Obama, The Champion Of The Middle Class And Scourge Of Corporate Welfare.

[FaninAma]

My ***.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/tim-carney-how-corporate-tax-credits-got-in-the-cliff-deal/article/2517397#.UOTgHny9KSO

The bill was considered dead by most of the lobbyists because they knew the GOP in the House wouldn't consider it but the WH insisted it be added to the fiscal cliff "emergency" legislation.

But by gawd Obama made those evil rich individuals pay their fair share. Obama supporters are just dumb MFers.

[EnragedOUfan]

LOL, OK dude...........I think its safe to say that the opinions of the Obama haters are pretty much irrelevant at this point. Obama won, the Democrats won, and the Pubs are not looking good, especially with Governor Chris Christie calling out the House Majority today on their failure to vote for Hurricane Sandy relief.

If I was an Obama hater, I wouldn't see the point in continuously wasting my precious time to post pointless articles bashing him because I would have realized that my side lost.....

[nutinbutdust]

I doubt you see the media grilling anyone about that pork. That is the problem with last minute, closed door, secret negotiations. The only upside I see, is that those arent permanant. I think they expire in one year

[cleller]

That's Obama for ya, just out to pay back big business, and screw the middle class. Hiding it under the title of "Family Business and Tax Cut Certainty Act of 2012".
Just more making the rich richer. Those donations to his campaign all have a price.

[okie52]

LOL, OK dude...........I think its safe to say that the opinions of the Obama haters are pretty much irrelevant at this point. Obama won, the Democrats won, and the Pubs are not looking good, especially with Governor Chris Christie calling out the House Majority today on their failure to vote for Hurricane Sandy relief.

If I was an Obama hater, I wouldn't see the point in continuously wasting my precious time to post pointless articles bashing him because I would have realized that my side lost.....

Didn't stop those from bashing Bush.

[FaninAma]

LOL, OK dude...........I think its safe to say that the opinions of the Obama haters are pretty much irrelevant at this point. Obama won, the Democrats won, and the Pubs are not looking good, especially with Governor Chris Christie calling out the House Majority today on their failure to vote for Hurricane Sandy relief.

If I was an Obama hater, I wouldn't see the point in continuously wasting my precious time to post pointless articles bashing him because I would have realized that my side lost.....

again, the sports analogy.....the true sign of a non-thinker.

"My side won so you just need to STFU and allow the the politicians I support to wreak havoc on the country."

I wish I had a dime for everytime I've heard that used as a supposed legitimate rebuttal to an assertion.

You really brought up Christie as an example of sound political judgement? Really? Never in my life have I seen a politcianthis side of Missouri do so many stupid things to emolate his aspirations for higher office.

Lets see. the GOP hold 30 governorships and both houses of the legislatures in 27 states. I assume you are in favor of the liberals just accepting the fact that they lost....right? So we shouldn't be hearing any whining from the Democrats or their supporters in the unions about Michigan's state government passing Right-to-Work? No court appeals should be allowed....right?

See how stupid the premise that the losing side in an election should be be quiet and accept the results is? You probably don't.

[diverdog]

again, the sports analogy.....the true sign of a non-thinker.

"My side won so you just need to STFU and allow the the politicians I support to wreak havoc on the country."

I wish I had a dime for everytime I've heard that used as a supposed legitimate rebuttal to an assertion.

You really brought up Christie as an example of sound political judgement? Really? Never in my life have I seen a politcianthis side of Missouri do so many stupid things to emolate his aspirations for higher office.

Lets see. the GOP hold 30 governorships and both houses of the legislatures in 27 states. I assume you are in favor of the liberals just accepting the fact that they lost....right? So we shouldn't be hearing any whining from the Democrats or their supporters in the unions about Michigan's state government passing Right-to-Work? No court appeals should be allowed....right?

See how stupid the premise that the losing side in an election should she be quiet and accept the results is? You probably don't.

So you are going to tell me the Republican governors have not rammed legislation down the Democrats throats?

[soonercruiser]

LOL, OK dude...........I think its safe to say that the opinions of the Obama haters are pretty much irrelevant at this point. Obama won, the Democrats won, and the Pubs are not looking good, especially with Governor Chris Christie calling out the House Majority today on their failure to vote for Hurricane Sandy relief.

If I was an Obama hater, I wouldn't see the point in continuously wasting my precious time to post pointless articles bashing him because I would have realized that my side lost.....

EXACTLY what the far left wants.....no one else to be able to express their opinion.
If yo dare to disagree, you are a looser or racist!
Nice try dictator!

[okie52]

So you are going to tell me the Republican governors have not rammed legislation down the Democrats throats?

I hope so

[sappstuf]

46% of the new taxes passed by this bill will come from the bottom 80% of earners.

Go middle class!

[sappstuf]

Obama quote:


because the last thing middle-class families could afford now would be to pay upwards of $2,000 more in taxes this year. . . .

