dayman Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 (edited) I'm not setting up Obama as anything other than saying that in reality we have stuff that will work vs. his "green energy" initiatives, that seem to be failing even with giant subsidies. I have no problem with proper regulations. The increase in drilling has all come on private land. We need to grant leases on federal land on/offshore and approve the Keystone Pipeline. Huge amounts of public land are going to fracked, that's what the regulations are about in the first place. As for green energy initiatives, it's pretty sad even with fracking developments you put that phrase in quotes. It will still be crucial to the not-so-distant future of energy. As for why some green energy businesses go under it's not complicated, and it's not b/c the concepts are a crock of ****. In fact Solyndra for example, (most GOP supporters favorite example), had to do w/ competition (in large part China's surge in the solar market). But then again green energy is a myth so there would be no competition? Obama has even compromising on the damn oil pipleine itself you people love to scream about over and over. The bottom line is, both parties and both candidates are/would move in substantially the same direction regarding energy. Obama probably would like to diversify more as opposed to dump all the chips in fossil fuels and Romney would probably be better for oil/gas companies having less regulation. But the idea Obama can be painted as "anti-energy" is a load of **** lobbyists dump down redneck America's throat and they gobble it up. I'm not an expert on energy anyway, but if I had to make a decision I would say vigorously support smart-fracking and continue to create an environment that encourages alternative energy development (which carries with it an inherent risk of failure). That's pretty close to what Obama's stance is becoming here in the last year with fracking coming along stronger. "I'm an energy voter. And Obama is not the devil." -commercial on fox Edited July 15, 2012 by TheNewBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 He's very tall. He's very thin. He's very rich. He has two advanced degrees from Harvard. He's a self-made multimillionaire. He speaks French fluently. His wife is into dressage. (Love this criticism of Anne - like the Liberal shills would ever say a bad or catty thing about Jackie O. or Teresa Heinz Kerry.) Back to Mitt: He hob-knobs with money. The hoi polloi can't identify with him like they can BO, because the hoi polloi have BO. He was a governor of an uber liberal state - so the liberals naturally hate him for that. He had the balls to run against Ted Kennedy. Are you !@#$ing kidding me? Ted !@#$ing Kennedy!!! NOBODY !@#$s with Ted. He's been married to the same woman for about forty years. He's got five sons and none of them have a criminal record. He ran the Winter Olympics in the US and he failed to have the US team have the most Gold medals (10 to Norway's 13 and Germany's 12), and most overall (Second place with 34 to Germany's 36). So he's an obvious cheat, and fraud who sold out to international special interests. He has better hair than President BO. He's a Mormon, and nobody knows what THAT means. He doesn't vacation on Martha's Vineyard. He doesn't drink beer. He's a Republican. He's going to kick BO out of the White House. Enough? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted July 15, 2012 Author Share Posted July 15, 2012 (edited) Huge amounts of public land are going to fracked, that's what the regulations are about in the first place. As for green energy initiatives, it's pretty sad even with fracking developments you put that phrase in quotes. It will still be crucial to the not-so-distant future of energy. As for why some green energy businesses go under it's not complicated, and it's not b/c the concepts are a crock of ****. In fact Solyndra for example, (most GOP supporters favorite example), had to do w/ competition (in large part China's surge in the solar market). But then again green energy is a myth so there would be no competition? Obama has even compromising on the damn oil pipleine itself you people love to scream about over and over. The bottom line is, both parties and both candidates are/would move in substantially the same direction regarding energy. Obama probably would like to diversify more as opposed to dump all the chips in fossil fuels and Romney would probably be better for oil/gas companies having less regulation. But the idea Obama can be painted as "anti-energy" is a load of **** lobbyists dump down redneck America's throat and they gobble it up. I'm not an expert on energy anyway, but if I had to make a decision I would say vigorously support smart-fracking and continue to create an environment that encourages alternative energy development (which carries with it an inherent risk of failure). That's pretty close to what Obama's stance is becoming here in the last year with fracking coming along stronger. "I'm an energy voter. And Obama is not the devil." -commercial on fox The idea of subsidizing domestic companies to help compete with foreign companies is a fringe economic strategy with a very poor track record. It violates the fundamental principles of economics and hurts all involved. You see how successful this was. Edited July 15, 2012 by Rob's House Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 (edited) The idea of subsidizing domestic companies to help compete with foreign companies is a fringe economic strategy with a very poor track record. It violates the fundamental principles of economics and hurts all involved. You see how successful this was. In general I would have agreed all along. And looking back I would agree with respect to a few investments that were a part of the stimulus. But the stimulus was the stimulus, that's not (contrary to Obama haters beliefs) the primary way in a non economic disaster situation that anyone says we should nudge green energy initiatives. In saying what I've said above I do not mean, and did not say, massively subsidize green energy companies as a matter of course is the way to go. Edited July 15, 2012 by TheNewBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 (edited) And btw I have a problem with subsidizing oil companies who pay no taxes and profit plenty. And would have a problem doing the same when they frack. So we're not far off on the issue of subsidies. Edited July 15, 2012 by TheNewBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted July 15, 2012 Author Share Posted July 15, 2012 In general I would have agreed all along. And looking back I would agree with respect to a few investments that were a part of the stimulus. But the stimulus was the stimulus, that's not (contrary to Obama haters beliefs) the primary way in a non economic disaster situation that anyone says we should nudge green energy initiatives. In saying what I've said above I do not mean, and did not say, massively subsidize green energy companies as a matter of course is the way to go. I think it's all purely political. Solar technology exists and the markets naturally bring the most efficient options to the front. If and when our current energy sources become more expensive than solar, solar will be king and investors and companies will throw billions into developing it. In fact, when it appears that there is a chance of solar being efficient enough to compete, all of that will happen. What we have here is government throwing good money into a bad investment in the foolhardy hope that a miracle will happen. Throwing a half-billion dollar grant at a company and saying, "here, develop the technology," is about the most inefficient way possible to achieve the desired goal. The perfect example of this is Celera Corp. who decoded the human genome in about 1/3 of the time and for around 1/3 the cost of the government project with the same goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 (edited) I think it's all purely political. Solar technology exists and the markets naturally bring the most efficient options to the front. If and when our current energy sources become more expensive than solar, solar will be king and investors and companies will throw billions into developing it. In fact, when it appears that there is a chance of solar being efficient enough to compete, all of that will happen. What we have here is government throwing good money into a bad investment in the foolhardy hope that a miracle will happen. Throwing a half-billion dollar grant at a company and saying, "here, develop the technology," is about the most inefficient way possible to achieve the desired goal. The perfect example of this is Celera Corp. who decoded the human genome in about 1/3 of the time and for around 1/3 the cost of the government project with the same goal. That's what we "had" there. It happened before modern fracking was what it is today (which is very recent). And in any event like I said I would agree. Although military spending developing such technologies has worked in the past and can/might be working now...which is somewhat similar in that we pay for the development anyway... As for my above comment about subsidies I will say the less portable the energy the less hostile I am towards subsidies although as you pointed out here, unless they are necessary I'm not a huge fan. And in any event gas is coming along in that respect from what I've read... Edited July 15, 2012 by TheNewBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 And btw I have a problem with subsidizing oil companies who pay no taxes and profit plenty. And would have a problem doing the same when they frack. So we're not far off on the issue of subsidies. I don't think we're far apart on any of this in theory. I just don't have alot of faith in Obama being sincere about wanting to allow fossil fuels to be harvested at the expense of his unproven green energy theories. I'm all for research into green technology but I'm against the way we've gone about it. I won't go into details about Solyndra but the way that went down was criminal. How about letting private industry do the research and award a ridiculously high amount of money as a prize for a successful prototype of the next "green" doohickie? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 . I just don't have alot of faith in Obama being sincere about wanting to allow fossil fuels to be harvested at the expense of his unproven green energy theories. So, as you see it, Obama is an egomaniac who has invested his legacy in "green" energy and out of pure stubbornness opposes pragmatic solutions to our energy competitiveness? Don't you think this sounds more like a litmus test for your own view of Obama more than anything else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 The idea of subsidizing domestic companies to help compete with foreign companies is a fringe economic strategy with a very poor track record. It violates the fundamental principles of economics and hurts all involved. You see how successful this was. This is just flat out wrong and pretty silly, actually Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 This is just flat out wrong and pretty silly, actually I'm guessing you have no rational basis for this statement. (Note: it's not really a guess. I know you don't.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 So, as you see it, Obama is an egomaniac who has invested his legacy in "green" energy and out of pure stubbornness opposes pragmatic solutions to our energy competitiveness? Don't you think this sounds more like a litmus test for your own view of Obama more than anything else? It's things like this that make me skeptical: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/07/alaska_sues_epa_for_jumping_the_gun_on_fuel_regs.html http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?hpf=1&a_id=104284 I see the feds are adding another layer of red tape. Previously they had followed state laws even on federal land in each individual state. http://beforeitsnews.com/story/2343/129/Governor_opposes_new_fracking_rules_proposed_for_federal_lands.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 I see the feds are adding another layer of red tape. Previously they had followed state laws even on federal land in each individual state. http://beforeitsnews.com/story/2343/129/Governor_opposes_new_fracking_rules_proposed_for_federal_lands.html http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=BLM-2012-0001-0001 Rule still in comment period. Have at it 3rd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=BLM-2012-0001-0001 Rule still in comment period. Have at it 3rd It's the adding of another level of red tape that just isn't needed. The states all have their own environmental agencies that can do the job. I'm sure that each state has different issues and a "one size fits all" approach just isn't the way to go. I could see the feds if they so desire giving guidance to the states, but other than that should stay out of the regulatory process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 (edited) It's the adding of another level of red tape that just isn't needed. The states all have their own environmental agencies that can do the job. I'm sure that each state has different issues and a "one size fits all" approach just isn't the way to go. I could see the feds if they so desire giving guidance to the states, but other than that should stay out of the regulatory process. Absolutely no argument that federal regulation can get out of hand and be unwise, but state regulation for many industries in most states is a joke. It's like Washington without even pretending it isn't for sale or that it's based in some sort of public policy And also that last comment may be a bit telling where I differ from a lot of anti-Fed sentiment (and for the record I don't differ in all of it). I live in Florida. I've seen what goes on. I have friends in Tallahassee working with it. While Washington is bad, here the legislature is basically some maniac holding up a bill and saying "this bill is bad, vote against it" or "this bill is good, vote for it" and then everyone gets behind their boss and votes. Nobody cares what the thing says. Is that basically Washington? Yes. Is it still far more retarded somehow in Florida? Take my word for it, the answer is yes. There's only 1 party in our state anyway. Then there's our Governor, his regulation policy is pretty easy to understand. "No regulation on anything ever." There's a reason the man got rich by Solantic defrauding medicare and it wasn't anything $75 million of his own money couldn't compensate for in his 2010 campaign for Governor. Edited July 16, 2012 by TheNewBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 Absolutely no argument that federal regulation can get out of hand and be unwise, but state regulation for many industries in most states is a joke. It's like Washington without even pretending it isn't for sale or that it's based in some sort of public policy So, Washington is for sale but it should be involved in more regulating something that the state is perfectly capable of doing? I disagree also with your premise that regulation in most states is a joke. If anything, it goes too far. Of course I don't have experience in all 57 states, just NJ, NY, PA, OH and CA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 Absolutely no argument that federal regulation can get out of hand and be unwise, but state regulation for many industries in most states is a joke. It's like Washington without even pretending it isn't for sale or that it's based in some sort of public policy And also that last comment may be a bit telling where I differ from a lot of anti-Fed sentiment (and for the record I don't differ in all of it). I live in Florida. I've seen what goes on. I have friends in Tallahassee working with it. While Washington is bad, here the legislature is basically some maniac holding up a bill and saying "this bill is bad, vote against it" or "this bill is good, vote for it" and then everyone gets behind their boss and votes. Nobody cares what the thing says. Is that basically Washington? Yes. Is it still far more retarded somehow in Florida? Take my word for it, the answer is yes. There's only 1 party in our state anyway. Then there's our Governor, his regulation policy is pretty easy to understand. "No regulation on anything ever." There's a reason the man got rich by Solantic defrauding medicare and it wasn't anything $75 million of his own money couldn't compensate for in his 2010 campaign for Governor. Take soil composition for one example. Is it different in Florida than in Georgia, Hawaai, or Illinois? Would the amount of rainfall in Washington change the way things are viewed in comparison to Nevada? Just because some states may not measure up doesn't mean the feds should step in. It's the responsibility of that states' citizens to correct the problem. We don't need another level of "one size fits all" regulations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 Take soil composition for one example. Is it different in Florida than in Georgia, Hawaai, or Illinois? Would the amount of rainfall in Washington change the way things are viewed in comparison to Nevada? Just because some states may not measure up doesn't mean the feds should step in. It's the responsibility of that states' citizens to correct the problem. We don't need another level of "one size fits all" regulations. For some issues I agree, for others I don't. And federal regulation isn't really just "one size fits all." It's one agency fits all, but the regulations/enforcement/exemptions are tailored. And I don't want to suggest I favor a complete federal system for all issues, or that I don't like our 2 tier system generally. But probably more than most clear cut conservatives (definitely more) I'll not view the federal government as inherently worse that the states. The "what about the states!?" movement and the "regulation is evil" movement are both popular right now I know that and it's not without merit on all issues otherwise it wouldn't forever be in our political dialogue for 200+ years running...but ultimately I'm just not so high on the states as others. And sometimes, I am. So you could absolutely make up any number of hypos or point to any number of existing federal regulation in action I won't defend. It really is a philosophical divide in terms of the view from the start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 For some issues I agree, for others I don't. And federal regulation isn't really just "one size fits all." It's one agency fits all, but the regulations/enforcement/exemptions are tailored. And I don't want to suggest I favor a complete federal system for all issues, or that I don't like our 2 tier system generally. But probably more than most clear cut conservatives (definitely more) I'll not view the federal government as inherently worse that the states. The "what about the states!?" movement and the "regulation is evil" movement are both popular right now I know that and it's not without merit on all issues otherwise it wouldn't forever be in our political dialogue for 200+ years running...but ultimately I'm just not so high on the states as others. And sometimes, I am. So you could absolutely make up any number of hypos or point to any number of existing federal regulation in action I won't defend. It really is a philosophical divide in terms of the view from the start. We could probably argue this forever and never agree. Parts of the federal government serve no apparent purpose. What has the Departments of Energy and Education ever done to improve things? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 I'm guessing you have no rational basis for this statement. (Note: it's not really a guess. I know you don't.) It just a totally idiotic statement. You agree with it? You must agree with me that it a totally foolish thing to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts