Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Claims the University of California at Berkeley released a report stating ACES, as passed in the House, would create up to 1.9 million new jobs by 2020.
But the ACCF/NAM study says it can cost up to 2.4 million jobs ACCF/NAM Study
http://www.accf.org/media/docs/nam/2009/National.pdf (broken link)
The net affect regardless of the report is a loss of disposable income for americans.
How in the world can the difference be 3,300,000 jobs one way or another. To compare this to the current economic situation, look where we are now with the same number of jobs lossed.
Claims the University of California at Berkeley released a report stating ACES, as passed in the House, would create up to 1.9 million new jobs by 2020.
The net affect regardless of the report is a loss of disposable income for americans.
How in the world can the difference be 3,300,000 jobs one way or another. To compare this to the current economic situation, look where we are now with the same number of jobs lossed.
The ACCF is not a disinterested party or un-partisan organization. It represents the interests of big business and investors. It has a viewpoint. In other words, what is good for big business/investors is good, period. What is bad for them is bad, period. Even if it benefits the country, the world, or most Americans. That is not an organization to look to to determine objective facts.
Those on the left think it's harmful to American jobs for robots or other progressive inventions to be used, just like those on the right think it's harmful to jobs for changes to be made to start doing away with damage to the environment and atmosphere that is causing climate change.
Both positions are wrong. History has shown us that for every job lost in a change to an improved system or product or business, more jobs are created. I'm sure the argument against the automobile was that it would cost us jobs in the horse and buggy business to switch to autos. And it did. But it created many more jobs in the auto field, as well as enabling the country to move forward on growing business generally, since we could get around faster and for great distances than before.
Take the coal industry. It's dying. There's no permanently fixing that because other fuels are more efficient and less damaging and more profitable. The coal mining areas are suffering and losing jobs. But while that is happening, jobs are growing in other energy areas and in the country as a whole. But we shouldn't change back to coal, to save those jobs. That wouldn't make sense. The coal mining areas need to attract other businesses to their areas. The environment in those areas will improve, and the workers will be healthier, which will help their health care costs. And their jobs will be more secure in the future.
You don't look at just the jobs that are lost when you close down a fossil fuel plant. You also look at what else grows when you close down that fossil fuel plant. And you project what happens in the future, not just the first few years. Businesses project by the quarter or year. They don't look very far down the road on what's best for the country or its people. You DON'T ask them if it's okay to make changes that will help the country and its people down the road. They're the last ones to ask.
I don't trust you or any other man, or group of men, with my life, liberty, or property.
What I do say is that no man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent. I say this is the leading principle, the sheet-anchor of American republicanism. Our Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..........
Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or Natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property...and is regarded as inalienable
- - - 16 Corpus Juris Secundum, Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
