Green is the New Red
When it comes to accounting, the bottom line is color coded. Black when it shows a profit. Red when it shows a loss.
In the alternate universe of the ObamaNation, the new color for bottom lines is Green. Somehow the number will reflect energy that in NOT consumed. Some will say that energy has been saved. Either way, Obama will use the color when he speaks about our managing our nation's economy.
No more will anyone hear "We're in the Black," or We're in the Money." No. From Obama, we will hear, "We're in the Green," which will please millions of people incapable of understanding simple accounting. They will happily fail to grasp that being in the green is really code for being in the the red, and they will maintain their self-induced state of blissful ignorance until the republic collapses.
Obama truly needs a moment of clarity. A moment in which it is revealed to him that it is impossible to force fiscal unrealities on an actual economy. That it is one thing to spew economic nonsense during a campaign, but back in the real world it is not possible to tax a nation into prosperity. If it were, North Korea and Cuba would be economic powerhouses.
Green Jobs Means Fewer Jobs
Supporters of the Senate energy tax, for which there are hearings taking place this week, have repeatedly claimed that cap and trade will create "green jobs" in America by taxing traditional energy production, which will supposedly lead to an economic boom of new energy technologies.
The official name of the Kerry-Boxer energy tax is even the "Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act."
It all sounds like a wonderful and fantastic future for America. Too bad it's a complete hoax.
To believe that a national energy tax will create jobs in America requires us to believe that we can tax our way to prosperity and that it is okay for the government to pick winners and losers in the economy. It demands that we reject basic economic principles about how to grow the economy and instead accept the notion that higher costs for companies will somehow allow them to hire more employees.
The reality is simple: Cap and trade will kill jobs. The Congressional Budget Office admitted this as recently as a few weeks ago. The Heritage Foundation predicts 1.8 million jobs will evaporate as soon as 2012 under the Senate energy tax. The National Association of Manufacturers predicts 2.4 million jobs lost by 2030 under cap and trade. The National Black Chamber of Commerce says by 2015 America will have lost 1.5 million jobs if we impose a new energy tax.
European countries even are starting to learn that green jobs are a myth.
In Germany, a recent study found that green jobs only existed if taxpayers churned out more than $200,000 for each job. Researchers also concluded that the high costs of green job creation in Germany would lead to higher employment in countries such as China.
In Denmark, where wind generates around 20% of their electricity but also where half of that wind energy has to be exported to other countries, taxpayers also suffer from the government's green jobs efforts. One Danish study revealed that each green job requires a taxpayer subsidy to the tune of 250 times the wage earned.
Indeed, green jobs require that the government pick winners and losers in the economy, and even then the result is fewer total jobs. Can America afford that kind of shortsighted policy when unemployment is close to 10 percent?
In the alternate universe of the ObamaNation, the new color for bottom lines is Green. Somehow the number will reflect energy that in NOT consumed. Some will say that energy has been saved. Either way, Obama will use the color when he speaks about our managing our nation's economy.
No more will anyone hear "We're in the Black," or We're in the Money." No. From Obama, we will hear, "We're in the Green," which will please millions of people incapable of understanding simple accounting. They will happily fail to grasp that being in the green is really code for being in the the red, and they will maintain their self-induced state of blissful ignorance until the republic collapses.
Obama truly needs a moment of clarity. A moment in which it is revealed to him that it is impossible to force fiscal unrealities on an actual economy. That it is one thing to spew economic nonsense during a campaign, but back in the real world it is not possible to tax a nation into prosperity. If it were, North Korea and Cuba would be economic powerhouses.
Green Jobs Means Fewer Jobs
Supporters of the Senate energy tax, for which there are hearings taking place this week, have repeatedly claimed that cap and trade will create "green jobs" in America by taxing traditional energy production, which will supposedly lead to an economic boom of new energy technologies.
The official name of the Kerry-Boxer energy tax is even the "Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act."
It all sounds like a wonderful and fantastic future for America. Too bad it's a complete hoax.
To believe that a national energy tax will create jobs in America requires us to believe that we can tax our way to prosperity and that it is okay for the government to pick winners and losers in the economy. It demands that we reject basic economic principles about how to grow the economy and instead accept the notion that higher costs for companies will somehow allow them to hire more employees.
The reality is simple: Cap and trade will kill jobs. The Congressional Budget Office admitted this as recently as a few weeks ago. The Heritage Foundation predicts 1.8 million jobs will evaporate as soon as 2012 under the Senate energy tax. The National Association of Manufacturers predicts 2.4 million jobs lost by 2030 under cap and trade. The National Black Chamber of Commerce says by 2015 America will have lost 1.5 million jobs if we impose a new energy tax.
European countries even are starting to learn that green jobs are a myth.
In Germany, a recent study found that green jobs only existed if taxpayers churned out more than $200,000 for each job. Researchers also concluded that the high costs of green job creation in Germany would lead to higher employment in countries such as China.
In Denmark, where wind generates around 20% of their electricity but also where half of that wind energy has to be exported to other countries, taxpayers also suffer from the government's green jobs efforts. One Danish study revealed that each green job requires a taxpayer subsidy to the tune of 250 times the wage earned.
Indeed, green jobs require that the government pick winners and losers in the economy, and even then the result is fewer total jobs. Can America afford that kind of shortsighted policy when unemployment is close to 10 percent?
posted by no_slappz at 11:28 AM
8 Comments:
yeah, i know, lets pollute ourselves to death instead!
Let's See Now...
59% favor nuclear energy
74% favor off-shore drilling
59% favor ANWAR drilling
----
Barry Obama favors nuclear energy FOR IRAN
and wind & solar for US.
----
November 4, 2009 - One Day After Election
Virginia- A Triple Sweep for the GOP! Governor, Lt Governor, & Attorney General.
New Jersey - Surprise...A GOP Governor!
It's Looking Good For A Return To The Two-Party System in November 2010. Now...
How About That Folks! reb
__________________________________
kathy,
Pollution is NOT a major problem. Moreover, where there is pollution, the remedy is always at hand. But the obstacles to the remedies are usually political.
The US could produce a large percentage of its electricity with nuclear power. But many people oppose nuclear power.
Meanwhile, despite the beliefs of uuninformed people who know little about energy, there is no current hope for producing significant amounts of electricity with solar or wind energy.
Both cost more than conventional power and/or they cannot produce power when it is needed.
Fummy that it's been getting cooler since 1998, in spite of the predictions.
Winfred,
The screwballs of the Global Warming Brigade are impervious to the fact that each year about FIVE MILLION Africans die from diseases transmitted through unclean water.
The Global Warmists willingly stand by while millions of people die TODAY as they repeatedly assert that too much carbon in the atmosphere might make life less pleasant sometime in the next century.
No one has died from Global Warming, and no one is likely to die from it, even if carbon in the atmosphere does pose some real threats.
Therefore, since the Global Warmists have no regard for those dying from today's easy-to-solve problems, what is their motive?
For reasons similar to those of Timothy McVeigh, reasons that would have caused him to feel a thrill when reading about the 9/11 terrorist attack, feelings of a brotherly link with the Islamic terrorists, the Global Warmists share an unacknowledged kinship with radical Islam.
The Global Warmists are out to destroy American and Western culture by the same means that the religion of Islam has used to prevent advancement wherever it dominates.
Did you ever notice that the solution to any problem discovered, advanced, or created by the UN is to steal the wealth of America?
Winfred,
This time everybody is getting into the act. Global Warmists have bamboozled Congress and the president, and the leaders of most other nations into accepting that the US must spend trillions of dollars to wrestle with non-issues that have no impact on the living.
If I were a scientist looking for a pile of grant money, I would support the Global Warmist theories of the comimg Apocalypse.
What better way to get money to combat a problem that none of us will live to experience -- if it is even a problem.
The possibility that the fear of Global Warming is nothing more than a fear will make it embarrassingly easy to claim that our efforts are accomplishing something.
And after we are bankrupt, future generations can thank us for eliminating a problem that never was.
The promoters of the Flat Earth theory were amateurs compared with Global Warmists.
No, the colours for spring are chartreuse and mauve! Get your fashion facts straight!
Post a Comment
<< Home