backtop


Print 139 comment(s) - last by halbhh2.. on Oct 9 at 11:35 PM


  (Source: NJ Today)
Fact checkers call some of Romney's "green jobs" claims into question

Electric sports car maker Fisker Automotive found itself in the cross-hairs of former Governor and current Republican Presidential nominee Mitt Romney in the first of several televised debates with Democratic President Barack Obama.  During the debate, Romney jabbed, "But don't forget, you put $90 billion, like 50 years' worth of breaks, into -- into solar and wind, to Solyndra and Fisker and Tester and Ener1. I mean, I had a friend who said you don't just pick the winners and losers, you pick the losers, all right?"

I. Fisker, Tesla Fire Back on "Loser" Claims

That quote drew the ire of Fisker, which on Thursday issued a press release commenting, "We don't consider ourselves a loser."

Fisker argues that while it did win a $528.7M USD loan from the federal government under the U.S. Department of Energy's Advanced Technologies Vehicle Manufacturing Loan Program (ATVM) -- a component of the anti-recessionary "bailout" of 2008-2009 -- that it raised over twice that ($1.2B USD) in private equity.

And while it was two years late in delivering its first vehicle, the Karma, it points to sales of 1,500 Karmas as a sign of success.  The company also says that it created 1,000 jobs.

That would mean that for $528,000 the government loaned Fisker in interest-free , one job (based on its claims) was created.  That may not seem great, but remember that the big issue is that the money was a loan.  In other words, if Fisker succeeds the government will have created jobs "for free" (in the sense that it will get its money back, plus a small amount of interest to keep up with inflation) -- other than cost of whatever could have been created by spending the money elsewhere.  But if Fisker fails taxpayers could be left out in the cold.

Fisker is technically correct -- it's not a loser in that it's still in business and is producing product and has a shot at repaying its debt.  That's not say Mitt Romney won't be right in the long run, though.  Fisker may yet prove to be a loser.
 
Tesla, whose Model S is pictured, is racing to repay its gov't loan. [Source: Tesla Motors]

Tesla Motors Comp. (TSLA), which received a $465M USD loan as part of the green energy program, also seemed fired up about Mitt Romney's comment, though it didn't directly address them.  Instead it posted a blog, writing that it would be looking to start repaying its loan immediately, following the progress with its Model S entry-level luxury electric vehicle.  Its CEO -- tech visionary Elon Musk -- writes:

The DOE has simply asked if we would be willing to repay the loan early if we have excess cash. The answer is unequivocally yes and I am happy to announce that we will be initiating an advance payment today to prefund the principal payment that is due in March 2013. The purpose of the DOE Advanced Technology Manufacturing Program was to serve as a catalyst for accelerating sustainable transport technology, which is in the best interests of all Americans and ultimately people throughout the world. In the case of Tesla, the result has been a resurgence in American manufacturing ability and the creation of over 3500 high quality jobs. Nonetheless, we have a duty at Tesla, having accepted this loan as a portion of our capital, to repay it at the earliest opportunity. We will do exactly that.

Tesla, in comparison to Fisker, has been much more successful, meeting most of its ambitious deadlines.  While it has yet to repay its loan, the $132.3K USD/job rate is more competitive that Fisker and Tesla is on the verge of beginning to pay the government back.  Thus it seems far less likely that Tesla will prove a "loser" as claimed.

II. President Bush Signed $25B USD in Green Vehicle Loans Into Law

But a more interesting point is who is to blame if Fisker or Tesla does happen to lose.  Certainly Congress would be to blame.  And it's not just Democrats -- the loan program was first installed by the 110th Congress as a provision in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.  Republicans were roughly divided in half on that vote, with 19 Senate Republicans voting in favor of the "green jobs" funding and 23 voting against it.

Among the Republican backers of the funding was Republican Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID).  Sen. Craig proved pivotal in the Senate debate and in later green energy debates, arguing that by voting for green energy funding the U.S. "won't let the the Venezuelas, or the Nigerias, or the Saudi Arabias, or the Irans, jerk us around by the 'gas nozzle' the way they are doing it now."


And the loan program was originally signed into law in Dec. 2007, with funding signed into law in the Fall of 2008 by President George W. Bush.  So while President Obama was indeed in office in Sept. 2009 when Fisker received its loan, the loan would never have been possible without deep commitment from some members of the Republican party.  

Of course, President Obama does deserve part of the credit/blame, as he continued to support and sign into law as part of the federal budget funding for the program that both parties passed into law under President George W. Bush.  And the President did install certain DOE officials that were responsible for reviewing and granting the loans.

III. Mitt Romney's Math Fail: "About Half" is Actually 1 Percent

Fact checkers at The Washington Post further picked at Romney comments.  Mr. Romney claimed, "And in one year, you [Obama] provided $90 billion in breaks to the green energy world."

But again, at least $25B USD of that (ATVM) dates back to President George W. Bush and strong support from Republicans in the U.S. Senate.

But what about Mitt Romney's claim "You put $90 billion into -- into green jobs. And I -- look, I'm all in favor of green energy. $90 billion, that would have -- that would have hired 2 million teachers. $90 billion.  And these businesses, many of them have gone out of business, I think about half of them, of the ones have been invested in have gone out of business."

Well that's only true if you consider 1 percent "about half" according to The Washington Post.  While high-profile failures like Solyndra stoked outrage from the Republican base -- particularly when donations to the President by Solyndra's managers came to light -- most of the companies, universities, and projects that received loans are still alive and well, the paper says.

Ask Mitt anything
Romney won the debate, but failed at math, according to fact checkers. 
[Image Source: Iowa Republican]

When Congress proposed the loan program, it (including the Republican backers) expected some of the companies who received loans to fail.  In fact, what was surprising, when The Washington Post looked at the actual numbers, is that the failures will actually likely cost the government less than the $2.47B USD set aside by Congress to cover losses from the few loans out of the $90B USD that went unpaid.

In other words, not only are 99 percent of the programs still on the route to repayment, the net loss on the green energy programs is less that expected.

And while clearly a biased source, green venture capital firm DBL put forth a compelling report last year that mapped hard numbers and historical facts on energy expenditures. It found that since the 1700s U.S. Presidents had provided support to the fossil fuel industry, and in the mid-1900s they threw their financial weight behind nuclear power.

Pennsylvania (and later West Virginia) coal were protected from price gouging by foreign rivals by tariffs on coal imports.  During the oil boom the federal government provided loans, grants, land, and other incentives estimated to be worth $1.8B USD per year in today's dollars.  Nuclear power in the 1950s received $3.3B USD per year by today's standards.

The report describes government investment in alternative energy as "temporary" and "erratic" complaining that even with the $21B USD, President Obama's DOE did push to fund solar, wind, geothermal, and natural gas projects, alternative energy still has received less that nuclear or fossil fuels.

IV. The Green Power Debate Rolls On

When it comes to the historically low funding of alternative energy, some would say "good" as it's inarguably more expensive at current deployment costs and less reliable in the sense that the wind isn't always blowing and the sun isn't always shining on demand.

Windmills at sunset
[Image Source: Ames Power]

But the facts reveal a number of things:
  1. Republicans have proved key backers of green energy -- particularly Republican President George W. Bush
  2. 99 percent of loan recipients have stayed in business.
  3. Green energy has received less money than nuclear or fossil fuels did historically.
To Mitt Romney's credit, 67 percent of Americans thought he won the debate in a CNN opinion poll, compared to only 25 percent for Obama.  But the fact remains he was definitely off base in many of his claims about the government's green energy efforts and was on shaky footing when he gave President Obama the blame -- or the credit -- for all of the green energy efforts, when many of those efforts were installed by his own Republican colleagues.

Sources: Tesla Motors Comp., Fisker via InsideLine, The Washington Post, CNN [debate transcript]



Comments     Threshold


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

Good.
By makken on 10/4/2012 7:33:53 PM , Rating: 5
If there's anything that the government should be doing in regards to energy, it should be trying to get us off fossil fuels in the long term. Investments in green energy are a big step in the right direction.

That attack on green energy investments is enough to stop me from even considering votimgfor Romney.




RE: Good.
By Reclaimer77 on 10/4/12, Rating: 0
RE: Good.
By SeeManRun on 10/4/2012 9:55:09 PM , Rating: 5
Whether they fund research directly via loans or via public universities, the government has always invested in research and they should. When the free market can't or won't do something important the government can step in and fill that void in the interests of the public good. Things like NASA drive science and technology for all of humanity and are worth paying taxes for.


RE: Good.
By Ammohunt on 10/4/2012 10:19:04 PM , Rating: 3
That is not governments role try reading the Constitution of the United States.


RE: Good.
By corduroygt on 10/4/12, Rating: 0
RE: Good.
By Reclaimer77 on 10/4/12, Rating: -1
RE: Good.
By madtruths on 10/5/2012 1:18:27 AM , Rating: 2
While the constitution is amendable, it did come with some "words of advice" from the people who wrote it. These words of advice did not include changing it willy nilly to suit a few assholes who would like to impose their will on anyone. If you want to invest YOUR money in Ener1 or Solyndra or Fisker go for it,(though i would have invested in Tesla given the chance, but I would not expect you too) I for one do not like losing money, meanwhile you should only purchase things from companies that share your same views/beliefs/goals. Just don't try and make me. This is how change is meant to happen, not through an all powerful government.

Btw can you tell me the other way to change the constitution?


RE: Good.
By Moishe on 10/5/2012 3:48:49 PM , Rating: 5
Amendable doesn't mean that it gives the government this ability *NOW*.

