Magox Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 Obama had said that millions of green jobs would be created from Cap and Trade, what he didn't tell us is that millions more would lose their jobs. So, I did some fact checking as our much esteemed poster R.I often does. The results are, well you be the judge: http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/cap-and-t...-or-job-killer/ It’s true that limiting carbon emissions would create some jobs – building wind turbines or insulating homes and businesses, for example. But it’s equally true that raising the cost of burning coal and oil would act as a drag on the entire economy, slowing down job creation in other industries. According to projections by the Energy Information Administration and the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the net effect of the House cap-and-trade bill will likely be to slow future job growth. Using 11 different possible future scenarios, EIA projects that future job growth might be constrained by something between 388,000 (under the most optimistic assumptions) and 2.3 million (assuming everything goes badly) 20 years from now. CBO also says employment would likely be lower than it would without the legislation – but only "a little." So claims that the bill would create hundreds of thousands of "green jobs" are misleading, at best. here's what the EIA says: The sponsors of the House bill, Reps. Waxman and Markey, asked the government’s Energy Information Administration to provide an analysis in a letter last March. The EIA, which is the independent statistical agency within the Department of Energy, released the analysis in August, and posted detailed spreadsheets on its Web site. These contradict Waxman and Markey’s earlier claim (made June 28, two days after the bill passed) that "[t]his landmark bill will revitalize our economy by creating millions of new jobs." EIA projected that over time, the bill would likely become a drag on the economy and reduce job creation by hundreds of thousands of jobs under any of the 11 different sets of assumptions that it analyzed. http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/hr2...iaf(2009)05.pdf here's what the CBO says: The EIA’s view is echoed by the CBO. In a report released in September CBO noted that the House bill would create both winners and losers. And on Oct. 14, CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf testified before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and said that total employment would likely decline by only "a little" as labor markets adjusted. "[C]limate legislation would cause permanent shifts in production and employment away from industries that produce carbon-based energy and energy-intensive goods and services and toward industries that produce alternative energy sources and less energy-intensive goods and services," Elmendorf said. "While those shifts were occurring, total employment would probably be reduced a little compared with what it would have been without such a policy, because labor markets would most likely not adjust as quickly as would the composition of demand for final outputs." http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/105xx/doc10573/...enhouse-Gas.pdf and here's another independent analysis: We got a similar view from John Reilly at the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which has run a number of independent projections on the effect of cap-and-trade programs on the economy. He said MIT’s modeling shows that the House bill would cause a "small net reduction in total employment – but quite small." So when the President says that health care premiums will go down, that may be true to an extent, true for those that qualify for subsidized health insurance, but to the majority of middle class Americans, premiums actually will go up. When the President says that he won't sign into law a Health Reform Bill that will add to the deficit, once again, the projected deficit of the bill may be deficit neutral, but when you go out 10-20 years the deficit rises, and when you add in the "Doc Fix" provision, it adds to the deficit. When the President says that millions of jobs will be created, that may be true, but what he isn't telling us is that more jobs actually will be lost than created. Time to scrap these ****ty Reforms, and little by little people are realizing that this isn't the type of "change" we signed up for. Btw, Thanks R.I for the FactCheck link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RI Bills Fan Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 Btw, Thanks R.I for the FactCheck link You're Welcome... But I thought that you considered FactCheck to be nothing but a liberal propaganda site... OBTW I'm still waiting for you to explain how the T.R. Quote in my sig line makes me a Hypocrite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted November 15, 2009 Author Share Posted November 15, 2009 You're Welcome... But I thought that you considered FactCheck to be nothing but a liberal propaganda site... :confused: OBTW I'm still waiting for you to explain how the T.R. Quote in my sig line makes me a Hypocrite. I was just browsing through FactCheck, however R.I, if you were smart enough to have noticed, which you didn't, what was important about the information that I provided was that it was refuted from the EIA, CBO and MIT, and not from Fact Checks opinion. I guess you didn't notice that did you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RI Bills Fan Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 I was just browsing through FactCheck, however R.I, if you were smart enough to have noticed, which you didn't, what was important about the information that I provided was that it was refuted from the EIA, CBO and MIT, and not from Fact Checks opinion. I guess you didn't notice that did you? Yep, you're right, I not only didn't notice, I also didn't care. I fully expect that any info contained in the volumous mountains of cut and paste nonsense you amuse yourself and the V.R.W.C.J. with, to be cherry picked from whatever source [however dubious] comes closest to supporting your preconcieved notions. But I also notice that you've once again avoided the question I asked. You seem to love calling me a hypocrite and pointing to that quote in my sig line as absolute proof that you are correct. I just want to see your reasoning laid out for all to see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 Yep, you're right, I not only didn't notice, I also didn't care. I fully expect that any info contained in the volumous mountains of cut and paste nonsense you amuse yourself and the V.R.W.C.J. with, to be cherry picked from whatever source [however dubious] comes closest to supporting your preconcieved notions. But I also notice that you've once again avoided the question I asked. You seem to love calling me a hypocrite and pointing to that quote in my sig line as absolute proof that you are correct. I just want to see your reasoning laid out for all to see. Maybe because you are so in step with this current President and dispute any and all criticism of him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 Maybe because you are so in step with this currant President and dispute any and all criticism of him. Careful dude or you'll be called a racist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted November 15, 2009 Author Share Posted November 15, 2009 Yep, you're right, I not only didn't notice, I also didn't care. I fully expect that any info contained in the volumous mountains of cut and paste nonsense you amuse yourself and the V.R.W.C.J. with, to be cherry picked from whatever source [however dubious] comes closest to supporting your preconcieved notions. But I also notice that you've once again avoided the question I asked. You seem to love calling me a hypocrite and pointing to that quote in my sig line as absolute proof that you are correct. I just want to see your reasoning laid out for all to see. Well there you have it, you don't pay attention to anything that doesn't fit your "point of view". hmmm, yet another example of your hypocrisy. You call it "preconcieved notions", now I want you to show me an example of one. And Yes, Gallup, Pew, Rasmussen polls are all "dubious" along with Bloomberg, WSJ, CBO and EIA. I suppose I should be using your news sources that you so often link such as STUMBLEUPON.com , and yes they are very credible I'm not going to repeat my reasonings with you over and over and over why you are a hypocrite, we've already had this discussion, just go to the Anita Dumb Dunn thread and you can relive it there. Hypocrite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 Yes Gallup, Pew, Rasmussen polls are all "dubious" along with Bloomberg, WSJ, CBO and EIA. I suppose I should be using your news source that you referenced on several occassions STUMBLEUPON.com , considering their credibility I'm not going to repeat my reasonings with you over and over and over why you are a hypocrite, we've already had this discussion, just go to the Anita Dumb Dunn thread and you can relive it there. Hypocrite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 Careful dude or you'll be called a racist Why, Is Obama is black or white? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 Why, Is Obama is black or white? Doesn't matter. Criticism of Obama or disagreement with an Obamabot automatically qualifies somebody as a racist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted November 15, 2009 Author Share Posted November 15, 2009 Doesn't matter. Criticism of Obama or disagreement with an Obamabot automatically qualifies somebody as a racist don't forget "birther" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RI Bills Fan Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 Maybe because you are so in step with this current President and dispute any and all criticism of him. Link to that post, I missed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RI Bills Fan Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 Careful dude or you'll be called a racist Link to any post where I called someone a racist, ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RI Bills Fan Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 Well there you have it, you don't pay attention to anything that doesn't fit your "point of view". hmmm, yet another example of your hypocrisy. You call it "preconcieved notions", now I want you to show me an example of one. And Yes, Gallup, Pew, Rasmussen polls are all "dubious" along with Bloomberg, WSJ, CBO and EIA. I suppose I should be using your news sources that you so often link such as STUMBLEUPON.com , and yes they are very credible I'm not going to repeat my reasonings with you over and over and over why you are a hypocrite, we've already had this discussion, just go to the Anita Dumb Dunn thread and you can relive it there. Hypocrite Yeah, your previous reasoning was that I disagreed with you but that quote supports your right to criticize the President. It didn't make sense then and it doesn't make sense now but of course there isn't any requirement for your posts or reasoning to make sense. And I seriously doubt anyone here expects them to. So the demonstrated fact that you don't know what a hypocrite is or what constitutes someone acting in a hypocritical manner shouldn't be reason enough to stop you from throwing the word around like you knew what you were talking about. PPP at it's finest! Oh Magoo, You've Done It Again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 Link to any post where I called someone a racist, ever. He didn't say that you would call me a racist. but there are plenty of you libs that would. JMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted November 16, 2009 Author Share Posted November 16, 2009 Link to that post, I missed it. you miss alot of things, but that is to be expected. hypocrite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 you miss alot of things, but that is to be expected. hypocrite They hear or read what they want to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 Careful: R.I.'s "punishment" will be to set all of you to 'ignore'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 Careful: R.I.'s "punishment" will be to set all of you to 'ignore'. After reading this thread, I'm compelled to suggest that he wouldn't miss anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted November 19, 2009 Share Posted November 19, 2009 They hear or read what they want to. Most people, much less partisan types, do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts