winners and losers, that's the point of the program. stop polluting!
Of course Congress will be picking winners and losers. Do you think the price charged for emmissions will be the same for all industries. No. Congress will have special emmissions targets for each individual industry with the kickbacks and insider deals that go with it. And the money doesn't come from the sky. It comes from the companies and makes them that much less competitive in the international market. It is certainly not a pro-growth program.
pro-growth programs are the reason we are in the situation were. responsible growth should be the role of policy not simply growth. otherwise you find your self with unyielding forces that develop self sustaining momentum (sound familiar), or put it another way, a run away train.
The runaway train is the entitlement programs demanded by the dems that the article chronicles. Give me the scenario that we can maintain these fantasies with a "controlled growth" model? Even with aggressive growth, the programs will be in the red. How is it going to play out? What programs are going to be cut? Do you think you can tax your way out of the problem? That hasn't worked in Europe.
Besides, at the heart of it, the global financial crisis is a result of attempted social engineering thru Fannie and Freddie.
"Meanwhile, conservatives have found themselves casting wildly about for solutions that fit their preconceived notions. Having searched frantically for a big government villain behind the free-market meltdown, the finger of blame settled upon the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, which requires banks to lend to low-income neighborhoods. (In fact, as economist Janet Yellen has pointed out, banks that are subject to the CRA made subprime loans at a dramatically lower rate than independent mortgage companies, which are not covered by the CRA.)"
Simply a strawman argument. CRA is not the cause of the financial crisis. CRA has been around since the 70's and did not cause the financial system to collapse. CRA is bad policy and a pain in the butt for banks, but it did not have the power to bring down the
It was the extreme left wing (Frank and Dodd) underwriting these loans through Fannie and Freddie that caused the disaster. They forced Fannie and Freddie to buy loans with zero down and zero documentation!! Address that point. Tell me how the Republicans caused that. Then we can talk about how capitalism and the free markets failed.
wasn't it former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan who said the securitization of home loans was a good thing for the economy, becuase it spread the risk around so that low income people could afford houses for the first time?
Yes securitization was a good thing, just not in the extreme that Dodd and Frank forced down our throats. And not forcing the tax payer to buy all of the bad ones through Fannie and Freddie. And by the way, I am still chewing on your last post.
10 comments:
"In other words, the election would mark the restoration of the activist government that fell out of public favor in the 1970s."
which government since 1970 wouldn't be considered activist?
"A Cap and trade would hand Congress trillions of dollars in new spending from the auction of carbon credits, which it would use to pick winners and losers in the energy business and across the economy."
how would the congress pick a winners and losers? that doesn't even make remote sense. the auctioning of credits is designed to level the playing field. big polluters can buy time to ramp down carbon emissions, while clean companies are rewarded. that's not picking winners and losers, that's the point of the program. stop polluting!
Of course Congress will be picking winners and losers. Do you think the price charged for emmissions will be the same for all industries. No. Congress will have special emmissions targets for each individual industry with the kickbacks and insider deals that go with it. And the money doesn't come from the sky. It comes from the companies and makes them that much less competitive in the international market. It is certainly not a pro-growth program.
pro-growth programs are the reason we are in the situation were. responsible growth should be the role of policy not simply growth. otherwise you find your self with unyielding forces that develop self sustaining momentum (sound familiar), or put it another way, a run away train.
The runaway train is the entitlement programs demanded by the dems that the article chronicles. Give me the scenario that we can maintain these fantasies with a "controlled growth" model? Even with aggressive growth, the programs will be in the red. How is it going to play out? What programs are going to be cut? Do you think you can tax your way out of the problem? That hasn't worked in Europe.
Besides, at the heart of it, the global financial crisis is a result of attempted social engineering thru Fannie and Freddie.
"Meanwhile, conservatives have found themselves casting wildly about for solutions that fit their preconceived notions. Having searched frantically for a big government villain behind the free-market meltdown, the finger of blame settled upon the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, which requires banks to lend to low-income neighborhoods. (In fact, as economist Janet Yellen has pointed out, banks that are subject to the CRA made subprime loans at a dramatically lower rate than independent mortgage companies, which are not covered by the CRA.)"
--The New Republic
Simply a strawman argument. CRA is not the cause of the financial crisis. CRA has been around since the 70's and did not cause the financial system to collapse. CRA is bad policy and a pain in the butt for banks, but it did not have the power to bring down the
It was the extreme left wing (Frank and Dodd) underwriting these loans through Fannie and Freddie that caused the disaster. They forced Fannie and Freddie to buy loans with zero down and zero documentation!! Address that point. Tell me how the Republicans caused that. Then we can talk about how capitalism and the free markets failed.
CRA did not do this and is not the real villian.
wasn't it former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan who said the securitization of home loans was a good thing for the economy, becuase it spread the risk around so that low income people could afford houses for the first time?
is Greenspan the far left?
Yes securitization was a good thing, just not in the extreme that Dodd and Frank forced down our throats. And not forcing the tax payer to buy all of the bad ones through Fannie and Freddie. And by the way, I am still chewing on your last post.
and don't forget the environmentalism post, i listed my top 4 issues a few days ago
Post a Comment