I think it is probably a good thing to analyze. I just reported from the site above, though where they got it from is a good thing to Google. I'll see what I can dig up if anything.

-S

Google brings up the following:

http://tonyphyrillas.blogspot.com/20...-petition.html

http://www.care2.com/c2c/share/detail/1154097

http://ben932.vox.com/library/post/c...-petition.html

http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/...increases.html

Maybe what they are estimating is the number of job losses due to decrease in economic power? ANy energy tax, that is exactly what would be a direct result. I'll dig more if I can find out. The way the statistics are derived may take some time. I'm wondering if it is a decreasing target over time, starting at 3 million and going backwards. I will see if it can be answered.

-S

Well, at least you didn't originate the statistic, even though it seems that there's no real source

It's just one of those things that doesn't pass the smell test, as far as I'm concerned. While I am certainly opposed to the tax, the job loss prognostication is silly, and makes me question the rest of the theories.

It's true. Remember your thread about NASA and the solar cycle in relation to global warming?

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=152450

Mookie pointed out the problem with it not even half way down the page.

I never said they weren't, now did I?

And so I did. A YouTube video on Obama's tax plan. But where was the part about the 75 million jobs that would be lost over a period of 25 years? It wasn't in there.

These people you're getting your information from did not bother to cite their sources, it's obvious they have some political and scientific bias, and you're asking us (and they are too) to believe their so-called "accurate" statistics without showing their reasoning behind them.

You and "American Solutions" fail at this scientific arguing, epically.

Uh... what? I post links to independent news articles, websites, and YouTube videos that all the time if it's an issue that concerns/interests me.

And you know what else, SUB? I actually bother to check their sources before I do it (not to mention make sure they bother to list them...).

I give my opinion as well as the facts stated by the source.

*yawn*

We've covered this claim by you already, and you can investigate my old posts if you want to for proof.

All you do anymore is run around spamming threads about the evil Democrats and Obama, why global warming is a hoax created by the government (do you feel the same way about the moon landings? :har:), why religion is good and a lack of religion is bad, why America is better than any other country at anything and everything, etc.

At first, it was cute and funny: an angry man running around on Subsim ranting and raving. Now, it's just boring, putting it bluntly.

As Monty Python declared:

"OH- YOU'RE NO FUN ANYMORE!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RexQLrcqwc

"Because I said so!"

Oh really? And what is that?

And Mr. Phyrillas, like your YouTube video, I see did not bother to cite his sources. That's bad journalism, Mr. Phyrillas. Of course, the headline that made me laugh at obvious bias:

COMMON-SENSE VIEWPOINTS OF A CONSERVATIVE JOURNALIST WORKING IN A LIBERAL-DOMINATED MEDIA

Go for independent news sites; avoid blogs and sourceless pages.

Another blog without sources and a link to that same YouTube video... without sources, lol.

Sourceless blog, same YouTube video. *yawn*

I should get back to bed.

No sources, but at least it didn't use the YouTube video for a change.

It would be nice if we could have closure as to who this "they" is.

Strange on the "ANY" part, because there have been energy taxes before but decreased economic power has never been one of the effects. Of course, it's been quite a few decades since we faced a situation like we do now.

You do that, SUB; you do that...

:doh:

You want sources?

Here this article is full of them.



http://www.openmarket.org/2009/06/08...-unemployment/

Tried it. Did you even bother reading them?


The first one about "even higher" there leads to a Power Line BLOG entry by John Hinderaker that DOES NOT cite where it's getting its statistics and numbers from anywhere in it.


The second one about "1.5 million jobs have been lost" leads to AmericansforTaxReform.com (ATR), and does not cite where it is getting it's numbers from. It does, however, say that Tim Geithner's use of the term 'saved' was challenged heavily by the people, and it does link me to a Breitbart.com article. That's nice, but it doesn't give numbers or even mention 1.5 million jobs lost from Obama's stimulus package. More importantly, it doesn't even say where it got its numbers from (like the claim that each job loss costs taxpayers $2900). It lists a site as Recovery.gov for it, but I did not find these statistics there at all (and I searched for a good 20 minutes, too).

Later, it mentions some stuff about skateboard parks and zoos and jet hangers being built with the stimulus money, but all these links go to other ATR articles. They all cite their sources, however, and I'm grateful for that.


The claim that 40,000 jobs have been lost leads to a website called MexicoTrucker.com. It cites the National Review as its source and gives a direct article along with The Oregonian.

First off, the National Review article does not state ANYWHERE the number of 40,000 jobs being lost from retaliation and tariffs from Mexico. Second, The Oregonian does have the number 40,000 included, but unlike the original article on OpenMarket, it says that 40,000 jobs COULD BE lost; it does NOT say they WERE lost...


Now the final claim I'll be working on ATM is the one that the stimulus package and its spending drove interest rates up and thus harmed the economy (from OpenMarket). It cites Reason.com as its source, and I was linked to an entry by Brian Doherty that said economist Arnold Kling said that interest rates were PROJECTED to increase. They have NOT increased from the stimulus yet according to Mr. Kling, unlike what the OpenMarket article originally claims. But more importantly, Kling points out that stimulus spending does not actually begin until next year...


So much for their reliability thusfar. However, it's possible things will change. But there are like two dozen other linked "sources" to investigate, and I don't want to bother with them right now. I will, however, do it later. Cross my heart, lol.

I think the point is this: I agree that an energy tax will indeed cost jobs. I think most people would fall in line with that idea. That being said, the job loss numbers claimed by some of the opposition is so pie-in-the-sky that anyone with half a brain will look at them as highly suspect, if not an outright lie.

Which leads us to the problem: there are many people who do not follow these issues closely, but do possess enough common sense to know that these claims are outlandish. How many of them will simply dismiss the idea of opposition entirely due to their dishonesty?

Back.


So the next claim on that OpenMarket.com page is about large quantities of money being printed off for the government to buy its own bonds with. I clicked their link, and it took my to a podcast website and an entry by Glenn Reynolds that didn't state that anywhere or give statistics or facts (though it didn't run short on opinions). But most annoyingly of all, it did not cite sources either.


The next one about the national debt level took me to another OpenMarket article that did cite government sources instead of blogs and podcast pages for once. It listed the numbers we're dealing with, and I have no quarrel here. OM was right for once.


The next claim is that massively higher taxes will be an inevitable result of Obama's stimulus plan and the national debt level (and that there had already been a 12% increase). I agree taxes will be raised, but what are we talking about here with the term "massive"? They failed to clarify on that. Still I clicked the link it cited and it took me back to that Glenn Reynolds podcast website page. His claims took me to a USA Today article. While there had indeed been a 12% tax increase, this number stemmed in 2008 under Bush's stimulus plans and resolutions in conjunction with the nation debt level back when things were really bad and were just starting (around October). It had NOTHING to do at all with Obama (his name was not anywhere in it or even hinted at, lol).


And the final one I'll work on for the moment is about the economy shrinking due to the stimulus proposed by Obama "in the long run". I was taken to NPR, a good place to get news IMO, and got an article from the Congressional Budget Office. It did say the economy would shrink, but only by a margin of .02% AT MOST by 2019. The same article, as well, said that it would also help the economy in the short run and long run by creating jobs, and not hinder it (unlike the original claim). Then there was some clarification by the CBO about how they figured up their statistics, but nothing else there was relevant to OpenMarket's gross exaggerations.