WorldTraveller

Unfortunately not only would that sort of narrow thinking be their problem but ours as well. I'm guessing you were mocking the present administration

Well, because at some point, albeit well off into the future, we will run out of these resources, or at least get to the point where the perception tha our resources are dwindling that prices will become too high for economies throughout the world to run efficiently. So it's important to invest in the research and development in these fields to where we don't e er have to reach that point. Again, I'm not advocating to invest in a business that is ready to deliver a green product, nor am I saying we shouldn't, that should be based on the economic feasibility of the business model, what I am saying is invest in advancing green technology R&D

I don't have a problem with government investing in "green" energies as a matter of fact I encourage it. Where I do have a problem is that to my understanding, many of these companies had achieved junk status according to the bond ratings agencies. If you are at junk status that means that more than likely you are viewed by the business community as high risk. I would hope that our elected officials would have enough regard to properly vet and research where our taxpayer dollars are being invested. I don't think that is too much to ask. It's becoming quite clear to me that many of these green projects aren't economically feasible at the moment and that the majority of our " green" allocated dollars should be spent on R&D to help increase efficiency and cost feasibility. Until then it's a losing proposition, and if I may make another point, it's not as if we don't have enough time to research these projects, we have so much oil, coal and natural gas that it is a certainty that at some point we will develop technologies in these green fields that it will become economically viable. Until then let's drill and take advantage of our rich natural resources. I don't know, that just makes sense to me

Although the people that represents this movement isn't regarded with high esteem, the message has effectively been delivered and it has resonated enough that people who have earned a living who have luxurious material goods are caste unfavorably. To be honest I think it's quite sad that we are becoming a society that begrudges, mocks and ridicules those who strive for a finer style of living yet we incentivize a segment of the population to achieve less by subsidizing a sub-standard way of life. I don't know, maybe it's just me and I'm falling behind the times.

I find it almost amusing that a topic such as this is able to captivate the attention of so many people for such a sustained period of time. Predictably, everyone hardens their positions along side their ideology.

When one drives a vehicle there is the issue of liability. If the liability was that of just yourself davidnorfolk, then you would have an argument. However when you consider that you are operating a vehicle that not only could cause monetary property damage but also human physical hazard to others, it's completely logical that there exists a mandate to safeguard payment to the parties that were effected. You are not required to carry insurance on your own vehicle unless it's being financed, and that isn't so much a state mandate as much as a personal agreement (contract) between the two parties. Which is the financing company and financee. So the idea of likening or equating auto to health insurance really isn't the best example. Apples and oranges