The Bigger Hoax: Green Jobs or Balloon Boy?

[fjordking]

I was still waiting for shovel ready jobs

[whoo689]

Face it, you guys are full of it on this. And besides, job losses happen all the time! People get jobs, and some lose em. And big businesses in a few years or so will be easily able to afford technology necessary to reduce emissions and sell off the credits. They won't have to cut MILLIONS of jobs in a very short time period. You guys talk a big game about how "vibrant" the free market is (and I agree), but then you bitch nonstop about every regulation, as if the sky is gonna fall.

[whoo689]

You conservative pro-market groups are so full of it. It's obvious you got your heads up businesses's ass instead of being pro-truth and fact.

[whoo689]

The EIAs 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.

[whoo689]

EIA projects 597,000 fewer jobs in 2030 than under current policy. EIAs most optimistic projection, a "high technology" case that assumes "more aggressive assumptions about technological improvements" to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, would lead to job reductions of only 388,000, or 0.2 percent.

[whoo689]

And the CBO also concluded that cost increases for some families, at least, could be offset if revenues from the allowances were returned to consumers. In his testimony, Dinan said that a 2000 CBO study "concluded that lower-income households could be better off as a result of the policy (even without including any benefits from reducing climate change) if the government chose to sell the allowances and use the revenue to pay an equal lump-sum rebate to every household in the United States."

[whoo689]

We should note that under some of the scenarios analyzed, EIA projected that total employment might increase by a small amount during the early years of a cap-and-trade program. For example, in the "basic" case, EIA found that employment might increase by about 96,000 jobs in 2012, 42,000 jobs in 2019 and 266,000 jobs in 2024, before ending with a loss of 597,000 in 2030.

[whoo689]

The 2.5 million jobs that will be "killed" by this bill will NOT be immediate! I mean, come on. The jobs even affected by CO2 emissions cuts would be only a fraction of all teh jobs lost monthly. And the highest per-month we've lost so far in this recession is about 650,000. So it would take pretty damn long for these "2.5 million killed jobs" by cap and trade to materialize. Get real, AS.

[whoo689]

The National Association of Manufacturers ad gets the trend line right by predicting job losses, but strains the evidence as to the magnitude. The 2.4 million figure might turn out to be true but only under the most negative set of assumptions. And EIA says those assumptions are "inherently less likely" than other scenarios.

[whoo689]

Fore "free-market" people, you don't seem to have much faith in the power of the market and viability of it. You guys are the real economic girliemen.

[whoo689]

Since the 70s, there was a land or water pollution credit system administered by the EPA, and from what I hear, economists and experts agree it was pretty successful. Why is everyone claiming this cap and trade will be a disaster? It can't be THAT bad, really. I think all the 'pro-market' groups are just making up or fudging the data to make it sound worse than it is just as another excuse to oppose ANYTHING that involves helping the environment. Or let you deny GW.

[whoo689]

I know cap and trade will cost money, esp. for small businesses, but don't most big businesses that are wealthy and produce products (the ones that emit CO2 the most) have the resources and/or wealth necessary to invest in carbon capture technology to reduce the emissions and sell the credits to OTHER businesses

I'm pretty sure that's common knowledge. Whenever conservative books try to debunk liberal claims of more pollution, they talk about that kind of stuff. But you guys seem in denial.

[buddy34]

Greatness and thank you!!!

[JSB1882]

I realize this is a farce, but why can't American Solutions provide something more than criticism all the time. Show me some thing that you think should be done to improve the financial crisis or why "going green" is really a bad idea.

[pieceomeat]

Day to day life will be controlled by the ruling elite. The media, your health care, your job, your family...all controlled by reguloation from those who "know what is best for us." America as we know it will be over. Global warming is the lie that will be used to break private industry. Wait and see. Unless the people wiseup, and people are starting to wake up to the fraud. Staistic show people are becoming more skeptical all the time.

[pieceomeat]

Spain led the way with green jobs. Obama even calls them the "model". Unfortunately, each green job created costs the equivelent of $250,000.00 and unemployment is now up to 17%. Not a good model in my view. They will create a condition where the people will be willing to trade their freedom for the security of an all powerful government. The elite will then still being dining on Kobe beef and caviar and the "people" will get their meager stipend and have a governemnt job.

[JohnR22926]

Yeah, the adminstrations fucking bald faced lies about "green" jobs is shameless. Almost as bad as their grossly distorted bullshit spin about "saved jobs" due to the stimulus.