Well they didn't go up $2000, but if you make $80K a year they just went up $1600.

[FaninAma]

I hope so

And I would have expected their opposition to not passively accept the actions of the Republican governors. Afterall, everybody has the right to express their wrong ideas.

[FaninAma]

So you are going to tell me the Republican governors have not rammed legislation down the Democrats throats?

No, I am saying the Democrats, according to EnragedOUfan, should just sit passively by and accept that ramrodded legislation.

[badger]

I get my baby badger tax credit, so I guess that cancels it out... of course, I have paid far more than $1,000 on baby badger-related expenses thus far :D

[yermom]

it's not that Obama's not kinda bad, it's that the pubs are REALLY bad ;)

[okie52]

it's not that Obama's not kinda bad, it's that the pubs are REALLY bad ;)

You're selling Obama short.

[badger]

"My side won so you just need to STFU

When we beat Texas A&M on Friday, I hope texags melts down for days. I promise to add any drivel I find of note to the SF.com meltdown thread :D

As for the stuff here, I read drudge every morning too, but don't really find most of the stuff they link there worth re-linking here.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

General Electric and Citigroup, for instance, hired Breaux and Lott to extend a tax provision that allows multinational corporations to defer U.S. taxes by moving profits into offshore financial subsidiaries. This provision -- known as the "active financing exception" -- is the main tool GE uses to avoid nearly all U.S. corporate income tax.

Where's midtowner again to rail about big corporations paying no taxes? Is there something, anything he will find to criticize Obama about or will he toe the party line again. My guess is we'll hear a lot of crickets chirping from our friendly counselor.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

When we beat Texas A&M on Friday, I hope texags melts down for days. I promise to add any drivel I find of note to the SF.com meltdown thread :D

As for the stuff here, I read drudge every morning too, but don't really find most of the stuff they link there worth re-linking here.

Where's the tiggah bait and gaytor meltdowns in the meltdown thread? I'm disappointed.

[FaninAma]

When we beat Texas A&M on Friday, I hope texags melts down for days. I promise to add any drivel I find of note to the SF.com meltdown thread :D

As for the stuff here, I read drudge every morning too, but don't really find most of the stuff they link there worth re-linking here.

Thanks, I appreciate the information....I guess. Care to give us sources you feel are worthy?

My point on bringing this up is that the situation we find ourselves in is the culmination of actions by both parties. But how did those parties get into power.....they were elected by us.

Therefore I think it is a useful endeavor to point out the hypocrisy and partisanship of those who absolutely refuse to find fault with the actions of the politicians they vote for. As long as we have so many voters who act like this(especially on the left) then things will never change.

And before you make a statement about practicing what you preach I can name several conservatives in the media who are VERY critical of the political party they usually support. Actually, read the comments from the articles linked on Drudge,especially those that originate on Breitbart.com, and you will see scathing criticism of the GOP by conservatives.

Show me similiar criticism from a left-wing media organization of the Democrats. You won't see it on Mother Jones or MSNBC or the NY Times or even the Washington Post.

The left is not compelled by their own base or supporters in the media to honestly try and fix the defecit and the government's out-of-control spending problems. As a result they will not be fixed and we will all be worse off because of it.

You might as well present baby Badger with her/his own $52,000 bill for his/her share of the deficit. It will be $65,000 by the time Obama leaves office.

[Midtowner]

Where's midtowner again to rail about big corporations paying no taxes? Is there something, anything he will find to criticize Obama about or will he toe the party line again. My guess is we'll hear a lot of crickets chirping from our friendly counselor.

I'm not aware of which of those tax breaks were just maintaining the status quo and what was new. For the most part, those breaks seem to be continuations of what we had in the past. If there's anything new in there, I'd be disappointed, but I haven't seen evidence of any new breaks, not that I'm denying the possibility that might exist.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

bro, read the piece. Those tax breaks were set to expire and Obama and the Dem senate fought to extend them. What's the difference if they were new? They are the breaks you profess to hate so much and Obama insisted on extending them.

Feel free to pour forth your disappointment.

[Midtowner]

bro, read the piece. Those tax breaks were set to expire and Obama and the Dem senate fought to extend them. What's the difference if they were new? They are the breaks you profess to hate so much and Obama insisted on extending them.

Feel free to pour forth your disappointment.

Like I said, they maintained the status quo. You don't know who fought to extend them. For all you know, if we had not continued to subsidize windmills, we would have lost the votes from Iowa and the rest of flyover country and gone over the cliff.

As to whether there were new cuts, tell me what they are and I'll tell you whether I approve. Windmills still need a few more years of subsidy before they can be on their feet financially. Oil companies get plenty of subsidy.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Feel free to pour forth your disappointment.

Ain't gonna happen...

[FaninAma]

bro, read the piece. Those tax breaks were set to expire and Obama and the Dem senate fought to extend them. What's the difference if they were new? They are the breaks you profess to hate so much and Obama insisted on extending them.

Feel free to pour forth your disappointment.

Bourbon, that is exactly what I am talking about. The left absolutely refuses to criticize or otherwise put any pressure on the Democrats to honestly attempt to address the budget. They just refuse. It is frustrating to watch. Either they don't care or they are okay with the deficit and unfunded mandates being passed down to their kids. The time for civility is over with these people.

[Sooner98]

LOL, OK dude...........I think its safe to say that the opinions of the Obama haters are pretty much irrelevant at this point. Obama won, the Democrats won, and the Pubs are not looking good, especially with Governor Chris Christie calling out the House Majority today on their failure to vote for Hurricane Sandy relief.

If I was an Obama hater, I wouldn't see the point in continuously wasting my precious time to post pointless articles bashing him because I would have realized that my side lost.....

Liberals, following George W. Bush' victory in 2004:

http://www.greatdreams.com/political/bush-osama.jpg

http://www.rightwingnews.com/graphics/bushhitlerberk.jpg

http://flutemandy.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/bush-protest-fu.jpg

http://nicedeb.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/bu****ler.jpg

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRODHqPLN3lC1Iza3FovoQHjeTUua7_P un_GzS6c0BEaGS09TM9VMQZu_6t8Q

http://www.actupny.org/reports/bush_protest.1.20.05.jpg

[Bourbon St Sooner]

Like I said, they maintained the status quo. You don't know who fought to extend them. For all you know, if we had not continued to subsidize windmills, we would have lost the votes from Iowa and the rest of flyover country and gone over the cliff.

As to whether there were new cuts, tell me what they are and I'll tell you whether I approve. Windmills still need a few more years of subsidy before they can be on their feet financially. Oil companies get plenty of subsidy.

The bit I quoted talked about extending shelters for large corporations like General Electric who keep money overseas to avoid paying taxes in the US. These are the very tax breaks that I know you have railed against on these very forums. The breaks were set to expire and the Senate Dems wrote them into the fiscal cliff bill to extend them. So do you now love these tax breaks because the Dems are behind them?

[Bourbon St Sooner]

Bourbon, that is exactly what I am talking about. The left absolutely refuses to criticize or otherwise put any pressure on the Democrats to honestly attempt to address the budget. They just refuse. It is frustrating to watch. Either they don't care or they are okay with the deficit and unfunded mandates being passed down to their kids. The time for civility is over with these people.

It's frustrating to me on both ends. The Dems will say they are against corporate welfare will fighting to maintain all kinds of favored corporate tax loopholes. The Pubs will say they want to cut spending but will never vote to cut the Pentagon budget. It's pretty damn obvious by now that we are never going to see any meaningful spending cuts. I'm still betting on hyper-inflation. I know you're thinking deflation. Either way it's not going to be pretty.

[Midtowner]

The bit I quoted talked about extending shelters for large corporations like General Electric who keep money overseas to avoid paying taxes in the US. These are the very tax breaks that I know you have railed against on these very forums. The breaks were set to expire and the Senate Dems wrote them into the fiscal cliff bill to extend them. So do you now love these tax breaks because the Dems are behind them?

Nope, I think they're a pretty bad deal. Problem is, I don't know whether if those could have been removed the bill would have passed.

[Midtowner]

It's frustrating to me on both ends. The Dems will say they are against corporate welfare will fighting to maintain all kinds of favored corporate tax loopholes. The Pubs will say they want to cut spending but will never vote to cut the Pentagon budget. It's pretty damn obvious by now that we are never going to see any meaningful spending cuts. I'm still betting on hyper-inflation. I know you're thinking deflation. Either way it's not going to be pretty.

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm simply pointing out that neither you nor I know what happened behind closed doors to produce this abomination. Tax rates should have gone up on individuals, focused tax cuts should have been done away with and I would have liked to see the overall rate for corporations dropped.

What meaningful spending cuts would you be comfortable with?

[sappstuf]

Like I said, they maintained the status quo. You don't know who fought to extend them. For all you know, if we had not continued to subsidize windmills, we would have lost the votes from Iowa and the rest of flyover country and gone over the cliff.

As to whether there were new cuts, tell me what they are and I'll tell you whether I approve. Windmills still need a few more years of subsidy before they can be on their feet financially. Oil companies get plenty of subsidy.

Then you shouldn't care if we maintain the status quo with oil companies, right? Right?

[StoopTroup]

Nope, I think they're a pretty bad deal. Problem is, I don't know whether if those could have been removed the bill would have passed.

Funny how everything that was "Compromised" is something the Dems did. This was a Bipartisan Vote. If the Tea Baggers didn't want it all they had to do was take the blame for it all.

[Midtowner]

Then you shouldn't care if we maintain the status quo with oil companies, right? Right?

Some of those breaks, I'm personally against. As to how they factored in to this agreement, none of us has a clue. I don't know how many ways I can say that same thing. Would it help if it were backwards or upside down? I'm quite sure a great many Dems would have loved to see oil company tax breaks taken off the books. I'm also quite certain that quite a few Reps and Dems would be against such a thing, maybe even to the point of killing the deal.

As to StoopTroop, the Dems didn't show much courage here, arguably even weakness, but they got the deal done and got the Republicans to cave, if only just a little. This compromise is so bad that Moody's is set to downgrade our credit if meaningful progress towards addressing the debt can't be made. It will have to happen through both taxes and spending as well as spending in ways which maximize growth; and if those *****-*** SOBs can't find their balls, then we need to replace them with folks who can. Lankford is a coward for voting no and buckling to the right wing hackery peer pressure. Our other congressmen showed some cojones.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm simply pointing out that neither you nor I know what happened behind closed doors to produce this abomination. Tax rates should have gone up on individuals, focused tax cuts should have been done away with and I would have liked to see the overall rate for corporations dropped.

What meaningful spending cuts would you be comfortable with?

What cuts wouldn't I be comfortable with? Entitlement reform, cuts to anything that begins Department Of, cuts to the Pentagon.

[soonercruiser]

Funny how everything that was "Compromised" is something the Dems did. This was a Bipartisan Vote. If the Tea Baggers didn't want it all they had to do was take the blame for it all.

Stoop!
I hate to interrupt your LW rant with facts....BUT!
I repeat the facts from a previous Fiscal Cliff post....Dems voted for it 10:1; Repugs voted against it 2:1!
Duh!
Bipartisan is where both side vote in majorities "for"!

[soonercruiser]

Like I said, they maintained the status quo. You don't know who fought to extend them. For all you know, if we had not continued to subsidize windmills, we would have lost the votes from Iowa and the rest of flyover country and gone over the cliff.

..and Mid is soooo happy with the status quo on PORK!


As to whether there were new cuts, tell me what they are and I'll tell you whether I approve. Windmills still need a few more years of subsidy before they can be on their feet financially. Oil companies get plenty of subsidy.

An oilies get attacked by Libs too!

http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn212/SoonerCruiser_photos/Political/windmills_zps97f68352.jpg

[Midtowner]

..and Mid is soooo happy with the status quo on PORK!



An oilies get attacked by Libs too!

http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn212/SoonerCruiser_photos/Political/windmills_zps97f68352.jpg

You don't have to take me out of context to make your point. You're almost a parody of the hurdur Republican crowd who is unmoved by facts, science, etc. but it's times like these you go too far. I wonder whether you are a real person or seriously just here to yank our collective chain because no one could be that intellectually dishonest on accident without some serious mental health issues.

Now, unless you lack the ability to read what I've said four times now, here's a fifth. As to a lot of those individual subsidies, I don't favor them, however, to sit here and say they are all the Democrats' fault is just stupid. You don't know who insisted on those or whether the Republicans would have voted in enough force unless all of those provisions were left there. You don't know. I don't know.

Would I like to cut oil subsidies? You bet. They are very profitable and do not need taxpayer money to remain so. Do I think it's smart to invest in alternative forms of energy which bring growth and revenue to our rural communities? Absolutely, I do. Saying it maintained the status quo was an observation of fact, not a judgment as to the virtue of the act.

[sappstuf]

I'm quite certain that "the rich" involved in these companies won't be paying their fair share...

•$78 million to retain an accelerated tax write-off for owners of NASCAR tracks
•$62 million tax credit for companies operating in American Samoa
•$222 million tax rebate for rum distillers
•$222 million in accelerated depreciation for businesses located on Indian reservations
•$430 million over two years in tax breaks for film and television producers who incur production costs incurred in the United States, with a special bonus if the costs are incurred in economically depressed areas in the United States
•$59 million in tax credits for cellulosic biofuels
•$2.2 billion in tax credits for biodiesel and “renewable diesel”
•$7 million in consumer tax credits for buying plug-in motorcycles
•$154 million for the manufacturers of energy-efficient appliances
•$650 million in tax credits for builders of energy-efficient homes
•$12 billion in wind-energy-production tax credits

[sappstuf]

Like I said, they maintained the status quo. You don't know who fought to extend them. For all you know, if we had not continued to subsidize windmills, we would have lost the votes from Iowa and the rest of flyover country and gone over the cliff.

As to whether there were new cuts, tell me what they are and I'll tell you whether I approve. Windmills still need a few more years of subsidy before they can be on their feet financially. Oil companies get plenty of subsidy.

A "few"?

I'll bet any amount of cash that you want that in 3-5 years wind power will still not be in the same galaxy of providing energy in a cost effective manner as fossil fuels. They routinely produce less than 20% of their capacity and a new study just came out that shows they only last half as long as expected.


The analysis of almost 3,000 onshore wind turbines — the biggest study of its kind —warns that they will continue to generate electricity effectively for just 12 to 15 years.

The wind energy industry and the Government base all their calculations on turbines enjoying a lifespan of 20 to 25 years.

That means almost twice as expensive as previously thought. It gets worse:


The report’s author, Prof Gordon Hughes, an economist at Edinburgh University and a former energy adviser to the World Bank, discovered that the “load factor” — the efficiency rating of a turbine based on the percentage of electricity it actually produces compared with its theoretical maximum — is reduced from 24 per cent in the first 12 months of operation to just 11 per cent after 15 years.

The decline in the output of offshore wind farms, based on a study of Danish wind farms, appears even more dramatic. The load factor for turbines built on platforms in the sea is reduced from 39 per cent to 15 per cent after 10 years.

Who would have thought that something mechnical would wear out and become less efficient over time.... Shocking!

Since you are a member of the "party of science", I would expect you to reconsider your position on wind power immediately.

As far as subsidies go... Renewables get far more than oil companies do. What do taxpayers get in return? They have to pay a higher rate for electricity to subsidize wind power even further. A double whammy based on poor science.

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d102/sappstuf/cboenergy.png

[okie52]

I'm quite certain that "the rich" involved in these companies won't be paying their fair share...

•$78 million to retain an accelerated tax write-off for owners of NASCAR tracks
•$62 million tax credit for companies operating in American Samoa
•$222 million tax rebate for rum distillers
•$222 million in accelerated depreciation for businesses located on Indian reservations
•$430 million over two years in tax breaks for film and television producers who incur production costs incurred in the United States, with a special bonus if the costs are incurred in economically depressed areas in the United States
•$59 million in tax credits for cellulosic biofuels
•$2.2 billion in tax credits for biodiesel and “renewable diesel”
•$7 million in consumer tax credits for buying plug-in motorcycles
•$154 million for the manufacturers of energy-efficient appliances
•$650 million in tax credits for builders of energy-efficient homes
•$12 billion in wind-energy-production tax credits

Sapp you don't seem to understand....the congressmen that attached these earmarks are the heroes otherwise they would not have been able to vote yes. Inconsiderate, heartless cowards like Lankford are the real villains for not heroically getting in their earmarks so they too could vote yes rather than listen to their crazy constituents.

[Midtowner]

Sapp you don't seem to understand....the congressmen that attached these earmarks are the heroes otherwise they would not have been able to vote yes. Inconsiderate, heartless cowards like Lankford are the real villains for not heroically getting in their earmarks so they too could vote yes rather than listen to their crazy constituents.

And you continue to misrepresent things...

[cleller]

Wind power may make sense in the North Sea, but investing in it around here is a quick way to lose you shirt. Boone Pickens and the Feds being the two poster kids for the boondoggle. There's also a reason that power companies are proposing building gas power plants, but want nothing to do with wind. Its a bad investment. And sure isn't something our govt can afford to subsidize right now. What a white elephant.
Add to that most Americans would rather see one gas well going up than dozens of gigantic windmills.

As Phil Gramm points out:
The costs of wind subsidies are extraordinarily high—$52.48 per one million watt hours generated, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. By contrast, the subsidies for generating the same amount of electricity from nuclear power are $3.10, from hydropower 84 cents, from coal 64 cents, and from natural gas 63 cents.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324481204578179373031924936.html

[Midtowner]

But because of investment, it is getting better, a quick search for wind power efficiency research on Google shows there's a huge amount of activity in getting those costs down.

If that research pans out, wind could be huge. I know that gets the oilies here rankled up, but that's just the truth. If you live in a small community, the amount of money pumped into your local economies from wind power is going to be greater than almost any other sort of power generation due to the property tax counties can levy on turbines. That goes back to my overall point about spending, maybe wind isn't the most efficient way to generate electricity, but with the way it's sending money to lots of little people and small county governments, that money is going to be spent again and again and again, whereas with coal or gas, generation happens far away and most of the money goes back to whatever company produced the energy and a lot of that does not get spent for a long time.

[cleller]

But because of investment, it is getting better, a quick search for wind power efficiency research on Google shows there's a huge amount of activity in getting those costs down.

If that research pans out, wind could be huge. I know that gets the oilies here rankled up, but that's just the truth. If you live in a small community, the amount of money pumped into your local economies from wind power is going to be greater than almost any other sort of power generation due to the property tax counties can levy on turbines. That goes back to my overall point about spending, maybe wind isn't the most efficient way to generate electricity, but with the way it's sending money to lots of little people and small county governments, that money is going to be spent again and again and again, whereas with coal or gas, generation happens far away and most of the money goes back to whatever company produced the energy and a lot of that does not get spent for a long time.

Who is investing? The Feds, and losing money hand over fist. The power companies only cater to this while the Feds are the ones paying. Unlike the Feds, the power companies realize they have to invest in something sound.

We've got our backs to the wall, now is not the time to be wasting billions on something so inefficient. Put that govt money toward building a gas power plant, that will employ people for years, yet give some return on the investment.
Its like arguing that if you went into deep debt to buy a Rolls Royce its a good investment, because it breaks down more than a Ford, so the mechanics will make more. You still can't pay for the car.
Wind electric is fine, if affordable. Germany generates a fair amount of electricity from the wind, when it blows, their rates are about 3 times higher than rates in the US and Canada.

Look at those subsidies. Wind costs the Feds 81 times that of gas. It like Ricky Ricardo arguing with Lucy. "We can't afford it."

[Midtowner]

Because of the investment, it actually is getting more efficient. Some of the tech on the horizon is really cool. Bladeless turbines which are twice as efficient and don't require near the maintenance of current systems, etc. The smaller a part fossil fuels are in our power generation economy, the better.

[cleller]

Because of the investment, it actually is getting more efficient. Some of the tech on the horizon is really cool. Bladeless turbines which are twice as efficient and don't require near the maintenance of current systems, etc. The smaller a part fossil fuels are in our power generation economy, the better.

Aye yai yai, I can see this is like Lucy having her eye on a new hat. Maybe we can look forward to the day when it is only 10 or 20 times more costly for taxpayers. Still, when I think of all those with marginal incomes shivering so that we can have this, I feel a twinge of guilt.

[Midtowner]

Aye yai yai, I can see this is like Lucy having her eye on a new hat. Maybe we can look forward to the day when it is only 10 or 20 times more costly for taxpayers. Still, when I think of all those with marginal incomes shivering so that we can have this, I feel a twinge of guilt.

Think wind is wasteful? Try our new stealth destroyers coming online at 3BN a piece despite having no smart tactical use (and we've scaled back to only having 3 of these things in operation). Look at our new F-35... drones are the future. What a waste.

At least with wind, we have the promise of increasing returns and actual present utility, not to mention the fact that the money goes into lots of pockets instead of into one big one.

[sappstuf]

Because of the investment, it actually is getting more efficient. Some of the tech on the horizon is really cool. Bladeless turbines which are twice as efficient and don't require near the maintenance of current systems, etc. The smaller a part fossil fuels are in our power generation economy, the better.

More efficient...

The solar farms in Spain were extremely efficient. They were so efficient in fact, they were producing energy at night. Turns out they were connecting diesel generators and pulling in massive cash on subsidized green energy energy rates.

An extreme example. But wind power an extreme example of crony capitalism since it would not exist if not for the government.

[sappstuf]

Think wind is wasteful? Try our new stealth destroyers coming online at 3BN a piece despite having no smart tactical use (and we've scaled back to only having 3 of these things in operation). Look at our new F-35... drones are the future. What a waste.

At least with wind, we have the promise of increasing returns and actual present utility, not to mention the fact that the money goes into lots of pockets instead of into one big one.

Please share with us all of your Naval tactical knowledge... Can you sum it up in one sentence or do you need two?

[Midtowner]

More efficient...

The solar farms in Spain were extremely efficient. They were so efficient in fact, they were producing energy at night. Turns out they were connecting diesel generators and pulling in massive cash on subsidized green energy energy rates.

An extreme example. But wind power an extreme example of crony capitalism since it would not exist if not for the government.

Spain has a bit of a different culture than us. That couldn't happen in our regulatory environment. Regulators would crack down post haste. Remember, Spain existed under the corrupt thumb of a dictator for decades. They're still learning how to effectively self-govern.

[pphilfran]

I am generally a pro wind guy...I seem to be attracted to them...

But they do not lower costs...
They cost the government a ton of money that we don't have...
They are strictly a CO2 reduction method and nothing more...

[Midtowner]

Please share with us all of your Naval tactical knowledge... Can you sum it up in one sentence or do you need two?

That instead of building air craft carriers to combat ours, China just builds missiles specially designed to take out air craft carriers and three "stealth" destroyers?

My Naval tactical knowledge is zero, but expert opinions are readily available:


COMMENTARY | The U.S. Navy will shift its deployment to have most of its warships in the Pacific Ocean by 2020, according to the Associated Press. A major contributor to the new strategy is supposed to be the new DDG-1000 "stealth destroyer" -- a high-tech warship with a $3 billion price tag per unit. Its next-generation technology, like stealth and railguns, is touted as its strengths. They're not worth the cost.

The technology is its first failing. Railguns are a neat technology, but they aren't doomsday weapons. They're just guns that work differently than the traditional kind. Are they geeky and cool? Of course they are. Do they make a DDG-1000 better at shore bombardment than a 1940s battleship? No.

Contrary to popular perception, stealth does not mean invisible or undetectable. It means "harder to detect than the ship would be without it." A stealth bomber might look about the size of a seagull on radar, but it's a seagull moving hundreds of miles per hour. The wake-piercing hulls on the DDG-1000 make them produce a tiny wake, but do not eliminate it entirely.
Stealth destroyers are not invisible. Guess what are tons more visible than they are? The ships of the conventional fleet a destroyer sails with. Unless the destroyer travels alone the stealth tech is worthless.

The fact they're destroyers is also a weakness. Aircraft carriers are enormous. They have size and mass that makes them substantially harder to sink than a destroyer.

Any damage to a DDG-1000's hull will essentially remove its radar-fighting stealth features. That's a big deal since they're supposed to operate close to shore. The most dangerous weapon against them is low-tech: A wave of small speedboats. Iran already proved it by harassing American Navy ships. Load each speedboat with a driver and an anti-tank missile team and those destroyers are in trouble.

Americans love high-tech toys. Our fascination with them sometimes makes us forget a simple truth of warfare: numbers matter. According to the Navy, Burke-class destroyers cost about one-fifth the amount of one stealth ship. The fleet would be more capable with five times as many conventional ships, don't you think?

So we spend 3BN, China or Iran spend a few million on speedboats with shoulder launched anti-tank missiles.

That's stupid spending.

[cleller]

You can't justify one wasteful program by highlighting others. Its the "Johnny did it, too" excuse.

[Midtowner]

I am generally a pro wind guy...I seem to be attracted to them...

But they do not lower costs...
They cost the government a ton of money that we don't have...
They are strictly a CO2 reduction method and nothing more...

They don't yet. They're not going to replace fossil fuels anytime soon, but wind is part of our future energy supply.

[Midtowner]

You can't justify one wasteful program by highlighting others. Its the "Johnny did it, too" excuse.

Nah, military spending like that only benefits us through spending. I have my doubts that those destroyers will ever actually be tactically necessary. It's also doubtful we ever fire those expensive rail guns in anger.

[sappstuf]

That instead of building air craft carriers to combat ours, China just builds missiles specially designed to take out air craft carriers and three "stealth" destroyers?

My Naval tactical knowledge is zero, but expert opinions are readily available:

So we spend 3BN, China or Iran spend a few million on speedboats with shoulder launched anti-tank missiles.

That's stupid spending.

China building missiles instead of carriers is not tactics... It is strategy. They want to take and control the South China Seas and for that mission, they do not need offensive carriers, just a defense against them to keep us out of it. Hence, the missiles.

However, China IS building aircraft carriers. Why? Because they are also looking beyond their local water and want to project power abroad. Carriers do that.


China has begun work on its first aircraft carrier and probably will develop two or more, along with outfitting a former Russian carrier that is set to begin sea trials soon, Pentagon officials said.

“We expect China to build at least one indigenous carrier, probably two or more, but they have not revealed how many they intend to build, what the construction schedule will [be] or what their missions will be,” said a defense official familiar with intelligence assessments.

A second defense official said China regards aircraft carriers as key symbols of global power projection and is unlikely to build just two.

[pphilfran]

The first US wind farm was put into place in 1980...32 years and they are still not close to being competitive...

Sooner or later we need to be looking at being more cost effective instead of putting more and more cost into our economy...

[sappstuf]

They don't yet. They're not going to replace fossil fuels anytime soon, but wind is part of our future energy supply.

I thought Dems hated the 1%ers....

[pphilfran]

If we had money running out of our ears I wouldn't have a problem...sadly, that is not the case...

[pphilfran]

Didn't China buy an old Soviet aircraft carrier and do a retrofit?

[sappstuf]

Didn't China buy an old Soviet aircraft carrier and do a retrofit?

Yep. Landed an airplane on it back in November.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/25/world/asia/china-aircraft-carrier-landing/index.html

0lU7BfS76NE

[FaninAma]

The thread is now into its 4th page and I have yet to see any of the reliable leftists criticize their party for lack of action on the budget. I have seen some on the right call for across the board cuts including defense...a position I support.

Until somebody in the Democrat party base starts calling them out the deficit will keep growing and growing and growing. If interest rates on US Treasuries go back to just their historic averages we are toast. We are toast if they stay at their current historic low level...it will just take a few years longer.

[cleller]

GE, the #1 maker of wind turbines in the world, with profits of $14.2 billion last year paid no US income taxes. They also spend more in lobbying costs than any other company, something Obama claims to detest. GE CEO Jeffery Immelt is also on of Obama's economic advisers.
That's some pretty good corporate welfare.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/economy/25tax.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

[Bourbon St Sooner]

But because of investment, it is getting better, a quick search for wind power efficiency research on Google shows there's a huge amount of activity in getting those costs down.

If that research pans out, wind could be huge. I know that gets the oilies here rankled up, but that's just the truth. If you live in a small community, the amount of money pumped into your local economies from wind power is going to be greater than almost any other sort of power generation due to the property tax counties can levy on turbines. That goes back to my overall point about spending, maybe wind isn't the most efficient way to generate electricity, but with the way it's sending money to lots of little people and small county governments, that money is going to be spent again and again and again, whereas with coal or gas, generation happens far away and most of the money goes back to whatever company produced the energy and a lot of that does not get spent for a long time.

I work for an oil major. We have wind investments. It's a money loser even with the large subsidies. It's basically a PR business. The problem with wind is that the wind corridor is the Great Plains where there is a small population. You have to transport it to the population corridors on the coasts which is very inefficient. You can put wind mills offshore but people don't like to have their beach views ruined by wind mills.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

Yep. Landed an airplane on it back in November.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/25/world/asia/china-aircraft-carrier-landing/index.html

0lU7BfS76NE

Why does that plane look just like an F-15 with fold up wings?

[cleller]

Can you imagine the jockeying that goes on in Obama's Council of Economic Advisers meetings?

Jeff Immelt: Mr. Obama, I feel the best thing for our economy right now is that my company not pay $3.2 billion in taxes.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

The thread is now into its 4th page and I have yet to see any of the reliable leftists criticize their party for lack of action on the budget. I have seen some on the right call for across the board cuts including defense...a position I support.

Until somebody in the Democrat party base starts calling them out the deficit will keep growing and growing and growing. If interest rates on US Treasuries go back to just their historic averages we are toast. We are toast if they stay at their current historic low level...it will just take a few years longer.

Obama's a crony capitalist. He believes in taking from rich people he doesn't like and giving to rich people he does like. Which just makes him like every other politician in Washington. People that actually think he gives a **** about the middle class or the poor amuse me.

At least you and I can see the maelstrom that is building. The partisan hacks will continue to blame the other guy while looking the other way at way their own guy does. You're right that the silence from the lefties is deafening. At least mid had the balls to come in here and show his partisan hackery.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

Can you imagine the jockeying that goes on in Obama's Council of Economic Advisers meetings?

Jeff Immelt: Mr. Obama, I feel the best thing for our economy right now is that my company not pay $3.2 billion in taxes.

Good thing NASCAR got their tax goodies also. What would we do without more redneck millionaires?

[Midtowner]

Good thing NASCAR got their tax goodies also. What would we do without more redneck millionaires?

NASCAR--well known for its patronage of Democrats.

(or not)

http://influenceexplorer.com/organization/nascar/26058766d5d74bb9a1004cdd81037fb1

[Midtowner]

You can't justify one wasteful program by highlighting others. Its the "Johnny did it, too" excuse.

Sure I can. Why not point out the fact that certain sectors of our economy depend on what is thought by many to be wasteful spending? Why not point out the fact that the oilies on here are most upset about the subsidies that are goring their ox is the one getting gored by competing technologies.

Never say never about wind not being a major player years from now if we invest today.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

THA is laughing at all you progressives!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I told you so!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Taxes going up more on people earning $50K or less.... Way to go progressives and The Socialist!

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Why does that plane look just like an F-15 with fold up wings?

Uhhh, because the ChiComs steal everything and are the biggest corporate espionagers around????

[Bourbon St Sooner]

Sure I can. Why not point out the fact that certain sectors of our economy depend on what is thought by many to be wasteful spending? Why not point out the fact that the oilies on here are most upset about the subsidies that are goring their ox is the one getting gored by competing technologies.

Never say never about wind not being a major player years from now if we invest today.

You know that all of the oil majors are big proponents of wind subsidies right? Since they all have wind businesses.

I don't think anybody drilling for oil right now with less that 50 years to retirement is worried about wind energy kicking them out of a job. Even if or when wind does become competitive, it will likely only be a niche player, like hydro, due to its constraints.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

I laugh at the progressives stealing Americans tax money to throw at wind energy. It is a farce. and as Bourbon Street says, a niche player at best, at least until the world ends so to speak and international trade and interstate trade stops, America becomes small pockets of people (e.g. Mad Max, and recent TV shows about motors stopping and break down of society, Falling Skies). The wind power may provide power to a small town or group of people.`

[okie52]

Sure I can. Why not point out the fact that certain sectors of our economy depend on what is thought by many to be wasteful spending? Why not point out the fact that the oilies on here are most upset about the subsidies that are goring their ox is the one getting gored by competing technologies.

Never say never about wind not being a major player years from now if we invest today.

As a stinking oily, I have no problem with subsidies for alternative energy that are unlike tax deductions that are allowed for the oil industry. What I do object to is denying the country and it's citizens the right to access its resources while mandating the use of non existent/insufficient alternative energy sources and hamstringing the countrys move towards energy independence and paying over $300,000,000,000 a year for imported oil.