dayman

And by the way to act like we don't fund R&D? We don't already do this? This is a new idea from Romney and it requires the elimination of green tax cuts?

Oh I see you are anti-market. I didn't realize that my bad.

We're not talking loan guarantees to select companies. We're talking tax credits to industries.

I'm talking about production and investment tax credits....idk why you are still talking about Solyndra. You see, this is why what I described above of mixed messaging hurts America.

Solyndra speak about government picking winners used to defeat tax credits politically is bad IMO. And R&D v. Tax Credits is false choice. It's not a 0 sum game. It's not a liberal position.

You shouldn't convince your base good ideas are bad by associating them with different ideas.

The quote I posted that I don't like is dirty IMO b/c speaking to Solyndra (even though you aren't mentioning them) to vilify tax credits is dirty.

damn I need to learn to speak (*#lj4)@ I can't follow discussion these days

Romney will remove specific things that work and replace them with "regulatory reform and R&D and production." Ok, he's got a plan. I realize that now. Haha, look I don't care about the politics of energy. Whoever is elected needs to keep the incentives and credits for domestic production of green energy, frack smart and a lot, and position ourselves for the future in a way that keeps up w/ China and Germany. It's not some voodoo. Parlaying Solyndra into making green energy a bad thing and tax credits wasteful government spending is just backwards political inertia.

LOL look I didn't realize quoting a Romney spokesperson from the 5 hour old article posted in the 1st post was spouting misinformation.

Tax credits and incentives for domestic production of wind, solar, tidal, etc...that kills oil and coal? And nobody is trying to kill gas. Romney either doesn't get the energy game or he's playing up the "love oil, green energy is bull ****" angle for election purposes. I hope it's the latter if he wins.

A shade better than what?

hehe

The % of the 30% of the stimulus that invested in some various green energy efforts may be bad business as far as some are concerned but tax credits, incentives, things of that nature that help spur us to prosper in new/green energy are important. We can't be the only retarded country sitting around doing nothing about energy except building pipelines and drilling more offshore.

"He will allow the wind credit to expire, end the stimulus boondoggles, and create a level playing field on which all sources of energy can compete on their merits," Romney spokesman Shawn McCoy told the Register. "Wind energy will thrive wherever it is economically competitive, and wherever private sector competitors with far more experience than the president believe the investment will produce results." Bleh, Romney's national energy policy is "I don't have an energy policy?"

Whoever is running the search should pick himself.

Pretty sure the guy who is arguing against this idea would take issue with the "little bump" he got from who his Dad was.

Really? I give my money to Chik-Fil-A b/c their chicken is the best in fast food. I then give it to HBO b/c they have the best original programming.

haha this is actually kind of good...except for the part about Trent being better

Him and Gore made regulatory reform a major issue and i supported that and always will. Us wacky liberal folk aren't for regulation purely for regulations sake. We aren't anti-regulation either. Smart, effective regulation when necessary is an important function of government. Too much, too complicated, not needed, not effective...all bad. But regulation itself is not the devil. And in any event Clinton regrets the Glass-steagall repeal. Point being though, regulatry reform is a constant battle we should always as a country strive to balance the interests in any regulatory enviroment...but war on regulation in general is nothing more than an anti-government talking point that ignores history.

You're a Reagan fan. I like Clinton also...and we can throw anyone else in there. What promise does Romney have that we've seen in the past?

So Romney is the greatest Presidential prospect since Peyton Manning?

That is fair enough. The counter argument of course is that the President isn't the manager of a hedge fund and it's a position unlike any other and with all his mistakes and successes (whatever anyone may think they are) Obama actually has more experience that directly relates to being POTUS than all but 4 people on earth. I mean I get the Romney has executive experience argument and the Obama sucks argument ... but the idea Romney has more experience at this moment to be President? It's a stretch. I get that people think Obama is terrible but he doesn't even learn from experience? This whole POTUS experience argument constantly acts like we're in 2008.

I mean are we implying that any definition of success that doesn't directly flow from managing a hedge fund is lesser?

I'm just wondering what natural predictors for future Presidents did Obama have when he was born? I'm not sitting here trying to claim Obama did it all by himself. B/c as we all know, if you become President...you didn't win that. But I'm just saying....Obama didn't build himself up?