If you listen to liberals, you’d believe that conservatives are
hateful, racist, cruel, selfish dishonest,
mean-spirited fascists while
liberals are compassionate, caring, open-minded, honest and giving
saints who want the best for everyone.
If that’s true, then why is it that liberals have to incessantly lie
about what they’re doing, what’s happening in the world and also lie
about conservatives?
For example, take this latest flap about Indiana passing a religious
freedom law that prevents Christians from getting run out of business if
they refuse to participate in gay weddings. The law should be
unnecessary given that the First Amendment already “prohibits the making of any law…impeding the free exercise of religion,” but
getting beyond that, there are similar laws in 20 states. Even Bill
Clinton and Barack Obama have signed onto similar laws. Yet, you have
liberals claiming that discrimination against gays will be rampant and
even that black Americans will be turned away from stores for religious
reasons because of the law. Of course, that’s not happening in any of
the states with similar laws and it won’t happen in Indiana either.
If liberals are the good guys, then why do they have to lie about what the law does?
Remember when the Trayvon Martin shooting hit the news? Most people
thought a 12 year old kid was attacked by an adult who had uttered
racial slurs about him and then shot him to death for no good reason.
Whatever you may think of the case, there was a court case and we found
out that wasn’t what happened. Trayvon Martin was a 17 year old football
player; Zimmerman didn’t make any racist reference to him. Martin
attacked Zimmerman and was physically beating him when he was shot.
If liberals are the good guys, why do they lie about cases like this one?
You could ask the same question about the Mike Brown shooting. At
first we heard that Mike Brown was just an innocent kid who was attacked
by an officer and then shot to death while he had his hands up and was
pleading with the officer not to shoot.
Yet, what did we find out? Mike Brown had just robbed a convenience
store; the officer thought he was a suspect. Brown attacked the officer
and tried to take his weapon, then was shot running at the cop while
ignoring his orders to stop.
Read more:
If Liberals Are The Good Guys, Why Do They Lie So Much? - John Hawkins - Page 2
Tuesday, March 31, 2015
Monday, March 30, 2015
The Effect of Income Taxes on Economic Growth
Advocates of tax cuts claim that a reduction in the tax rate will lead to increased economic growth and prosperity. Others claim that if we reduce taxes, almost all of the benefits will go to the rich, as those are the ones who pay the most taxes. What does economic theory suggest about the relationship
between economic growth and taxation?
Income Taxes and Extreme Cases
In studying economic policies, it is always useful to study extreme cases. Extreme cases are situations such as "What if we had a 100% income tax rate?", or "What if we raised the minimum wage to $50.00 an hour?". While wholly unrealistic, they do give very stark examples of what direction key economic variables will move when we change a government policy.First suppose that we lived in a society without taxation. We'll worry about how the government finances its programs later on, but for now we'll assume that they have enough money to finance all the programs we have today. If there are no taxes, then the government does not earn any income from taxation and citizens do not spend any time worrying about how to evade taxes. If someone has a wage of $10.00 an hour, then they get to keep that $10.00. If such a society were possible, we can see that people would be quite productive as any income they earn, they keep.
Now consider the opposing case. Taxes are now set to be 100%
of income. Any cent you earn goes to the government. It may seem that
the government would earn a lot of money this way, but that's not likely
to happen. If I don't get to keep anything out of what I earn, why
would I go to work? I'd rather spend my time reading or playing
baseball. In fact, going to work would risk my ability to survive. I'd
be much better off spending my time trying to come up with ways to get
the things I need without giving them to the government. I'd spend a lot
of my time trying to grow food in a hidden garden and bartering
with others for the things I need to survive. I wouldn't spend any time
working for a company if I didn't get anything from it. Society as a
whole would not be very productive if everybody spent a large portion of
their time trying to evade taxes. The government would earn very little
income from taxation, as very few people would go to work if they did
not earn an income from it.
Taxes and Other Ways of Financing Government
In the case where government can finance spending outside of taxation, we see the following:- Productivity declines as the tax rate increases, as people choose to work less. The higher the tax rate, the more time people spend evading taxes and the less time they spend on more productive activity. So the lower the tax rate, the higher the value of all the goods and services produced.
- Government tax revenue does not necessarily increase as the tax rate increases. The government will earn more tax income at 1% rate than at 0%, but they will not earn more at 100% than they will at 10%, due to the disincentives high tax rates cause. Thus there is a peak tax rate where government revenue is highest. The relationship between income tax rates and government revenue can be graphed on something called a Laffer Curve.
Read more:
The Effect of Income Taxes on Economic Growth
Sunday, March 29, 2015
Saturday, March 28, 2015
If You Aren’t Free To Be A Bigot If You Choose, You’re Not Really Free
This is an excellent piece by David McElroy. He is a writer and filmmaker in Birmingham, Ala., who plans
to become benevolent dictator of the world just as soon as he recruits
enough devoted minions to make it happen. David likes email. Send him nice messages and he'll be nice to you, but if you send him spam, he will track you down and feed you to sharks.
Friend him on Facebook. On Twitter, it's @David_McElroy.
Jack Phillips is the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in suburban Denver, and he doesn’t want to make wedding cakes for gay couples. In my mind, that makes him a bigot and a lousy businessman. But as a free man, he has the moral right to be a bigot, even if I believe he’s wrong.
It’s easy to support individual freedom when the individual in question is sympathetic and says all the right things. The real test of whether you support freedom or not is whether you support people who want to use their freedom to do things you don’t approve of.
This issue is at the heart of a controversy that’s raging in this country today. The battle lines are generally seen as gay people and their allies on one side vs. social conservatives and some religious people who object to homosexuality on the other side. Those on one side say that business owners must be forced to do business with gay couples against their will. Those on the other side say religious freedom is at stake and that they should be able to decide not to do business with gay and lesbian couples. But framing the issue this way misses the point.
The only real issue is whether human beings have the right to make their own choices about who they want to voluntarily associate with.
If a person has the freedom to decide who he wants to associate with, he’s free to choose to associate only with left-handed green-eyed ex-convicts if he wants. He’s free to choose to associate only with beautiful people. He’s free to choose to associate only with people of his own religious group. He’s free to shun religious people entirely. He’s free to shun gay people or Asians or people who he thinks smell funny.
In other words, a free man has the moral right to make decisions that neither you nor I agree with.
If you have a bakery that refuses to deal with gay people or black people or Muslims or any other group that some people would like to avoid, I have every right to decline to do business with you. Those of us who disapprove of those policies can do business with people whose values match up with our own. Freedom works both ways.
If I owned a bakery — or any other kind of business — I would want to do business with anyone who wanted my product or service. I would want to hire the best employees I could get for my money, and I would want all the customers I could possibly get. I wouldn’t be asking those people whether they agree with my moral or religious views.
Arizona recently considered a bill that would have allowed businesses to turn away gay customers if the owners said serving the gay customers would violate their religious beliefs. It was a huge controversy, but I couldn’t support either side.
I don’t want some law to enshrine one particular form of bigotry and pretend that’s what freedom amounts to. On the other hand, I also don’t want to insist that businesses have a moral responsibility to serve any customer they don’t want to serve. I’d rather just acknowledge the general principle that people have the right to associate with whoever they want to associate with — for whatever reason they choose, whether I agree or not.
When it was still unclear what would happen with the Arizona bill — before Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed it — a Tucson, Ariz., pizza restaurant made headlines when it declared that it reserved the right not to serve legislators. Rocco’s Chicago Pizzeria posted a sign that said, “We reserve the right to refuse service to Arizona legislators.” The move was wildly popular with supporters of gay couples.
In neighboring New Mexico, a hair stylist refused to cut the hair of Gov. Susana Martinez until Martinez changes her opposition to gay marriage. Again, the move was wildly popular with supporters of gay couples.
The irony, of course, is that the owners of the pizza place and the hair stylist were both asserting their rights to do business with the people they choose — for reasons of their own. They’re claiming the right to be free and to choose their own voluntary associations.
They’re absolutely right that they’re asserting this freedom. It’s odd that they’re asserting it in an apparent effort to demand that other people not have the same freedom to make their own choices of association.
Free people don’t always make choices that I consider wise or moral. But as long as they don’t use force to impose their choices on others, they have the moral right to make choices that I disagree with.
In other words, people have the moral right to be bigots — and those of us who disagree with them have the right not to associate with them.
Source: http://www.davidmcelroy.org/
Jack Phillips is the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in suburban Denver, and he doesn’t want to make wedding cakes for gay couples. In my mind, that makes him a bigot and a lousy businessman. But as a free man, he has the moral right to be a bigot, even if I believe he’s wrong.
It’s easy to support individual freedom when the individual in question is sympathetic and says all the right things. The real test of whether you support freedom or not is whether you support people who want to use their freedom to do things you don’t approve of.
This issue is at the heart of a controversy that’s raging in this country today. The battle lines are generally seen as gay people and their allies on one side vs. social conservatives and some religious people who object to homosexuality on the other side. Those on one side say that business owners must be forced to do business with gay couples against their will. Those on the other side say religious freedom is at stake and that they should be able to decide not to do business with gay and lesbian couples. But framing the issue this way misses the point.
The only real issue is whether human beings have the right to make their own choices about who they want to voluntarily associate with.
If a person has the freedom to decide who he wants to associate with, he’s free to choose to associate only with left-handed green-eyed ex-convicts if he wants. He’s free to choose to associate only with beautiful people. He’s free to choose to associate only with people of his own religious group. He’s free to shun religious people entirely. He’s free to shun gay people or Asians or people who he thinks smell funny.
In other words, a free man has the moral right to make decisions that neither you nor I agree with.
If you have a bakery that refuses to deal with gay people or black people or Muslims or any other group that some people would like to avoid, I have every right to decline to do business with you. Those of us who disapprove of those policies can do business with people whose values match up with our own. Freedom works both ways.
If I owned a bakery — or any other kind of business — I would want to do business with anyone who wanted my product or service. I would want to hire the best employees I could get for my money, and I would want all the customers I could possibly get. I wouldn’t be asking those people whether they agree with my moral or religious views.
Arizona recently considered a bill that would have allowed businesses to turn away gay customers if the owners said serving the gay customers would violate their religious beliefs. It was a huge controversy, but I couldn’t support either side.
I don’t want some law to enshrine one particular form of bigotry and pretend that’s what freedom amounts to. On the other hand, I also don’t want to insist that businesses have a moral responsibility to serve any customer they don’t want to serve. I’d rather just acknowledge the general principle that people have the right to associate with whoever they want to associate with — for whatever reason they choose, whether I agree or not.
When it was still unclear what would happen with the Arizona bill — before Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed it — a Tucson, Ariz., pizza restaurant made headlines when it declared that it reserved the right not to serve legislators. Rocco’s Chicago Pizzeria posted a sign that said, “We reserve the right to refuse service to Arizona legislators.” The move was wildly popular with supporters of gay couples.
In neighboring New Mexico, a hair stylist refused to cut the hair of Gov. Susana Martinez until Martinez changes her opposition to gay marriage. Again, the move was wildly popular with supporters of gay couples.
The irony, of course, is that the owners of the pizza place and the hair stylist were both asserting their rights to do business with the people they choose — for reasons of their own. They’re claiming the right to be free and to choose their own voluntary associations.
They’re absolutely right that they’re asserting this freedom. It’s odd that they’re asserting it in an apparent effort to demand that other people not have the same freedom to make their own choices of association.
Free people don’t always make choices that I consider wise or moral. But as long as they don’t use force to impose their choices on others, they have the moral right to make choices that I disagree with.
In other words, people have the moral right to be bigots — and those of us who disagree with them have the right not to associate with them.
Source: http://www.davidmcelroy.org/
Friday, March 27, 2015
Thursday, March 26, 2015
Wednesday, March 25, 2015
Tuesday, March 24, 2015
FCC Chairman Concedes Future Internet Tax Is Possible After All
(Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Tom Wheeler acknowledged in congressional testimony today that an Internet tax--which he had previously said would not be imposed--could be imposed in the future.
Wheeler’s remarks came during a Tuesday appearance before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, where he was asked to shed light on the process by which the FCC passed rules last month regulating the Internet.
Wheeler’s admission came after Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) asked him to go on the record with his previous assurances that there would be no new taxes.
Read more:
FCC Chairman Concedes Future Internet Tax Is Possible After All | CNS News
Monday, March 23, 2015
Solar Power Propaganda vs. The Real World
(Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
When a former “senior communications official at the White House” writes a blog post for U.S. News and World Report,
you should be able to trust it. But when the author states that the
Keystone pipeline (should it be approved) would create only 19 weeks of
temporary jobs, everything else he says must be suspect—including the
claim that our “energy infrastructure will be 100% solar by 2030.”
I contacted both a union representative and one from TransCanada—the company behind the Keystone pipeline. Each affirmed that the 19-week timeframe was total fantasy. The portion of the Keystone pipeline that remains to be built is 1,179 miles long—the vast majority of that within the U.S.—with construction expected to take 2 years.
TransCanada’s spokesperson Mark Cooper responded to my query: “While some people belittle these jobs as temporary, we know that without temporary construction jobs—and the hard work of the men and women who do them—we wouldn’t have roads, highways, schools, or hospitals. We wouldn’t have the Empire State Building, the Golden Gate Bridge, or the Hoover Dam. So, I would say to these detractors: ‘It is OK if you don’t like or support Keystone XL. But let’s stop putting down the very people who have helped build America.’”
The premise of the On the Edge blog post is that we shouldn’t look at Keystone as a jobs creator. Instead, the author claims, the jobs are in “solar energy disruption.” He is frustrated that “GOP leaders almost universally ignore or disdain this emerging energy economy.”
He states: “A third of all new electric generation in 2014 came from solar. A new solar installation or project now occurs somewhere in the U.S.—built by a team of American workers employed in the fastest growing energy sector in the world—every 3 minutes.”
This may be true but, as you’ll see, it belies several important details. Plenty of cause exists for Republican lawmakers to “disdain” the growth in renewable energy.
If “a third of all new electric generation in 2014 came from solar,” there is reason for it—and it does not include sound economics.
- See more at: http://www.cfact.org/2015/03/10/solar-power-propaganda-vs-the-real-world/#sthash.Hegk9qq5.dpuf
I contacted both a union representative and one from TransCanada—the company behind the Keystone pipeline. Each affirmed that the 19-week timeframe was total fantasy. The portion of the Keystone pipeline that remains to be built is 1,179 miles long—the vast majority of that within the U.S.—with construction expected to take 2 years.
TransCanada’s spokesperson Mark Cooper responded to my query: “While some people belittle these jobs as temporary, we know that without temporary construction jobs—and the hard work of the men and women who do them—we wouldn’t have roads, highways, schools, or hospitals. We wouldn’t have the Empire State Building, the Golden Gate Bridge, or the Hoover Dam. So, I would say to these detractors: ‘It is OK if you don’t like or support Keystone XL. But let’s stop putting down the very people who have helped build America.’”
The premise of the On the Edge blog post is that we shouldn’t look at Keystone as a jobs creator. Instead, the author claims, the jobs are in “solar energy disruption.” He is frustrated that “GOP leaders almost universally ignore or disdain this emerging energy economy.”
He states: “A third of all new electric generation in 2014 came from solar. A new solar installation or project now occurs somewhere in the U.S.—built by a team of American workers employed in the fastest growing energy sector in the world—every 3 minutes.”
This may be true but, as you’ll see, it belies several important details. Plenty of cause exists for Republican lawmakers to “disdain” the growth in renewable energy.
If “a third of all new electric generation in 2014 came from solar,” there is reason for it—and it does not include sound economics.
- See more at: http://www.cfact.org/2015/03/10/solar-power-propaganda-vs-the-real-world/#sthash.Hegk9qq5.dpuf
When a former “senior communications official at the White House” writes a blog post for U.S. News and World Report,
you should be able to trust it. But when the author states that the
Keystone pipeline (should it be approved) would create only 19 weeks of
temporary jobs, everything else he says must be suspect—including the
claim that our “energy infrastructure will be 100% solar by 2030.”
I contacted both a union representative and one from TransCanada—the company behind the Keystone pipeline. Each affirmed that the 19-week timeframe was total fantasy. The portion of the Keystone pipeline that remains to be built is 1,179 miles long—the vast majority of that within the U.S.—with construction expected to take 2 years.
TransCanada’s spokesperson Mark Cooper responded to my query: “While some people belittle these jobs as temporary, we know that without temporary construction jobs—and the hard work of the men and women who do them—we wouldn’t have roads, highways, schools, or hospitals. We wouldn’t have the Empire State Building, the Golden Gate Bridge, or the Hoover Dam. So, I would say to these detractors: ‘It is OK if you don’t like or support Keystone XL. But let’s stop putting down the very people who have helped build America.’”
The premise of the On the Edge blog post is that we shouldn’t look at Keystone as a jobs creator. Instead, the author claims, the jobs are in “solar energy disruption.” He is frustrated that “GOP leaders almost universally ignore or disdain this emerging energy economy.”
He states: “A third of all new electric generation in 2014 came from solar. A new solar installation or project now occurs somewhere in the U.S.—built by a team of American workers employed in the fastest growing energy sector in the world—every 3 minutes.”
This may be true but, as you’ll see, it belies several important details. Plenty of cause exists for Republican lawmakers to “disdain” the growth in renewable energy.
If “a third of all new electric generation in 2014 came from solar,” there is reason for it—and it does not include sound economics.
- See more at: http://www.cfact.org/2015/03/10/solar-power-propaganda-vs-the-real-world/#sthash.Hegk9qq5.dpuf
I contacted both a union representative and one from TransCanada—the company behind the Keystone pipeline. Each affirmed that the 19-week timeframe was total fantasy. The portion of the Keystone pipeline that remains to be built is 1,179 miles long—the vast majority of that within the U.S.—with construction expected to take 2 years.
TransCanada’s spokesperson Mark Cooper responded to my query: “While some people belittle these jobs as temporary, we know that without temporary construction jobs—and the hard work of the men and women who do them—we wouldn’t have roads, highways, schools, or hospitals. We wouldn’t have the Empire State Building, the Golden Gate Bridge, or the Hoover Dam. So, I would say to these detractors: ‘It is OK if you don’t like or support Keystone XL. But let’s stop putting down the very people who have helped build America.’”
The premise of the On the Edge blog post is that we shouldn’t look at Keystone as a jobs creator. Instead, the author claims, the jobs are in “solar energy disruption.” He is frustrated that “GOP leaders almost universally ignore or disdain this emerging energy economy.”
He states: “A third of all new electric generation in 2014 came from solar. A new solar installation or project now occurs somewhere in the U.S.—built by a team of American workers employed in the fastest growing energy sector in the world—every 3 minutes.”
This may be true but, as you’ll see, it belies several important details. Plenty of cause exists for Republican lawmakers to “disdain” the growth in renewable energy.
If “a third of all new electric generation in 2014 came from solar,” there is reason for it—and it does not include sound economics.
- See more at: http://www.cfact.org/2015/03/10/solar-power-propaganda-vs-the-real-world/#sthash.Hegk9qq5.dpuf
When a former “senior communications official at the White House” writes a blog post for U.S. News and World Report,
you should be able to trust it. But when the author states that the
Keystone pipeline (should it be approved) would create only 19 weeks of
temporary jobs, everything else he says must be suspect—including the
claim that our “energy infrastructure will be 100% solar by 2030.”
I contacted both a union representative and one from TransCanada—the company behind the Keystone pipeline. Each affirmed that the 19-week timeframe was total fantasy. The portion of the Keystone pipeline that remains to be built is 1,179 miles long—the vast majority of that within the U.S.—with construction expected to take 2 years.
TransCanada’s spokesperson Mark Cooper responded to my query: “While some people belittle these jobs as temporary, we know that without temporary construction jobs—and the hard work of the men and women who do them—we wouldn’t have roads, highways, schools, or hospitals. We wouldn’t have the Empire State Building, the Golden Gate Bridge, or the Hoover Dam. So, I would say to these detractors: ‘It is OK if you don’t like or support Keystone XL. But let’s stop putting down the very people who have helped build America.’”
The premise of the On the Edge blog post is that we shouldn’t look at Keystone as a jobs creator. Instead, the author claims, the jobs are in “solar energy disruption.” He is frustrated that “GOP leaders almost universally ignore or disdain this emerging energy economy.”
He states: “A third of all new electric generation in 2014 came from solar. A new solar installation or project now occurs somewhere in the U.S.—built by a team of American workers employed in the fastest growing energy sector in the world—every 3 minutes.”
This may be true but, as you’ll see, it belies several important details. Plenty of cause exists for Republican lawmakers to “disdain” the growth in renewable energy.
If “a third of all new electric generation in 2014 came from solar,” there is reason for it—and it does not include sound economics.
- See more at: http://www.cfact.org/2015/03/10/solar-power-propaganda-vs-the-real-world/#sthash.Hegk9qq5.dpuf
I contacted both a union representative and one from TransCanada—the company behind the Keystone pipeline. Each affirmed that the 19-week timeframe was total fantasy. The portion of the Keystone pipeline that remains to be built is 1,179 miles long—the vast majority of that within the U.S.—with construction expected to take 2 years.
TransCanada’s spokesperson Mark Cooper responded to my query: “While some people belittle these jobs as temporary, we know that without temporary construction jobs—and the hard work of the men and women who do them—we wouldn’t have roads, highways, schools, or hospitals. We wouldn’t have the Empire State Building, the Golden Gate Bridge, or the Hoover Dam. So, I would say to these detractors: ‘It is OK if you don’t like or support Keystone XL. But let’s stop putting down the very people who have helped build America.’”
The premise of the On the Edge blog post is that we shouldn’t look at Keystone as a jobs creator. Instead, the author claims, the jobs are in “solar energy disruption.” He is frustrated that “GOP leaders almost universally ignore or disdain this emerging energy economy.”
He states: “A third of all new electric generation in 2014 came from solar. A new solar installation or project now occurs somewhere in the U.S.—built by a team of American workers employed in the fastest growing energy sector in the world—every 3 minutes.”
This may be true but, as you’ll see, it belies several important details. Plenty of cause exists for Republican lawmakers to “disdain” the growth in renewable energy.
If “a third of all new electric generation in 2014 came from solar,” there is reason for it—and it does not include sound economics.
- See more at: http://www.cfact.org/2015/03/10/solar-power-propaganda-vs-the-real-world/#sthash.Hegk9qq5.dpuf
When a former “senior communications official at the White House” writes a blog post for U.S. News and World Report,
you should be able to trust it. But when the author states that the
Keystone pipeline (should it be approved) would create only 19 weeks of
temporary jobs, everything else he says must be suspect—including the
claim that our “energy infrastructure will be 100% solar by 2030.”
I contacted both a union representative and one from TransCanada—the company behind the Keystone pipeline. Each affirmed that the 19-week timeframe was total fantasy. The portion of the Keystone pipeline that remains to be built is 1,179 miles long—the vast majority of that within the U.S.—with construction expected to take 2 years.
TransCanada’s spokesperson Mark Cooper responded to my query: “While some people belittle these jobs as temporary, we know that without temporary construction jobs—and the hard work of the men and women who do them—we wouldn’t have roads, highways, schools, or hospitals. We wouldn’t have the Empire State Building, the Golden Gate Bridge, or the Hoover Dam. So, I would say to these detractors: ‘It is OK if you don’t like or support Keystone XL. But let’s stop putting down the very people who have helped build America.’”
The premise of the On the Edge blog post is that we shouldn’t look at Keystone as a jobs creator. Instead, the author claims, the jobs are in “solar energy disruption.” He is frustrated that “GOP leaders almost universally ignore or disdain this emerging energy economy.”
He states: “A third of all new electric generation in 2014 came from solar. A new solar installation or project now occurs somewhere in the U.S.—built by a team of American workers employed in the fastest growing energy sector in the world—every 3 minutes.”
This may be true but, as you’ll see, it belies several important details. Plenty of cause exists for Republican lawmakers to “disdain” the growth in renewable energy.
If “a third of all new electric generation in 2014 came from solar,” there is reason for it—and it does not include sound economics.
- See more at: http://www.cfact.org/2015/03/10/solar-power-propaganda-vs-the-real-world/#sthash.Hegk9qq5.dpuf
I contacted both a union representative and one from TransCanada—the company behind the Keystone pipeline. Each affirmed that the 19-week timeframe was total fantasy. The portion of the Keystone pipeline that remains to be built is 1,179 miles long—the vast majority of that within the U.S.—with construction expected to take 2 years.
TransCanada’s spokesperson Mark Cooper responded to my query: “While some people belittle these jobs as temporary, we know that without temporary construction jobs—and the hard work of the men and women who do them—we wouldn’t have roads, highways, schools, or hospitals. We wouldn’t have the Empire State Building, the Golden Gate Bridge, or the Hoover Dam. So, I would say to these detractors: ‘It is OK if you don’t like or support Keystone XL. But let’s stop putting down the very people who have helped build America.’”
The premise of the On the Edge blog post is that we shouldn’t look at Keystone as a jobs creator. Instead, the author claims, the jobs are in “solar energy disruption.” He is frustrated that “GOP leaders almost universally ignore or disdain this emerging energy economy.”
He states: “A third of all new electric generation in 2014 came from solar. A new solar installation or project now occurs somewhere in the U.S.—built by a team of American workers employed in the fastest growing energy sector in the world—every 3 minutes.”
This may be true but, as you’ll see, it belies several important details. Plenty of cause exists for Republican lawmakers to “disdain” the growth in renewable energy.
If “a third of all new electric generation in 2014 came from solar,” there is reason for it—and it does not include sound economics.
- See more at: http://www.cfact.org/2015/03/10/solar-power-propaganda-vs-the-real-world/#sthash.Hegk9qq5.dpuf
When a former “senior communications official at the White
House” writes a blog post for U.S. News and World Report, you should be able to
trust it. But when the author states that the Keystone pipeline (should it be
approved) would create only 19 weeks of temporary jobs, everything else he says
must be suspect—including the claim that our “energy infrastructure will be
100% solar by 2030.”
I contacted both a union representative and one from
TransCanada—the company behind the Keystone pipeline. Each affirmed that the
19-week timeframe was total fantasy. The portion of the Keystone pipeline that
remains to be built is 1,179 miles long—the vast majority of that within the
U.S.—with construction expected to take 2 years.
TransCanada’s spokesperson Mark Cooper responded to my
query: “While some people belittle these jobs as temporary, we know that
without temporary construction jobs—and the hard work of the men and women who
do them—we wouldn’t have roads, highways, schools, or hospitals. We wouldn’t
have the Empire State Building, the Golden Gate Bridge, or the Hoover Dam. So,
I would say to these detractors: ‘It is OK if you don’t like or support
Keystone XL. But let’s stop putting down the very people who have helped build
America.’”
The premise of the On the Edge blog post is that we shouldn’t
look at Keystone as a jobs creator. Instead, the author claims, the jobs are in
“solar energy disruption.” He is frustrated that “GOP leaders almost
universally ignore or disdain this emerging energy economy.”
He states: “A third of all new electric generation in 2014
came from solar. A new solar installation or project now occurs somewhere in
the U.S.—built by a team of American workers employed in the fastest growing
energy sector in the world—every 3 minutes.”
This may be true but, as you’ll see, it belies several
important details. Plenty of cause exists for Republican lawmakers to “disdain”
the growth in renewable energy.
If “a third of all new electric generation in 2014 came from
solar,” there is reason for it—and it does not include sound economics.
Read the rest here:
Solar power propaganda vs. the real world
Related articles
Sunday, March 22, 2015
Saturday, March 21, 2015
America On the Brink of Losing Constitutional Form of Government Forever
The rule of law is in grave danger, as federal regulators use ever
thinner legal pretexts to enable vast
public policy changes without votes by our elected representatives. In a span of just seven days, the FCC declared the Internet a public utility, Congress acceded to DHS implementing executive amnesty, the president used a veto threat to protect the NLRB’s ambush elections rule, and the Supreme Court’s four liberals showed they are not just willing but enthusiastic to allow the IRS to ignore the plain language of Obamacare. A great week for regulators, but a terrible week for everyone else.
The FCC order regulating the Internet was written by political operatives in the White House, is over 300 pages long and – even though it was approved on a party-line 3-to-2 vote on February 26 – has still not been released to the public. The man who reportedly convinced President Obama to demand the FCC, which is supposed to be an independent agency, to adopt his plan was Tumblr CEO David Karp, who when asked the most rudimentary question about the economics of the order replied: “Ummm, uhhhh, I confess. Not my area of expertise.” Now, the same radical pressure groups that have long pushed for such regulations, funded by $196 million from George Soros and the Ford Foundation, are launching a major effort to scare Congress – the legitimate legislative branch of the federal government – into sitting on their hands and not acting on the issue.
Read more:
America On the Brink of Losing Constitutional Form of Government Forever | CNS News
public policy changes without votes by our elected representatives. In a span of just seven days, the FCC declared the Internet a public utility, Congress acceded to DHS implementing executive amnesty, the president used a veto threat to protect the NLRB’s ambush elections rule, and the Supreme Court’s four liberals showed they are not just willing but enthusiastic to allow the IRS to ignore the plain language of Obamacare. A great week for regulators, but a terrible week for everyone else.
The FCC order regulating the Internet was written by political operatives in the White House, is over 300 pages long and – even though it was approved on a party-line 3-to-2 vote on February 26 – has still not been released to the public. The man who reportedly convinced President Obama to demand the FCC, which is supposed to be an independent agency, to adopt his plan was Tumblr CEO David Karp, who when asked the most rudimentary question about the economics of the order replied: “Ummm, uhhhh, I confess. Not my area of expertise.” Now, the same radical pressure groups that have long pushed for such regulations, funded by $196 million from George Soros and the Ford Foundation, are launching a major effort to scare Congress – the legitimate legislative branch of the federal government – into sitting on their hands and not acting on the issue.
Read more:
America On the Brink of Losing Constitutional Form of Government Forever | CNS News
Friday, March 20, 2015
Thursday, March 19, 2015
Wednesday, March 18, 2015
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)