backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 262 comment(s) - last by ICE1966.. on May 19 at 9:42 PM


The Honda FCX Clarity, a production hydrogen fuel cell vehicle  (Source: Honda)
Hydrogen industry is dealt a major blow

Amid automotive and bank bailouts, and massive government investment in research, one group that would seemingly be getting a healthy dose of government grants and loans has instead seen its lifeline evaporate.  The hydrogen industry's $1.2B USD boost, proposed by President Bush, has been partially axed by President Barack Obama as part of several billion dollars in budget cuts.

The primary reason for forsaking the hydrogen industry, according to Department of Energy Secretary Steven Chu, is that it’s not close enough to being marketable.  Department spokesperson Tom Welch states, "The probability of deploying hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles in the next 10 to 20 years is low."

Mr. Welch comments that despite advances, hydrogen production, storage, and transport remain tremendous obstacles.  Furthermore, he says the money needed to finance the infrastructure necessary to fuel hydrogen fuel cell vehicles -- hydrogen pipelines and refueling stations -- would be prohibitively expensive.

The cuts will reduce the $169M USD per year in funding of fuel cell and hydrogen technologies down to $68.2M USD, saving the U.S. taxpayer $100.8M USD.  The cuts will virtually eliminate the automotive fuel cell research grants.  The remaining funding will be used to investigate non-automotive fuel cell uses.

The funding was first proposed by President Bush during his 2003 State of the Union address.  He stated, during the address, "With a new national commitment, our scientists and engineers will overcome obstacles to taking these cars from laboratory to showroom, so that the first car driven by a child born today could be powered by hydrogen, and pollution-free."

President Bush backed up his rhetoric by spending over $500M USD on government-funded research into transporting, distributing and storing hydrogen fuel.  Philip Clapp, president of the National Environmental Trust, had criticized the plan at the time for being too little to truly help.  He stated, "This was window-dressing pure and simple."

Now Mr. Clapp and others are left to rethink this attitude as they remember back on the progress the industry has made over the last several years and ponder what future it might hold, without government funding and support.  With auto companies worldwide in dire financial straits, and lacking the ability to spend large amounts of money on future technology research, it seems that the field of automotive hydrogen fuel cells, for the time being, is going to be greatly diminished.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

LOL
By therealnickdanger on 5/11/2009 10:37:11 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
saving the U.S. taxpayer $100.8M USD

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWt8hTayupE

Gee, thank you, Mr. Messiah. I would rather he had not given ACORN $5 billion as part of the "stimulus".




RE: LOL
By nycromes on 5/11/2009 10:52:21 AM , Rating: 2
I couldn't help but read that statement about savings and think about when my significant other goes shopping, comes home with bags of stuff and then says about how much money she saved (buying stuff on sale). That "savings" is already gone, and we will not see any of the effect of said savings in any way like tax breaks. Its sad really.


RE: LOL
By FITCamaro on 5/11/2009 11:01:31 AM , Rating: 5
Yes because large scale electric vehicle deployment is anywhere near being ready? Just as running our country off just solar and wind energy is anywhere near being possible?

I love it how Obama comes out an is like "I SAVED YOU MONEY" when he cuts $17 billion but at the same time wants to spend trillions on things the vast majority of the country doesn't want.


RE: LOL
By stubeck on 5/11/2009 11:09:36 AM , Rating: 1
Whats he want to spend trillions on?


RE: LOL
By xti on 5/11/2009 11:28:34 AM , Rating: 5
not on the camaro!


RE: LOL
By Tsuwamono on 5/11/09, Rating: -1
RE: LOL
By MrBlastman on 5/12/2009 10:50:11 AM , Rating: 5
Whoa there... Let me clarify your statement...

"Nothing, Obama is full of ****. Ignore him.. lol"

The first sentence I'd agree with, the second, not. Obama is shaping up to be quite a dolt indeed, as his level of 'hairbrained-ness' grows on a daily basis. Gee, lets:

a. NOT encourage development of nuclear power
b. NOT encourage development of hydrogen-fuel powered vehicles (which is potentially more practical than current-tech ethanol)
c. (stealing from another poster) spend billions on ACORN which helped get him elected (biased group anyone?)
d. Help save Americans "money" by giving them healthcare (gee, where the heck is the "money" going to come from to pay for it - *ding ding!* - US!)

In some ways... _some_ ways, his head is screwed on as losely as Bush's was, in others, it is screwed on even looser. Ah well, due to the run up in corn prices, my popcorn costs a little more than it did before, but, I've managed to stockpile quite a bit to sit back and eat while I watch the circus.

Thank you Mr. Obama for yet another silly, disagreeable decision out of your White House.


RE: LOL
By h0kiez on 5/12/2009 4:34:48 PM , Rating: 2
If you listened to him during the campaign, it was painfully obvious that he would be opposing nuclear power in any way/shape/form. Only when pressed hard, did he say things like he was "potentially open to the idea" even though he had constantly voted to kill nuclear at every turn as a senator. Nuke plants, a better power grid, and many more hybrids could go a long way towards our energy independence, and the tech is all there...right now.

What I can never figure out it how Digg.com, home of so many Ron Paul supporters early on became during the campaign (and still is) IloveObama.com. The two are so idealogically different that I just don't get it.


