backtop

Print 62 comment(s) - last by mmcdonalataocd.. on Oct 9 at 7:42 AM

President Barack Obama has pledged over $150B USD in government investment over the next decade in the CleanTech energy. CleanTech includes alternative energy, power saving technologies, smart grid technology, and electric/hybrid vehicles.  (Source: Sustainability Ninja)

Tendril Networks is one growing CleanTech firm. The Colorado-based startup looks to make "dumb" power meters a bit smarter, improving the power grid.  (Source: GreenTech Media)

A123 Systems, makers of electric vehicle batteries, is another major startup in the green tech industry. Its initial stock offering raised $437M USD.  (Source: Treehugger)
Investment is soaring in CleanTech firms

The economy tends to grow in spurts behind groundbreaking technologies.  In the 1800s, it was the locomotive.  In the early 1900s, it was the plane and automobile.  And in the late twentieth century, it was the personal computer and the internet that transformed the economic landscape.  Now some experts are saying that "CleanTech" -- technologies that benefit the environment, such as alternative energy -- appears poised to become the next big thing.

Economists note that such booms frequently come after emerging from economic depressions or recessions.  Indeed, despite the severe recession of the last couple years the CleanTech industry has grown in size and number of jobs according to the Associated Press.  New technologies like electric vehicles, more efficient solar cells, better wind turbines, and smarter batteries are aggressively advancing towards the market.

Part of this growth -- as with the internet and railroad -- has been thanks to government funding.  President Barack Obama has pledged over $150B USD investment in clean energy over the next decade.  He says this investment will create 5 million jobs, to help offset the 7.2 million jobs lost in the recession.

While government investment is massive, investment from the private sector is as well.  A swelling stream of venture capital has been pouring into the CleanTech industry.  Since 2006, $8.7B USD has been poured into alternative energy.  While that pales in comparison to the dot-com boom, when firms raked in $10B USD in a single quarter, the atmosphere is similar.

Small companies are developing innovative technologies.  Meanwhile, bigger players formulate major projects.  Bob Metcalfe, an internet pioneer who now invests in energy projects with Polaris Venture Partners, states, "Ultimately, IBM and AT&T didn't build the Internet. It was built by Silicon Valley startups.  And energy is going to be solved by entrepreneurial activity."

One promising firm is GreatPoint Energy in Cambridge, Mass., which has developed a technique for turning coal into natural gas more cheaply and efficiently than previous methods.  Another major player is A123 Systems, a Watertown, Mass. company that produces batteries for electric vehicles.  A123 raised $437M USD in a public stock offering, with stock prices soaring 50 percent in its first day on the market.

Tendril Networks Inc. of Boulder, Colo. develops smart grid solutions to help deal with the shortcomings of our current power network.  CEO Adrian Tuck states, "What we're about to see is every bit as big as the telecom revolution that gave birth to the Internet and cell phones.  It's going to create as many jobs and as much wealth for this country, if they get it right. Big, Google-sized companies are going to be born in this era, and we hope to be one of them."

Jack Brown, an associate professor in the University of Virginia's Department of Science, Technology and Society says that like the internet or railroad, CleanTech is worthy of government investment.  However, he fears that unlike these prior breakthroughs, CleanTech is a more complex and diverse field and that the government could invest in the wrong technologies.

Great unknowns in the movement still exist, though.  Foremost -- it is unknown exactly how many jobs the CleanTech boom can really create and sustain.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
You've gotta be kidding me
By FITCamaro on 10/7/2009 4:39:55 PM , Rating: 3
We're not already spending f*cking enough?




RE: You've gotta be kidding me
By bobcpg on 10/7/2009 4:55:30 PM , Rating: 5
You don't deserve that money you work for, others do.


RE: You've gotta be kidding me
By kfonda on 10/7/2009 5:50:55 PM , Rating: 5
They've already spent the money I work for, the money you work for, and the money the next several generations of our families will work for.


RE: You've gotta be kidding me
By reader1 on 10/7/09, Rating: -1
RE: You've gotta be kidding me
By Spuke on 10/7/2009 7:10:45 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
You deserve to be treated like shit, don't you?
I prefer dinner and a movie myself.


RE: You've gotta be kidding me
By SSDMaster on 10/8/2009 10:29:29 AM , Rating: 2
So much teenage angst in this post.


RE: You've gotta be kidding me
By StevoLincolnite on 10/7/09, Rating: -1
RE: You've gotta be kidding me
By kfonda on 10/7/2009 8:07:00 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
the Government is there to help the people, and that is exactly what it's doing.


Where does the idea that the government is there to help the people come from? The constitution clearly states what the federal government is supposed to do.

quote:
and I got a few thousand bucks from the government, and so did most people.


Where do you think that few thousand dollars came from? I'm reasonably sure you will end up paying far more a few thousand dollars in increased taxes in the future to pay off the debt that is being run up, that is if china and the others don't foreclose and just collapse our country first.

If you think it can't happen, just read a few history books. Very large civilizations have collapsed many times before, think about the Romans, Carthaginians, or even the USSR.

It's not just the current administration, It's both major parties and the fact that the only thing most of them are concerned with is getting re-elected. It's about time we had a third major party that represents the average american citizen.

P.S. - Sorry for the rant, it's not entirely aimed at you, it's just that so many people are more interested in supporting their party than they are in supporting our country.


RE: You've gotta be kidding me
By bupkus on 10/7/2009 10:01:00 PM , Rating: 2
A strong economy (not a floundering one as it appears to me now) is the foundation to a strong and influential national purpose.

Now of course you may say that a moral foundation proceeds a strong economy but I shall not debate the chicken/egg argument. Only that national security is expensive and depends on a strong economy and a people with a sense of purpose, not a sense of selfishness.


RE: You've gotta be kidding me
By StevoLincolnite on 10/8/09, Rating: 0
RE: You've gotta be kidding me
By FITCamaro on 10/8/2009 9:15:03 AM , Rating: 4
Then their opinion on what happens in our country doesn't matter.


By StevoLincolnite on 10/8/2009 11:19:43 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Then their opinion on what happens in our country doesn't matter.


I beg to differ, what happens in one of the worlds most advanced economies on the planet has a significant impact across the board.


RE: You've gotta be kidding me
By Yawgm0th on 10/8/2009 10:51:45 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Where does the idea that the government is there to help the people come from?
Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States of America.
quote:
The constitution clearly states what the federal government is supposed to do.
Including, among other things, provide for the general welfare.

quote:


Where do you think that few thousand dollars came from? I'm reasonably sure you will end up paying far more a few thousand dollars in increased taxes in the future to pay off the debt that is being run up, that is if china and the others don't foreclose and just collapse our country first.
The vast majority actually comes from the top 10% of earners. That's how a progressive tax works -- although I could argue we have a regressive tax system in this country.

China and other holders of US debt do not have the ability to simply "forclose" and "collapse our country". It's not that simple. In any case, any attempt at anything of the sort would result in a worldwide depression, and China would be hit a lot harder. The level of debt we have is bad, no doubt, but it's not necessary to sensationalize it.

quote:
If you think it can't happen, just read a few history books. Very large civilizations have collapsed many times before, think about the Romans, Carthaginians, or even the USSR.
Yes, but for reasons beyond debt. Several civilizations have survived the complete collapse of their economy and devaluation their currency -- but only a few. The deficit and nation debt in the US are definitely a major problem, but we're not in the territory of total collapse -- yet.

quote:

It's not just the current administration, It's both major parties and the fact that the only thing most of them are concerned with is getting re-elected. It's about time we had a third major party that represents the average american citizen.
While I agree that the two-party system is limiting, there would need to be more than a third viable party. We would need at least four large parties, if not more, to represent the American people. There are simply too many viewpoints in this country.


RE: You've gotta be kidding me
By wookie1 on 10/8/2009 11:46:11 AM , Rating: 3
I'm confused about your statement. How is the tax system regressive if the tax rates go up with income? If you're in a lower bracket, you can actually get refundable rebates of almost $5000, this after paying nothing all year (earned income credits, etc)! Also, the tax burden may be continually shifting up the income chain. In 2009, 47% of the population may not be paying any tax at all.

From http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/30/pf/taxes/who_pays_...

"In 2009, roughly 47% of households, or 71 million, will not owe any federal income tax, according to estimates by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center."

What happens when such a large group of people can vote in leaders (congress, president) to give them more benefits that they won't have to pay for? The incentive for politicians in this case is to enact more public programs to benefit the non-payers at the expense of the payers. Eventually, the ponzi scheme must collapse under its own weight. That will be very bad for all.


RE: You've gotta be kidding me
By Yawgm0th on 10/8/2009 12:26:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm confused about your statement. How is the tax system regressive if the tax rates go up with income?
Ostensibly, it is progressive, because as you say the tax rate goes up with income. However, the tax rate is de facto regressive because not all income is taxed the same. Capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than the income tax. Warren Buffet himself has said he pays one of the lowest tax rates in the country, despite being one of the richest men in the world.

Cap gains is just the start. Income tax, sales, tax, business tax, and many nuances of the tax code mean that many of the richest Americans pay taxes at a far lower rate than your average American.

quote:
Also, the tax burden may be continually shifting up the income chain. In 2009, 47% of the population may not be paying any tax at all.

From http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/30/pf/taxes/who_pays_...

"In 2009, roughly 47% of households, or 71 million, will not owe any federal income tax, according to estimates by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center."
Let's not forget state income tax, which most states do have. But even so, you're still only looking at income tax. Everyone pays sales tax, and sales tax is inherently regressive. Even property tax is regressive (ask and I will explain why, but it's another conversation entirely).

quote:

What happens when such a large group of people can vote in leaders (congress, president) to give them more benefits that they won't have to pay for? The incentive for politicians in this case is to enact more public programs to benefit the non-payers at the expense of the payers. Eventually, the ponzi scheme must collapse under its own weight. That will be very bad for all.
I don't think democracy is a ponzi scheme. If the vast majority of people truly think that past a certain point people simply shouldn't have to pay income tax, then legislators could be elected to enact that. But it's not going to happen -- at least not to that extreme.

Regardless, the incentive is for politicians to look out for richer constituents, particularly businesses. The poor can vote, but they can't afford to donate substantially to a campaign. Although, Obama and Ron Paul might have changed that that in the 2008 elections.

There is a far bigger problem than this, in any case. Elections are decided by politicians' budgets as much as they are by people's views. Why do corporations get to donate to political campaigns? They don't get to vote since they aren't people, much less citizens, yet they have far, far more say than you or I in any election.

Even without corporate money, the rich are more able to donate to campaigns than the poor. Once again, the rich often have a greater say than the poor. But that's how aristocracy works, not democracy. We should all have an equal say.

If we get corporate money out of politics and have very low limits on how much can be donated, then maybe this populist takeover of the tax system could occur. Even then, it would truly require a vast majority of people to act against their own interests out of greed. While this can happen (see California -- not willing to tax themselves for all the programs they like), in the US political landscapes it isn't too likely.

No, I don't think I'm too worried about the system collapsing because the poor and middle class don't pay as much income tax as higher earners.


RE: You've gotta be kidding me
By knutjb on 10/8/2009 1:39:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why do corporations get to donate to political campaigns?


McCain Fiengold prevents corporations from donating, the management might donate but not the company. Their is a problem brewing with freedom of speech issues in regards to corporations inability to donate. The old system as flawed as it was was better because all donations were public. 503C(?) do not have to declare source of donations.

quote:
Warren Buffet himself has said he pays one of the lowest tax rates in the country, despite being one of the richest men in the world.


Warren Buffet earns little to no INCOME, 30K was the last number I heard, therefore he pays no income tax. His secretary earns a 6 figure income and pays a whole lot.

The tax system is written by Charlie Wrangle D-NY who can't even get his taxes right. The problem is not the rich but the convoluted system politicians wrote.

I'm not rich but I think those who like to pile onto the rich have no understanding of taxes. The lower the income tax rate the MORE revenue the rich pay. Raise their rate and they hide THEIR money. Stop blathering unfounded diatribe.


RE: You've gotta be kidding me
By Yawgm0th on 10/8/2009 2:15:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
McCain Fiengold prevents corporations from donating, the management might donate but not the company.
No, McCain-Feingold does nothing of the sort. It prevents national political party committees from accepting soft money. Corporate money is still perfectly legal to donate.

quote:
Their is a problem brewing with freedom of speech issues in regards to corporations inability to donate.
Corporations are still more than able to donate. Your misunderstanding of the BCRA of 2002 is troubling. In any case, corporation are not people, not citizens, and haven't the right to freedom of speech. I'm not against corporations, but I am against personifying them the point where the Bill of Rights applies to them.
quote:

Warren Buffet earns little to no INCOME, 30K was the last number I heard, therefore he pays no income tax. His secretary earns a 6 figure income and pays a whole lot.
Warrent Buffet earns a lot of income. He doesn't draw a salary or make a wage, but he still makes money. Capital gains are still income -- just not for tax purposes. Sadly, you've made my point here. Buffet, like many others at the top, are not subject to income tax on most of the money they earn, and as such, pay less in taxes. Ergo, our tax system is regressive.

quote:

The tax system is written by Charlie Wrangle D-NY who can't even get his taxes right. The problem is not the rich but the convoluted system politicians wrote.
Charlie Wrangle wrote the entire Internal Revenue Code by himself? That would be impressive if it weren't a laughable distraction from the issue. I do not believe the rich are the problem, in and of themselves. That said, the ridiculousness of the tax code is definitely a problem. The tax code was written by rich politicans elected largely because of donations from rich people and corporations.

quote:
I'm not rich but I think those who like to pile onto the rich have no understanding of taxes.
No one here is piling onto the rich -- but I think it's pretty clear that you don't have any understanding of the tax code.

quote:
The lower the income tax rate the MORE revenue the rich pay. Raise their rate and they hide THEIR money. Stop blathering unfounded diatribe.
The lower the income tax rate the less everyone pays, including the rich. Are you actually trying to make the point that we should have lower income taxes because higher taxes increase the prevalence of tax fraud to the point at which the government takes in less revenue? That is a pretty outlandish claim. Do you have anything to back this up, or is it "unfounded diatribe"?


By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 10/9/2009 7:42:28 AM , Rating: 2
Fall of the Romans: Not economic. Partly based on the consumption of lead in their drinking water.

Fall of Carthage: Military defeat to the Romans. Tiny agricultural civilizations.

Fall of the USSR: No economics. They were a communist regime that did not have a capitalist economic system. They fell primarily to shortages, bad environmental pollution, and basically they became a non-issue when the predicted evils of the capitalist state never materialized. They also ruled all their member states as an occupying military force.

The US Consitiution says nothing about what the government is to do, except in broad enabling language. It does not say the US government is to exist solely to facilitate commerce. Is there a part that says the government must not help its less fortunate citizens?


RE: You've gotta be kidding me
By reader1 on 10/7/09, Rating: 0
RE: You've gotta be kidding me
By bupkus on 10/7/2009 9:35:52 PM , Rating: 2
So who are your kids gonna work for? You?
The creation of an economic future is in your interest, too.


RE: You've gotta be kidding me
By jadeskye on 10/8/2009 12:36:52 AM , Rating: 2
No gods or kings, Only man.

-Andrew Ryan 1946


RE: You've gotta be kidding me
By icanhascpu on 10/7/2009 4:58:58 PM , Rating: 2
Its our new motto: Gotta spend money to lose money!


RE: You've gotta be kidding me
By seamonkey79 on 10/7/2009 5:03:06 PM , Rating: 3
I think Obama's goal is to spend more this year than the United State's GDP for the entire previous century.


RE: You've gotta be kidding me
By reader1 on 10/7/09, Rating: -1
RE: You've gotta be kidding me
By StevoLincolnite on 10/7/2009 7:44:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
He doesn't have a choice. He has to bail out all of our dumb-ass citizens that ran out and bought crap they couldn't afford.


To be honest, people are stupid in general, and there should have been regulatory control in all sectors to prevent such a thing from happening.


RE: You've gotta be kidding me
By reader1 on 10/7/09, Rating: -1
RE: You've gotta be kidding me
By kfonda on 10/7/2009 7:50:29 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
He doesn't have a choice. He has to bail out all of our dumb-ass citizens that ran out and bought crap they couldn't afford.


Why? He should just let them fail and maybe they will learn something. Same goes for the banks and the car companies.


RE: You've gotta be kidding me
By Sooticus on 10/7/2009 8:38:43 PM , Rating: 4
Let them burn I say.
If you foster a society that constantly bails out people who make stupid decisions you only promote more stuipd decision making.

Its like pissing in your gene pool, only from an intelectual perspective.


RE: You've gotta be kidding me
By mindless1 on 10/7/2009 11:40:30 PM , Rating: 2
I agree about the banks but not the car companies. Remember that GM has had very high global sales rates. What weakens the US is to decrease exports, shuffling money around does not!

Think about it, if you keep millions working in the auto industry they are taxpayers instead of being on welfare, you keep money coming in instead of trying to borrow more from allies.

The idea of spending less is a wise one indeed, but that does not automatically make all spending bad.

The government isn't "letting someone fail", they already did fail at running their business profitably but the question is do we just scrap all our major exports and sit around whining about no money in the budget, or do we at least prop up what money flows into, rather than just around from within, the US economy?


RE: You've gotta be kidding me
By kchase731 on 10/7/09, Rating: -1
RE: You've gotta be kidding me
By reader1 on 10/7/09, Rating: -1
RE: You've gotta be kidding me
By StevoLincolnite on 10/7/2009 7:45:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
How do you socialize a country? buy or finance every industry. Tech, Auto, Health Care...Good United States of American Socialist. Thanks Obama. Oh, and BTW. Those millions of people that show up for tea parties, do not represent the country


You can have a Socialist Democratic, Capitalistic Society, I live in one and have no qualms about it. :)

Except we didn't have to finance companies that were in trouble, as none did get in trouble, instead the money went to the people!


RE: You've gotta be kidding me
By FITCamaro on 10/8/2009 9:17:02 AM , Rating: 2
Can you stay there then? We don't want it here.


RE: You've gotta be kidding me
By Yawgm0th on 10/8/2009 11:23:43 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
How do you socialize a country? buy or finance every industry. Tech, Auto, Health Care
Or postal services, financial services, law enforcement, military, infrastructure development, etc. Yes, all of those industries could be 100% private. Some industries make more sense being run by the government. Don't talk like you're against all government action in all industries unless you really mean it.

For the record, It was under George Bush that the government bailed out financial institution and auto makers, not Obama. I challenge you to find one piece of legislation Obama has signed into law that has "socialized" the country any further.

quote:
Those millions of people that show up for tea parties, do not represent the country
You mean the tens of thousands? No, indeed, they don't represent the country. The tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands and millions who have shown up at Obama events and rallies do represent the country -- as do the 69 million people that voted for him.


RE: You've gotta be kidding me
By TheRequiem on 10/7/2009 6:09:26 PM , Rating: 2
How else do you take over the world? You spend lots of money building all the things you need to do it with! =)


RE: You've gotta be kidding me
By TSS on 10/7/2009 6:36:42 PM , Rating: 2
there's always a time to spend, and according to math, that time is now! just look at this:

quote:
President Barack Obama has pledged over $150B USD investment in clean energy over the next decade. He says this investment will create 5 million jobs, to help offset the 7.2 million jobs lost in the recession.


I can distincly remember (though i cannot find the links anymore in the barrage of economic news of the past year) When the $800 billion stimulus package was announced, it was supposed to save or create 2 million jobs. By the time it got passed, the same $800B saved or created 4 million jobs. (speaking of which who here thinks the number of jobs lost would've been 11.2 million without the package?)

Appearantly that price has now dropped to $150B for 5 million jobs. Doesn't that sound like a bargain to you?


RE: You've gotta be kidding me
By Boze on 10/7/2009 6:50:30 PM , Rating: 2
We can spend $150,000,000,000 to appease the ecoheads, but NASA can't get funding to do the basic science research necessary to get us off this rock?

I can't possibly be the only human being who understands that eventually we're going to run out of resources... no matter how many times the uneducated masses listen to Alabama's Pass It On Down, we're gonna use it all up eventually, and frankly I'd prefer that we had the means to leave Earth and safely make it to another Earth-like planet before that happens...

For those who might ask me, "Why do you care, you'll have been dead for centuries." Yep, I will have been, but I care because some of the people still stuck here will be my descendants, and because I think its humanity's destiny to colonize the stars.

Until we're Zerg-rushed by a well-organized threat. :(


RE: You've gotta be kidding me
By mindless1 on 10/7/2009 11:46:21 PM , Rating: 2
I support funding NASA, but it is unreasonable to think that merely throwing a lot of money at them will magically result in us leaving Earth for another planet any decade soon.

The magnitude of research necessary to pull off something like that will come from many industries over many years.

What's the point of leaving the planet anyway? We don't have a store of resources unless we find another planet and if we do, what's to stop us from eventually using up that planet's resources too?

Are we to become the aliens that decend on another species and take their resources from them, because frankly I don't think they'll feel like sharing with us given a track record of having to abandon Earth because of our non-sustainable habits.


RE: You've gotta be kidding me
By ecoecho on 10/7/2009 7:35:23 PM , Rating: 1
sooooo, when taxes were cut to 95% of Americans, it was actually an INCREASE? That is what it sounds like....

When Bush DOUBLED the debt from 5 to 10 trillion,,,,that was GOOD? (sure sounds like you miss him)

When he started TWO wars, because one wasn't enough, those were the good times? (boy, aren't you sad he's gone?)

When they wiped their tail ends with MY constitution, ,,,, that was OK with you? Where was your outrage then, lemming? Why weren't you tea bagging him? (From your free speach, "zone," seventeen blocks from wherever he was)

Look, make fun of all of this, but there isn't an economist alive that says we shouldn't spend our way out of this pie hole Bush put us in. If old man McSenile got elected, he would have CUT more taxes, SPENT more money, and probably started another war or two. But then Sean or Glenn or Rush would have told you that was ok, just as long as you keep hating whatever it is they tell you to hate.

Remember when the northeast blacked out? the grid is an antique. You espouse free markets, but "smart meters," which will charge you more for more expensive power isn't a free marketeers wet dream?

Please, stop being such hypocrites. It makes you sound sillier than your already proven wrong ideas.


RE: You've gotta be kidding me
By 67STANG on 10/8/2009 1:53:20 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
When he started TWO wars, because one wasn't enough, those were the good times?

Actually, he started (1) war. The other one was started by Islamic Jihadists.

Don't get me wrong, you do have a point that you do have to spend sometimes to get out of trouble-- but why spend on idiotic nonsense?

I think Americans would be a lot less butt-hurt if the money spent, was spent on useful projects. Sure renewable energy is technically a useful project (as is upgrading our horrible grid), but we as a country are jaded now.

We blew all that money bailing out businesses that didn't need to be bailed out (GM, Chrysler and AIG, I'm looking at you). Now we feel we've blown our wad and must go into penny-pinching mode. To add insult to injury, we are now trying to spend another $90,000,000,000.00 yearly on people that cannot afford health care. No thanks.

The bottom line is that if we hadn't WASTED all of our money saving lost causes, we'd have a lot more money to play with for projects that are actually viable.


RE: You've gotta be kidding me
By DarkElfa on 10/8/2009 3:56:07 AM , Rating: 3
Here, I'll translate for all those people who aren't interested in this debate:

I hate Obama because he's a democrat.

I support Obama because he's a democrat.

I'm right!

No you aren't, I'm right!

Enough already, how long are we all going to have to listen to you left and right wing nut jobs blindly stick up for your respective side and criticize the stuff that the other guy's part has done. This is football, what the hell are you doing choosing sides for?! You're all a bunch of hypocrites. Neither the Republicans or the Democrats have done anything for this nation but make it worse. They promise the world to get elected and you gleefully help them do it and then stick up for them when they get there and don't do anything they promised. Obama isn't doing what he promised and Bush didn't do anything he promised. But you all still stand up for them and bash the other guy and for what?! Bah, you're all useless. Gullible, witless and useless.


RE: You've gotta be kidding me
By FITCamaro on 10/8/2009 9:44:47 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
sooooo, when taxes were cut to 95% of Americans, it was actually an INCREASE? That is what it sounds like....


Oh really? Please show much how? Because he gave everyone $400 over the course of a year? Yeah thats great... oh wait, they're letting the Bush tax cuts expire next year so every income tax bracket will go up and the 10% bracket will be back. Who will it punish the most? The poor who will once again be in the 10% bracket.

quote:
When Bush DOUBLED the debt from 5 to 10 trillion,,,,that was GOOD? (sure sounds like you miss him)


No it wasn't. But that was at least temporary war spending. Not social program spending which 100% of the time doesn't go away. And it took him 8 years to spend $5 trillion. It'll take Obama 4 years to spend $6+ trillion not even counting whatever else they spend now.

quote:
When he started TWO wars, because one wasn't enough, those were the good times? (boy, aren't you sad he's gone?)


Yeah damn him for fighting the people who attacked us and for free an enslaved people. Guess we should say we're sorry when people attack us and turn a blind eye. Oh wait we're not helping everyone, so we're evil.

quote:
When they wiped their tail ends with MY constitution, ,,,, that was OK with you? Where was your outrage then, lemming? Why weren't you tea bagging him? (From your free speach, "zone," seventeen blocks from wherever he was)


Really? What part of the Constitution did he violate? The part where Congress voted to go to war? Wait that's in the Constitution. If you're speaking of the first stimulus and TARP, I did speak out. I was completely against both. As as well as the auto bailout.

quote:
Look, make fun of all of this, but there isn't an economist alive that says we shouldn't spend our way out of this pie hole Bush put us in.


Ah yes. The "its all Bush's fault" argument.

http://riskandreturn.net/index.php/2008/01/11/is-f...

And McCain was a crappy candidate. No conservative liked him. But cutting taxes always stimulates an economy. What does not is going around the world talking about greedy businesses and how you're going to punish them and tax them more.

And yes, we have an old grid. So how about we give companies the ability to have money to pay for upgrades. Not tax the hell out of them with cap and trade and other measures so we can give away more sh*t for free.

And Democrat policies are successful? Please enlighten me as to which have been a success. Reagan's policies spurred one of the greatest increases in our economy ever. And tax revenues increased. Under high taxes, revenues always fall. Yet Democrats always want high taxes and high spending.

So please, inform me of these great ideas that Democrats have put in place which are succeeding. Democrat policies sure don't seem to be working in California, Ohio, Massachusetts, Maine, or Hawaii. As well as plenty of other states where high taxes and handouts are the law of the land. Yet we want to push those kinds of policies on the entire country? What do people like you not understand about the fact that without the potential for reward, people don't work hard?


A useful crisis
By kyleb2112 on 10/7/2009 6:11:10 PM , Rating: 2
It's not even about big spending for "worthy" causes. It's about creating such a crises that Americans will abandon their pesky independent streak and accept central planning.

"You don't ever want a crisis to go to waste; it's an opportunity to do important things that you would otherwise avoid.”

-Rahm Emanuel




RE: A useful crisis
By Spuke on 10/7/2009 6:36:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
t's about creating such a crises that Americans will abandon their pesky independent streak and accept central planning.
I don't know about that. It hasn't worked so far. And there are still states where that will NEVER happen. We'll all just move there. And there's always revolt.

quote:
God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.
-Thomas Jefferson


RE: A useful crisis
By TSS on 10/7/2009 6:56:07 PM , Rating: 2
Not to simplify the american revolution, but the final straw in that case where taxes (as far as i can remember from history class). Now take a look at this:

http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/27/news/economy/defic...

Look at the forcasts for the numbers in that article. 9-10% unemployment for 3 years then in 2012 it'll magically drop back to 6,4%? Obama saying his 800B stimulus package saving 2 million jobs, then 4 million, now 5 million for $150B? I don't think their lying as much as completly incompetent. But IMO, that's just as bad.

The revolt should have been 10 years ago. If you allow your president to spend 2 trillion you don't even have in a single year, and all you do about it is quote jefferson on the web... well...

Then there's not much chance of a revolt anymore, is there?


RE: A useful crisis
By Omega215D on 10/7/2009 11:30:51 PM , Rating: 1
Can't even revolt because they took our weapons and they have a military that they can use against us. Peaceful revolt will be a failure from the start.


RE: A useful crisis
By kfonda on 10/7/2009 11:53:19 PM , Rating: 2
What makes you think the military will be on their side?


RE: A useful crisis
By Reclaimer77 on 10/8/2009 12:38:48 AM , Rating: 2
That is really the only hope of this country at this point.

Servicemen take an oath to uphold the Constitution, not the current political leader. I think it's pretty clear at this point that our country is being taken over by a socialist coup', and we need a general to stand up and take this country back. By force if need be.

And after the disgraceful way Obama has treated his Generals out in the field, this week especially, we know he's no favorite of the military.


RE: A useful crisis
By bupkus on 10/8/2009 4:18:40 AM , Rating: 2
The last I looked, the military is not one of the fundamental three branches of government. The constitution places the President at the head of the Executive above and in control of the military. All military personnel from the lowest private to the highest general come under his authority. Just because you don't like his policies and believe he is in violation of the Constitution does not make it so. Should the President be in direct violation of the Constitution there are procedures in place to rein in such transgressions.
Where did you get the idea that the current administration is in office by way of a coup? And you yearn for some General to stand up and go to war (for a gutless you) against the Executive, the Constitution and the people of the United States?
Perhaps you should sit down, take a deep breath, a cool drink just after you pull your head out of your ass.


RE: A useful crisis
By FITCamaro on 10/8/2009 9:51:05 AM , Rating: 2
They are also not supposed to obey illegal orders.

Yes the President is in charge of the military. But that is by no means a pledge that they will always follow orders. The people who gave the President that power fully supported the people (which includes those in the military) rising up to overthrow an oppressive government which has stopped representing them.

I have no wish for another civil war. But I think you have to be ignorant to not see parallels between what is going on right now and what is shown in history to have lead to the American Revolution and the Civil War. Those wars in the end were fought over freedom and economics.


RE: A useful crisis
By Reclaimer77 on 10/8/2009 2:47:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Should the President be in direct violation of the Constitution there are procedures in place to rein in such transgressions.


Which none of those will work when one party has such sweeping and unilateral power over the other. What we are seeing today is the complete collapse of the "checks and balances" written into our government. Congress was created so SADDLE a President to limit his power, not to ram through any goddamn thing he want's to do.

Your statement is ignorant beyond belief. I'm pretty sure a President firing a CEO and taking over his company is pretty damned unconstitutional. That kind of power sure as HELL isn't written anywhere in it. So why wasn't he "reigned in" ??? Because the wackos are running the nut house !

quote:
Where did you get the idea that the current administration is in office by way of a coup?


A completely bloodless and legal coup, but a coup all the same. When a President and a small group of people orchestrate a takeover of every branch of government, huge portions of the private sector, and believe they can say and do anything regardless of the Constitution, elected officials, or what the people want, brother you have a coup.

quote:
And you yearn for some General to stand up and go to war (for a gutless you) against the Executive, the Constitution and the people of the United States?


We are headed for a revolution whether you like it or not. This isn't Europe, where millions of people watched in apathy as socialist and radical totalitarialism drove them to 20% unemployment, insane tax rates, and opressive cost of living increases. And all for what? This is America, and if the healthcare debate and Town Halls and marches has shown us anything, it's that the spark of freedom that made this country great still exists somewhere and in some of us.


Dumb?
By Alphafox78 on 10/7/2009 5:14:25 PM , Rating: 1
How exactly does making a 'dumb' meter 'smart' improve the power grid? If you ask me its just another way for the government to regluate you, your using too much power, no soup for you!!




RE: Dumb?
By Reclaimer77 on 10/7/2009 6:21:31 PM , Rating: 2
"Smart Meter" means energy rationing. Period.


RE: Dumb?
By cornelius785 on 10/7/2009 6:35:33 PM , Rating: 2
Instead of jumping to some baseless conclusion, try searching what a 'smart power meter' is. A 'dumb power meter' will charge the customer a fixed amount regardless of time. A 'smart power meter' charges the consumer a variable rate based on whether it is peak usage hour or not. I believe the idea of the meter is combination of enticing consumers to not run large appliances during peak hours and moving to a smart grid.


RE: Dumb?
By FITCamaro on 10/8/2009 9:54:33 AM , Rating: 2
If that was all these "smart" meters did, no one would mind. But they've already said they want the ability to control your energy usage remotely in periods of high demand. No thanks. Not enough capacity? Build more. Not ask me to use less.


RE: Dumb?
By Alphafox78 on 10/8/2009 10:49:23 AM , Rating: 2
exactly. why was I downrated...


RE: Dumb?
By HotFoot on 10/8/2009 11:24:29 AM , Rating: 2
How much for a new nuclear plant?

It's unfortunate that R&D spending takes a long time to produce returns, so it's not really going to work as a bandage for the current recession. However, if the gov't wants to spend more money (they always do), maybe getting back behind R&D with some serious dollars would be the way to rebuild the economy in the long-haul. Fund NASA, fund research into advanced fission reactors.

And get building. Infrastructure like the bridges getting too old and tragically collapsing. Also throw a ton of money at the power grid. And get some shovels in the ground for more power plants.

Maybe if gov't was really smart they could be setting up a lot of new nuclear power plants as semi-independent businesses. Look at it like an investment. When the plants are up and running and the economy is doing better, auction off the businesses and collect your investment. Just please don't sell it for a fraction of what it's worth to some lobbyiest interest crony.

Maybe streamline those environmental assessment procedures as well so they don't hold projects up indefinitely. Environmental impact should be more part of the R&D of the technology being built/installed rather than a huge battle for every single project.

I think that's the direction I'd head if I were king and Congress was letting me spend a trillion dollars or so.


So far so bad
By carniver on 10/7/2009 7:17:23 PM , Rating: 2
Can the next big plan I hear from Obama be about making money and not spending them?




RE: So far so bad
By kfonda on 10/7/2009 8:10:40 PM , Rating: 3
What do you mean? He's got the presses making money as fast as they can. :-)


RE: So far so bad
By Reclaimer77 on 10/7/09, Rating: -1
RE: So far so bad
By nafhan on 10/8/2009 9:57:59 AM , Rating: 2
Inflation has been much higher in the past than it is right now. It's somewhere around average at this point. Here's a nice little graph:
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=inflation+in+...

Basically, inflation was BAD in the late 70's early 80's. Not so much right now.


Wrong Solution
By mindless1 on 10/7/2009 11:52:39 PM , Rating: 2
What we need is to build up our nuclear power plant infrastructure, none of this other silliness.

Think about it, of all the problems the economically challenged in society have, which of them claim "my electric bill and being non-green was the clincher", not a mortgage or credit card bills, lack of employment, etc?




"DailyTech is the best kept secret on the Internet." -- Larry Barber











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki