Study Shows Obama’s ‘Climate Change’ Plan To Hurt The Poor And Middle Class

This study puts into numbers what Skeptics have been saying for a long time

(Daily Caller) President Obama’s global warming plan would cost America’s poorest families billions annually, according to a report published Thursday by the Manhattan Institute.

The study estimates that Obama’s global warming plan would increase the costs of living for the poorest American families an additional $19 billion per year, equivalent to increasing their taxes by 166 percent. The tax increase would also raise taxes on other poor families by an extra $25 billion, equal to a 33 percent tax increase. Living costs for the richest households would only increase by 4 percent.

Democrats have yammered for years about the Bush tax cuts being solely “tax cuts for the rich” for over a decade. They complain that all tax cuts benefit the rich, and harm the poor and middle class, even when there are actual tax cuts for the poor and middle class. Yet, here we have an Executive Office initiative (not a law, mind you, because Obama won’t even bother to submit any legislation to Congress, and the “historic” and “landmark” Paris climate accord is structured to avoid the blessing of the duly elected Legislative branch) that will specifically cause way more economic harm to the poor and middle classes while sparing the rich from that pain.

Obama wants to implement the Enviromental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan, which would effectively tax four-fifths of American carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and be similar in scope to an economy-wide carbon tax. In addition, Obama has proposed a $10.25-per-barrel oil tax.

Neither plan would have a large impact on global warming. Data modeling created by the EPA and run by the libertarian Cato Institute shows that the Clean Power Plan would only have adverted 0.019° Celsius of warming by the year 2100, an amount so small it couldn’t be detected.

One of the best ways to get people out of poverty is inexpensive, reliable energy. Obama’s plan will artificially increase the cost of energy while also increasing the cost of living.

Of course, you do know what the next step would be, right? Increased government payments to the poor, making them even more reliant on Government, in order to cover the mess government created in the first place. Funny how that works.

Let’s not forget that this study covers just two Obama proposals, as mentioned. What will all the other proposals do to the cost of living?

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

9 Responses to “Study Shows Obama’s ‘Climate Change’ Plan To Hurt The Poor And Middle Class”

  1. Dana says:

    Our oh-so-noble economists tell us that the costs of fighting global warming climate change will be minimal, almost negligible, but when you hear that kind of promise from the left, you know that they are lying to you.

    I just love it when I read about studies by people who have a boatload of money telling us how something really won’t cost much at all, when they have no flaming idea what life is like for poor and working class people.

  2. Jeffery says:

    1. The “study” came out of the right-wing, anti-tax Manhattan Institute.

    2. Conservative flat taxes would increase federal taxes on the “lowest quintile”, not by 166% but by over 1000%! 1000%! Yet conservatives still advocate flat taxing the poor.

  3. Dana says:

    Considering that the lowest quintile pay zero federal income taxes, both a 166% and 1000% increase still leaves them at zero.

  4. Hank_M says:

    Doesn’t matter where the study was done.
    Higher energy costs will affect the poor and middle class more than others.

    Extreme leftists know this. They don’t care.

  5. JGlanton says:

    Obama is going to protect the poor from the rising seas, so there’s that benefit for them.

    Oh, wait. It’s primarily the rich who live by the seashore.

    Well, Obama will protect the poor from storms, then. Or at least from the mythology that there are more storms. I don’t know how he will protect them from the incompetence of corrupt Democrat mayors who have no clue about disaster preparedness planning, evacuation planning, and critical infrastructure choices. That sh!t doesn’t pay.

  6. david7134 says:

    Are studies only good if they come from loony liberal/communist sites?

    As to the flat tax, why don’t you want the lower income people to pay? They pay in all other countries. All communistic countries require that they pay, so you should demand it. As it is, 45% of people do not pay income taxes. That is wrong and needs to be addressed.

  7. JGlanton says:

    I’m shocked, shocked I tell, you, that this government funded wind power project generated only a tiny fraction of the electricity savings that were claimed at the outset:

    The college estimates it would take another $100,000 in repairs to make the turbines function again after one of them was struck by lightning and likely suffered electrical damage last summer. School officials’ original estimates found the turbine would save it $44,000 in electricity annually, far more than the $8,500 they actually generated. Under the original optimistic scenario, the turbines would have to last for 22.5 years just to recoup the costs, not accounting for inflation. If viewed as an investment, the turbines had a return of negative 99.14 percent.

    “While they have been an excellent teaching tool for students, they have only generated $8,500 in power in their lifetime,” she said. “One of the reasons for the lower than expected energy power is that the turbines often need to be repaired. They are not a good teaching tool if they are not working.”

    I agree that they are an excellent teaching tool for students. A teaching tool for green economics. Spend one million dollars of taxpayer money to generate $8500 worth of electricity, add $240,000 worth of operating costs with another $100k projected, and then you have to pay more money and jump through governments hoops to tear it all down. What do you have? A crime against the people. Committed in the name of a fraudulent global warming religion.

  8. Jeffery says:


    Right-wing Think Tanks lie to support their point.

    So you support increasing taxes on the poor? Is that so you can continue to receive over a million a year from the government?

  9. Jeffery says:

    Considering that the lowest quintile pay zero federal income taxes, both a 166% and 1000% increase still leaves them at zero.

    Obviously the Manhattan Institute and I were not talking about federal income taxes, but other federal taxes such as payroll taxes. Enacting a federal income tax on the lower “47%” as conservatives wish to do with their miracle flat tax would increase the tax burden much more than would a carbon emissions tax.

Pirate's Cove