RE: LOL
By kaoken on 5/13/2009 12:20:42 AM , Rating: 1
First off nuclear power is even worst than carbon based energy due to the radioactive waste.

Second if you read the article, he is encouraging hydrogen fuel cells, just reduced funding. Again citing the article, hydrogen fuel cells are no-where practical even with today's technology. The problem with fuel cells is not the research, but the infrastructure required.


RE: LOL
By MrBlastman on 5/13/2009 10:36:37 AM , Rating: 1
Do you seriously believe that? You seriously think that the nuclear waste emission makes it that far worse?

What about the new 7-stage technology that includes the use of a fusion reactor which practically negates 90% of waste emissions? You should read up on that.

Nuclear waste is a very minor issue. Modern reactors are coming with ways to keep wastes contained for many, many years internally within their own structure requiring zero transport to a different location. Waste is a very minor issue and something I would hardly be worried about.

Nuclear power is cheaper, the fuel is incredibly abundant, it is extremely clean and most of all, it makes sense more than anything else we have feasibly available at this point in time. You should really take some time to learn more about it. The only reason people are afraid of it is because of uninformed fear monger groups which try to brainwash the public into being scared of it due to events such as Chernobyl, which, with a Western-based technology reactor, is impossible due to their net-decreasing reaction if left unattended.

Don't listen to the fear, embrace the reality.


RE: LOL
By mino on 5/13/2009 4:16:18 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, this negative/positive energy output feedback has nothing to do with western/eastern technology.
It is just that uncle Brezhnev wanted plutonium for his nukes regardless of the cost so RBMK was pushed for mass power generation ...

Well, he got them. And nuked its own country in the process.


RE: LOL
By KamiXkaze on 5/15/2009 10:12:54 PM , Rating: 2
Sadly that is the direction where headed too.

kXk


RE: LOL
By BikeDude on 5/16/2009 7:21:48 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
b. NOT encourage development of hydrogen-fuel powered vehicles (which is potentially more practical than current-tech ethanol)


That is a bit vague. "Potentially"?

Ethanol virtually "grows on trees". I realize it has been blamed for last year's price-hike on corn, but that makes absolutely no sense given that most farmers had problems makings ends meet due to the ridiculously low prices of grain and corn!

The ethanol that fuels my car comes from small patches of land in Brazil that are used for growing sugar canes.

If we wanted lower prices of food, we should stop growing unnecessary things like flowers, tobacco, opium and we should start farming land that was previously left alone (because of the ridiculously low prices of grain).


RE: LOL
By MrBlastman on 5/16/2009 11:09:23 AM , Rating: 4
Look it up - there is not enough land in America to farm and supply our demand for ethanol while still producing enough food for us to live on. There isn't - this is a fact. We can either grow fuel and starve or eat. Ethanol using corn or other foodsources is stupid. Perhaps using waste products makes sense, but regular food - no.

Yes, the price hikes were a direct result of the incentive policy given to farmers. They were subsidized and made more money if they produced food for ethanol rather than regular food. Why would they bother making enough of regular food? They didn't and instead they produced more corn, thus raising the prices of our other staple goods. It is a simple lesson from the concept of supply and demand.

Import it from Brazil? Sure, we could do that, but it would defeat the purpose of become totally independent of foreign oil/fuel. I see no point in that venture with the growing power of Hugo Chavez in the region. Obama clearly has shown that he will do nothing to curb this. Nuclear is the answer. Nuclear is the solution. How many times do we have to pound that into the heads of other people here?


RE: LOL
By BikeDude on 5/16/2009 12:20:51 PM , Rating: 1
There isn't enough ethanol to supply all cars in all of America.

But look at the number of ethanol cars in Brazil, and how little land is spent to grow sugar canes to cover the demand. Look at how much they are able to export to countries in Europe that are also using ethanol as fuel. Plus think about how this helps their economy.

It clearly is a viable alternative. Not as a full replacement, but certainly as a stop-gap solution here and now.

There are also other possible sources, like algea or plain old garbage.

As for plain corn (maize), like what is used in the US, then yes... That is not the best source. BUT! Did corn producers earn much before the advent of E85? Was it a viable thing to grow in the first place? Economically speaking...?

Or do you propose an economic model where the state subsidizes the farmers even more? Or should only rich people be able to afford food? How do you want to solve this?


RE: LOL
By Lugaidster on 5/18/2009 10:17:54 AM , Rating: 1
What the heck is wrong with you? One thing is to hate Chavez but don't go putting every country in South America in the same bag. Chavez is nowhere near having any significant power over any other country than his own (Venezuela).

Venezuela and Brazil have nothing in common but their borders. And if Venezuela had good relations with Brazil (Or any other country besides Cuba or Bolivia for that matter) they wouldn't need all the ethanol they need since Venezuela practically shits petroleum and could give them some.

Chavez is hated by most countries in the region so don't come saying that assbag is gaining any power in the region or any other BS 'cause that's just being ignorant.

It's like saying Southamerica produces cocaine just because Colombia produces it, or that we live in huts.

You should read on the most prosperous nations in the region, and you'll see that we have nothing to do with Chavez, though I agree some of our presidents a bit on the corrupt side the net effect is at least the same as having Obama as a president.


RE: LOL
By Regs on 5/18/2009 5:14:56 PM , Rating: 2
we live in a nation that requires water suppliers to publish their nutritionl facts on the back of their bottles....we're not going to see a nuclear power plant in our neighbor hoods anytime soon.


RE: LOL
By Avitar on 5/18/2009 5:34:37 PM , Rating: 2
I should point out that the US output of ethinol for 10% of liquid fuel needs is already greater than the entire output of Brazil.


RE: LOL
By JKflipflop98 on 5/17/2009 11:12:39 PM , Rating: 2
No. I am totally against any technology that converts a food source into fuel for a vehicle.

It is arrogant and perverse to make corn into ethanol while people within the United States starve to death. Just because it can be done, doesn't mean it should.

Nuclear power is a clean, cheap, safe method of power generation we have on tap and ready to go NOW. People have just been ingrained with the mantra "Nuclear = BAD" for so long that they just can't shake it. That is where our money should be going. Nuclear will last us until we can start harvesting our local star for energy.


RE: LOL
By Natfly on 5/11/2009 11:34:16 AM , Rating: 5
Bailing out the banks, maybe? Wasn't that about a trillion or so?


RE: LOL
By Armassault on 5/13/09, Rating: 0
RE: LOL
By MrBungle123 on 5/11/2009 11:34:32 AM , Rating: 4
Obama's proposed fiscal year 2010 budget is $1.7 Trillion in the red.


RE: LOL
By tjr508 on 5/11/2009 2:43:06 PM , Rating: 2
As of a couple hours ago we can add in another $90B for a grand total of $1.84x10^12.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/White-House-forecast...


RE: LOL
By MrBungle123 on 5/11/2009 2:57:24 PM , Rating: 2
Or an additonal $5520 per man woman and child piled onto the national debt.


RE: LOL
By MrBungle123 on 5/11/2009 3:01:21 PM , Rating: 2
sorry, next years addtion will be $5520 up $420 from $5100.


RE: LOL
By mdogs444 on 5/11/09, Rating: -1
RE: LOL
By stubeck on 5/11/2009 12:08:56 PM , Rating: 5
He's spending trillions on teleprompters? Wow!


RE: LOL
By foolsgambit11 on 5/11/2009 12:36:57 PM , Rating: 5
It takes trillions to apologize? Wow, no wonder Bush never admitted to any of his mistakes.


RE: LOL
By sgw2n5 on 5/11/2009 1:17:50 PM , Rating: 5
The butthurt is strong with this one..


RE: LOL
By HinderedHindsight on 5/12/2009 12:04:39 AM , Rating: 2
How much BS do you care to spread?

quote:
Socialized health care


Not happening: http://www.factcheck.org/politics/government-run_h...

quote:
abortion clinics


A bit different than what is claimed: http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/was_hr_1388_...

quote:
photo ops


Bush didn't do this with a big "Mission Accomplished" banner behind him? Photo ops are half of the job of a President, any and all of them.

quote:
apologizing for the worlds problems


You mean taking responsibility for some of the mistakes America has committed to repair diplomatic relations? Believe it or not, some countries will be friendly if we are friendly. Here we are as a country complaining about accountability in our real estate and financial areas, but God forbid we take responsibility on the world stage. Yet when it comes to joblessness, unwanted pregnancy, oh we are all for responsibility. Just not when it come to our military killing people.

Some of the other items you bring up I'm not entirely familiar with so they *might* be valid. But given how much BS was in the stuff you already mentioned (and some items I'm familiar with I'm not even going to address because they just reek of BS that was already debunked), I have my doubts.


RE: LOL
By Avitar on 5/18/2009 5:30:54 PM , Rating: 2
I was not aware that the CVN Lincoln had been reengaged in the Middle East. If it hasn't I guess, its mission was accomplished after all and the crew entitled to their banner. That it was the ship's force's banner and not Bush's banner is something that everyone who has contact with the Navy knows.

We who work with nuclear submarines heard about the banner from the nuclear carrier but the Bush deranged media pointedly, did not mention this when they could avoid it. Of course, GE (NBC etc.) will always move the goal posts so no mission is ever accomplished, by the US military, unless it is running away.

The energy problem is not a big one requiring new technology. We have 3800 years of known Nuclear Power reserves thanks to war planning. The entire volume of waste from those millennium will be smaller than a single battle ship. Turn the waste into glass encapsulated blocks, bury it in one of subsiding tectonic plates and if it ever comes up, in 70 million years or so it will be safe by then. I personally would keep it around since I believe that we are likely to find a number of useful things to do with it in the future but approaching it as something to be gotten rid of this is one of at least a dozen approaches for permanent disposal using current technology.


RE: LOL
By Belard on 5/12/2009 8:37:33 PM , Rating: 2
bakaaaaaaaaaa.


RE: LOL
By Spuke on 5/11/2009 12:10:54 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Whats he want to spend trillions on?
I hate to say this but go watch TV.


RE: LOL
By stubeck on 5/11/2009 12:27:16 PM , Rating: 5
I was assuming he was talking about spending trillions on particular programs, not in total. I know the spending is ridiculous, I just hope it gets to a reasonable level at some point since we're setting ourselves up for epic fail when China says "no more loans".


RE: LOL
By MrBungle123 on 5/11/2009 1:55:48 PM , Rating: 5
There are no plans for a "reasonable" level of spending... He raised the deficit from $450B to $1.7T and wants to "cut it in half" by the end of his first term ($750B)

Hooray media cheerleading and the stupid masses which go along with it!


RE: LOL
By FITCamaro on 5/11/2009 4:45:15 PM , Rating: 2
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-v...

Here's his "reasonable spending" plan. It "goes down" and then goes right back up.


RE: LOL
By HinderedHindsight on 5/11/2009 11:43:08 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, let's pretend that most of the spending that Obama is doing now is not due to anything that happened during the last 8 years. Let's also pretend that Bush's spending did not go up steadily over 8 years in office, and let's also pretend that he didn't fund any right wing pet projects during his 8 years.

Pretending that somehow if a Republican were in office today would change the face of how much is spent is denial, plain and simple. The economy is in shambles, this is why Bush spent a ton of money at the end of his term. If the recession happened sooner, a lot of the money that Obama is spending now would have been spent by a Republican in an attempt to save the economy. I didn't agree with Bush on a lot, but I think he did the right things toward the end of his term to try and save the economy.

You want to know what's different about Obama's administration? It has nothing to do with money, and it has nothing to do with the press. The simple fact is that people who disagree with Obama (as far as I have heard) or the Administration's decisions are not being dismissed as a traitor or as being unpatriotic. The Administration to a much larger degree than in the past is welcoming discourse, questions, and criticisms. Although perhaps they should be considering many of those who criticize Obama now were the same people who said over the last 8 years that disagreeing with the sitting Commander in Chief meant that they are against the United States. How surprising that this philosophy is not being repeated by staunch Republican supporters today.


RE: LOL
By svenkesd on 5/12/2009 9:00:50 AM , Rating: 4
Just because Bush was an idiot doesn't make it okay for Obama to do whatever he wants.


RE: LOL
By Avitar on 5/18/2009 5:55:13 PM , Rating: 2
Bush really was not an idiot. He does not seem to feel any urge to explain himself and being a former jetjocky definitely shapes his personality but his Harvard MBA really paid off.

He used lots of carrots to maneuver China into adopting and becoming dependent on what is a Capitalist economic system. Of all the old industrialized countries, only Spain had better growth than the United States over the last eight years. It may be horrifying to some people to hear that based on the published figures in the London "Economist" the Bush administration was the best run of the industrial powers.


RE: LOL
By sinful on 5/12/2009 12:18:11 AM , Rating: 2
Here's a less biased source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S....

A quick summary:
In the past 27 years, Democrats have increased the national debt by 4.2% .
In the same approximate timeframe, Republicans increased the national debt by 36.4%.

In other words, if you put a Republican in office they spend like crazy and cause MASSIVE increases in the national debt.

One only needed to look at McCain's strategy of "Spend spend spend and tax cuts for ultra wealthy" to see his policy would have resulted in a MUCH more dire economic situation.

In other words, compared to the Republican alternative, Obama is the FISCAL CONSERVATIVE.


RE: LOL
By MrBungle123 on 5/12/09, Rating: 0
RE: LOL
By HinderedHindsight on 5/12/09, Rating: 0
RE: LOL
By HinderedHindsight on 5/12/2009 1:13:34 AM , Rating: 2
To simplify my point: no rich person can wave their magic money clip and instantaneously create jobs. They don't do that, and in fact, they don't like to do it. If they did, we would be experiencing as many foreclosures due to the increasing unemployment rate.


RE: LOL
By waffle911 on 5/12/2009 2:40:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
by HinderedHindsight on May 12, 2009 at 1:13 AM To simplify my point: no rich person can wave their magic money clip and instantaneously create jobs... If they did, we would be experiencing as many foreclosures due to the increasing unemployment rate.


Wait, I'm confused. Assuming the rich could and would instantaneously create more jobs, how would unemployment be going up?


RE: LOL
By callmeroy on 5/12/2009 3:09:33 PM , Rating: 2
Another post posted for the sake of one upping someone else....

Rich do, technically, create the jobs - why you are hard nose to try and point otherwise is every bit as ridiculous to me as Obama's theory of how you solve a financial crisis is to keep throwing money at the problem.

Even if you aren't rich but bring a stable business plan to a bank for a loan --- the bank gives you the loan. In that example the bank is indeed playing the role of the "rich person". The example is far to easy to make if you get it from venture capitalists.

It takes money to make money --- period. Even how you get to work - whether you use public transportation or not --- costs money. You don't get paid unless you get to work in the first place. Money. Your education costs money to get you the credentials to get the job in the first place. Money. For most families college educations are paid through loans, loans financed by banks --- and rich people.

The about 5% of the total US tax paying population pays about 2/3rds of the nations tax bill each year....there's an awful lot of government business, investment and education assistance programs --- I read somewhere that government programs are funded by tax dollars.

I'll have to find that article someday and post it here. ;)


RE: LOL
By Regs on 5/18/2009 5:52:28 PM , Rating: 3
I agree with your principles. Money makes money - though I know we both agree that it also takes a very capable, motivated, and skilled person to do this. For me, the creators of the Animal Ear Protector or the Flowbee do not count as they really have no benefit in improving the quality of human life. Nor are the greedy bastards that came from Enron.

We lack real innovation. I'm so sick of this status quo crap and It really disheartens me to see Obama become just another president who realizes he's leading a nation of people who want nothing more to suck on their mothers tit, making easy money. We need motivation and maybe a large and pro-longed recession is just what the doctor ordered.


RE: LOL
By MrBungle123 on 5/12/2009 2:45:13 AM , Rating: 2
If the rich are not the ones that create the jobs let me ask you this... how many jobs have you or anyone else got from a poor person?

The poor have no (or very little money) making it impossible for them to support a payroll.

Most rich people got where they were by building a company (which in most cases requires substantial funds) the money can be either borrowed (from banks owned by rich people) or they could use money they saved by working from someone else (a rich person that had already created jobs and hired them). No matter how you look at it rich people are a vital link in this chain.


RE: LOL
By Alexstarfire on 5/12/2009 8:07:35 PM , Rating: 2
Technically he's right. Unless you want to count a company as a rich person. No one person owns a company so they don't actually pay for it, nor do they make the final decision to create jobs. Those that do actually own their own company are not ones I would consider rich. Perhaps well off, but not rich.


RE: LOL
By jasper2008 on 5/12/2009 9:36:37 AM , Rating: 2
OK, then where is your job from? From the government?


RE: LOL
By Alexstarfire on 5/12/2009 8:09:46 PM , Rating: 1
Not mine, but both of my parents work for the government.


RE: LOL
By sinful on 5/12/2009 3:20:06 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Can't we get over this stupid "R vs. D" my party good their party bad petty pointless argument and start caring about what's happening to our freaking country already!?


That's all swell & great, but you're basically saying "Let's completely ignore how we ended up in this situation".

Basically, the last 8 years Bush cancelled the insurance on the car, ran it into the ground, and totaled it. Now Obama has to come in, fix the car, get it running again, and then sign up for insurance.

Now you're going "Oh my gosh, look at this bill! Replace the engine? Insurance? Oh my gosh, we need to start caring about what's happening to our car!"
Great observation, where was this concern while we were getting into this situation?

quote:
there is no way we can maintain the spending levels we have apparently become accustomed to and keep tax levels somewhere south of outright oppressive!


Actually, the concept is relatively simple: raise taxes during a good economy, lower taxes during a bad economy.
Unfortunately, if the party in charge doesn't raise taxes during the good times, the president during bad times has to either
1) raise taxes during a recession, or
2) engage in deficit spending until the economy recovers

And as much as cutting social programs does in regards to the deficit, it only goes so far. Less than 1/3rd of our money goes to social programs. The rest? Military spending. Where is that money going? For the war in Iraq & Afghanistan? Think real hard on the reason why we're there...

quote:
and can we quit complaining about "tax cuts for the rich" already?!
Newsflash! IF YOU TOOK EVERY DIME MADE OVER 75 GRAND FROM EVERY "RICH" PERSON IT WOULD NOT BE ENOUGH MONEY TO PAY FOR ALL OF THIS CRAP!!!


For one year? Oh, you're right.

But...

NEWSFLASH: COST OF BUSH TAX CUTS, PER YEAR: ~$250BILLION.
COST OF BUSH TAX CUTS OVER 8 YEARS: ~$2 TRILLION DOLLARS.

So basically, we would've been able to pay for it, no problem, if you considered the taxes under Clinton reasonable.

Bush took a Balanced budget, with a budget SURPLUS, and turned the economy into a steaming pile of slag and left us with a gigantic deficit.

quote:
Go to your local community college and take ECON 101 and learn something about how an economy works, the rich people give you jobs,

LOL, you should follow your own advice.

quote:
go look up the numbers from the IRS and find out who pays the taxes in this country it might surprise you.

Maybe you should do the same; then realize that tax cuts for them might result in a a HUGE DEFICIT.
Funny how that works, doesn't it? You give Donald Trump a $1 billion dollar tax break, and the deficit goes up by $1 Billion.
For someone concerned about the deficit, you'd think you'd be able to put 2 and 2 together to realize that the tax cuts for the wealthy caused our deficit to soar.

In other words, would you rather have had the Bush tax cut or a budget surplus?

If you make $50K/year, Bush saved you about $1K/year in taxes.
Was it worth it to you?


RE: LOL
By svenkesd on 5/12/2009 9:07:21 AM , Rating: 1
There is no "cost" of Bush's tax cuts.

There is a "cost" of having government programs. These costs are covered by taxes.

How you say it (and Nancy Pelosi) is like saying, "I let that guy walk away with $500 in his pocket, that cost me $500."


RE: LOL
By sinful on 5/12/2009 2:27:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There is no "cost" of Bush's tax cuts.

There is a "cost" of having government programs. These costs are covered by taxes.


Actually, you're wrong. Even with ZERO government spending (zero military, zero social spending), we'd still be running a massive deficit - INTEREST ON THE FEDERAL DEFICIT.

"In Fiscal Year 2008, the U. S. Government spent $412 Billion of your money on interest payments* to the holders of the National Debt. Compare that to NASA at $15 Billion, Education at $61 Billion, and Department of Transportation at $56 Billion. --"

http://www.federalbudget.com/

As such, a tax cut without paying off the debt first costs us money.


RE: LOL
By Steve Guilliot on 5/12/2009 6:28:21 PM , Rating: 2
Deficit = tax revenue - spending.

If you reduce revenue, you increase the deficit. That's probably what he meant by "cost".


RE: LOL
By MrBungle123 on 5/12/2009 10:58:59 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
For someone concerned about the deficit, you'd think you'd be able to put 2 and 2 together to realize that the tax cuts for the wealthy caused our deficit to soar.


No, it didn't... It was spending... you know $700 Billion for TARP (passed by Dems signed by Bush) $165 Billion for 1st stimulus (passed by Dems signed by Bush), $780 Billion for "stimulus 2" (passed by Dems signed by Obama) Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac/Auto Bailouts $400 Billion (Dems/Bush/Obama) pay attention much?

700 + 780 + 165 + 400 = $2,745 Billion (over the last year)
(assuming you're right about tax cuts [historically you're wrong because tax cuts stimulate economic activity which increase tax revenues over the long term] but for the sake of argument i'll give it to you anyway...)

2745 - 250 from tax cuts = $2495 Billion in the red.

Nope, sorry, raising taxes would not make up for $2.7 Trillion in lack of self control by leftist politicians


RE: LOL
By Alexstarfire on 5/12/2009 8:16:31 PM , Rating: 1
True, but just because it doesn't completely fix the problem doesn't mean it doesn't help. Wow, too many doesn't in that sentence. Anyway, that's like saying you shouldn't use fix-a-flat if you get a flat tire in the middle of no where just because it doesn't completely fix the tire. Though I suppose a better analogy would be saying that you wouldn't plug a hole in a water pipe just because it doesn't stop water from spewing out.

Every little bit helps.


RE: LOL
By ICE1966 on 5/19/2009 9:42:59 PM , Rating: 2
most taxes are payed by the rich


RE: LOL
By Avitar on 5/18/2009 6:13:12 PM , Rating: 2
Nope we can not. Just as the Newt Gingrich boom will never be achknowleged and the 27 years will always be tailed to make what otherwise is a sea of failure look good. We live with a system where nothing is ever accomplished

Cherry pick the last 27 years when the Democrats have had control of the government as they do now for only Two years , 1993 and 1994. Compare the last twenty-seven years of Democrat control of the Whitehouse to the last twenty-seven years of Republican control of the Whitehouse and congress takes you back into the nineteenth century.

A great speaker like Newt Gingrich would have made any Republican President, since Herbert Hoover, look great. (Hoover was a Rino) That Bill Clinton went along to get along just proved that he was not a fool. That Newt Gingrich with help from the Internet revolution gave Clinton four of the balance budgets of the last century is the result of the Democtat Party LOOSING.


RE: LOL
By SilthDraeth on 5/12/2009 9:51:46 AM , Rating: 2
You took the numbers out of context. If you look at them again, you will notice that:

1. The time frame listed, republicans were in office more years.
2. Both sides increased spending. 9% roughly for Dem, and 12% roughly for Rep.
3. Congress is responsible for the budgets. Where is the table with who controlled congress during these time frames?
4. It doesn't matter which "side" is in control, the fact is, that our Federal Government has been failing this country for decades. There is no accountability in politics. It all becomes he said she said debates, and arguing over who spent what wear. Reminds me of angry spouses fighting about a shared bank account.


RE: LOL
By Armassault on 5/13/2009 7:34:36 AM , Rating: 2
RE: LOL
By ICE1966 on 5/19/2009 9:40:16 PM , Rating: 2
Please, get a life. I work during the clinton administration and I can tell you that I payed thru the nose in federal income tax. Democrats have always raised taxes on the working american and on businesses. I had to work over time and alot of it just to bring home any thing close to a decent wage under dumbass Bill. Obama is going to put the US under such a tax burden that it will make the Bush years look like a cakewalk. After all, who is going to pay for all this help he is going to give america, the tax payer. If you put a democrat in office they raise taxes to cover up thier massive spending. The last laugh in this story will be on those who voted Obama in the whitehouse. always be careful what you ask for, you just may get it. BTW, to hell with universal healthcare.


RE: LOL
By Motoman on 5/11/2009 11:27:59 AM , Rating: 2
Well, perhaps...

...but this is one very sound decision in my eyes, regardless of how the PR works out.

Hydrogen is the fuel of the future - and always will be.


RE: LOL
By therealnickdanger on 5/11/2009 11:39:54 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
spend trillions on things the vast majority of the country doesn't want

Well, hold on a second. To be fair, the majority of the country voted for the guy. I think the problem is that a lot of people got emotionally swept up in voting for his elaborate promises without thinking about how such promises would be accomplished. Now that Team-O is in a frenzy of printing money and power-grabbing, even the die-hards are starting to ask, "WTF".

Before the election, I tried to get many of my liberal friends to understand this basic quote, "Be careful what you wish for, for you may get it." I knew full well that the liberal-controlled congress of the past 6 years would go on a shopping spree if Obama won. I knew that the pork-fest would not end (even if McCain had won). A lot of us knew, but we were called "negative", "partisan", or even "racist" because we wouldn't drink the Kool-Aid and worship Obama without question. I consider myself a fair person, but c'mon, who didn't see this coming?

I can't help but quote the great Rev. Wright. "America's chickens are coming home to roost!"

</tongue-firmly-in-cheek>


RE: LOL
By MrBungle123 on 5/11/2009 11:50:41 AM , Rating: 2
quote:

quote:
spend trillions on things the vast majority of the country doesn't want

Well, hold on a second. To be fair, the majority of the country voted for the guy.


There is a disconnect between Obama and his policies. While his approval rating has been hovering around 60% the opionion of the policies he is pushing is far lower.


RE: LOL
By kfonda on 5/11/2009 12:13:56 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Well, hold on a second. To be fair, the majority of the country voted for the guy.


Actually just under 70 million of the approximately 210 million eligible voters voted for him.


RE: LOL
By DEVGRU on 5/11/2009 12:40:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Well, hold on a second. To be fair, the majority of the country voted for the guy. I think the problem is that a lot of people got emotionally swept up in voting for his elaborate promises without thinking about how such promises would be accomplished. Now that Team-O is in a frenzy of printing money and power-grabbing, even the die-hards are starting to ask, "WTF".


Thats because the majority of the country are un-educated retards that believe in fairy tales and can really get behind power words, like "change" - without having two brain cells to rub together to then ask, "What kind of change?". People voted him into office under the auspices of racism and charisma, without caring about a single rational thought like, I dunno, geee... what kind of leadership experience he has. Surprise! ZERO. And now its showing.


RE: LOL
By hardapple on 5/11/2009 1:35:32 PM , Rating: 3
I guess Steven Chu, Obama's Energy Secretary, is one of those "un-educated retards" (BTW, the word "uneducated" isn't hyphenated). He won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1997 and was also the director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Chu is almost certainly the man who made the decision to stop funding hydrogen vehicles. I guess he just didn't have the appetite for investing TRILLIONS in a hydrogen infrastructure.


RE: LOL
By Rhaido on 5/11/09, Rating: -1
RE: LOL
By hardapple on 5/12/2009 12:40:20 AM , Rating: 2
I guess an "educated retard" is any person with an education that disagrees with you. Winning a Nobel Prize in physics is no joke. It doesn't automatically confer god-like impunity to his opinions, but it does make him somewhat immune to the charge of "retard".


RE: LOL
By lightfoot on 5/12/2009 7:39:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Winning a Nobel Prize ... is no joke.

Unless you're Al Gore. Then it's a damn funny one.


RE: LOL
By clovell on 5/11/2009 3:24:23 PM , Rating: 4
Did you not read the article? This has nothing to do with spending trillions on infrastructure. It has to do with a roughly $100 million cut in research spending. You're putting the cart ahead of the horse here.


RE: LOL
By hardapple on 5/12/2009 12:30:29 AM , Rating: 2
So we're not spending the $100 million because Chu knows that even if the research was successful -- even if we had the perfect hydrogen car -- it would still require trillions to create the hydrogen infrastructure necessary to make that car go. The money is better spent on more feasible energy solutions, like cellulosic ethanol.


RE: LOL
By Black69ta on 5/12/2009 2:30:56 AM , Rating: 2
Wow, Light the Bulbs! and Sound the Klaxon!

Someone here finally pointed out what many here seem to miss.

A billion dollar hydrogen car is perfect only if you make it have the means to extract the hydrogen out of the air, or maybe water from home(but that compound water shortage problems). Otherwise infrastructure has to come first. Personally I see small Car sized Fusion Reactors before Hydrogen stations since a reactor would not need refueled constantly.


RE: LOL
By clovell on 5/12/2009 2:50:48 PM , Rating: 2
No.

The reality is that we don't have the perfect hydrogen car right now. The reality is that we can expect infrastructure technology to scale as vehicle technology does. The reality is that we don't have to deploy this now.

So all this talk of how 'we don't have the money for all that right now' is meaningless because nobody is asking us to pay for it all now.


RE: LOL
By jrb531 on 5/12/2009 12:47:36 PM , Rating: 2
There is enough uneducated retards on BOTH sides.

The real problem is that BOTH sides continue to get away with diverting our attention from REAL issues and back onto crap.

8 years of Republicans - NOTHING done!
8 years of Democrats - NOTHING done!

Yet each side continues to allow themselves to be played off against each other while BOTH sides screw us over.

So keep yacking at each other and pointing fingers... the reality is that we get what we deserve. We're all too stupid to realize that we're all Americans and while we make have different ideas on how to fix things... the same few things have been broken for 30+ years and instead of coming together to fix them... we keep pointing fingers at the other side.

1. Health Care - it IS broken and just because you may have coverage does not mean you should bury your head in the sand and say that it's not your problem.

2. Education - it IS broken when kids need to take out a mortgage just to go to school and when job pay often has very little to do with actual salery... well then something is seriously wrong.

3. Prescription Drugs - it IS broken when we are forced to subsidize the research for new drugs that other contries then pay 10 cents on the dollar. If the US pays for the research then the US gets the drugs until this is paid off or force other contries to contribute the same research dollars that we are forced to pay!

4. Social Security - it IS broken. Times change but people who rely on SS did what they were told. If you want to change the program then do so now but grandfather it in for new people... we should not go back on our word or promise made to so many years ago.

5. What about big business using bankrupcy as a means to break contracts. To use this as a tool to get out of obligations for your employees retirements is slimy, underhanded and just plain wrong. On one hand the fat cats are pulling in millions while screwing over the workers retirement! This sickens me!!!

So all of the above is the Democrats fault?
So all of the above is the Republicans fault?

Wake up everyone and start thinking for yourselves and stop listening to Fox or MSNCB!


RE: LOL
By Lugaidster on 5/18/2009 10:50:13 AM , Rating: 2
I agree with most of your points.

quote:
3. Prescription Drugs - it IS broken when we are forced to subsidize the research for new drugs that other contries then pay 10 cents on the dollar. If the US pays for the research then the US gets the drugs until this is paid off or force other contries to contribute the same research dollars that we are forced to pay!


This I don't agree. Because it assumes that every prescription drug is researched in America. While many are, many aren't and doing what you said would mean that we also woudn't have access to the ones that are developed in other places. Or at least have to pay more for them.

What you have to do is to stop pharmacist companies from creating new drugs that are just copies from regular ones and charge 10 times as much.


RE: LOL
By invidious on 5/11/2009 12:43:30 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Well, hold on a second. To be fair, the majority of the country voted for the guy.


Uh no, a small majority of the people who voted voted for the guy. And most of them were poor people who didn't know what they were voting for beyond the first black president.

And I don't think this is what the educated people who voted for him had in mind when they voted for "hope". Let this be a lesson to all of the gullable fools.


RE: LOL
By jrb531 on 5/12/09, Rating: 0
RE: LOL
By Lugaidster on 5/18/2009 10:56:51 AM , Rating: 2
"The majority of people are fool" argument applies to every election. Maybe now the reason stupid people voted is different but it still doesn't mean that everyone that voted for him is stupid. To use that argument is as foolish as, in your own words, voting for Obama.

At some point you have to give you vote to some politician, if it turned out not to be what you expected then...


RE: LOL
By Scabies on 5/11/2009 12:58:33 PM , Rating: 3
" 'Be careful what you wish for, for it may get you .' "
Fixed that for ya


RE: LOL
By ap90033 on 5/11/2009 1:11:50 PM , Rating: 3
I agree 100%!!!
I knew this crap was going to happen. I also knew a large majority of voters were stupid and voted just becuase he was a good speaker and oh yeah he is black. Now we all will have to suffer while we wait for the next election. FYI kiddies, both parties are bad in some way you have to pick the lesser of the two evils. FYI dont fall for the lie that you need the government to do everything for you. Get a backbone, get an education and work hard and get what YOU want out of life. Just a thought but maybe they should have a few simple rules to allow a person to vote, a. be a Legal Citizen, b. cannot be on welfare (If you cant pay your own bills maybe you arent the best person in the world to pick the worlds most powerful leader), c. provide a legal ID like a driver license to PROVE you are who you say you are...


RE: LOL
By Helbore on 5/11/2009 1:33:01 PM , Rating: 2
What you are suggesting reminds me of the old UK poll tax. That was when you had to pay a tax to vote. It was eventually repealed on the basis that it made the poor far less likely to vote and swayed elections in the rich's favour.

The problem with making claims like "you can't vote if you're on welfare" is that you are putting limitations on a citizen's right to be represented, based on the moral compass of others. Once you allow usch limitations to become a reality, you can kiss goodbye to democracy.

Unfortunatley, democracy favours the views of the majority. If the majority happen to be morons, then the country gets what it deserves. Want to stop morons voting in elections? Educate the morons and limit their numbers. For those that can't be educated, you just have to accept their right to vote in a way you don't like.

That's democracy. Live with it or go live in a dictatorship.


RE: LOL
By Rhaido on 5/11/2009 3:04:09 PM , Rating: 3
Tyranny of the majority has always been a risk but let me remind people of a few things.
- As stated in the Federalist Papers, these united states federalized as a republic and not a democracy. At the time, democracy was a four letter word synonymous with mob rule. Hence, the etymology of demagogue.
- The Senate was meant to serve the best interest of the individual states and that is why U.S. senators were elected by each state legislature. The 17th amendment destroyed this function by allowing for the popular vote election.


RE: LOL
By clovell on 5/11/2009 3:45:32 PM , Rating: 3
Yes, well, welcome to the 21st century. We have a right to vote, but we have to bring our license with us - which we had to pay money to get. We have a right to bear arms, but I have to pay a $25 fee to the Illinois State Police to get the ID for that. It's already being done, to a small extent.

But honestly, I think the country would be better off if we only let taxpayers vote. The founding fathers had the same idea - that only those who had a stake in this country would take care of it (Only landowners at that time could vote). This was not a violation of the principles of democracy, because the USA was and still is a Republic. It wasn't until these laws were used as a means of pure discrimination that this idea became a problem.

And maybe it's not the best idea, but I think it'd be better than where we're heading. There is no such thing as a subsized democracy - such conditions are equivalent to socialism. Were it as straightforward as educating 'morons', I think we'd all be in much better shape.