I don't know why anyone bothers to believe the Dems. Oh, I know why...because they WANT to believe them. Just like kiddies WANT to believe in Santa Claus.

[vanderfk]

We might as well laugh now. We're not going to be laughing a few months from now. Obama's plan is in action. Don't sit by & take it. We have 13% unemployment were I am and it's getting worse. Vote them all OUT.

[littlemisspopuler]

cool its for the show nice and i am trying to sell my shirts but i need to make a hoax adviesisment so i can sell amy shirta[s and get money go on cnn and trowup in front of a camarea

[loggergal]

I know this is serious.. But I get a big laugh out of this video everytime I see it! LOL! It brings tears to my eyes...

[JimboVids]

Obama says: "We did it for the show"

[pieceomeat]

Well done guys.....but I am beginning to think that they are TRYING tocrash the economy. The people will then run towards government to help them....and the government will offer us.....SOCIALISM and a step closer towards globalism with a new currencey to boot! Make no mistake about it...the radical left is in charge.

[JohnR22926]

piece: Yes, the old Boslsheviks had a saying..."the worse, the better". They meant that the worse conditions were in Russia, the sooner the communist revolution would occur.

There's not a doubt in my mind that there are elements on the Left that want things in this country to be as fucked up as possible, because they think the people will then finally accept socialism. Paul Krugman leads the pack.

[pieceomeat]

Yep,.. and.George Soros has his dirty hands in everything too. The radical leftist elite is wealthy and they think the time is now. Wait and see, Obama is been cultivated for some time now...he is their Manchurian candidate.

[raykmond]

ROFL you guys too funny.

[jimmyjames133]

funny, keep up the good work

[zzx2847]

Time to put a cap and trade on Congress! Can we send them overseas?

[whoo689]

The economy is always losing and creating jobs. It's not like the amount of jobs is static. As free-market people, you should know that by now. It's not a zero-sum game. If one sector loses jobs, but another sector creates just as many, the net effect is 0. Or if some of those people lose jobs but then find OTHER opportunities not long after they're laid off, it's like the job loss didn't really happen, in the long run.

[whoo689]

And I know you guys aren't big on conservation, but isn't private conservation by consumers and employers a lot better than gov't-mandated conservation, at the least? THAT's how we won't run out of stuff, like oil! When the supply is low, the producers will raise prices, and this will, in effect, lead to lower consumption. There'll be more of that supply saved up, and that bides time for the producers until they can find new supplies and lower prices. DUH

[whoo689]

And even if electricity rates do 'skyrocket', so what? It's not like Americans won't afford ANY electricity. It just means they'll have to cut back a little. Ya know, not keep every little appliance on when they're not using it. It's called the income effect, guys! Hellooo... Did you not take economics? Rational people will change their behavior accordingly to fit price changes. If the price is higher, they'll consume less. It's not like they'll try to consume the same and go bankrupt.

[irisojects]

We have a Congress that is out of touch with the USA, at my house I can not afford any more experiments with my tax dollars. Now if you want to be my guest. Hellooo... you can not just keep printing money like this administration is doing without inflation. The dollar is kinda like that balloon it will crash soon enough. Trillions of dollars of deficit , stimulus,health care ,cap and trade and you want to talk about rational people?Not in Congress.

[whoo689]

1.8 million jobs BY 2012 doesn't make it sound so dramatic, now does it? I mean, if it was 1.8 mil by 2010, maybe I'd be a little more alarmed. But 1.8 million jobs in 3 years? Not so sure.

Plus, do any of these studies you recite have a timelines of WHEN the jobs will be lost and how much will be lost per quarter or half-year? You can't just say "1.7 million jobs lost". If it's something like 100,000 a month, I'm not too scared.

[whoo689]

What minimizes the effect on our economy even more is the fact that we have a labor force of 155 million. 1.5 or 1.7 million is not even 1%! And besides, if those 1.5 or 1.7 million jobs aren't lost b/c of cap and trade, they will probably be lost sooner or later, esp. b/c of economic downturns.

[whoo689]

Cap and trade will be especially bad in our crappy economic situation and will slow growth, but in an era of high growth like during Reagan or the mid and late 90s, would losing 1.7 million jobs compared to GROWING 20 or 30 million or so in a decade really be such a big deal? I'm just putting it in perspective, not defending it necessarily. That's the problem with you guys in these pro-market groups. You're too general.

[whoo689]

There's a Black chamber of commerce? o.O

[LizzyxDarcy]

good one

[imbubba56]

Excellent!