Boehner decides tax cuts for the rich are more important than the debt

[^_^ 5,021]

If Steven moves to Canada I want to start a fundraiser to see if we can get a bunch of American RWNs to move too and live right next to him. He shall never be rid of the RWN curse!

[dalegg 143]

Millions of jobs doing what? What does it say about the cost of "green energy" if you suddenly need millions of people to produce it?

I've always assumed we would be pulling the people out of the coal mines and sticking them in the middle of the desert maintaining windmills and solar panels.

The additional jobs would come from all of the moving companies that would be needed to get these people to Arizona, plus the housing industry out there would get a bump.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

If Steven moves to Canada I want to start a fundraiser to see if we can get a bunch of American RWNs to move too and live right next to him. He shall never be rid of the RWN curse!

Charles! will go just for the Timbits.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

If Steven moves to Canada I want to start a fundraiser to see if we can get a bunch of American RWNs to move too and live right next to him. He shall never be rid of the RWN curse!

As long as they don't muck up Canada's economy, I don't care if they are my neighbors. I'd even invite them over for a drum circle....if they're into that sort of thing.

[^_^ 5,021]

As long as they don't muck up Canada's economy, I don't care if they are my neighbors. I'd even invite them over for a drum circle....if they're into that sort of thing.

You pervert.

[mawilson 2,133]

I've always assumed we would be pulling the people out of the coal mines and sticking them in the middle of the desert maintaining windmills and solar panels.

The additional jobs would come from all of the moving companies that would be needed to get these people to Arizona, plus the housing industry out there would get a bump.

But wouldn't the housing industry (and other businesses) in the coal mining region take a hit?

Bottom line, if "green energy" creates even one job, we will pay for that job in higher energy prices.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Millions of jobs doing what? What does it say about the cost of "green energy" if you suddenly need millions of people to produce it?

I see these commercials from ANGA on TV every now and then which boast about the over 9 million jobs they bring to the US economy. Oil doesn't exactly extract, transport and refine itself either. Same for coal. What does that say about the cost of fossil fuel energy if it takes millions of people to produce it? And I am not even going into the cost of nukular.

Edited July 11, 2011 by Mr. Big Dog

[mawilson 2,133]

I see these commercials from ANGA on TV every now and then which boast about the over 9 million jobs they bring to the US economy. Oil doesn't exactly extract, transport and refine itself either. Same for coal. What does that say about the cost of fossil fuel energy?

We're paying for all those jobs at the pump.

[dalegg 143]

But wouldn't the housing industry (and other businesses) in the coal mining region take a hit?

Bottom line, if "green energy" creates even one job, we will pay for that job in higher energy prices.

I don't think there is much of a housing industry left in those areas anyway. We won't have higher energy costs because they will use higher taxes levied on hedge fund managers to subsidize the costs. This is where wealth distribution results in lower unemployment.

Edited July 11, 2011 by dalegg

[mawilson 2,133]

I don't think there is much of a housing industry left in those areas anyway. We won't have higher energy costs because they will use higher taxes levied on hedge fund managers to subsidize the costs. This is where wealth distribution results in lower unemployment.

It's not going to cost more because someone else is paying for it? It still costs more! You're still diverting resources (in your example, the money taken away from hedge fund managers) from other sectors of the economy.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

We're paying for all those jobs at the pump.

You're also paying for the commodities casino at the pump. But that's not exactly an argument against the vast jobs potential of green energy either. At the end of the day, those jobs will be created. Question is whether they're created here or elsewhere. At this moment, it would seem that we decided that we don't fancy those jobs but rather throw good money after bad to retain the fossil fuel jobs which sooner or later will become irrelevant.

[dalegg 143]

It's not going to cost more because someone else is paying for it? It still costs more! You're still diverting resources (in your example, the money taken away from hedge fund managers) from other sectors of the economy.

It's not going to cost me anymore. It might drive the price of Rolls-Royces down though, and that would be nice. It's win-win.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

It's not going to cost more because someone else is paying for it?

That's what we do with fossil fuels today even though there is no long term future in those. How about an even playing field?

[Zero Sum 305]

Word is that Boehner is getting pinned to a corner by Obama figuratively. Both of them want to negotiate something that includes LOWERING tax rates, while reducing the debt and deficit dramatically... but the rich are opposed to tax loopholes (aka legal tax cheats) being closed. Because although it isn't a tax increase, as in a tax break for huge industries isn't a subsidy, it sure is this time for them and their Republican hypocrite backers.

[^_^ 5,021]

Because although it isn't a tax increase ...

The Norquist hostages in the GOP aren't merely opposed to a tax increase, they are opposed to anything that will increase government revenues.