Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (71362)	4/22/2009 8:56:15 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

What Will Cap-n-Trade Cost You? By David Freddoso The Corner Republicans have been arguing for some months that it will cost an average of $3,128 per household, based on an MIT study. The professor who did the study later disagreed, however, offering a much smaller figure of $215 (which he now says should really be $800). Republicans have subsequently been called "liars" and "pants on fire" by people with very loud voices for using the $3,128 figure. But now, John McCormack writes, the MIT profesor admits that he wasn't counting as a "cost" the higher energy taxes that Obama's cap-n-trade will make consumers pay. On average, those higher taxes, based on the MIT study, will come to . . . $3,128 per American household. Whatever the federal government decides to do with the money after that (it could be redistributed or it could be used for more "green energy" projects), it is still taking that amount from the consumer up front. If you live in the real world, your tax bill is an expense, not an asset as the professor has been reckoning it. So yes, cap-n-trade costs at least $3,128 to the average household. corner.nationalreview.com

To: Sully- who wrote (71362)	4/22/2009 9:46:16 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

A Society Without Religion Is Like a Day Without Sunshine Mark Krikorian The Corner All this voluntary extinction business, along with the very real manifestation of that impulse in collapsing fertility in most of the developed world, raises an important question, one that maybe the Secular Right folks would also grapple with: Can humanity survive over the long term without religion? I don't mean whether some non-religious individuals will decide to have children; many obviously will. But can an entire society persist in the absence of widespread belief in some sort of supernatural principle that humanity somehow fits into, even if only a feeble "moralistic therapeutic deism"? Secularism was an elite phenomenon until a generation or two ago, so we're only now seeing the results of what amounts to a mass social experiment in irreligion; but the experiment is compromised where it's furthest developed, in Europe, by the onslaught of Islam. Europe's suicide in the face of Islam suggests that the religious will displace the irreligious, but we may have to wait for an Islamized Europe to itself become secular (as will happen eventually) to see whether a secular society is viable over the long term, or just a prelude to extinction. corner.nationalreview.com