US Jobless claims fall to 4 decade low

[Oldstyle]

TARP had more to do with stabilizing the recession than the Obama Stimulus did. That was Bush's baby. The Obama Stimulus managed to spend nearly a trillion dollars and create so few new jobs that you progressives had to come up with a new economic statistic "Jobs Saved" to hide how bad it was...a number that was totally made up. A number that you don't have the faintest idea how they arrived at!

 

[Rshermr]

[/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]
I ask what economic policies of Barack Obama's led to the stock market rebound and you give me his Nobel Peace Prize? God but you're clueless!

You're blathering about "bat shit crazy" talking points while doing NOTHING but using them to excuse Obama's total lack of an economic plan to fix the economy. Our health care system was one of the worst in the world? What idiots put together that list of "Major Accomplishments"?

So, the experts say the Nobel Prize, which as a con troll you hate with all of your fibre, had a positive impact on the economy. And you, as a food services employee and self determined economics expert, pick one of seven points and attack them all. And you attack me, for posting a link to the source, which is impartial, by the way, and you have absolutely nothing to say of constructive use. Typical. If you actually followed the link, you would find who put it together. And really, calling them idiots while having no idea who the are is typical of a mindless con troll.

 

[Oldstyle]

"CFR.org asked six experts what impact a cap-and-trade system would have on the U.S. economy if it were imposed right now."

Six experts? You only quote one! That one states the following: "Capping and hence pricing carbon immediately, while we're still in a recession, would be unwise, but no one is talking seriously about doing that. Passing legislation now that would cap emissions starting in a few years would probably have a small but positive net impact on the U.S. economy. A delayed cap wouldn't impose any immediate costs on U.S. consumers."

Your own expert grasps that passing Cap & Trade legislation in the midst of a recession would be "unwise"...and only suggests that it might be something that could be done years down the road at which time he assumes that the economy would have recovered sufficiently to absorb the hit that such legislation would impose. Then he makes the BRILLIANT statement that a delayed cap wouldn't impose any immediate costs on U.S. consumers? No shit, Sherlock...a delayed cap would impose a delayed cost on U.S. consumers.

 

[Oldstyle]

So what did the other five "experts" you chose NOT to quote say about the cost of Cap & Trade legislation to U.S. consumers, Georgie?

 

[Rshermr]

TARP had more to do with stabilizing the recession than the Obama Stimulus did. That was Bush's baby. The Obama Stimulus managed to spend nearly a trillion dollars and create so few new jobs that you progressives had to come up with a new economic statistic "Jobs Saved" to hide how bad it was...a number that was totally made up. A number that you don't have the faintest idea how they arrived at!

You continue to attack 24'7/365. Complete with no link to prove anything you ever say. Just con talking points, which to rational people have no value of any kind.
The ARRA actually did the following;
AMOUNTED TO $787B. NOT CLOSE TO A TRILLION IN SPENDING,
So, not a trillion as Oldstyle said, but a total of under $800K. But how was that broken down, and how much was actual spending?
About $500B was in spending and about $288B were tax decreases, and not spending. And it created and saved many millions of jobs. And no, jobs saved is not a new stat. It is a stat that makes a lot of sense to thinking people who take notice of the fact that we were loosing over 600,000 jobs per month when Obama took office. But it is an interesting and nonsensical con talking point for con trolls.

So, truth is the ARRA had spending of HALF A TRILLION DOLLARS. Not close to a trillion dollars. And under $300K in tax savings, which were in the ARRA because Republicans demanded that they be.
None

"Of all the myths and falsehoods that Republicans have spread about President Obama, the most pernicious and long-lasting is that the $832 billion stimulus package did not work. Since 2009, Republican lawmakers have inextricably linked the words “failed” and “stimulus,” and last week, five years after passage of the Recovery Act, they dusted off their old playbook again.