What the govt touches, it screws up. So we need to stop letting them pick winners and losers, taking our money and deciding what to spend it on, etc. Jobs and the economy are the realm of private business, and the govt needs to get out of the way and let the smart people do the job.


RE: Good.
By evo slevven on 10/5/2012 9:43:25 PM , Rating: 2
Funny thing is, there aren't really many "smart" people when it comes to business. The fact is that the constitution was made and orchestrated to be "amendable" to adjust for the times. Jobs and economy are NEVER just the realm of private businesses and individuals. Campaign financing alone points to this fact.

More so to the point is that government typically needs to intervene in these areas where normally businesses will not normally venture into whether it be due to lack of willing to diversify or willing to venture and be a "loser" if they fail. More over most profitable businesses typically pour more capital into increasing their efficiency and productivity overall versus investing in new areas and front. The bad part is it does also weaken the economy at times; Apple does this extremely well as a case study where they get the best results financially in China.

That's not to say that they aren't entitled to but there is a point to the government investing in businesses in the US to promote growth. That, in that respect, will often times rely on the government.

Sorry I'm not a conspiracy theorist or a "government is always bad" because at the end of the day it really is a tool for better or worse. Not too many people complained during the Great Depression about Roosevelt tossing funds to create jobs wherever, however because the need was dire. And, historically speaking, it wasn't government's fault either at the time but the ineptitude of the businesses but the government had to respond.

It's funny how this crap is up to interpretation but I'd rather be objective when possible and look at it without a narrow mind either...


RE: Good.
By Moishe on 10/8/2012 2:39:47 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with most of what you say... but here are my major points.

1.
It is a fact that third party spending is almost always more wasteful. What people buy for their selfish needs is judged by either price or by the utility of the purchase. Government buys for other people using other people's money, so the concern for thrifyness or utility is dampened.

2.
Power concentrated is bad because there are fewer competitors and few people who can upset the balance of power should things go wrong. You might like to say that people aren't smart, which I think is false, but people making their own choices is better. I would rather have 100 individuals making choices and the chances of success than to have a single large entity make a single large choice for everyone.

One size does NOT fit all, which is largely what government does.

Anyone who denies the inherent inefficiency in government is completely blind.

At least with individuals we get more choice, more creativity, more heads in the game, more freedom, and more statistical odds of success.


RE: Good.
By senecarr on 10/5/12, Rating: 0
RE: Good.
By nolisi on 10/5/12, Rating: 0
RE: Good.
By Quadrillity on 10/5/2012 1:50:43 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;


My God, do people ever read in context anymore? Or read thoroughly? That line did NOT say: To promote the progress of science and useful arts by spending tax money on whatever congress thinks is best at the time.

Are you ignorant, willingly ignorant, or just lying?


RE: Good.
By madtruths on 10/5/2012 3:04:10 PM , Rating: 3
Thank you, I appreciate it when people don't tear things out of context to their own ends.


RE: Good.
By Quadrillity on 10/5/2012 4:05:50 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. And I think the most annoying thing is when (insert political affiliation #1) slams (insert political affiliation #2) for twisting the words and meaning/context of the U.S. Constitution when both of them are often twisting things around to suit their own needs. It saddens me greatly to see so many American's falling right into the ploy of most political gatherings. Their one and only goal is to cause so many distractions that the average citizens doesn't pay attention to the what's going on behind the curtains.


RE: Good.
By foolsgambit11 on 10/7/2012 7:07:19 PM , Rating: 2
I wholeheartedly agree that that is the correct reading of the patent clause. But then, I think the Second Amendment only applies to well-regulated militias, because I understand context and grammar better than the Supreme Court, apparently....

But on the topic at hand, the Constitution explicitly lays out the powers of Congress, including the power to tax and spend in order to promote the General Welfare. Just how broad this power is is contentious, and has been since the Washington administration, but generally, it is currently held to give Congress the power to tax and spend on anything that promotes a national, rather than a regional interest. So farm subsidies are alright, because a reliable food supply is in the national interest. Subsidies to manufacturing or research and development would seem to be in the national interest as well, as long as the subsidies aren't specifically targeted at one part of the country.


RE: Good.
By michael67 on 10/7/12, Rating: -1
RE: Good.
By Samus on 10/4/12, Rating: 0
RE: Good.
By Beenthere on 10/5/2012 12:23:20 AM , Rating: 3
Samus-

You must be young or naive?

The actual U.S. unemployment rate is currently above 20% and growing weekly with major comapnies like Sharp and HP terminating tens of thousands more employees right now.

The reason that the media reports U.S. unemployment at 8.5% is because that is what the bogus U.S. government statistics claim. What most people don't know, but the government will confirm if you ask them... is that the only people counted as being "unemployed" are those who qualify for unemployment benefits. The unemployed who's benefits have expired or who have stopped looking because there are so few jobs available, are STILL unemployed and have been for years - but they are no longer counted because their benefits have expired .

The U.S. economy is in the worst shape that I have seen it in, in 40 years and it's getting worse all the time. The only industry doing well is the auto industry. Every other industry is struggling and the problem isn't just the U.S. the same economic depression exists in the EU and Asia. We are in deep crap and few other than the unemployed actually understand just how bad the situation is.

For those with a secure job and no cut-backs, life is normal but for the rest of the population, life is down right Hell and it's getting worse because no real jobs are being created.

The fact of the matter is modern governments simply don't know how to run a Biz or create jobs so they throw money at companies and programs in a Hail Mary hope that they can create jobs. As we see after four years, that ignorance just ain't working.


RE: Good.
By anactoraaron on 10/5/2012 12:52:30 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The only industry doing well is the auto industry.

Saying statements like this - when Apple sells f-ckin 5 million iPhones opening weekend and movies breaking all time box office records this year - and I'm not surprised to see a 'government conspiracy theory' in your post. Time for you to check in to your local mental health center before obamacare takes that away from you...


RE: Good.
By madtruths on 10/5/2012 1:27:31 AM , Rating: 3
Now I realize that Apple employs people in the U.S, but were we not just hearing a few weeks ago about how badly they treated people in all their factories in OTHER countries? The damn things cost so much you would expect them to be made here. And movies, did you know wen movies became really really popular the first time around? Oh yeah, during the great depression when all anyone could afford was a cheap movie in a theatre, if they were lucky.


RE: Good.
By anactoraaron on 10/5/2012 1:55:23 AM , Rating: 2
Okay... how about the healthcare industry? The local hospital here just added a $14 mil expansion, can't do that if you're hurting. How about the insurance industry (life, health, home, auto)? Those are a few more after thinking about it for more than the time it took to read his post. There are industries that are doing just fine here so for anyone to say 'the only industry doing ok is the auto industry' is just outright false.


RE: Good.
By anactoraaron on 10/5/2012 2:17:08 AM , Rating: 2
Need to know other thriving industries? Hell America invented the advertising industry and there's always money there. Telecoms/cable/satellite/wireless carriers. The Fast Food industry (we are all overweight according to the last 'study' I read). Professional/college/amateur sports - from athletes to arenas. I can go on and on. There ARE jobs here! Hell look at the explosion in South Dakota! Don't like being unemployed in the state you live in? Move to SD, I hear there are people working at McDonalds making $15/hr flippin burgers! There are places where the people to job ratio is 1 to 3 where there aren't enough people to fill the jobs available. We aren't in that bad of shape, it's just people are getting too lazy!


RE: Good.
By Ringold on 10/5/2012 6:10:45 AM , Rating: 3
Fact: GDP growth has been decelerating. Obviously, some people still make some money. In aggregate, you can't deny things are slowing down. Data is data.

Fact: Consensus view among economists is an overall contraction in corporate earnings for the 3rd quarter, just ended 9/31. The economy is hovering just north of slipping in to overall contraction.

The data is clear and unambiguous. I can cite all kinds of labor shortages in some areas too, doesn't change the macro-picture. You mention South Dakota; good on them! We can learn from SD. But the gross product of South Dakota probably equals a large-ish city in bigger states.

Another fact: Companies are sitting on record amounts, trillions of dollars. Between a runaway EPA, disintegrating Euro-zone and no visibility at all on what government policy here will be come January 1, they're too afraid to invest -- in aggregate. But what the US does later this year about the fiscal situation can either encourage them to spend hundreds of billions in the economy.. or to keep sitting on their hands. It's up to the voters.

1st and 2nd quarter GDP forecasts aren't worth the paper they're on right now.. We could either spark off 3, 4, 5% annualized growth, or very easily screw up and get a -3% contraction.


RE: Good.
By anactoraaron on 10/5/2012 4:24:06 PM , Rating: 2
Things are slowing down as there are industries that aren't needed in the demand that they commanded in the past anymore. We have cell phones and computers and email and because of that the printing industry has taken a hit, that's to be expected. This directly effects the post office (USPS) also and that stupid legislation regarding postal pensions couldn't have come at a worse time for them. Funny how they are hurting now after that legislation... and how is it no other government 'industry' (damn shame I even use those two words together) has such a requirement??

Name me another industry that is hurting now I can rationally explain why that industry is slowing down. Times changing like as previously stated above is part of it, sure, but in the end consumers are the ones that ultimately control which industries are successful and which ones are not. Sad thing is that more and more of consumer product choices are made buying things made overseas (where we are already in debt to). That's the vote that counts the most. And until there's a solution to bring that work back here somehow we will continue to see the trends that we have now. No President or anyone else can 'change' that.


RE: Good.
By Ringold on 10/5/2012 7:23:07 PM , Rating: 2
I pay much closer attention to macroeconomic data, though I've heard in passing quite a few tech companies are missing targets this past quarter, Zynga's getting blasted. Overall though, and we'll know by the end of this coming week, overall data suggests -2% (latest update consensus numbers today) earnings contraction, and 0%, absolutely flat, revenue growth. Looking at todays list of 52 week low stocks shows a wide variety of companies that seem to be hurting. Pre-season earning warnings were 4:1 negative.

Unfortunately, there's no escaping it. I like to, by nature, to be bullish on the economy, but I'm not blind to facts. Short term, the economy is on the brink of recession. GDP's creeping along. I like you show no data to the contrary. Good policy making at the end of the year can very easily swing things up very strongly, though.


RE: Good.
By Samus on 10/6/2012 4:23:00 AM , Rating: 3
Funny, I do IT for about 20 small businesses all over Illinois; appraisal firms (5-20 employees), medical offices (10-20 employees), plumbing companies (10+ employees), a rope manufacturer (50 employees), an HVAC specialist (25 employees), an insulation specialist (20 employees) and consulting firms...the list goes on.

Any clients I have in manufacturing have hired back all workers (and then some) they laid off in 2009, and everyone is making record profits this year. Business is excellent. My business is excellent.

All of these businesses are those that Romney says are struggling. Every single person I know is employeed and doesn't have any trouble finding a job. Many of them have high school diplomas with some specialized training from a community college or a technical school. My friend Eric makes $107,000 a year as a security engineer and he never finished college. This country has, and always will, have a job for those that want one.

The problem this country clearly has right now is either a lot of lazy Americans abusing social service programs, or a lot of superpacs lobbying big corporations not to spend money and to keep jobs overseas to artificially make the current administration look bad.

I haven't seen this country doing this good since the mid 90's. Obama is obviously doing something right. Even if it took 13 digits to jumpstart the economy, thats a fraction of what FDR spent (accounting for inflation) when he basically invented deficit spending.

As a small business owner that serves other small business owners, I can tell you NONE of them support Romney because its clear and obvious to see he is a pathological liar with no plan, no leadership and no vision. Even his own party doesn't support him. The whole atmosphere at the RNC was like a bad acid trip. It got even worse when the tape of him bashing half the country and most of the hispanic population that his butler recorded lat May leaked on YouTube.

Smoke and Mirrors people. Not a chance. Jeb Bush 2016...


RE: Good.
By Beenthere on 10/5/12, Rating: 0
RE: Good.
By anactoraaron on 10/5/12, Rating: 0
RE: Good.
By btc909 on 10/6/2012 2:35:14 PM , Rating: 2
Most of these "f-ckin" iPhone sales costs the buyer an activation cost and THAT'S IT! Many held onto there existing whatever phones for the contract to expires to they can get the new shiny iToy! Movies always do well when the economy is in the toilet. It's cheaper to pay for movie tickets and theater hop all day along then it would to run the AC at home. I can afford to run my AC.


RE: Good.
By anactoraaron on 10/7/2012 1:29:42 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Most of these "f-ckin" iPhone sales costs the buyer an activation cost and THAT'S IT! Many held onto there existing whatever phones for the contract to expires to they can get the new shiny iToy!


WHAT??? 'Just an activation cost'??? The '5 million iPhones opening weekend' was about the iPhone 5 which STARTS at 199.99 on EVERY carrier that has one.


RE: Good.
By Ammohunt on 10/5/2012 11:22:43 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
For those with a secure job and no cut-backs, life is normal but for the rest of the population, life is down right Hell and it's getting worse because no real jobs are being created.


I wouldn't say life is normal i have a secure job sure, but making ends meet is getting harder and harder since the rate at which the cost of living is going up doesn't match the rate of pay raises. I will not complain since i provide for a comfortable life for me and my family but if things continue down the path is currently going i will be standing in the soup line with everyone else. Hell we have started filling up the larder with long term food storage items; not for the end of the world but in case we need to supplement $10 loaves of bread.


RE: Good.
By senecarr on 10/5/12, Rating: 0
RE: Good.
By Reclaimer77 on 10/5/12, Rating: 0
RE: Good.
By corduroygt on 10/5/12, Rating: 0
RE: Good.
By Ringold on 10/5/12, Rating: 0
RE: Good.
By FITCamaro on 10/5/2012 8:04:55 AM , Rating: 3
+6


RE: Good.
By Ammohunt on 10/5/2012 11:13:50 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Currently, yes, we're doing okay -- by European standards. We're doing absolutely awful by our own standards, but if you want to lower us to sclerotic European standards, we're okay.


Wow! that one sentence made my week LOL! awesome.
+7


RE: Good.
By senecarr on 10/5/2012 1:47:02 PM , Rating: 2
Germany keeps unions in check? Germany companies typically have their union leaders as voting members on the company board.


RE: Good.
By Ringold on 10/5/2012 3:59:11 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, Germany brought it unions to the table in the late 90s and early 2000s and got them to understand that Germany's future as a manufacturing nation relied upon them subduing their wage demands. This is well known. German unions aren't half as virulent as, saw, French ones or the UAW.


RE: Good.
By corduroygt on 10/5/12, Rating: -1
RE: Good.
By corduroygt on 10/5/12, Rating: 0
RE: Good.
By Ringold on 10/5/2012 7:25:43 PM , Rating: 3
Union's don't negotiate contracts based on CEO pay, that's not a factual data point, just a Occupy Wall Street talking point.

European companies do tend to pay CEO's less, but they also tend not to grow like American companies. Their stock exchanges are dominated by many of the same names that've been there for the last century. Get what you pay for.

Got anything intelligent to say, or just trolling?


RE: Good.
By boeush on 10/5/2012 9:02:14 PM , Rating: 3
So, what's really "growing" in America? Do you think there might have been a reason for the giant tech bubble of the 90's and the even more giant housing bubble of the 00's -- blown up through deliberate Fed policy, and deliberate Federally-orchestrated easing and even abrogation of regulatory and law enforcement regimes? Why allow all the theft and fraud, and even explicitly legalize balance sheet fraud by allowing schemes such as mark-to-model?

Simple: we've been exporting our wealth and productive industries for decades, ever since we've stepped into the abyss of "free trade" starting with Reagan's years. To compensate, we had to inflate various asset bubbles to simulate "growth". In point of fact, our national debts have consistently over the last 30 years grown much faster than our economy. That ought to tell you something: that, if it weren't for serial bubble-blowing, growing indebtedness, and officially sanctioned white-collar mega-crime -- our economy will have shown negative growth for decades upon decades. Ross Perot was totally prescient and 100% right from the moment he emerged onto the national political stage. Too bad nobody wanted to hear what he had (and still has) to say...

Our main problem is not that we're over-regulated (and by the way, give me back Glass-Steagall, and I'll gladly give you back Dodd-Frank with my compliments -- though I still want something with teeth to keep the top management on the straight and narrow, so I'll keep SarbOx.) The reason we're teetering on the edge of becoming another Celtic Tiger, is because we decided to drop all tariffs and compete on a "free trade" basis with malicious economic regimes that artificially lower costs by treating workers like slaves and destroying the environment into the bargain. Free trade is a nice academic idea that could work well given a level playing field and trading partners roughly on the same level of socioeconomic development. But it is an unqualified disaster and an act of no less than treasonous economic sabotage, when our "captains of industry" ram through free-trade policies against a backdrop of utterly unbalanced development of economies and social norms world-wide.

We've been importing cheap foreign crap for decades, and putting it on our collective credit card (i.e. national debt), while watching domestic industries wither and die. We've been outsourcing every capital-generating job we could get away with, while "compensating" with "service" jobs that produce no capital and amount to little more than an economic version of mutual masturbation, and building up fraudulent pyramids of Ponzi finance to create a mirage of wealth even as we continued to march straight toward the poor house.

Under sustained global free trade, our economic deterioration will not stop, until our standards of living and working drop to the same level as those of the developing world. Then we will finally have a level playing field, and will finally be able to compete. This was always the entirely predictable and mathematically inevitable outcome of Reaganomics. But you're probably too ideologically blinkered to comprehend it...


RE: Good.
By Samus on 10/6/12, Rating: -1
RE: Good.
By Nfarce on 10/7/2012 6:15:47 PM , Rating: 3
And on the other hand, mouth breathing Obamazombie libtards think it's just GREAT we now have $16 trillion in debt, gas price CONTINUE to be 90% higher, food prices are UP by 20%, more people than EVER are in poverty, the highest number of black males are unemployed since the Great Depression (about TWICE the rate of the overall US unemployment), and companies like Obama's beloved "Green Energy" GE has offshored THOUSANDS of jobs. But hey...you knuckle draggers on the libtard left keep throwing that race card out there, asshats. We'll get some adults and responsibility back in White House again.

But hey, who knows, maybe your empty suit PrezBo will actually show up for a debate next time with Romney, eh?


RE: Good.
By corduroygt on 10/5/12, Rating: 0
RE: Good.
By Moishe on 10/5/2012 4:23:46 PM , Rating: 2
^ This


RE: Good.
By StormyKnight on 10/5/2012 9:00:29 AM , Rating: 2
You mean the Clinton years where he had to deal with a Republican House and Senate? Those years where he had to swing to the right of center to get anything done? Those years? Obama had two full years to do exactly what he wanted (Obamacare) without interference from the Republicans and still didn't make a change for the better.


RE: Good.
By corduroygt on 10/5/12, Rating: 0
RE: Good.
By Ringold on 10/5/2012 4:00:38 PM , Rating: 3
Jan 2009 to Nov 2010.. what alternate calendar do you use?


RE: Good.
By corduroygt on 10/5/2012 5:26:44 PM , Rating: 3
Date ranges where Democrats had a 60-seat senate:
7.7.2009 - 8.25.2009 : 50 days
9.25.2009 - 2.4.2010 : 132 days

Note that the 132 day period is during winter recess.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_C...

I use the calendar of reality, not the GOP's.


RE: Good.
By Ringold on 10/5/2012 7:30:24 PM , Rating: 2
The Senate gets work done without all of them actually sitting down on the floor of the Senate. Hell, most of that is posturing for CSPAN, thats probably when the LEAST work gets done. That link says it was in session, in contrast, for most of those 2 years. If you were right, then Congress would be like some states that only convene their legislatures a week a year or some such.

Hell, even in the heat of the campaign, there's things rattling around actively in the House and Senate both, at least in committee.

Are you paid to troll like that, or is there something wrong with you?


RE: Good.
By corduroygt on 10/5/12, Rating: 0
RE: Good.
By nolisi on 10/4/12, Rating: 0
RE: Good.
By shin0bi272 on 10/5/12, Rating: 0
RE: Good.
By The0ne on 10/6/2012 2:21:24 PM , Rating: 2
Not just what you've pointed out but him using the $90B to support his rant about fossil fuel is ludicrous. Didn't anyone beside think that whole comparison was stupid?


By Ammohunt on 10/4/2012 10:24:57 PM , Rating: 2
Roseanne Barr? Really? and voting for one of the two parties is a throw away vote? wow! I guess i would need to be a crack head to understand you in your world.


By Ringold on 10/5/2012 6:24:34 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
to the country and the world over the past, oh, 30 years or so..


First of all, up there, you said "toadies." Go back to Britain if you hate it here so much. I don't think I've ever heard a fellow American say "toadies." And after all the whining about how we're fascists, I'll warn you that you Europeans have created a generation of conservatives that see our Atlantic "allies" as a bunch of useless, lazy cowards. Next time Europe needs us, we might be busy. (Or if your greens run the show, unable to help) I for one question the usefulness of NATO entirely; why prop up the ungrateful?

Second, the last 30 years.. From our own perspective, we've spent a lot of blood and money on things that aren't always obviously beneficial. But from the perspective of other people.. The average Libyan would tell you to STFU; if not for our fascist, militarist air and logistical support, they'd of been crushed like bugs. Afghan's were given a shot at democracy, even if apathy is making it slip away -- and it was a war of self defense, if you remember they were protecting al Qaeda. I'll give you Iraq (at least they also had a shot at democracy), but we also helped stop massacres in the Balkans.

You know what happens when America minds its own business? Rwanda. America didn't bother to take notice, and genocide went unchecked, because no one else in the world has the balls to take a stand.

Go ahead though, vote like your average Greek. I hear California gas prices are north of $5, some stations are running out; insufficient pipeline capacity. Gee, what a shocker. Just be glad you're not an average Syrian right now, another group of people getting butchered by their own government because America's out to lunch and no one else has a pair of balls when fellow humans are being murdered.


By Nutzo on 10/5/2012 11:27:27 AM , Rating: 2
Of course you missed Republican states like Texas that are leading the growth in this country.

As far as California proping up other states, those numbers have been out of date for several years. Many of the high tax paying companies have left the state, and now California is recieving huge handouts & loans from the Federal Government(unemployment insurance for example).


By boeush on 10/5/2012 2:00:05 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I don't think I've ever heard a fellow American say "toadies."
Oh, how original. I'm "un-American" now? Fine, I'm honored to join such distinguished company, though I fear I don't quite deserve it.
quote:
And after all the whining about how we're fascists
Let's count the ways:

* Extremist right-wing politics now ascendant, that make any traditional 20th-century Republican look like a Liberal
* Continually expanding national security police state
* Corporations are people, speech is money, the press is largely owned by financial and industrial conglomerates, legislature is a wholly owned subsidiary of Wall Street (by dint of K Street)
* Institutionalized monopoly protections for medical and financial industries (and long-standing institutional corporate welfare for the military industrialists)
* Crackdowns against organized labor, and a broad-based war on "Socialism"
* Randian brand of Social Darwinism is the new religion of the land
* Spending more on the military than all other countries in the world, combined (and that's not even counting the wars)
quote:
Next time Europe needs us, we might be busy.
No, we'll be bankrupt.
quote:
The average Libyan would tell you to STFU; if not for our fascist, militarist air and logistical support, they'd of been crushed like bugs.
On the other hand, if we hadn't backed and boosted every tyrant and dictator in the world, we mightn't be quite so hated around the world these days, and maybe not so many of those dictators would've been as successful and long-lived, and maybe by now more of those nations had long since been free and democratic. Look I get it, it was "Cold War" and the Evil Empire was truly evil. But in fighting and defeating our enemy, we managed to lose our way and become our own worst enemy: a Pyrrhic victory.
quote:
it was a war of self defense, if you remember they were protecting al Qaeda
Ironic, that the Taliban would've never existed if it weren't for U.S. sponsoring the Wahhabi perversion of Islam in the first place (during the proxy war against Soviet occupation in Afghanistan.) We deliberately fomented and even helped formulate the entire philosophy on which the Mujaheddin operated (never mind that we armed and trained them in guerrilla tactics), and the Taliban was the direct and immediate consequence. 9/11 was blowback (for our meddling in Afghanistan.) Bin Laden was blowback (for our meddling in Saudi Arabia.) Al Zawahiri was blowback (for our boosterism of the oppressive Egyptian regime.) I'm not even mentioning what we did to Iran, back when it was trying to become a free and democratic nation...
quote:
we also helped stop massacres in the Balkans
I'll give you that one: we did something right that time (a rare exception to the rule.) But -- I thought you were inclined to "question the usefulness of NATO entirely"?
quote:
Rwanda.
Is why the world needs a stronger pan-African peace-keeping force. The proper way to handle such situations is through the U.N., rather than through cowboy unilateralism. We aren't and can't be the world's police force any longer. We are far too broke for that.


By Ringold on 10/5/2012 4:15:53 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
* Extremist right-wing politics now ascendant, that make any traditional 20th-century Republican look like a Liberal


Probably trying to refer to the tea party element, while conveniently ignoring the equivalent Marxist element in the Democrat party. So a group of people that embrace the constitution as its central guiding document is extremist right-wing?

quote:
* Crackdowns against organized labor, and a broad-based war on "Socialism"


Even the liberal hero FDR thought public-sector labor unions were an awful idea. That you can't understand how unions in general have ravaged companies and governments alike, you're not worth talking to. Ex: Teacher unions in Chicago, a city now with unfunded liabilities larger then a lot of sovereign countries.

quote:
* Spending more on the military than all other countries in the world, combined (and that's not even counting the wars)


Thanks for proving you don't give a flying shit about facts. Marxists never do; facts cause too much cognitive dissonance.

quote:
Ironic, that the Taliban would've never existed if it weren't for U.S. sponsoring the Wahhabi perversion of Islam in the first place


That's a little bit of a stretch; they didn't get extreme until after the resistance, and they were but one of many tribal groups we helped. The others, the northern alliance, helped us run them out of town, in case you forgot about that part.

quote:
Is why the world needs a stronger pan-African peace-keeping force. The proper way to handle such situations is through the U.N.,


That sounds good, in a lefty fantasy land. Here in the miserable real world, there was no pan-African force (there's more of one now). And, further, how's the UN doing with Syria? Last I heard, they'd fled the country, then returned and were hunkering down in a hotel hoping a) nobody hurt them and b) waiting for the chips to fall so the UN could talk to the victor. How well has the UN kept Hezbollah from re-arming along the Israeli border? Considering it seems like Hezbollah has tens of thousands of rockets... How many atrocities have to go on under the UN's nose before the left realizes the UN isn't worth the prime New York real estate that it sits on?


By boeush on 10/5/2012 7:51:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So a group of people that embrace the constitution as its central guiding document is extremist right-wing?
Them, and all others who categorically reject all central government institutions and projects from the federal highway system to the federal education department to the federal reserve to the federal space program to federally funded basic research to public universities and public schools to federal environmental regulation to federal food and drug and medical device regulation to federal financial regulation to tariffs to... By the standards of these people, everyone from Lincoln to TR to Reagan would be now classified as a flaming Liberal.
quote:
Even the liberal hero FDR thought public-sector labor unions were an awful idea.
I happen to agree, actually. But what about private-sector unions? We don't seem to have many of those left any more... Any idea why?
quote:
Thanks for proving you don't give a flying shit about facts.
Stop projecting. Here are some facts, and I suggest you try to give at least a stationary shit about them:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_...
quote:
That's a little bit of a stretch; they didn't get extreme until after the resistance, and they were but one of many tribal groups we helped.
Really, now? A bit of a stretch to say that our very own CIA helped re-cast the very concept of Jihad into a military/violent tilt? And as for Wahhabi poison spread by Madrassas all over the world that are funded by our best-buddy Saudi Arabia with us turning a blind eye -- they don't play any role either?
quote:
The others, the northern alliance, helped us run them out of town, in case you forgot about that part.
NA wasn't blowback. But the Taliban sure as hell were -- and still are .
quote:
How many atrocities have to go on under the UN's nose before the left realizes the UN isn't worth the prime New York real estate that it sits on?
To paraphrase the right's favorite shibboleth, UN is the worst system in the world, except for all the others. The solution is not to stomp it into the dirt, but to build it up and make it more effective. But of course, any such cooperative approach runs contrary to US' remaining ambitions for unilateral world domination. Sorry Charlie, but that old wet dream is all out of juice.


What gullible sheep
By Beenthere on 10/4/12, Rating: 0
RE: What gullible sheep
By x10Unit1 on 10/5/2012 11:06:19 AM , Rating: 5
Ah yes, my favorite response. "We have plenty of resources left now, f*** the future".

It is always extremes with people these days.

"Green energy doesn't work and will NEVER work." or "We need green energy to completely replace current energy methods"

How about we continue to develop and improve on green technologies and slowly supplement energy supplies with that technology. I know, it is a mind blowing concept.

Plus, I would rather spend 90 billion in failing energy companies than the many more billions we spend killing and developing weapons to kill people.


RE: What gullible sheep
By Nutzo on 10/5/2012 11:33:43 AM , Rating: 3
How about we actually look at the cost effectiveness before spending billions, and quit the huge taxpayer subsidies for the rich people who buy this stuff?

Middle class taxpayers should not have thier tax dollars spent to give $7500 to help a rich person buy a electric toy.


RE: What gullible sheep
By Moishe on 10/5/2012 3:56:21 PM , Rating: 2
Your post is extreme.

Nobody is saying f**k the future and "green sucks, to hell with it."

All people want is continued support of the current fuels, because they're cheap, and because cheap fuel supports growth. As the current cheap fuel is being used, a reasonable push into new fuels is expected. This phase in/phase out method is the basic, sane approach that regular people want.

Instead, we have a forced, premature departure from existing, plentiful sources of cheap fuel and a heavy, forced push to other sources that are not yet viable.

The analogy is that we are quitting our current job before we have the new job. Common sense says that you transition slowly to new tech and have a backup plan in case the new stuff fails.

Why is this so hard for greenies to accept? The regular people aren't against being environmentally friendly, we just don't want to be screwed over by it.


Fair business
By jimbojimbo on 10/4/2012 8:02:36 PM , Rating: 5
Hey, Tesla and Fisker, let's see how you would be doing if all cars were sold equally without that $7500 tax credit. Considering that huge credit, and more in California, you two should be selling TONS more cars but you're not. You're likely just selling to the rich that like to have new toys and they get the $7500 from the rest of the middle class. Fan-f'in-tastic.
Get rid of senseless tax credits!!!




RE: Fair business
By Shadowself on 10/5/2012 10:07:06 AM , Rating: 4
I find it impossible to believe that a $7,500 credit is a significant make or break point for anyone buying a Tesla or Fisker car. They are just too expensive even after the credit. Either you have to money to by one or you don't.

Now a Volt or lower priced car that qualifies is a different story. If you can lower the cost by 15% or more and get the price into a common purchase price range then it becomes a significant factor in the purchase process.


Suck it right wingers!
By bryanbrun on 10/5/2012 1:26:52 PM , Rating: 5

This site is so pack full of right wing ideologues that I don't even like coming here.

Romney has been a lousy candidate with out dated empty ideas.

Romney will never recover from the current deficit in the swing states. He will lose Iowa and Ohio. He will lose this election.

The demographics of the nation are turning against your party, a party of reality detached morons.




RE: Suck it right wingers!
By Moishe on 10/5/2012 3:58:01 PM , Rating: 1
Seems pretty balanced to me... except for you and your attack on people that disagree with you.

Please leave if you really don't like it so much.


Larry Craig
By espaghetti on 10/4/2012 7:37:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
won't let the the Venezuelas, or the Nigerias, or the Saudi Arabias, or the Irans, jerk us around by the 'gas nozzle' the way they are doing it now.

So he said that when gas was around $2 a gallon?

Well, I guess we showed them Larry. Good job.




RE: Larry Craig
By foolsgambit11 on 10/7/2012 8:02:36 PM , Rating: 2
Uh, nope. The date that video was uploaded to YouTube is July 17, 2008. When gas prices peaked at over $4.10 for the national average - and they haven't been higher since. It's possible he was speaking up to a year earlier than that, but prices were still around $3 a gallon nationally. Over the past 10 years or so, the sub-$2 gas of the winter of 2008 is the aberration. In general, except for the immediate effects of the economic crisis, gas prices have been steadily climbing for a decade, thanks primarily to increased demand in the developing world, but also increased concerns about supply stability and domestic refining bottlenecks.


Tesla more succesful?
By BZDTemp on 10/5/2012 4:29:26 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Tesla, in comparison to Fisker, has been much more successful, meeting most of its ambitious deadlines.


I think that calling Tesla much more successful is a stretch. Both companies have had highs and lows and both are selling cars and getting better at it by the day.




RE: Tesla more succesful?
By Azethoth on 10/5/2012 11:57:47 PM , Rating: 2
Smoke crack much? Accurate statement is accurate.


Sources
By EricMartello on 10/5/2012 9:58:46 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sources: Tesla Motors Comp., Fisker via InsideLine, The Washington Post, CNN [debate transcript]


These are definitely the place to go when you want objective information and not a something that echoes what you want to believe.

quote:
Thursday issued a press release commenting, "We don't consider ourselves a loser."


Most losers don't consider themselves losers - that's why they are losers.

quote:
And while it was two years late in delivering its first vehicle, the Karma, it points to sales of 1,500 Karmas as a sign of success. The company also says that it created 1,000 jobs.


You could have created far more than 1,000 jobs with that money if it were put into something like...oh, I dunno...domestic energy production (gas, coal, nuclear).

quote:
...if Fisker succeeds the government will have created jobs "for free"


Yeah, IF is the key point. Sorry bud, but if you need a $7,500 subsidy just to have a remote possibility of moving your product and your product is essentially a luxury item that will never be high volume there is little reason to cheerlead.

Weren't these green energy loans intended to get us to be energy independent so we do not need to rely on foreign imports of crude oil? The answer is yes, at least that's what was promised.

quote:
That's not say Mitt Romney won't be right in the long run, though. Fisker may yet prove to be a loser.


How's that chevy volt doing? Not so hot, eh. How's Tesla...yeah...still in business but kinda limping along. Don't need to dial back the clock very much to see that electric cars are just not catching on like the left wants them to.

WHY THE F NOT?

Who doesn't want to pay $50K-$150K for a car that is less reliable, slower, has shorter range and requires an additional charging dock to charge vs a car where they just fill up the tank and go?

quote:
And the loan program was originally signed into law in Dec. 2007, with funding signed into law in the Fall of 2008 by President George W. Bush.


The requisite "it was Bush's fault" segue followed by...

quote:
...the loan would never have been possible without deep commitment from some members of the Republican party.


There we go. Now we can absolve Obama from blame because *some* republicans supported the bill - but you don't go into detail as to why they supported it. Did they all have friends in the green energy industry waiting for loans like Obama did?

quote:
...most of the companies, universities, and projects that received loans are still alive and well, the paper says...

In other words, not only are 99 percent of the programs still on the route to repayment, the net loss on the green energy programs is less that expected .


Less than expected, but still a loss and still a poor allocation of $90 billion...because even if the projects are "alive and well" as your 'paper' claims, how does that help us as a country?

quote:
To Mitt Romney's credit, 67 percent of Americans thought he won the debate in a CNN opinion poll, compared to only 25 percent for Obama.


He won hands down without any doubt. It may be too soon to celebrate; Obama can still "recover" from this smack down but let's hope he does america a favor and stays down for the count.

quote:
But the fact remains he was definitely off base in many of his claims about the government's green energy efforts and was on shaky footing when he gave President Obama the blame -- or the credit -- for all of the green energy efforts, when many of those efforts were installed by his own Republican colleagues.


OK it's not a "fact", it's a conclusion you've arrived at based on some research.

Republicans want America to be able to sustain itself without relying on foreign nations for fuel imports. That is why they get involved with certain green energy, but none of what you said takes away from what Obama did authorize and nothing you said really invalidates any of Romney's comments.

Your entire article neglected to mention anything about how Obama's policies have been prohibiting or limiting domestic fuel production of natural gas, petroleum and coal...and that's the flipside of the $90 billion that was 'loaned' to 'green' companies. There has essentially been a blockade on domestic energy production that is not considered 'green' by liberals.




RE: Sources
By halbhh2 on 10/9/2012 11:35:51 PM , Rating: 2
Over the years, talk shows have created a new culture of just making up 'facts' which never stand up to examination.


Hey Tesla you forgot to mention
By shin0bi272 on 10/5/2012 4:12:46 PM , Rating: 1
That in testing your car broke once so bad that it was unrepairable on site and had to be shipped back to your worthless backwater "country" to be "fixed". The replacement a year later CAUGHT ON FIRE during testing.

Fuck you Fisker.




By shin0bi272 on 10/5/2012 4:25:31 PM , Rating: 2
Fisker sorry not Tesla... where did I get Tesla... wtf is wrong with me?


Fisker
By btc909 on 10/6/2012 2:30:57 PM , Rating: 2
Fisker: this crap company should have gone under already. Let someone else take it's place. I still have hope for Tesla.




By rika13 on 10/6/2012 9:04:05 PM , Rating: 2
The Chevy Volt was not only a complete lie (being a conventional hybrid instead of the series hybrid promised by GM) and both it and the Fisker will gladly set themselves on fire (the Volt after being wrecked, the Fisker for general purpose). Tesla was doing so bad Elon Musk tried to jump ship, but was forced by Obama to stay and they produced the first car that somebody can brick simply by charging it.

Combine this with is completely irresponsible 50+ MPG CAFE standard (which the industry only accepted because it was the only reliable number Obama would give) which would either guarantee another automaker bailout, simply not caring and passing the gas guzzler tax on to the customer, or finding a way to cheat by stating something is a light truck and getting lower requirements (minivans and SUVs came about this way). The reason why is because smaller cars with smaller engines sell fewer numbers and for less money, usually at little to no profit or even a loss.




By TheJian on 10/8/2012 4:43:14 AM , Rating: 2
I can't see how these 99% numbers can be true when just with solyndra/fisker you have 1Bil losses. That's already over 1% of 90Bil. Also no jobs from fisker are created in USA. Not ONE SINGLE car has been produced here. When we yanked the 2nd 500mil funding they closed up their plant and stayed in Finland. All workers in USA don't have a job now. So how is this a job gain? It's a total loss for us, and at best a few jobs for them to create cars that light on fire in USA...LOL. 118mil to Ener1 bankruptcy. Abound Solar was #17 on the DOE's hot 100 list to bite the dust?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-57463156-103...
"Abound will be the third company to declare bankruptcy in the Energy Department's 1705 program that guaranteed loans to 20 companies."
So 3 out of 20 down so far. Umm, isn't that higher than 1%?
CBS news isn't republican lovers either...LOL.

Beacon, which was approved for $43 million dollars, went bankrupt in Nov. 2011.

Jeez, just google, green energy bankruptcy and read all the news. It's right there in print on tons of sites that ARE NOT FOX :)

Solar? Yeah, panels made in china installed at the GSA buildings in USA...LOL. Again, green jobs created elsewhere is a TOTAL USA LOSS. Not only that, we're effectively funding the countries competing against our own workers and under cutting us (in the case of the solar panels and batteries). You shouldn't spend my tax dollars at all in vegas (all green energy investments are vegas essentially), and Govt. shouldn't be INVESTING in ANYTHING. Paying for a military contract isn't the same as rolling the dice on Solyndra. They can spin this all they want, it's a waste. However if we DRILL on our own land people go to WORK in USA to drill it, and we get the oil from here thus lowering gas prices. Instead of blocking coal and oil perhaps we should use it like everyone else does. Coal doesn't produce near the planet damage it did 50yrs ago (and china just burns recklessly helping them destroy us while we pay others to farm our energy), and gets better all the time. Never mind the fact that producing our own coal/oil=ENERGY INDEPENDENCE. Until private companies invest in anything the govt shouldn't be doing it either. If a private company won't touch X investment with a 10ft pole it's because it is a complete LOSER. ERGO you should avoid wasting tax payer dollars on this crap. I'd rather have a SS check in the future rather than batteries that light on fire and can be made cheaper in other countries for said fire...LOL.

FIRE OBAMA he is an idiot with a social agenda. Spread the wealth and weaken our country. Both bad. Don't even get me started on his foreign policy failure. 60 incidents in libya, and when requesting more security Obama admin denied it which lead to the deaths of an Ambassador, 2 Navy seals and another US citizen. That is a total failure. Meanwhile, the brits, french etc all left before July. They were ONE block away from our embassy and ran months before because they were NOT stupid. The two extremely BRAVE seals ran to the incident to help from a 1/2 mile away with basically no weapons or help. Obama sent NO military help to cover their a$$. We had people in the area that could have been summoned to protect the embassy. Instead obama waits for info to come in. We already knew we were attacked and should have went to defend the embassy. We should not have even had people in Libya, everyone else left long before knowing 9/11 would be a death day. How dumb is Obama? How dumb is Clinton? Both should be sued by the parents of all dead, for lack of protecting our people and denying the very help that would have saved their lives MANY times. The recovered CNN journal from the Ambassador clearly shows the man was afraid for his life, yet obama tries to cover this up and is pissed about them releasing what they didn't go in to find themselves! PUSSIES. FBI took 3 weeks to go in, but CNN had no trouble getting to the site? Send in a freaking battalion of men with the investigators and get some crap done. PUSSIES trying to hide his failed policies. Bush would have dropped bombs the second we found out we had dead people, and they were burning our flags chanting death to americans. Obama does nothing. They should have bombed every place flags were burning! These people only respect STRENGTH not weakness and appeasement. Burn our flag and we should BURN YOUR COUNTRY TO THE GROUND. An attack on our embassy is an ACT OF WAR. Syria sends a bomb that kills five citizens in Turkey, and the TURKS LAUNCH BOMBS MOMENTS LATER! This is the correct response. They did it for multiple days. Vote this idiot out or continue to watch our flags burn, our embassies get attacked and our people get killed.

Rice went on 5 tv shows claiming this was an attack based on some stupid video from 5 months earlier for a week after the attack when we knew within 24hrs it was REALLY a TERRORIST attack and probably involved al qaeda. Even libya stated this in 24hrs. J. Carney still claimed this video crap 3 weeks later, as did Obama in that spanish tv interview. Fire him for being stupid, or lying. Take your pick. For getting our people killed, put Obama, Clinton and Rice on trial, throw in Carney for lying his butt off too. They are their top people. There is no way Clinton and Obama don't know they are lying every single day on TV and to congress (in Rice's case). Send them all to jail. :)




By halbhh2 on 10/9/2012 11:33:00 PM , Rating: 2
Really?




Mick is a leftist shill
By superflex on 10/5/12, Rating: -1
Right on Schedule
By Reclaimer77 on 10/4/12, Rating: -1
RE: Right on Schedule
By mmntech on 10/4/2012 7:40:06 PM , Rating: 2
Yep, let's just keep spending taxpayer dollars to prop up a luxury automaker with an unreliable product nobody can afford. :P


RE: Right on Schedule
By corduroygt on 10/4/2012 7:44:10 PM , Rating: 2
Reality is anti-republican, deal with it.


RE: Right on Schedule
By Reclaimer77 on 10/4/12, Rating: -1
RE: Right on Schedule
By sedoo on 10/5/12, Rating: 0
RE: Right on Schedule
By Ringold on 10/5/2012 5:20:02 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yeah D is forward, forward to Greece and to Spain.


Modified that there for ya, in case cord was missing some relevant global perspective. :P


RE: Right on Schedule
By corduroygt on 10/5/2012 7:20:27 AM , Rating: 3
How about Germany and Netherlands? They're doing well.


RE: Right on Schedule
By Ammohunt on 10/5/12, Rating: 0
RE: Right on Schedule
By corduroygt on 10/5/2012 11:53:39 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
You sure about that? Germany has a cultural advantage(They're smart and most work hard with a cultural commonality i.e. they are not a melting pot of cultures)

Haven't seen such BS in my life. You do know that like 10-15% of Germans are Turks, right? Which is a totally different "culture" than what you consider to be "German" culture. It's also BS and quite racist to assume that Germans are smart and work hard because it's their inherent quality. Maybe it's because they have better education, did you ever think about that? Maybe it's because they don't have unbridled capitalism where companies pay their CEO's more than all their employees combined? Maybe it's because there is more income inequality?

You know what, America used to be like that in the 50's and 60's, and 90's and our economy prospered. Then we got all those tax breaks for the rich plus two wars that we did not have money for, and our economy is in the gutter. History shows that America's economy has done better when a D was in office compared to an R, at least in the last 30 years.


RE: Right on Schedule
By Ammohunt on 10/5/2012 1:32:55 PM , Rating: 2
LOL ask any ethnic German what they think about the Turks! I think i know Germans quite well thank you! having been born in Germany and lived there on a couple of occasions coupled with family members still living there. You should stick to topics you have some knowledge of..what are those again exactly?


RE: Right on Schedule
By corduroygt on 10/5/2012 1:45:49 PM , Rating: 2
Resorting to Mitt Romney tactics again. Not only you being born in Germany is probably not true, but it has no relevance on the arguments I posted. You just posted NOTHING of substance and made no claims against mine. You lose.


RE: Right on Schedule
By Ammohunt on 10/5/2012 3:01:46 PM , Rating: 2
You are trying to make the argument that Germany is a melting pot because of Turkish immigrants. Because you don't know; most Turks do not assimilate into the German society instead maintain what amounts to colonies with their own Turkish stores and communities the are generally hostile to Germans and mooch off the welfare state this is the reason to put it lightly Germans despise them at the same time tolerating them. Other EU countries just deport non-assimilated immigrants because the European Union is not a melting pot but rather a collection of insulated mono-cultures. Need examples of such read up on immigration issues in countries like France. Here since you are having some trouble

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=france+roma


RE: Right on Schedule
By corduroygt on 10/5/2012 3:56:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You are trying to make the argument that Germany is a melting pot because of Turkish immigrants. Because you don't know; most Turks do not assimilate into the German society instead maintain what amounts to colonies with their own Turkish stores and communities the are generally hostile to Germans and mooch off the welfare state this is the reason to put it lightly Germans

The assimilation rate of immigrants in the US is not really different. Asian people hang out together, and so do black people for the most part. I'm sure African-Americans "leech off" the welfare state in this country too according to your stupid right wing racist opinion.

So no, the case is not that different between USA and Germany, and as the unemployment numbers show, we are somewhat recovering.


RE: Right on Schedule
By Ringold on 10/5/2012 4:34:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm sure African-Americans "leech off" the welfare state in this country too according to your stupid right wing racist opinion.


You actually bring up an interesting fact! African immigrants in the US generally start at the bottom but quickly leave the lowest income groups, very, very rarely lingering where most native-born African Americans are. They also, when interviewed, don't at all have anything in common with their work ethic, etc.

quote:
So no, the case is not that different between USA and Germany, and as the unemployment numbers show, we are somewhat recovering.


Economists median forecast 8.2% consensus. Weeks before an election, BLS somehow finds the best improvement in the number of employed in 29 years so it can print a 7.8% rate, despite only 114k net new jobs.. Even though employment went up 873k.. If those numbers don't all make sense, well, I'm an economist and it seems suspect.

Suspect for America, at least. I expect shoddy numbers and manipulations out of Argentina, Venezeula, China, Africa in general.

Even still, if we believe the 114k number, no, that's in fact not improving. That barely keeps pace with population growth. At this rate, if we completely stopped having babies, it'd take about 15 years to reach what America would historically consider full employment.


RE: Right on Schedule
By shin0bi272 on 10/5/2012 4:55:11 PM , Rating: 1
actually the federal government in 1965 (you know the year after signing the civil rights act) under LBJ changed the aid to families with dependent children act from widows with dependent children to any woman with dependent children who wasnt married to receive free money as long as they didnt make enough money to support themselves and their kids already.

Then, since most blacks are concentrated in the cities, they sent social workers into the black areas of town and tried to recruit them into the program. In 1964 the rate of single parent black families was 15-20%... about the same as whites. In 1970... just 5 years after signing the change to AFDC... the black families were 72% single parent! The US government did more to kill the black family than any slave master ever could have.

They created a program that even with the best of intentions would have made economic slaves of anyone on it. And lets not forget from the time of the first slaves till 1963 the democrat party (well the anti-federalists prior to 1824 and just southern colonists prior to the revolution) fought tooth and nail for slavery, segregation, and keeping blacks as second class citizens... but we're supposed to believe that 300+ years of history went out the window in a year? They filibustered the civil rights act in 1963! Robert "sheets" Byrd (a recruiter for the KKK in WV for over 40 years) led the filibuster! Then next year they all change their minds? I dont think so!

The worst part of it? The blacks that do vote 97% of the time vote for the party that kept them down for 300 years! Why? Because they give them free shit in exchange for not getting married, taking responsibility for their actions, and voting democrat.

Oh sorry did I ruin your little leftist grip on the world?


RE: Right on Schedule
By Ammohunt on 10/6/2012 10:12:45 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
according to your stupid right wing racist opinion.


Typical liberal pull the race card when you have no argument.

There is no other country in the world that has a many different people from every country in the world living together in relative harmony.

There are always malcontents that have no interest in assimilating let alone getting along like the openly racist organizations like the National Council of La Raza and Council on American–Islamic Relations but they are in the minority of groups in this county.


RE: Right on Schedule
By Ringold on 10/5/2012 4:22:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
but it has no relevance on the arguments I posted.


You didn't really post an "argument," you pointed at two countries with significantly different policy positions and, like a child, went "what about them?"

Honestly can't speak a lot to the Netherlands. But the German economy is radically different, from its job training scheme that is integrated deeply in to its education system, to subdued labor union wage demands, deeply culturally engrained fiscal rectitude, much freer labor markets, etc.

Germany barely at all resembles France.


RE: Right on Schedule
By FITCamaro on 10/5/2012 7:54:31 AM , Rating: 2
If by reality you mean ignore history and facts, then yes reality is certainly aligned with the Democrat party.

For all liberals supposed love of science, they sure ignore it and history when convenient. Is a baby in the womb a human being with a right to life? Well science says yes but we're just going to call it a fetus and a choice. Does science say that carbon dating just completely ignoring that its preposterous to assume that the amount of carbon in the atmosphere being the same throughout all of history is bad science? Well yeah but we can't meet our goals without it... Does history teach us that Obama's policies don't work? Well yes but we'll ignore that part...


RE: Right on Schedule
By shin0bi272 on 10/5/2012 4:41:10 PM , Rating: 2
Actually the platform of the republican party is more in line with freedom and prosperity than any other party platform except maybe the libertarians.

The reality of the situation is that the republicans believe if I work for my money the government shouldnt be entitled to take it so that they can give it to their dependents in exchange for votes.

You want another dose of reality? Progressivism/historicism/liberalism/communism/soci alism all lead to one place... poverty. When the man with a dollar more than you is your slave and the man with a dollar less than you is your master there can be no prosperity.

Hell if you take social(ist) security and medicare together their budgets come to about 1.3 trillion dollars a year... A YEAR. Thats straight up taking money from the young healthy people and giving it to the old frail people...ponzischemesayswhat? If you took all the income this year of people who make 250k and up... 100% tax rate... you'd have just under a trillion dollars. So you cant even fund those 2 programs and it would bankrupt 99% of all businesses in the country! Imagine the unemployment rate then!

Raising taxes on "the evil rich people" wont fix the problem! We have to have the elimination of entire federal programs to survive as a nation and we need them NOW. The government is already 16 trillion in the hole... they're bankrupt! Their debt is equal to the total amount of money our country puts out!

Its unsustainable... even obama admits it. But does he stop spending? nope! Does the fed raise interest rates? nope! Does the fed stop printing money? nope!

Hows that for reality? Too harsh?


RE: Right on Schedule
By KCjoker on 10/4/2012 7:51:30 PM , Rating: 2
I'm fine with no more subsidies for Oil...however then we shouldn't offer subsidies to green energy or anything else as well. Especially since many of those green energy companies that Obama gave to were big surprise his suporters. And I didn't want Bush giving to his buddies either. Companies should succeed or fail on their own merits not the government picking winners and losers.


RE: Right on Schedule
By Moishe on 10/5/2012 4:01:04 PM , Rating: 2
How about stopping all subsidies? I'd vote for that.

No more Billions to other countries. No more welfare. No more tax deductions on the interest I pay on my home mortgage.

End it all... that way, it will be painfully obvious who the moochers are that are living off the teat of those who work and sweat.


RE: Right on Schedule
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 10/4/2012 7:52:49 PM , Rating: 3
NSFW, NSFW Language

If you're easily offended, don't click

http://i46.tinypic.com/307x05d.jpg

Obama definitely got his ass handed to him last night. It's like he just phoned it in. He just sat there and "ummed" and "uhhed" his way through it. I wasn't expecting Obama to give a stellar performance by any means, but I also didn't expect him to look so utterly pathetic.

OTOH, Romney came off quite presidential IMHO. You know you got pwned when even Chris Matthews wouldn't even defend him.


RE: Right on Schedule
By Reclaimer77 on 10/4/12, Rating: 0
RE: Right on Schedule
By corduroygt on 10/4/12, Rating: 0
RE: Right on Schedule
By jimbojimbo on 10/5/2012 12:06:19 AM , Rating: 1
Obama is more of a liar especially on huge issues. Did CNN get to televise the health care forum discussions like he promised? No. Were no lobbyists involved like he promised? The main insurance lobbyist was one of the members. These were blatant lies and he could have followed through with his promises but he knows that regardless of what he does there's a huge group of people that'll vote for him regardless of anything since he'll always be of a certain race and another huge group that'll vote for him because they for some reason feel racial guilt.


RE: Right on Schedule
By tamalero on 10/5/2012 4:06:41 AM , Rating: 2
considering top lobbyists have always been on the Republican side, I find this laughable.

now consider the following:

Obama had a healthcare plan..
republicans ripped it apart.
Obama decided to then support the Healthcare bill pushed by Romney.
Romney now magically is against said healthcare bill.

so, whasup? plans are only good plans if they are made by republicans and approved by republicans?


RE: Right on Schedule
By MeesterNid on 10/5/2012 8:57:46 AM , Rating: 2
...considering you can predicate your arguments on sophomoric suppositions I find this stupendously asinine!

Seriously though, can you point us to where you found this delightful "factoid" about "top lobbyists" (I honestly didn't realize there was a hierarchical structure between lobbyists) being "on the Republican side". Wait, I know it's probably a "well known fact" which warrants no citation, right?

On the healthcare plan...the "plan" is a 2k+ page travesty that got pushed through using parliamentary semantics, i.e. our voices (via elected representatives) were never heard. It also continues to look more expensive as time goes by, so what they billed it as costing when they "passed" it was a lie.

Paul Ryan's budget was never even given a chance while neither the President nor the previously democrat-controlled legislature had an alternative.

At this point I'd say that it's not that the only plans are good plans only if they are made and approved by republicans, but that the ONLY plans that are made are those made by republicans whether they are passed or not.

Cheers.


RE: Right on Schedule
By Trisped on 10/5/2012 2:23:39 AM , Rating: 1
If Obama doesn't have a prompt to read he doesn't have an intelligent word to say.


RE: Right on Schedule
By Ringold on 10/5/2012 5:27:40 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
We have to go forward.


I think he picked that word, 'forward', as his campaign slogan not because its any sort of slick marketing word or has positive connotations, etc.

Obama picked "forward" as a way to jab a needle in the retina of every educated, intelligent conservative, every single day. Why? Because anybody with two neurons to rub together and is familiar with political history knows "forward" has been the favorite slogan of every two-bit communist activist, newspaper and book ever since Karl Marx was a glimmer in his daddies eye.

He know his own lemmings were far too dumb and uninterested to pick up on that, he knew the media was under his boot and would never report that historical curiosity, but he knew his arch-enemies, the historical liberals, that actually know their history.. he knew it would bug the shit out of us every day until his last day in office.

Congratulations, Obama, you epic jerk. It works.


RE: Right on Schedule
By corduroygt on 10/5/2012 7:31:32 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Obama picked "forward" as a way to jab a needle in the retina of every educated, intelligent conservative, every single day.

Good thing there aren't too many of those:
http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/01/04/09...


RE: Right on Schedule
By blargsoup on 10/4/2012 9:34:29 PM , Rating: 4
Romney did not come off as presidential, he came off as confident. Making up a bunch of bullshit should not be considered winning a debate.


RE: Right on Schedule
By sedoo on 10/5/2012 2:21:33 AM , Rating: 1
Isn't that how the messiah got into office, lol.

Oh I forgot being Presidential is being a unprepared idiot, Obama then was very Presidential!


RE: Right on Schedule
By FITCamaro on 10/5/2012 8:00:41 AM , Rating: 1
Obama doesn't like it when people look him in the eye and disagree with him. He's used to getting his way or simply not showing up.

Obama rarely looked Romney in the eye. Romney stared Obama down.

And as another comment said. Obama can't stand up there and articulate his beliefs. Because he'd prove every conservative right. The man has to hide his beliefs from the view of the voters.

Romney is unequivocally a better leader. Does that mean I like him in every aspect? Hell no. But he's a proven, successful businessman who knows how to create jobs and balance a checkbook. He knows how the markets work. Obama only knows how he thinks the markets should work, but don't.


RE: Right on Schedule
By corduroygt on 10/5/2012 10:03:15 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
But he's a proven, successful businessman who knows how to create jobs and balance a checkbook.

Shame those jobs are not in the United States.


RE: Right on Schedule
By Moishe on 10/5/2012 4:18:00 PM , Rating: 2
Many of them were in the U.S.

How many net Obama jobs have been created? Why is it so hard for people to admit that Politician X has failed? Why does his fate somehow upset you? He and Romney are the same people, except Obama has a record of utter failure and Romney does not.

I gave Obama a chance. He failed. Now let's more forward with someone else.


RE: Right on Schedule
By corduroygt on 10/5/2012 5:30:10 PM , Rating: 2
Thankfully the demographics of this nation and the Electoral College system disagree with you. Obama will still win, and you repigs will be crying again.


RE: Right on Schedule
By corduroygt on 10/5/2012 6:08:12 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I gave Obama a chance. He failed. Now let's more forward with someone else.

You're going to give a chance to a blatant liar who's only position and principle is the one he benefits from? Someone who has no concept of what being poor means? Someone who calls 47% of all Americans parasites? Who smiles after 4 Americans get killed in the Libya embassy?

You might not like Obama, and I presume a lot of that has to do with the way he looks in your case, but Romney is a despicable human being.


RE: Right on Schedule
By Ringold on 10/5/2012 7:33:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Someone who has no concept of what being poor means?


Perhaps you're on to something. Hey, guys! Lets see what Octo-Mom is up to these next 4 years. Maybe that Obamaphone woman from youtube! Those are some track records in life we can all respect!


RE: Right on Schedule
By corduroygt on 10/5/2012 9:15:09 PM , Rating: 2
They are neither successful nor running for president. Why look there when there's Obama there, a success story in itself vs. Romney who's born with a silver spoon on his hand. Who is more likely to know the problems of the average citizen?

Stop defending Romney, he's a hack and even the Republicans know it.


RE: Right on Schedule
By Azethoth on 10/4/2012 7:54:19 PM , Rating: 1
Did you read the article? It is specifically not anti-republican. Facts in it indicate Republicans like green energy just fine. Maybe one day when Obama is out of office people can stop being hysterical and get real about telling Saudi Arabia to fuck off.

Remember the 9/11 attackers: 4 random Arabs, 15 Saudis.

So yeah, fuck Saudi Arabia and their goddamned oil. Every penny spent making alternatives cheaper is worth it. Every President since Carter has known this. George Bush finally got real about it and Obama is continuing down the green road.

Telling the Saudis to go fuck themselves is patriotic, not ideological.


RE: Right on Schedule
By jimbojimbo on 10/4/2012 8:05:26 PM , Rating: 2
Panzies are voting you down. We need complete energy independence but only that we need to start mining for rare earth metals immediately so we aren't in the same situation with China... although they already do kind of own us.


RE: Right on Schedule
By Ringold on 10/5/2012 5:33:13 AM , Rating: 2
Who is being hysterical about energy? I see Republican's wanting to do exactly what you say, throw the doors open to energy production on federal land, drill anywhere we can, build new refineries, new pipelines... Make more then we need? Sell it to China!

It's the hard-left that sends activists and lawyers across the nation to protest and tie up in red tape any energy project they can find. Even most green projects aren't green enough for them.

So you're right, maybe if its a decisive election and the anti-growth, anti-civilization trolls are booted out of office, then adults can get to work building pipelines, drilling wells, rebooting our chemical industries with cheap energy, and exporting refined product to the world.


RE: Right on Schedule
By corduroygt on 10/5/2012 7:37:57 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
I see Republican's wanting to do exactly what you say, throw the doors open to energy production on federal land, drill anywhere we can, build new refineries, new pipelines... Make more then we need? Sell it to China!

1. Just being able to start pumping a meaningful amount of domestic oil will take decades.
2. What will we do when that runs out?

So it's OK to invest in drilling which will take decades to pay off and run out a few years later, but not OK to invest in green technology which will also take decades to pay off but won't run out?

Logic how does that work?


RE: Right on Schedule
By Ringold on 10/5/2012 4:41:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
1. Just being able to start pumping a meaningful amount of domestic oil will take decades.


People thought that about shale gas in America too. Woops! Fact is, when you get out of the way, these companies move much quicker than the left gives them credit for.

quote:
2. What will we do when that runs out?


Over simplification that the left defaults to for lack of understanding how markets work. You never "run out" of anything, things simply get more expensive until development of an alternative makes sense. Those gears are already turning, but things like expanded geothermal aren't there yet. Other options do work, like nuclear, if we only wanted to take advantage.

But in the mean time, you'd have us strangle our economy apparently.

quote:
So it's OK to invest in drilling which will take decades to pay off and run out a few years later,


Energy companies the world over, state owned and private both, seem to do pretty darn well for the investment analysis to really be anywhere close to that dire. But trying to debate anything remotely related to economics with you is pretty pointless.


RE: Right on Schedule
By corduroygt on 10/5/2012 5:33:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Over simplification that the left defaults to for lack of understanding how markets work. You never "run out" of anything, things simply get more expensive until development of an alternative makes sense.

So what will you do in the meantime where gas is so expensive that it costs more to drill than the amount you get and no alternatives have been developed. Collapse of civilization? Free market would NEVER have built the interstates we had in the 50's, that's a fact. For some things like energy policy, you do need the government to help out.

quote:
But trying to debate anything remotely related to economics with you is pretty pointless.

Then why do you keep doing it. You're going to lose big in November anyway, and I will be rubbing it in your face all the time.


RE: Right on Schedule
By Ringold on 10/5/2012 7:37:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So what will you do in the meantime where gas is so expensive that it costs more to drill than the amount you get and no alternatives have been developed.


The hell are you talking about? Global prices are much higher, nat gas prices in the US are only low because production exploded quicker than we could build LNG export terminals! In fact, we're retooling LNG import terminals, because just a few years ago we thought we'd have to be importing tons of the stuff.

Long-run, China is eager to buy everything we can ship them, at prices that'll put a smile on our faces.

quote:
Free market would NEVER have built the interstates we had in the 50's


Hahaha, liberal rage is kicking in! Nobody claims there's not a role for infrastructure spending as a function of government, sure. But that wasn't mentioned anywhere above! You're just foaming at the mouth, now.

quote:
You're going to lose big in November anyway, and I will be rubbing it in your face all the time.


That's what you guys said too, before Reagan won by land slide.


RE: Right on Schedule
By corduroygt on 10/5/2012 9:17:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That's what you guys said too, before Reagan won by land slide.

US demographics are DRASTICALLY different today than in 1980. Romney really has no chance, because he's only getting a single digit percentage of the minority vote.

But I bookmarked this post, and I'll link to it come November.


RE: Right on Schedule
By Azethoth on 10/6/2012 5:20:58 AM , Rating: 2
Not hysterical about energy. Hysterical that a black guy / democrat is president. There is also a certain amount of hysteria about funding green R&D. Some people in here get apoplectic about electric cars or hybrids or whatever.

The first part is whatever the hell makes your clock tick, I don't care.

The second part is serious business. Science doesn't discover itself. It needs funding.

Soon, my inside source says next year, solar starts gaining parity. It will actually start to make clear unambiguous economic sense to indulge in solar because it will be straight up cheaper. Even if they are wrong in their projection, we are still talking about a matter of a few years for this to happen.

This is a good thing. But it took a lot of public and private money.

I hear you about retardivists stopping green projects, energy projects, nuclear, whatever. It makes me sad. Just as sad are retardavists that deny climate change despite the compelling scientific evidence.

I will vote for your adults!


RE: Right on Schedule
By Moishe on 10/5/2012 4:20:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Every penny spent making alternatives cheaper is worth it.


No. I agree that we need to make alternatives and get the hell off arab oil... but we can't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

There has to be balance. There has to be time taken and transition.


"Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine." -- Bill Gates














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki