Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 51

Thread: New EPA rules will cost more than 800,000 jobs

  1. #41
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,830

    Re: New EPA rules will cost more than 800,000 jobs

    The point I was trying to make is context. Boehner did say those words, but he was talking about social issues like abortion and same-sex marriage. He wasn't talking about fiscal issues.

    Obama didn't say he would "bankrupt the coal industry." He said if someone wanted to build a coal power plant without any emissions control, under his cap and trade proposal, it would bankrupt them. To compete, a coal plant would have to make itself much more efficient from an emissions standpoint. It's not the same thing. He didn't want to destroy the coal industry, he wanted to gradually replace it with sources other than fossil fuels.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  2. #42
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: New EPA rules will cost more than 800,000 jobs

    Quote Originally Posted by washunut View Post
    Well that is not what is up for grabs in this election. It does seem with the disfunctional political system we have some checks and balances work best.
    I don't oppose that. In fact, I've argued often that having two strong parties would be preferable. The only accpetion I would have to that would be nutters. We're not better off if it gets too wild, no matter which side the nutters are on.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  3. #43
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,323

    Re: New EPA rules will cost more than 800,000 jobs

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    Yea, get rid of the EPA and all those rules!... It will make so many jobs! Screw that you cant breath the air or drink the water, and the soil your kids are playing in is giving them cancer.. we got jobs! well a few any ways. Guess the coffin business would be a good thing to go in.. after the materials are free... can just cut down random trees and dump the corpses wherever they want. Reuse coffins! or is that too environmentalist?
    Looky, he pulled out the "Children Card"; can't you do better than that?
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  4. #44
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 10:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,766

    Re: New EPA rules will cost more than 800,000 jobs

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    Something akin to "jobs created or saved"?
    I want to address this statement then address the primus of the thread.

    Admittedly, even I think the Obama Administration made a mistake by claiming that unemployment would remain under a certain percentage (8%) and that the ARRA would, in fact, "create" X-number of jobs. However, what continues to get lost in all the hyper-partisan politicing is the fact that unemployment hasn't risen beyond where it peaked in March/April of last year (9.6%), State govornments budgets were propped up as a result of federal financing, and public-private partnerships (contract work) did "fill the economic gaps" where private sector jobs were lost.

    Clearly, the political waters have been extremely muddied (mostly by the Right), but when you truly take a step back and look at what could have gone terribly wrong versus how the private sector has been propped up and given a chance to evaluate what went wrong and get back on track towards fixing itself, I don't think many people can argue against the effectiveness of the ARRA even if it had marginal impact and fell short of its more loafty goals.

    As to the OP, the key words here are "minority contingent" and (here's that word again...) "fears the loss...". You know, people hated former Pres. Jimmy Carter but he was the last President who tried to warn us that unless we took serious steps to enact sound energy policies where this nation could not only reduce our dependency on foreign oil but eliminate it, we'd be in trouble over time. Well, look at where we are now.

    We have a President who, right or wrong/intentionally or unintentionally/insightful or just another politician looking out for his own self-interest, is trying to find ways to put this country on a path towards energy independence. And if in doing so his policies inevitably removes some facets of toxicity and outdated energy programs from the marketplace only to replace them with energy sources that can benefit us to increase both our ability to be self-sufficient while also increasing our GDP and lowering our eneregy cost, then why not give him that chance?

    I don't see "big oil" taking a backseat to wind, solar, nuclear power in the near term any more than hydro-electric power was once said to threaten the oil industry's footprint in the marketplace years ago. That same argument (along with the dangers of nuclear waste) was used against proponents of nuclear energy and look what eventually happened? The French, of all nations, now do nuclear energy far better, safer, clearner than we do!! And we harnest the power of the Atom for goodness sakes!!!

    If we as Nation continue to let fear dictate "where do we go from here," then we may as well let China, India, Iran, or even a rising Russia be the world leader.

    WAKE UP, AMERICA! Stop holding yourselves back out of FEAR!!

  5. #45
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: New EPA rules will cost more than 800,000 jobs

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    I want to address this statement then address the primus of the thread.

    Admittedly, even I think the Obama Administration made a mistake by claiming that unemployment would remain under a certain percentage (8%) and that the ARRA would, in fact, "create" X-number of jobs. However, what continues to get lost in all the hyper-partisan politicing is the fact that unemployment hasn't risen beyond where it peaked in March/April of last year (9.6%)
    This isn't correct.

    Unemployment rate:

    Mar 09 - 8.6
    Apr 09 - 8.9
    May 09 - 9.4
    June 09 - 9.5
    July 09 - 9.4
    Aug 09 - 9.7
    Sep 09 - 9.8
    Oct 09 - 10.1
    Nov 09 - 10.0
    Dec 09 - 10.0
    Jan 10 - 9.7
    Feb 10 - 9.7
    Mar 10 - 9.7
    Apr 10 - 9.9
    May 10 - 9.7
    June 10 - 9.5
    July 10 - 9.5
    Aug 10 - 9.6
    Sep 10 - 9.6

    Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  6. #46
    Sage

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:07 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    8,358

    Re: New EPA rules will cost more than 800,000 jobs

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    This isn't correct.

    Unemployment rate:

    Mar 09 - 8.6
    Apr 09 - 8.9
    May 09 - 9.4
    June 09 - 9.5
    July 09 - 9.4
    Aug 09 - 9.7
    Sep 09 - 9.8
    Oct 09 - 10.1
    Nov 09 - 10.0
    Dec 09 - 10.0
    Jan 10 - 9.7
    Feb 10 - 9.7
    Mar 10 - 9.7
    Apr 10 - 9.9
    May 10 - 9.7
    June 10 - 9.5
    July 10 - 9.5
    Aug 10 - 9.6
    Sep 10 - 9.6

    Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
    Two points. First we are in (or should be by now) the recovery stage of the cycle. Therefore you would expect the jobs picture to get better. Also you are looking at a percent of what is called people looking for work. You will notice that this number has been declining thus keeping the percent stagnant. For example in the latest report the government said the number of employed went down 95K while the % unemployed stayed the same. Most people know that it takes job Growth of 125-150K per month to keep the same unemployment rate normally. So looking at the percent whether 8% or 9.6% is pretty meaningless.

    Something I have not heard mentioned on this site. How much of our economy and jobs are related to construction. Something like 10-15%. It may even be more when you think that a new house also means new appliances etc. So that is a black pit that will not be filled by any federal spending or helicopter Ben until we burn off the excess glut of houses on the market.

    This administration would have been better off telling the truth about the economy up front, and then if they pushed for a larger social safety net until housing improves the public would not feel like they have duped.

  7. #47
    Sage
    The Giant Noodle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Northern Illinois
    Last Seen
    11-03-14 @ 05:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    7,333

    Re: New EPA rules will cost more than 800,000 jobs

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Hotair.com, found a prime example of how the Obama administration is doing more to kill jobs, than to help the private sector create jobs. This is proof positive that the government can only kill jobs, not create jobs.

    MOOOOOOOORE bull****. What asshole spin doctor salesman dug this dribble up?
    I will bet you a million dollars this article was produced solely on swaying votes and has very little factual basis and its mainly a SCARE TACTIC. Sean Hannity loves this stuff so he can spin it. So does "News" Busted. Which there is no 'news" in it. Its a republicans wet dream. There is no evidence in the article that says it WILL cost jobs. It says it MIGHT. or MIGHT NOT cost jobs. Great.
    I MIGHT get in a car accident tomorrow because I will get into a car. Thats what that article says when you boil it down.

    I am SOOOOOOO happy Im a free thinker.
    CORPORATE GREED AND UNION GREED
    DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS
    DESTROYING THE BEST OF AMERICA ONE DAY AT A TIME

    This is the worst kind of discrimination. The kind against ME! ~ Bender

  8. #48
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,123

    Re: New EPA rules will cost more than 800,000 jobs

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    Yea, get rid of the EPA and all those rules!... It will make so many jobs! Screw that you cant breath the air or drink the water, and the soil your kids are playing in is giving them cancer.. we got jobs!
    :sniffs air:


    s out of faucet:



    hmmm, everything seems fine to me.

  9. #49
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,123

    Re: New EPA rules will cost more than 800,000 jobs

    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant Noodle View Post
    I am SOOOOOOO happy Im a free thinker.
    good for you.


    how about applying that critical thinking to studying what has happened in other countries that have imposed similar rules and regulations upon themselves?

    The group Western Business Roundtable sent an email yesterday about a Spanish study concluding that for every green job created in Spain resulted in the loss of 2.2 other jobs.

    The study finds that only one in 10 renewable energy jobs created in Spain were of a permanent nature. Two-thirds consisted of temporary jobs in construction, fabrication and installation jobs; one quarter were positions in administration, marketing and projects engineering; and only one of ten was related to more permanent operations and maintenance of renewable power systems.

    The study was prepared under the direction of Dr. Gabriel Calzada, an economics professor at Juan Carlos University in Madrid.

    The study calculated that, since 2000, Spain spent $774,000 to create each "green job", including subsidies of more than $1.3 million per wind industry job. It found that creating those jobs resulted in the destruction of nearly 113,000 jobs elsewhere in the economy, or 2.2 jobs destroyed for every "green job" created. Jobs lost were mostly in the fields of metallurgy, non-metallic mining and food processing, beverage and tobacco.

  10. #50
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    29,261

    Re: New EPA rules will cost more than 800,000 jobs

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    The study finds that only one in 10 renewable energy jobs created in Spain were of a permanent nature. Two-thirds consisted of temporary jobs in construction, fabrication and installation jobs;

    Are construction jobs ever really permanent?

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •