Green Energy

[mercury14]

March 31, 2012
There Obama Goes Again
By Larry Kudlow

Frankly, the most pro-growth corporate-tax policy would be 100 percent cash-expensing for new investment, a slashed corporate tax rate, and no more subsidies, preferences and carve-outs. That would be an unbelievable job-creator.

That's just more trickle-down economics though. Jobs aren't created by corporate tax cuts, they're created by customers increasing demand for goods and services.

Cut corporate taxes to 0% while consumer demand remains the same and not one job will be created. Why would companies hire when they're meeting demand with their current staffing?

 

[RightField]

That's just more trickle-down economics though. Jobs aren't created by corporate tax cuts, they're created by customers increasing demand for goods and services.

Cut corporate taxes to 0% while consumer demand remains the same and not one job will be created. Why would companies hire when they're meeting demand with their current staffing?

You're 180 degrees off.

Supply-side economics works. Demand-side doesn't as has been amply proved by Obamanomics with it's perennially high unemployment rates.

I will concede a little, Obama's policies seem to keep demand up for big screen TV's built in China.

We had 4.5% unemployment with Bush policies and 8.3% with Obama. Obama has been "stimulating" demand for 3 years with over $5T in new deficit spending and we still have 8.3% unemployment.

 

[mercury14]

You're 180 degrees off.

Supply-side economics works. Demand-side doesn't as has been amply proved by Obamanomics with it's perennially high unemployment rates.

I will concede a little, Obama's policies seem to keep demand up for big screen TV's built in China.

We had 4.5% unemployment with Bush policies and 8.3% with Obama. Obama has been "stimulating" demand for 3 years with over $5T in new deficit spending and we still have 8.3% unemployment.

Wait, you think the unemployment rate Obama was handed before his policies could come into effect was because of his policies?

Btw, unemployment with Bush policies wasn't 4.5%. It was a range of 4.5% to 8.3%, and that's only if you foolishly think that his policies didn't have any impact into 2009 after he left office.

 

[RightField]

Wait, you think the unemployment rate Obama was handed before his policies could come into effect was because of his policies?

Btw, unemployment with Bush policies wasn't 4.5%. It was a range of 4.5% to 8.3%, and that's only if you foolishly think that his policies didn't have any impact into 2009 after he left office.

You're wrong. And yes, Democrat policies caused the crash and Obama's policies have prolonged it.

However, this is a thread about Obama's schizophrenic energy policies, not his disasterous economic policies.

 

[mercury14]

You're wrong. And yes, Democrat policies caused the crash and Obama's policies have prolonged it.

However, this is a thread about Obama's schizophrenic energy policies, not his disasterous economic policies.

And you've never named one single demand-side economic reason for the crash. But now all of the sudden it it "just is".

 

[Sean Renaud]

You're wrong. And yes, Democrat policies caused the crash and Obama's policies have prolonged it.

However, this is a thread about Obama's schizophrenic energy policies, not his disasterous economic policies.

What Democrat policy caused the crash?

 

[mercury14]

What Democrat policy caused the crash?

Prepare for a litany of reasons stemming from president Clinton that ignore the fact that they were condoned by his Republican legislature.... and were continued and expanded upon during the Bush+republican total control years. Doesn't matter though, because Republicans can't be held accountable for their chosen policies if they originated in previous years.

That sums up his past arguments. Maybe he'll have something new for us this time.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Prepare for a litany of reasons stemming from president Clinton that ignore the fact that they were condoned by his Republican legislature.... and were continued and expanded upon during the Bush+republican total control years. Doesn't matter though, because Republicans can't be held accountable for their chosen policies if they originated in previous years.

That sums up his past arguments. Maybe he'll have something new for us this time.

Hey that's better than the logic I've seen here and in a few blogs where apparently it was simply the Democrats having a majority of the congress. It wasn't any act they'd taken it was just magic. Remember how the stock market plummet was because it looked like Obama was going to receive the nomination?

 

[mercury14]

Hey that's better than the logic I've seen here and in a few blogs where apparently it was simply the Democrats having a majority of the congress. It wasn't any act they'd taken it was just magic. Remember how the stock market plummet was because it looked like Obama was going to receive the nomination?

And the subsequent "the stock market will never rebound from 6,500 because Obama's "uncertainty"" Good stuff.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I'm ever so slightly shocked that they've never thought to claim that the increases in the stock market and lowering unemployment and recovery stuff started in 2010 and was directly related to the more Republicans being congress. They don't actually have to do anything to effect the market. If we had 100% Republicans the Market would race along and if we had 100% it would simply die under it's own weight.

 

[mercury14]

I'm ever so slightly shocked that they've never thought to claim that the increases in the stock market and lowering unemployment and recovery stuff started in 2010 and was directly related to the more Republicans being congress. They don't actually have to do anything to effect the market. If we had 100% Republicans the Market would race along and if we had 100% it would simply die under it's own weight.

How come unemployment turned around once the stimulus was implemented? Coincidence?

 

[Byron In Exile]

I hope you're right. The middle east has been in a state of war for many years now, sometimes big, sometimes small, but seemingly always going on.

The age of brief catastrophic wars that devastated great nations, separated by interludes of peace, is over.

The age of perpetual wars, which for most is just something to watch on CNN during dinner, has begun.

Long ago (perhaps not so long for some), there was a time when one great nation could fight against another, and actually win. And, in modern times, greater resources tended to win the day. But in those times, nations were separated and could function self-sufficiently for years (which, in war, they often would have to do). Now, their economies are inextricably bound together, and with that, the manufacture of their weapons. There isn't a single defense system in the US arsenal today that isn't dependent upon parts made in foreign countries. Imagine the US going to war against a country that 95% of its memory chips come from, with no domestic capability of manufacturing them. Imagine what would happen to everyone's 401k retirement plans if the US went to war with China or Russia.

No, war now is confined to the runt states of the world, like Panama, Iraq, Libya... where life is cheap and their dictators refuse to bow to the powerful states whose governments are under the control of a unified financial system.

 

[RightField]

Obama's Energy Policy Is Pure Parody
Thursday, April 5, 2012 07:45 PM
By: Deroy Murdock

From the sublime to the ridiculous, the Obama administration's energy policy has devolved into self-parody.

President Barack Obama recently announced that he would accelerate the construction of — ta da! — the southern half of the Keystone XL Pipeline.

This portion, conveniently enough, does not reach Canada, which yearns to send America petroleum from its oil sands in Alberta. Obama's move is like building an airport runway while banning the taxiway that would connect it to the passenger terminal.

The only thing sillier than Obama's plan would have been announcing it while wearing pants, but nothing north of his waist.

Obama, naturally, shirks responsibility for keeping Keystone a pipe dream. As he claims, "The rushed and arbitrary deadline insisted on by congressional Republicans prevented a full assessment of the pipeline's impact."

Rushed?

Team Obama has had its entire tenure to study Keystone. As a State Department time line confirms, it received TransCanada's Keystone application on Sept. 19, 2008, under President George W. Bush.

As Obama was inaugurated on Jan. 20, 2009, Washington already had evaluated Keystone for four months and one day. It weighed Keystone for nearly three more years, whereupon Obama claimed that GOP monsters forced him into a snap judgment within 60 days of last Dec. 23's payroll-tax holiday legislation.

So, on Jan. 18 Obama spiked Keystone rather than decide too quickly.
"John Boehner ate my homework" is neither a policy nor an excuse.

Facing high gasoline prices, Obama says, "We can't simply drill our way out of the problem" while bragging that "We're drilling all over the place."

As if to underscore this non sequitur, Obama spoke March 21 in Maljamar, N.M. before at least a half dozen oil wells.

This was a gripping visual, except that the wells stood perfectly still.

Motionless oil wells. What a perfect, Obamaite metaphor. According to the Institute for Energy Research, oil production grew 14 percent on private property last year. However, it shrank 11 percent on federal acreage, which is controlled by Obama.

An average gallon of gasoline has climbed from $1.84 when Obama entered office to $3.94 today. Despite this 114 percent increase, Energy Secretary Steven Chu told a House hearing, "I would give myself a little higher" than an A-minus on fuel prices.

Week by week, today's mounting costs are fulfilling Chu's Christmas wish, famously whispered to the Wall Street Journal in December 2008, that "Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe."

According to the House Republican Study Committee, drivers in France now pay about $7.80 per gallon. Germans shell out $8.10 while Italian motorists surrender $9 for a gallon of gas. Perhaps this is why Chu has abandoned his former, potentially toxic words. "I no longer share that view," he told senators last month.

Chu's department has subsidized at least eight green-energy companies that have gone bankrupt. While electric-car manufacturer Fisker has avoided Chapter 11, it hardly is enjoying life in the fast lane.

Although Fisker got a $529 million loan guarantee from Energy, of which it had drawn $169 million, Consumer Reporter wrote, "Our Fisker Karma cost us $107,850 . . . We buy about 80 cars a year, and this is the first time in memory that we have had a car that is un-drivable before it has finished our check-in process."

In February, Fisker halted production at its Delaware plant and sacked 26 workers.

"We're beginning to sequence the microorganisms in the gut of a termite," Chu explained. Someday, Chu envisioned, microbes inside termite intestines could be modified to convert cellulose into ethanol.

Scary? You bet!

Chu confessed, "This has sort of a Frankenstein air to it."

Behold Team Obama's "Hope and change" battle cry for 2012:
"Put a termite in your tank!"

 

[mercury14]

RightField, it doesn't matter what your author says about the pipeline being rushed or not. There's been a timetable in place for quite a while. That's nice that it "feels" too long to your author but he doesn't seem to be considering all the facts. He certainly doesn't mention many.

 

[sigh]

Obama's Energy Policy Is Pure Parody
Thursday, April 5, 2012 07:45 PM
By: Deroy Murdock

From the sublime to the ridiculous, the Obama administration's energy policy has devolved into self-parody.

President Barack Obama recently announced that he would accelerate the construction of — ta da! — the southern half of the Keystone XL Pipeline.

This portion, conveniently enough, does not reach Canada, which yearns to send America petroleum from its oil sands in Alberta. Obama's move is like building an airport runway while banning the taxiway that would connect it to the passenger terminal.

The only thing sillier than Obama's plan would have been announcing it while wearing pants, but nothing north of his waist.

Obama, naturally, shirks responsibility for keeping Keystone a pipe dream. As he claims, "The rushed and arbitrary deadline insisted on by congressional Republicans prevented a full assessment of the pipeline's impact."

Rushed?

Team Obama has had its entire tenure to study Keystone. As a State Department time line confirms, it received TransCanada's Keystone application on Sept. 19, 2008, under President George W. Bush.

As Obama was inaugurated on Jan. 20, 2009, Washington already had evaluated Keystone for four months and one day. It weighed Keystone for nearly three more years, whereupon Obama claimed that GOP monsters forced him into a snap judgment within 60 days of last Dec. 23's payroll-tax holiday legislation.

So, on Jan. 18 Obama spiked Keystone rather than decide too quickly.
"John Boehner ate my homework" is neither a policy nor an excuse.

Facing high gasoline prices, Obama says, "We can't simply drill our way out of the problem" while bragging that "We're drilling all over the place."

As if to underscore this non sequitur, Obama spoke March 21 in Maljamar, N.M. before at least a half dozen oil wells.

This was a gripping visual, except that the wells stood perfectly still.

Motionless oil wells. What a perfect, Obamaite metaphor. According to the Institute for Energy Research, oil production grew 14 percent on private property last year. However, it shrank 11 percent on federal acreage, which is controlled by Obama.

An average gallon of gasoline has climbed from $1.84 when Obama entered office to $3.94 today. Despite this 114 percent increase, Energy Secretary Steven Chu told a House hearing, "I would give myself a little higher" than an A-minus on fuel prices.

Week by week, today's mounting costs are fulfilling Chu's Christmas wish, famously whispered to the Wall Street Journal in December 2008, that "Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe."

According to the House Republican Study Committee, drivers in France now pay about $7.80 per gallon. Germans shell out $8.10 while Italian motorists surrender $9 for a gallon of gas. Perhaps this is why Chu has abandoned his former, potentially toxic words. "I no longer share that view," he told senators last month.

Chu's department has subsidized at least eight green-energy companies that have gone bankrupt. While electric-car manufacturer Fisker has avoided Chapter 11, it hardly is enjoying life in the fast lane.

Although Fisker got a $529 million loan guarantee from Energy, of which it had drawn $169 million, Consumer Reporter wrote, "Our Fisker Karma cost us $107,850 . . . We buy about 80 cars a year, and this is the first time in memory that we have had a car that is un-drivable before it has finished our check-in process."

In February, Fisker halted production at its Delaware plant and sacked 26 workers.

"We're beginning to sequence the microorganisms in the gut of a termite," Chu explained. Someday, Chu envisioned, microbes inside termite intestines could be modified to convert cellulose into ethanol.

Scary? You bet!

Chu confessed, "This has sort of a Frankenstein air to it."

Behold Team Obama's "Hope and change" battle cry for 2012:
"Put a termite in your tank!"

We are drilling all over the place, and we can't simply drill our way out of the problem. Those two statements are not in conflict with each other. Both can be true. Someone needs to explain to the author what a non sequitur is.

Sorry, RF, this is just more sensationalism.

 

[miles]

Green energy is just another failed pipedream of the left. Maybe one day they'll come back down to earth.

 

[mercury14]

Green energy is just another failed pipedream of the left. Maybe one day they'll come back down to earth.

Except when Republicans support green energy, then it's sound policy.

 

[sigh]

Human insulin, a mainstay in treatment for diabetics, is bioengineered and produced by genetically altered microorganisms. Despite its seemingly odd source, the result is a protein that is exactly the same as that produced in the pancreas of the human body, and is far safer to use than either bovine or pork insulin, which previously was all we had to work with.

So engineering the microorganisms in the body of a termite to produce ethanol is no joke. It's absolutely possible. In fact, ethanol is a far simpler molecule than insulin. By denigrating this process, the author is displaying his complete ignorance of the topic.

 

[RightField]

We are drilling all over the place, and we can't simply drill our way out of the problem. Those two statements are not in conflict with each other. Both can be true. Someone needs to explain to the author what a non sequitur is.

Sorry, RF, this is just more sensationalism.

Yes, but like any good humor, it starts with a kernal of truth (Obama's energy policy is schizophrenic) and adds a bit of levity.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Yes, but like any good humor, it starts with a kernal of truth (Obama's energy policy is schizophrenic) and adds a bit of levity.

Except it isn't.

 

[RightField]

Except when Republicans support green energy, then it's sound policy.

I support green energy where practical. I just don't support the fraud and wasteful spending inherent in Solyndra and the many other failed energy programs that seem to have magically enriched many democrat insiders even while other non-insiders lost jobs and their investments. I have hopes for Algae in the future....but it's been an ongoing program for many years and hasn't produced the hoped-for results yet and it certainly won't be doing so in the near term either.

 

[RightField]

Except it isn't.

We going to do this again...

"Does so"

 

[Peregrinator]

I support green energy where practical. I just don't support the fraud and wasteful spending inherent in Solyndra and the many other failed energy programs that seem to have magically enriched many democrat insiders even while other non-insiders lost jobs and their investments. I have hopes for Algae in the future....but it's been an ongoing program for many years and hasn't produced the hoped-for results yet and it certainly won't be doing so in the near term either.

Cue coastal_boy/Dribble, a biologist who has been doing that very thing for years...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

That's just more trickle-down economics though. Jobs aren't created by corporate tax cuts, they're created by customers increasing demand for goods and services.

Cut corporate taxes to 0% while consumer demand remains the same and not one job will be created. Why would companies hire when they're meeting demand with their current staffing?

Because if you are not expanding you are dying.

If you eliminate the corporate tax, then you make their companies more efficient for they can now plan for the business cycle of their industry and not the tax cycle, plus they can stop wasting perfectly good Capital bribing members of the House and Senate, or even, as in the case of BP, the President.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Cue coastal_boy/Dribble, a biologist who has been doing that very thing for years...

So what?

If it's on the government dime, he could be simply pissing in the wind chasing pipe dreams.

Then there's the education bubble pumping out higher and higher degrees to lesser and lesser students filling the world with average minds chasing profound goals.