Stop the Energy Tax Petition

Stealth Hunter · 06-10-09, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteamWake

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.

Aramike · 06-10-09, 05:43 PM

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?

Stealth Hunter · 06-11-09, 08:43 AM

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.

06-10-09, 05:43 PM	#2
Aramike Ocean Warrior Best of SUBSIM Chairman Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Milwaukee, WI Posts: 3,207 Downloads: 59 Uploads: 0	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?

06-11-09, 08:43 AM	#3
Stealth Hunter Silent Hunter Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Y'ha-Nthlei Posts: 4,262 Downloads: 19 Uploads: 0	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.