“The ‘stimulus’ has turned out to be a classic case of big promises and big spending with little results,” wrote Speaker John Boehner. “Five years and hundreds of billions of dollars later, millions of families are still asking, ‘where are the jobs?’ ”

The stimulus could have done more good had it been bigger and more carefully constructed. But put simply, it prevented a second recession that could have turned into a depression. It created or saved an average of 1.6 million jobs a year for four years. (There are the jobs, Mr. Boehner.) It raised the nation’s economic output by 2 to 3 percent from 2009 to 2011. It prevented a significant increase in poverty — without it, 5.3 million additional people would have become poor in 2010."
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/23/opinion/sunday/what-the-stimulus-accomplished.html

That last article was Feb of 2014. And the economy has only gotten better since. And con trolls like Oldstyle continue to spread the lies. And republican politicians have voted down every effort to increase stimulus spending, while sending forward exactly 0 (ZERO) of their own bills.

 

[Rshermr]

So what did the other five "experts" you chose NOT to quote say about the cost of Cap & Trade legislation to U.S. consumers, Georgie?

Let me try to educate you, me boy. Generally, it is a good idea not to post a long article in a web board, because it is too bulky. If, on the other hand, if you want people to be able to find out for themselves what the full article stated, you provide a link to the article. Which I did.
If, on the other hand, you want to hide some portion of the article you are using, you do not provide a link. Which is dishonest. Which is why I provide a link. And is why you never provide a link to any article. Ever.

 

[Rshermr]

"CFR.org asked six experts what impact a cap-and-trade system would have on the U.S. economy if it were imposed right now."

Six experts? You only quote one! That one states the following: "Capping and hence pricing carbon immediately, while we're still in a recession, would be unwise, but no one is talking seriously about doing that. Passing legislation now that would cap emissions starting in a few years would probably have a small but positive net impact on the U.S. economy. A delayed cap wouldn't impose any immediate costs on U.S. consumers."

Your own expert grasps that passing Cap & Trade legislation in the midst of a recession would be "unwise"...and only suggests that it might be something that could be done years down the road at which time he assumes that the economy would have recovered sufficiently to absorb the hit that such legislation would impose. Then he makes the BRILLIANT statement that a delayed cap wouldn't impose any immediate costs on U.S. consumers? No shit, Sherlock...a delayed cap would impose a delayed cost on U.S. consumers.

Thanks for your expert opinion, me poor ignorant food services expert. But that is not what the source said, if you actually spent some time reading it.

 

[Oldstyle]

TARP had more to do with stabilizing the recession than the Obama Stimulus did. That was Bush's baby. The Obama Stimulus managed to spend nearly a trillion dollars and create so few new jobs that you progressives had to come up with a new economic statistic "Jobs Saved" to hide how bad it was...a number that was totally made up. A number that you don't have the faintest idea how they arrived at!

You continue to attack 24'7/365. Complete with no link to prove anything you ever say. Just con talking points, which to rational people have no value of any kind.
The ARRA actually did the following;
AMOUNTED TO $787B. NOT CLOSE TO A TRILLION IN SPENDING,
So, not a trillion as Oldstyle said, but a total of under $800K. But how was that broken down, and how much was actual spending?
About $500B was in spending and about $288B were tax decreases, and not spending. And it created and saved many millions of jobs. And no, jobs saved is not a new stat. It is a stat that makes a lot of sense to thinking people who take notice of the fact that we were loosing over 600,000 jobs per month when Obama took office. But it is an interesting and nonsensical con talking point for con trolls.

So, truth is the ARRA had spending of HALF A TRILLION DOLLARS. Not close to a trillion dollars. And under $300K in tax savings, which were in the ARRA because Republicans demanded that they be.
None

"Of all the myths and falsehoods that Republicans have spread about President Obama, the most pernicious and long-lasting is that the $832 billion stimulus package did not work. Since 2009, Republican lawmakers have inextricably linked the words “failed” and “stimulus,” and last week, five years after passage of the Recovery Act, they dusted off their old playbook again.

“The ‘stimulus’ has turned out to be a classic case of big promises and big spending with little results,” wrote Speaker John Boehner. “Five years and hundreds of billions of dollars later, millions of families are still asking, ‘where are the jobs?’ ”

The stimulus could have done more good had it been bigger and more carefully constructed. But put simply, it prevented a second recession that could have turned into a depression. It created or saved an average of 1.6 million jobs a year for four years. (There are the jobs, Mr. Boehner.) It raised the nation’s economic output by 2 to 3 percent from 2009 to 2011. It prevented a significant increase in poverty — without it, 5.3 million additional people would have become poor in 2010."
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/23/opinion/sunday/what-the-stimulus-accomplished.html

That last article was Feb of 2014. And the economy has only gotten better since. And con trolls like Oldstyle continue to spread the lies. And republican politicians have voted down every effort to increase stimulus spending, while sending forward exactly 0 (ZERO) of their own bills.

Once again, Georgie...how did you progressives arrive at that figure of 1.6 million jobs "created or saved"? If it's a number that you pulled out of your ass then it means NOTHING! You would think that you...being the economist that you claim to be...would be more than happy to share with us all the formula that was employed to arrive at that 1.6 million jobs created or saved! Yet week after week...you can't come up with it!

Which makes you the biggest fraud on this board...

 

[Rshermr]

[/QUOTE]

Did you want to take a crack at explaining which Obama economic policy it was that led to the turn-around in the stock market? While your statistics look wonderful for Barry, Rshermr...the truth is...the American economy rebounded DESPITE his policies! If he'd gotten Cap & Trade as he'd wanted...if he'd been able to stop fracking like he wanted...our economy would be in much worse shape than it is right now. He should give thanks to the GOP for taking over the House in 2010 and stopping him and his progressive minions from doing some serious harm to the recovery.

The statistics, of course, are not mine. Those statistics are from FactCheck.org. A Project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center. A project very often attacked by con trolls, because it traffics in truth with evidence, and never, ever talking points. And was originated by Walter Annenberg, a close personal friend of Ronald Reagan. And when last registered year ago, was registered as a REPUBLICAN.
But lets look at your attack on Cap and Trade. Which is consistent with Con talking points. Here is the actual conservative talking point:
"FreedomWorks' August Recess Action Kit States:
Waxman-Markey would cost American jobs. An analysis conducted in 2007 of the kind of policy approach contained in Waxman-Markey estimated as many as 1.2 million to 2.3 million jobs would be lost. [FreedomWorks, 8/5/09]"
The above quote from FreedomWorks was by Dick Armey, then Chairman of FreedomWorks. In a document called FreedomWorks August Recess Action Kit. On August 5, 2009. The claim has been rebutted many times, but to cons, it is "fact". And Dick Armey has never been known as a source for truth.

So, looking at impartial sources, we have:

• 2008
• A Changed Prognosis for Climate Change Policyby Michael A. LeviNovember 20, 2008
• The Debate over Greenhouse Gas Cap-and-Tradeby Toni JohnsonUpdated: November 3, 2011

President Obama has pledged to combat climate change and has asked Congress to pass legislation to lower U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Concerns over economic costs have stymied attempts at federal policy in the past, and during the economic crisis it may prove even harder. The debate over U.S. climate policy comes amid lingering doubts by a majority of the U.S. public (TIME) about whether climate change should be a priority. And new studies questioning the effects of climate change -- such as a recent study that estimates the West Antarctic ice sheet will melt in thousands and not hundred of years (Nature) -- help reinforce those doubts. Despite possible hurdles, the president's first budget assumes that a cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gases will be up and running by 2012 and will begin generating revenues for the U.S. Treasury. CFR.org asked six experts what impact a cap-and-trade system would have on the U.S. economy if it were imposed right now.

Michael A. Levi, David M. Rubenstein Senior Fellow for Energy and the Environment and Director of the Maurice R. Greenberg Center for Geoeconomic Studies
Capping and hence pricing carbon immediately, while we're still in a recession, would be unwise, but no one is talking seriously about doing that. Passing legislation now that would cap emissions starting in a few years would probably have a small but positive net impact on the U.S. economy. A delayed cap wouldn't impose any immediate costs on U.S. consumers. It would, however, do two good things:
First, it would reduce current uncertainty about the shape of future greenhouse gas regulations. Uncertainty is a deterrent to investment. Passing cap-and-trade legislation soon would thus (at least marginally) help unlock spending.
Second, it would remove pressure to implement far clumsier regulations under the Clean Air Act, which was not designed for tackling the sort of broadly distributed and extraordinarily varied emissions sources that drive climate change. Using the Clean Air Act to regulate emissions would likely be far more expensive than using a cap-and-trade system; anything that makes the first path less likely, then, would be an economic plus."
Here is another expert opinion from the same article:
Mark Tercek, President and CEO, The Nature Conservancy
Contrary to what may be a developing strain of conventional wisdom, strong policies to reduce climate emissions, such as a market-based cap on U.S. greenhouse emissions (also known as "cap and trade"), can provide a form of stimulus to the U.S. economy. As during the Great Depression and other recessions, the U.S. economy is suffering from a shortfall in aggregate demand -- the collective willingness of American consumers and businesses to buy goods and services. Just one example: New car sales have fallen from roughly 17 million vehicles per year just a few years ago to just over half that number today. This phenomenon ripples throughout the economy and builds on itself. What is needed is a strong shock to the system--just the sort of shock that the president's recovery package was intended to administer.
That shock may be short-lived, however, unless there is a strong sustained basis for continued investment. As the 1930s came to a close, it was World War II that finally provided that function, with the war effort driving up demand for goods and services. Today, by driving private investment in zero- and low-carbon technologies and boots-on-the-ground conservation efforts to reduce net carbon emissions, a national market-based cap on carbon that tightens over time can act as a long-term driver for demand.
A cap-and-trade system will not only lower emissions and fight climate change, but also will stimulate the economy. In the short run, it will spur investment and create jobs; in the long run, it will accelerate the deployment of a new productive generation of capital stock.
http://www.cfr.org/united-states/cap-trades-economic-impact/p18738

Politifact fact checked your claim, oldstyle, made by a republican presidential candidate, and found it to be untrue.
Rubio said, "I can tell you with certainty (cap and trade) would have a devastating impact on our economy."
Politifact says:
Existing cap-and-trade programs have not proven to be "devastating" in their economic impact. While estimates for proposed programs vary, most experts and analysts have found modest potential impact on the economy; some even show a positive impact.

Based on the evidence, Rubio can’t be certain about the potential impact of cap and trade. We rate his claim False.
.

Cons almost completely disagree with scientists on the issue of global climate change. And they all agree with the con talking points coming from energy corporations. But there is no truth to the idea, put forward by Oldstyle, that Cap and Trade would have had a negative impact on the economy. It was simply a policy opposed by energy corporations, for their own benefit.[/QUOTE]

 

[Oldstyle]

So what did the other five "experts" you chose NOT to quote say about the cost of Cap & Trade legislation to U.S. consumers, Georgie?

Let me try to educate you, me boy. Generally, it is a good idea not to post a long article in a web board, because it is too bulky. If, on the other hand, if you want people to be able to find out for themselves what the full article stated, you provide a link to the article. Which I did.
If, on the other hand, you want to hide some portion of the article you are using, you do not provide a link. Which is dishonest. Which is why I provide a link. And is why you never provide a link to any article. Ever.

What link that you provided here took someone who was interested to the opinions of the other five experts? I clicked on everything and got no such opinions.

 

[Oldstyle]

Ah, now you've provided it! And now I see why you didn't want to provide the testimony of the other expert witnesses! Such as this one...

Sergey V. Mityakov, Assistant Professor, Department of Economics, Clemson University
Restricting carbon emissions by cap and trade is probably not a good idea even in a booming economy. Many studies assessing the costs of mitigation of climate change (either through some cap-and-trade system or by means of a carbon tax) indicate that the losses in consumer welfare are likely to be enormous. At the same time the costs of climate change itself are not very well estimated to justify swift mitigation efforts; different studies produce different recommendations. Thus, there is no clear consensus among the scholars whether and when such a scheme should be implemented in the first place.
In the case of a recession, additional negative shock to the economy in a form of cap-and-trade system seems like even a worse idea. If cap and trade were created now, it would lead to higher energy prices for American consumers and businesses, as energy producers would be forced to switch from cheaper and "dirty" fuels such as coal to "cleaner" and more expensive sources of energy.

 

[Oldstyle]

Or this one...

William Yeatman, Energy Policy Analyst, Competitive Enterprise Institute
A cap-and-trade system necessarily harms the economy because it is designed to raise the cost of energy. Given the current economic crisis, an expensive energy policy is a bad idea.
Almost all acts of economic production are powered by combusting fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas), a process that emits greenhouse gases thought to cause global warming. A cap-and-trade system is simply a mechanism to put a price on emissions in order to compel businesses and consumers to emit less. That is, it's essentially an emissions tax. But greenhouse gas emissions are virtually synonymous with energy use, so it's actually a roundabout energy tax. In fact, economists agree that the simplest, most efficient way to reduce emissions is a direct tax. Politicians, however, are terrified of the "t-word," which is why they have embraced a cap-and-trade system.

The numbers are staggering. President Barack Obama's recently unveiled cap-and-trade plan would raise $645 billion in revenue from the government-run emissions auctions over eight years. Everyone would feel the pinch. Businesses would compensate for higher production costs and diminished markets by slashing jobs. Consumers would have to pay more for energy and energy intensive goods.

Expensive energy is bad enough, but the real danger of a cap-and-trade policy is a global trade war. A cap-and-trade system would give a competitive advantage to industries in countries that aren't subject to a de facto energy tax. Jobs would flow overseas, but so would emissions, a dynamic known as "carbon leakage." To prevent this, a broad coalition of industry, labor, and environmental groups have expressed interest in a tariff that would tax the emissions content of imports from countries without stringent climate policies. Naturally, these countries would retaliate if such a tariff were enacted. Protectionism deepened the Great Depression, just as climate protectionism would worsen the current recession.

 

[Oldstyle]

So basically your "experts" come down to environmentalists who don't think extra energy cost passed along to American consumers is a bad thing and therefore love the idea of Cap & Trade...and others who point out that the added costs would be substantial and would have hurt economic growth.

 

[Oldstyle]

Bottom line...you progressives couldn't even get enough of your fellow Democrats to vote for Cap & Trade even when you controlled the House and Senate. Why? Because they understood that passing such legislation would hurt job growth and that the millions of Americans who were out of work would blame THEM for the loss of further jobs!

 

[Oldstyle]

I got a good chuckle out of your post comment on Politifact labeling Marco Rubio's claim that Obama's proposed Cap & Trade policy would be "devastating" as false. What did they base that opinion on? They based it on how EXISTING Cap & Trade legislation had affected the economy and extrapolated that there wouldn't be a devastating effect on the economy from any proposed Cap & Trade legislation! That thought process would be the same as saying raising subway tolls by 25 cents didn't affect riders so therefore raising tolls by 5 dollars shouldn't affect them either! One more example of why Politifact has become a joke.

 

[Rshermr]

[/QUOTE]

Or this one...

William Yeatman, Energy Policy Analyst, Competitive Enterprise Institute
A cap-and-trade system necessarily harms the economy because it is designed to raise the cost of energy. Given the current economic crisis, an expensive energy policy is a bad idea.
Almost all acts of economic production are powered by combusting fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas), a process that emits greenhouse gases thought to cause global warming. A cap-and-trade system is simply a mechanism to put a price on emissions in order to compel businesses and consumers to emit less. That is, it's essentially an emissions tax. But greenhouse gas emissions are virtually synonymous with energy use, so it's actually a roundabout energy tax. In fact, economists agree that the simplest, most efficient way to reduce emissions is a direct tax. Politicians, however, are terrified of the "t-word," which is why they have embraced a cap-and-trade system.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute is far from impartial. Here is the wording from Sourcewatch:
Competitive Enterprise Institute
The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) is a advocacy group based in Washington DC with long ties to tobacco disinformation campaigns and more recently to climate change denial.
Not a source that anyone interested in facts would use, An extremely well known bat shit crazy conservative source. But one that a con troll would use.




The numbers are staggering. President Barack Obama's recently unveiled cap-and-trade plan would raise $645 billion in revenue from the government-run emissions auctions over eight years. Everyone would feel the pinch. Businesses would compensate for higher production costs and diminished markets by slashing jobs. Consumers would have to pay more for energy and energy intensive goods.

Expensive energy is bad enough, but the real danger of a cap-and-trade policy is a global trade war. A cap-and-trade system would give a competitive advantage to industries in countries that aren't subject to a de facto energy tax. Jobs would flow overseas, but so would emissions, a dynamic known as "carbon leakage." To prevent this, a broad coalition of industry, labor, and environmental groups have expressed interest in a tariff that would tax the emissions content of imports from countries without stringent climate policies. Naturally, these countries would retaliate if such a tariff were enacted. Protectionism deepened the Great Depression, just as climate protectionism would worsen the current recession.
What is the source for this quote?

 

[Rshermr]

Or this one...

William Yeatman, Energy Policy Analyst, Competitive Enterprise Institute
A cap-and-trade system necessarily harms the economy because it is designed to raise the cost of energy. Given the current economic crisis, an expensive energy policy is a bad idea.
Almost all acts of economic production are powered by combusting fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas), a process that emits greenhouse gases thought to cause global warming. A cap-and-trade system is simply a mechanism to put a price on emissions in order to compel businesses and consumers to emit less. That is, it's essentially an emissions tax. But greenhouse gas emissions are virtually synonymous with energy use, so it's actually a roundabout energy tax. In fact, economists agree that the simplest, most efficient way to reduce emissions is a direct tax. Politicians, however, are terrified of the "t-word," which is why they have embraced a cap-and-trade system.

The source I used provides sources for both sides. But the Competitive Enterprise Institute is far from impartial. Here is the wording from Sourcewatch:
Competitive Enterprise Institute
The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) is a advocacy group based in Washington DC with long ties to tobacco disinformation campaigns and more recently to climate change denial.
Not a source that anyone interested in facts would use, But one that a con troll would use.




The numbers are staggering. President Barack Obama's recently unveiled cap-and-trade plan would raise $645 billion in revenue from the government-run emissions auctions over eight years. Everyone would feel the pinch. Businesses would compensate for higher production costs and diminished markets by slashing jobs. Consumers would have to pay more for energy and energy intensive goods.

Expensive energy is bad enough, but the real danger of a cap-and-trade policy is a global trade war. A cap-and-trade system would give a competitive advantage to industries in countries that aren't subject to a de facto energy tax. Jobs would flow overseas, but so would emissions, a dynamic known as "carbon leakage." To prevent this, a broad coalition of industry, labor, and environmental groups have expressed interest in a tariff that would tax the emissions content of imports from countries without stringent climate policies. Naturally, these countries would retaliate if such a tariff were enacted. Protectionism deepened the Great Depression, just as climate protectionism would worsen the current recession.

I got a good chuckle out of your post comment on Politifact labeling Marco Rubio's claim that Obama's proposed Cap & Trade policy would be "devastating" as false. What did they base that opinion on? They based it on how EXISTING Cap & Trade legislation had affected the economy and extrapolated that there wouldn't be a devastating effect on the economy from any proposed Cap & Trade legislation! That thought process would be the same as saying raising subway tolls by 25 cents didn't affect riders so therefore raising tolls by 5 dollars shouldn't affect them either! One more example of why Politifact has become a joke.

So, you believe Politifact is a joke. But then, con trolls like yourself always hate fact check organizations that are impartial. So, got any proof that Politifact is a joke, me boy? Because they are not considered anything but impartial by those that actually think instead of simply post dogma. As opposed to you, who only posts con dogma?
The politifact expose is the same as all of their work, which is solid journalism. Well respected. Not like you, oldstyle, who simply attacks and makes stupid statements about anything that does not fit with your bat shit crazy con talking point statements.
Here is the the most well respected fact check organizations take on cap and trade:
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."
An important caveat: None of these economic projections attempt to assess the effects of climate change on jobs or the economy. But CBO says it expects there will be major economic consequences should Congress do nothing to control carbon emissions.
Cap-and-trade: “Green Jobs” or Job Killer?

So there you go, me boy. I know you hate truth. But truth is, the effect of cap and trade if done with thought would be quite small, but the effect of doing what you suggest would have "major economic consequences".

And that is what I have seen when looking at the many sources out there that are now studying the situation. Small economic effects. Nothing like the major consequences that you and the bat shit crazy con web sites suggest. And ongoing great improvements compared to the do nothing ideas of cons. Perhaps I should get a reading from a bat shit liberal web site. But then, I would not, because I have integrity.

 

[Oldstyle]

Or this one...

William Yeatman, Energy Policy Analyst, Competitive Enterprise Institute
A cap-and-trade system necessarily harms the economy because it is designed to raise the cost of energy. Given the current economic crisis, an expensive energy policy is a bad idea.
Almost all acts of economic production are powered by combusting fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas), a process that emits greenhouse gases thought to cause global warming. A cap-and-trade system is simply a mechanism to put a price on emissions in order to compel businesses and consumers to emit less. That is, it's essentially an emissions tax. But greenhouse gas emissions are virtually synonymous with energy use, so it's actually a roundabout energy tax. In fact, economists agree that the simplest, most efficient way to reduce emissions is a direct tax. Politicians, however, are terrified of the "t-word," which is why they have embraced a cap-and-trade system.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute is far from impartial. Here is the wording from Sourcewatch:
Competitive Enterprise Institute
The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) is a advocacy group based in Washington DC with long ties to tobacco disinformation campaigns and more recently to climate change denial.
Not a source that anyone interested in facts would use, An extremely well known bat shit crazy conservative source. But one that a con troll would use.




The numbers are staggering. President Barack Obama's recently unveiled cap-and-trade plan would raise $645 billion in revenue from the government-run emissions auctions over eight years. Everyone would feel the pinch. Businesses would compensate for higher production costs and diminished markets by slashing jobs. Consumers would have to pay more for energy and energy intensive goods.

Expensive energy is bad enough, but the real danger of a cap-and-trade policy is a global trade war. A cap-and-trade system would give a competitive advantage to industries in countries that aren't subject to a de facto energy tax. Jobs would flow overseas, but so would emissions, a dynamic known as "carbon leakage." To prevent this, a broad coalition of industry, labor, and environmental groups have expressed interest in a tariff that would tax the emissions content of imports from countries without stringent climate policies. Naturally, these countries would retaliate if such a tariff were enacted. Protectionism deepened the Great Depression, just as climate protectionism would worsen the current recession.
What is the source for this quote?[/QUOTE]

For God's sake...it's from YOUR article, you buffoon! William Yeatman is one of the 5 "experts" that you cited! Well, actually you DIDN'T cite his testimony...you only cited the experts that agreed with your viewpoint and tried to hide those that didn't. It's a sleazy move...the kind of thing a liar does.

 

[Rshermr]

Or this one...

William Yeatman, Energy Policy Analyst, Competitive Enterprise Institute
A cap-and-trade system necessarily harms the economy because it is designed to raise the cost of energy. Given the current economic crisis, an expensive energy policy is a bad idea.
Almost all acts of economic production are powered by combusting fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas), a process that emits greenhouse gases thought to cause global warming. A cap-and-trade system is simply a mechanism to put a price on emissions in order to compel businesses and consumers to emit less. That is, it's essentially an emissions tax. But greenhouse gas emissions are virtually synonymous with energy use, so it's actually a roundabout energy tax. In fact, economists agree that the simplest, most efficient way to reduce emissions is a direct tax. Politicians, however, are terrified of the "t-word," which is why they have embraced a cap-and-trade system.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute is far from impartial. Here is the wording from Sourcewatch:
Competitive Enterprise Institute
The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) is a advocacy group based in Washington DC with long ties to tobacco disinformation campaigns and more recently to climate change denial.
Not a source that anyone interested in facts would use, An extremely well known bat shit crazy conservative source. But one that a con troll would use.




The numbers are staggering. President Barack Obama's recently unveiled cap-and-trade plan would raise $645 billion in revenue from the government-run emissions auctions over eight years. Everyone would feel the pinch. Businesses would compensate for higher production costs and diminished markets by slashing jobs. Consumers would have to pay more for energy and energy intensive goods.

Expensive energy is bad enough, but the real danger of a cap-and-trade policy is a global trade war. A cap-and-trade system would give a competitive advantage to industries in countries that aren't subject to a de facto energy tax. Jobs would flow overseas, but so would emissions, a dynamic known as "carbon leakage." To prevent this, a broad coalition of industry, labor, and environmental groups have expressed interest in a tariff that would tax the emissions content of imports from countries without stringent climate policies. Naturally, these countries would retaliate if such a tariff were enacted. Protectionism deepened the Great Depression, just as climate protectionism would worsen the current recession.
What is the source for this quote?

For God's sake...it's from YOUR article, you buffoon! William Yeatman is one of the 5 "experts" that you cited! Well, actually you DIDN'T cite his testimony...you only cited the experts that agreed with your viewpoint and tried to hide those that didn't. It's a sleazy move...the kind of thing a liar does.[/QUOTE]

So the food services worker and con troll, Oldstyle, says:
For God's sake...it's from YOUR article, you buffoon!
Not my artical, me boy. I did not write it. It was from a group of articles from both sides of the subject. But under no circumstances would I use bat shit crazy con or liberal web articles as expert sources. Because, ou see my poor ignorant con troll, I do not use partial sources. And the competitive enterprise institute is a bat shit crazy con source. I already showed you source watch's rating ofthe CEI. Which should not be necessary. Everyone in the rational world knows what CEI is. But only a con troll like yourself would use that particular source, and disregard the rest. Dipshit. So, you see, I would have no idea what William Yeatman, a known con troll like yourself, would have to say. And I never read the drivel of partial sources. Because I prefer impartial sources and truth. Dipshit.

William Yeatman is one of the 5 "experts" that you cited! Well, actually you DIDN'T cite his testimony...you only cited the experts that agreed with your viewpoint and tried to hide those that didn't. It's a sleazy move.

There were 5 articles, not testimony, dipshit. Testimony requires that the person making the statement be under oath. Dipshit. The effort was to show both sides, not what was the truth. It was left to you to try to determine what to believe. And only a con troll would pick what you chose, showing the fact that you care not at all about truth. Dipshit.

I sited a pari of the 5 articlesr, both from impartial sources. You picked the one really, really partial bat shit crazy source. What a surprise. What I did was far from sleazy. What you did, in using that partial source, was indeed sleazy. And totally dishonest. And meant to be dishonest.
Relative to hiding testimony, that is such a stupid comment that even you should know better. If I wanted to hide a source, I would not provide a link directly to the sources in the article. Obviously. Which, again, shows you to be a liar. Because, me boy, you used the very link I provided to look at the piece I was using. dipshit.
Do you ever stop lying and using personal attacks? Any proof at all of your allegations, from actual impartial sources? Do you even know what an impartial source is?

Again thanks for proving what I continue to say: You are indeed a lying con troll.

 

[Oldstyle]

So let me get this straight...you cite a source that has the views of 5 "experts" on the effects of Cap & Trade on the US economy and then you provide the articles of only the ones that support your position...but when I finally get you to provide the others...and present what THEY say...you accuse ME of using "bat shit crazy con" sources?

You claim that you don't use "partial sources"? You only used the articles of the "experts" that you liked and hid the articles of the one's that you didn't. What you did is the epitome of using partial sources!

You're a joke...seriously...a complete and total joke!