Posted on 10/14/2011 3:10:03 PM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
....Not all economists would put domestic energy production among their top five priorities for job growth. But many do see significant potential in this field, as the Perry campaign does.
For example, economist Peter Morici at the University of Maryland, in a recent analysis of the nation's employment crisis, wrote that "shutting down US oil and gas development is costing the US economy millions of jobs."
His view: An emphasis on domestic production could create jobs by dramatically reducing America's trade deficit, thus recycling more consumer dollars in the domestic economy. Promotion of energy production would also spill over into job creation in other industries, Mr. Morici says, as a need for refineries and pipelines boosts demand for construction workers, steel, and heavy machinery.
Even in Texas, the industries classified by the US Labor Department as "oil and gas extraction" and "mining support" account for just about 2 of every 100 jobs. But jobs in basic industries like mining or manufacturing typically help sustain many other jobs throughout a local economy. And over the past decade, Texas has seen energy jobs rise as a share of its economy.
Compared with Texas, other states appear to have plenty of room to grow. In the other 49 states collectively, the "oil and gas" and "mining support" industries account for less than 0.3 percent of all jobs. Those totals don't include some other energy-related jobs, such as in coal mining or renewable sources.
Obama, for his part, has called for some expansion of domestic fossil-fuel production, but has put his greatest emphasis on encouraging renewable sources of energy. Where the words "conservation" and "efficiency" appear nowhere in Perry's speech, Obama has backed programs to encourage energy-saving retrofits of buildings and a shift toward higher-mileage vehicles....
(Excerpt) Read more at csmonitor.com ...
Whatever?
Jobs is a ‘whatever’ to you?
Seriously?
Most Freepers, I’d say, aren’t against a sales tax. We are against 2 sales taxes, in other words, double taxation for the same product.
And that’s what Cain’s national sales tax would be, double taxation. One state sales tax... and then another national one; all on the same product.
Not to even mention how what may start as 9% can change when a new party is in power. Just look at our federal income tax; it started out as just 3%... and during WWII it hit up to 94%. If it had never been introduced, it could not have been adjusted up to that insane rate.
We’re paying more than 9% in federal taxes on items now. But it’s hidden and buried in the retail price.
Most of the objections to the 9% sales tax is that people don’t want to *see* their taxes. As long as they’re hidden, they’re comfortable. As soon as there’s a prospect of actually seeing 9% on a receipt, they’re having a fit.
You’re being double and triple taxed now. Wouldn’t it be nice to have it out in the light?
Not one Perry supporter jumped on that thread to trash Cain.
But only 3 or 4 posts deep on any Perry thread, here come the Perry/Romney vultures, bringing up the same old worthless issues.
Bears repeating!
You have no sense of reality!
That is, under THIS retread screen name!
What was the other screen name?
Don't know, but it's a good surmise.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.