Can you imagine the Town Hall meetings on THIS one?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahah!!!!!!!

Please, Liberals, PLEASE keep this up until election day!!!!

Since government is always sugarcoating the cost, I'd say it will be closer to twice that. ~$3000 per household.

You be objective? That'll be the day. Hoggo, you once again have let the point sail right past you in your zeal to play the role of the partisan tool. The crap and tax bill has not passed in final form – only the House has created a version and the Senate is holding back until health care is out of the way. So why exactly would the markets have reacted to something that's on the back burner and looking like it's having trouble? Oh, wait, I see what you were doing, you were just trying to wrongly prove someone wrong, by using information that isn't at all related to the subject at hand.

Another failure to comprehend what was being discussed in the first place which leads to your making a complete chump of yourself. Of course you do that almost every time you post. But at least you got in your chance to preach a little hoggo sermonette and lecture us like we're naughty children.

Do you do that to your real grandchildren? I feel sorry for them.

hoggo, exactly who do you think your kidding? Show me one shred of actual, tangible evidence besides your asinine statement that the markets have accommodated the "skyrocketing" cost of energy (Mr. Obama's word, not mine), plus all of the other costs which will accrue to every financial transaction as the result of Cap and Tax, and then I might find a shred of credibility in what you say.

Until then, you're just a garrulous old fart with a sour attitude and a decided lack of real knowledge trying to pick fights on a minor blog visited by not enough people to make a whole lot of difference to the world.

Carry on old duffer.

What, exactly, does the market have to do with this, snohomish? It is a very simple proposition: Obama's cap and trade plans will raise taxes and costs. Period.

Shut up, hoggo. Nobody cares what you think.

Seriously, Hoggo, you need to shut up. Your inane drivel is annoying and so riddled with fallacy and pure fantasy I actually lose brain cells reading your raving lunacy…

"On the tax side, suppose the that our nation is attacked as in WWII. Would raising taxes to fund a war effort to defeat our attackers equal bad?"

Well, when WWII happens again, we'll find out, won't we, hoggo. Seriously, can you come up with even one example which is germane to the discussion at hand, or are you doomed to a life of perpetual irrelevance? Don't answer – it's a rhetorical device I frequently use in writing.

"On the cost side, suppose our nation went to war and its citizens suddenly had to pay much higher prices for goods because materials for those goods were being diverted to the war effort or the supply of less costly imported goods had been shut off due to the war. Would rising costs created by government action under that scenario equal bad?"

Again with the war. You have a fight with the hoggette, or the boss grind his bootheel in your face, or something? Again, any relevance to the market and cap and trade? Nope, sorry, not here.

"The long term benefits of cap and trade may or may not justify the short term market dislocations which would result from increased taxes and costs associated with cap and trade."

So what you're saying is that you don't know whether it's good or bad, nor can you predict how it'll turn out. But you know we're all wrong. Pathetic.

You started this conversation by unequivocally stating that the markets had already accommodated the expected price increase of cap and trade:

"What's the market's opinion on all of this? The DIJA is up again today even in an historically down September market."

I asked you if you had one scintilla of tangible, factual evidence with which to substantiate your claim that the market performance of today is in any way connected to cap and trade. Since then you've just dissembled and blathered on about WWII and other irrelevancies. But the careful observer will notice that you've still never produced that one scintilla of tangible, factual evidence with which to back up your claim. I'll take your second failure at producing that evidence as a screaming admission that you lacked any evidence to start with and you're just flailing at windmills, a modern, pathetic Don Quixote riding his broken-down old ass, carrying a broken lance.

"The issue should be analyzed in an objective manner rather than just responding to its consideration with a simple knee jerk reaction."

The only knee-jerk reaction I see is yours – OP on RWN=bad. Care to comment on that old man? I've got an archive of posts of yours that I'll happily share with one and all which says I'm right.

I have to say, this exchange has been typical hoggo – duck, dodge and disappear. It's pretty plain that you can't carry a conversation with the help of a gunny sack and a wheelbarrow. I suppose that's what I get for even trying to engage a hulking half-witted lickspittle such as yourself in an adult conversation. Instead I get regurgitated economic pablum from one of your old econ texts from the sixties when you tried to go to college and found the sledding too tough, the campus jocks too intimidating, or the women too rejecting.

BTW, still not up to acknowledging that you've given everyone here a boatload of BS about who you are for nearly two years? Frankly, I don't think you got the stones to step up and admit it. You're too passive-aggressive for a bold step like that. Instead, you'll lash out in some other thread about that 'evil' martinhale and post idealistic 'what-ifs' about a kinder, gentler RWN, a true sign of a Walter Mitty look-alike. Rich he-man fantasy life and unable to bring it in real life. Nebbish through and through. You must have been a blast to push around back in high school. Hey, you're not going to go all Klebold and Harris on us are you?

If you are raising my taxes, and, by extension because of what cap and trade does, the price of all products, well, that is bad, particularly since the science is anything but settled.

One thing I have noticed is how little the believers in AGW actually pay and do to reduce their own "carbon footprints." Y'all talk a good game, but, when it is time to walk the talk, well, we always here that the government needs to "do something." Usually to someone else.

I'm just waiting for Hoggo to bring up guns and butter or butter and guns. What ever the heck it was back in January that he was always spouting.

Yeah, hogg, you don't convince me that you know anything, and when my husband read your argument, he said one thing, "bullsh*t." And he doesn't swear often.

"The issue should be analyzed in an objective manner rather than just responding to its consideration with a simple knee jerk reaction."

Show me a single scientist (science is proof, not consensus, you only need one) that can prove the demonstrable effects of Cap and Trade on the climate and that it is needed, and I'll happily pay the tax.

Think I'm being facetious? I have no problem with government controls over things like CFCs, sulfur dioxide, or ground-level ozone because they are real pollutants with demonstrable consequences.

Oh, I would also add the requirement that countries that would benefit from CO2 induced global warming should pay us a fee in return. Countries like Canada and Russia will benefit from having more land available for agriculture and settlement, more access to natural resources, and improved shipping lanes. If we're going to pay to damage done to global warming victims, we ought to get some jack from the beneficiaries. It's only fair.