Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Benny B on March 23, 2009, 08:01:42 PM
-
The President hosted an event focused on "Investing in Our Clean Energy Future," with experts from inside and outside government. On the table were how crucial investments in clean energy and new technologies are included in the budget.
March 23, 2009
-
It's not the governments responsibility to take my tax money and use it to fund research for their agenda.
-
It's not the governments responsibility to take my tax money and use it to fund research for their agenda.
Obama's administration is to make this country a better, more efficient place, maintain our leadership in technological innovation, and reduce our dependency on foreign source materials. If you are too stupid to have our nation's best and brightest from institutions like MIT work for this objective, then we'll have to do it in spite of you. We can't afford to wait for dummies like you to come around. Of course, you can always renounce your citizenship, or even better you can always put aside that umbrella for a real rectal invasion of the "Hairy Bubba" persuasion while you are in prison for refusing to pay taxes. The choice is yours! ;D
-
Obama's administration is to make this country a better, more efficient place, maintain our leadership in technological innovation, and reduce our dependency on foreign source materials. If you are too stupid to have our nation's best and brightest from institutions like MIT work for this objective, then we'll have to do it in spite of you. We can't afford to wait for dummies like you to come around. Of course, you can always renounce your citizenship, or even better you can always put aside that umbrella for a real rectal invasion of the "Hairy Bubba" persuasion while you are in prison for refusing to pay taxes. The choice is yours! ;D
Yeah, tax every family an additional $1,000 a year, brilliant plan.
-
The President hosted an event focused on "Investing in Our Clean Energy Future," with experts from inside and outside government. On the table were how crucial investments in clean energy and new technologies are included in the budget.
March 23, 2009
Well,lets see.In Oregon,the enviro kooks shut down the logging industry.So,they wanted to install windmills to jump start the economy with new jobs and a new clean energy source.Sorry,the enviro kooks said it might kill birds and bats.
Feinstein said yesterday,NO solar energy in the desert.Its an eye sore.
Robert Kennedy said no wind power off the coast of Mass.its an eye sore.
So libs,want clean energy,just not in their backyard.They are fools and idiots.
-
Well,lets see.In Oregon,the enviro kooks shut down the logging industry.So,they wanted to install windmills to jump start the economy with new jobs and a new clean energy source.Sorry,the enviro kooks said it might kill birds and bats.
Feinstein said yesterday,NO solar energy in the desert.Its an eye sore.
Robert Kennedy said no wind power off the coast of Mass.its an eye sore.
So libs,want clean energy,just not in their backyard.They are fools and idiots.
Bob Brinker, Nader, Buffett, and many others are all saying Obama is a madman on this issue.
-
Well,lets see.In Oregon,the enviro kooks shut down the logging industry.So,they wanted to install windmills to jump start the economy with new jobs and a new clean energy source.Sorry,the enviro kooks said it might kill birds and bats.
Feinstein said yesterday,NO solar energy in the desert.Its an eye sore.
Robert Kennedy said no wind power off the coast of Mass.its an eye sore.
So libs,want clean energy,just not in their backyard.They are fools and idiots.
Great points.
Unfortunately the "Not in my backyard" mentality is strong with many politicians.
Many politicians support nuclear power.
But how many of them are prepared to have uranium mines in their home states, where their families live?
Eg, McCain is a staunch supporter of nuclear power.
Would he be in favor of nuclear power if the uranium mines would be in Arizona?
The same goes for the kooks on the environmentalist side (not all of them are bad) - they want to cut down coal power plants and replace them with wind power "somewhere else". ::)
-
Great points.
Unfortunately the "Not in my backyard" mentality is strong with many politicians.
Many politicians support nuclear power.
But how many of them are prepared to have uranium mines in their home states, where their families live?
Eg, McCain is a staunch supporter of nuclear power.
Would he be in favor of nuclear power if the uranium mines would be in Arizona?
The same goes for the kooks on the environmentalist side (not all of them are bad) - they want to cut down coal power plants and replace them with wind power "somewhere else". ::)
Sanity and reality needs to rule these discussions, not fantasies. Sadly, tje politicians are no different than Don Quioxte who himself was chasing windmills.
Bob Brinker is a respected financial guy and he said what Obama is doing is simply madness.
We need to pursue natural gas conversion of vehicles, and nuclear power.
We simply do not have the capacity for electric vehicles. Additionally, electric vehicles would be charging up using coal plants thereby defeating the entire purpose of the elctric car in the first place.
-
Sanity and reality needs to rule these discussions, not fantasies. Sadly, tje politicians are no different than Don Quioxte who himself was chasing windmills.
Bob Brinker is a respected financial guy and he said what Obama is doing is simply madness.
We need to pursue natural gas conversion of vehicles, and nuclear power.
We simply do not have the capacity for electric vehicles. Additionally, electric vehicles would be charging up using coal plants thereby defeating the entire purpose of the elctric car in the first place.
Are you certain about the energy resources of USA?
Because I am pretty much in the dark, and I don't know the exact numbers by a long shot on my own country.
So is it really that easy to write off the potential of re-newable energy such as water, wind and solar?
I'm primarily thinking about water but also wind.
Btw, all new built houses in Spain have solar panels from what I understand. There is some type of tax break/legislation that has made that possible.
Obviously the houses aren't run entirely on the solar power - at least I don't think so, or at least not throughout the year.
But it shows that with a little creative thinking and the government actually pointing the way the society can save energy and thus become less dependent on oil nations.
You're right about coal power plants btw. If they're the source for electric cars - not much has been accomplished other than a more silent traffic. 8)
-
Are you certain about the energy resources of USA?
Because I am pretty much in the dark, and I don't know the exact numbers by a long shot on my own country.
So is it really that easy to write off the potential of re-newable energy such as water, wind and solar?
I'm primarily thinking about water but also wind.
Btw, all new built houses in Spain have solar panels from what I understand. There is some type of tax break/legislation that has made that possible.
Obviously the houses aren't run entirely on the solar power - at least I don't think so, or at least not throughout the year.
But it shows that with a little creative thinking and the government actually pointing the way the society can save energy and thus become less dependent on oil nations.
You're right about coal power plants btw. If they're the source for electric cars - not much has been accomplished other than a more silent traffic. 8)
That is the discussion as to why we need nuclear power if we are going to move to electric vehicles. Windmills and solar are not practical and reliable enough to provide sufficient energy for millions and millions of vehicles. They are great if they can be perfected, but the technoligy is just not there.
This is why I am warning everyone about this cap and trade insanity. Our electric bills are going to skyrocket because they are not proposing new nuclear plants, but instead, pursuing unreliable means that no not provide enough energy to suit everyones' needs.
-
We are in so much debt between Bush and Obama's new spending spree...now we are asked for more? Right now?
Lets get our financial system working again before spending any taxpayor $ right now.
-
Why is this racist pedophile still posting here? ???
I don't know about him being a pedophile?
What do you base that on?
-
We are in so much debt between Bush and Obama's new spending spree...now we are asked for more? Right now?
Lets get our financial system working again before spending any taxpayor $ right now.
Right.
But there has to be some evolving going on.
Eg, in Australia regular light bulbs are getting banned.
Only low-energy bulbs will be allowed.
That's one way to save huge amounts of money.
Because if the energy spending goes down, the energy prices will go down.
Wave power (getting power from the motion of the ocean) is well developed and has a huge potential. Bigger than solar plants or whatever.
And once USA has a surplus of energy - what's to stop USA from becoming totally independent?
There are already functioning electric cars - there's only a need for charge poles throughout the traffic system of USA.
Once the signal that those types of cars have a future - then GM and Ford will build awesome electric cars IMO.
-
I don't argue the merits of improving energy. Thats very important, but we have a major crisis right now that requires our full attention and resources just to hopefully get through.
Obama is doing way too much, too quickly. Its like he has an acedemic agenda but doesn't fully grasp the costs of these massive projects. This is where I think experience running a business (or a state as a gov) would be helpful.
-
Yes! Support alternative fuel cars!! Absolutly! But cut some pointless pork somewhere else to pay for it!
The problem these days isn't that we can't afford to fund good projects, it's that no one in the gvt wants to kill anything that wastes funds. If I want a new set of wheels, I have to cut something else in my personal budget, I can't just get them AND everything sles if I don't have the $$$.
I'm sure Big Oil has something to do with the lack of alternative fuels progress too...
Nuclear is the best energy source there is, but the enviros always kill plans right out of the gate.
-
"What's to stop USA from becoming totally independent?"
Answer - the politicians.
-
I don't argue the merits of improving energy. Thats very important, but we have a major crisis right now that requires our full attention and resources just to hopefully get through.
Obama is doing way too much, too quickly. Its like he has an acedemic agenda but doesn't fully grasp the costs of these massive projects. This is where I think experience running a business (or a state as a gov) would be helpful.
TBH, I think he's the right man for the job right now.
I am not happy with some of the people on his staff - like Geithner. He hasn't been exactly stellar.
But Obama's the type of leader the world needs to lead USA right now.
I hope he'll get on the offensive at the G20 summit this weekend.
He's certainly been pretty proactive - he's had the "A time for global action" article posted newspapers in several countries today, different languages.
Of course he has to walk the walk as well. But he's been able to build a grassroot support and connection which I think is important.
I'd rather see someone like Krugman as the Treasury, or at least in a counciling position.
My main problem with Obama/Geithner is their lack of willpower when it comes to intervention in the problem banks.
Some guys have posted about it's all being the same with Bush and Obama when it comes to giving away tax dollars to rich bankers.
And I'm inclined to agree.
There's not much real change in how Obama is taking on the banks.
But I still believe he's the best guy for the job.
-
America could become totally energy independent if coal gasification and shale oil was exploited.
This will never happen with Democrats in power.
Nuclear power will not make the US energy independent most uranium comes from Canada.
America could really cut their energy consumption down if they increased the insulation in their buildings.
Which is 30% of the energy load.
Other ways to reduce the energy usage is to encourage the use of rail to transport goods and people.
The main problem with all green power is the lack of storage.
Energy production and usage is instantaneous which really limits the effects of any green power initiative.
there are many easy ways to reduce energy consumption, there is just a lack of will to do it.
Like how many people would like to see a national speed limit of 55 reintroduced.
-
Obama is doing way too much, too quickly. Its like he has an acedemic agenda but doesn't fully grasp the costs of these massive projects. This is where I think experience running a business (or a state as a gov) would be helpful.
Oh, Lord. ::)
If the man would just slow down, not work so hard, and not actually attempt to do the things he campaigned on so quickly! He's just too academic (ie., too smart) to fully grasp how much his agenda costs!
Academics are known to not be able to calculate numbers after all. We were much better off with the MBA president who had own a couple of businesses, weren't we? ::)
-
Oh, Lord. ::)
If the man would just slow down, not work so hard, and not actually attempt to do the things he campaigned on so quickly! He's just too academic (ie., too smart) to fully grasp how much his agenda costs!
Academics are known to not be able to calculate numbers after all. We were much better off with the MBA president who had own a couple of businesses, weren't we? ::)
Woodrow Wilson is regardeded highly right????????????
-
Yes! Support alternative fuel cars!! Absolutly! But cut some pointless pork somewhere else to pay for it!
The problem these days isn't that we can't afford to fund good projects, it's that no one in the gvt wants to kill anything that wastes funds. If I want a new set of wheels, I have to cut something else in my personal budget, I can't just get them AND everything sles if I don't have the $$$.
I'm sure Big Oil has something to do with the lack of alternative fuels progress too...
Nuclear is the best energy source there is, but the enviros always kill plans right out of the gate.
Absolutely true.
I love it when you had all these idiots who were pissed about high taxes a few years ago but still didn't want to downsize the military budget or to withdraw from Iraq.
Like the old saying goes: "If you wanna play - you gotta pay"
Once the economy has recovered - taxes has to go up and the government programs has to be downsized. Otherwise you'll have another economic meltdown without money to get you out of it.
Here's a novel idea that wouldn't hurt the average getbigger that much either 8): Raise taxes on tobacco, alcohol, candy and various unhealthy products.
Raise taxes on gas - but lower the tax or get rid of it entirely - on public transportation tickets.
Give out tax benefits to those who buy enviro classed cars - eg if buy a enviro car you're allowed to deduct $2 000 off you tax.
For what reason?
It would make USA more efficient.
-
Absolutely true.
I love it when you had all these idiots who were pissed about high taxes a few years ago but still didn't want to downsize the military budget or to withdraw from Iraq.
Like the old saying goes: "If you wanna play - you gotta pay"
Once the economy has recovered - taxes has to go up and the government programs has to be downsized. Otherwise you'll have another economic meltdown without money to get you out of it.
Here's a novel idea that wouldn't hurt the average getbigger that much either 8): Raise taxes on tobacco, alcohol, candy and various unhealthy products.
Raise taxes on gas - but lower the tax or get rid of it entirely - on public transportation tickets.
Give out tax benefits to those who buy enviro classed cars - eg if buy a enviro car you're allowed to deduct $2 000 off you tax.
For what reason?
It would make USA more efficient.
How about cutting spending and paying down debt ???
-
Woodrow Wilson is regardeded highly right????????????
I know people who spell "regarded" correctly are highly regarded ::), but what does WW have to do with the fact that GWB was a moron and Obama is brilliant?
-
How about cutting spending and paying down debt ???
How about getting through an economic crisis prior to worrying about less important concerns? Or do you advocate prolonging the situation?
-
How about getting through an economic crisis prior to worrying about less important concerns? Or do you advocate prolonging the situation?
Thats funny when Warren Buffet, Krugman, Schiff, J. Welsh, et all are all saying that what Obama is proposing re: card check, cap and trade, highrer taxes, etc are going to hinder, not help the situation.
-
How about cutting spending and paying down debt ???
You have to get out of the recession first.
Once the economy is going well I definitely hope Obama or whoever is in the White House will be fiscally responsible.
Taxes needs to be raised and government programs needs to be downsized - severly.
That won't be popular. A lot of pork that will be left out.
But you gotta have fiscal discipline. I hope this economic situation will teach Washington that new guide lines, or perhaps even economic rules are called for.
Perhaps that budgets cannot be in deficit unless there are exceptional financial circumstances.
We somehow still have to remember that USA still is an incredible financial nucleus.
There's been some extreme leakage the last 25 years.
But there is still helluva potential in the system.
There just needs to be a little bit more of the US spirit of the 50's and 60's when shooting for the moon was nothing impossible.
-
Thats funny when Warren Buffet, Krugman, Schiff, J. Welsh, et all are all saying that what Obama is proposing re: card check, cap and trade, highrer taxes, etc are going to hinder, not help the situation.
How long can I count on you to use Warren Buffett and Paul Krugman to support your arguments? This is rich stuff. ;D
By the way, I recall you saying Buffett was a moron and not half the businessman you are. What happened to that thought process, or does that disappear the moment he disagrees with Obama on an issue? ::)
Mr. Buffett is still a friend and supporter of the Obama administration.
-
How long can I count on you to use Warren Buffett and Paul Krugman to support your arguments? This is rich stuff. ;D
By the way, I recall you saying Buffett was a moron and not half the businessman you are. What happened to that thought process, or does that disappear the moment he disagrees with Obama on an issue? ::)
Mr. Buffett is still a friend and supporter of the Obama administration.
Again, you never adress the issue of how highrer energy taxes and card check are going to help the economy.
Warren Buffet in not in favor of things. Instead of posting nosense from a perennial loser like Bob Shrum, why not do some research on how cap and trade is going to tax everyone an additional 1000 dollars a year.
-
Again, you never adress the issue of how highrer energy taxes and card check are going to help the economy.
Warren Buffet in not in favor of things.
Again, I thought you were smarter and more knowledgeable than Buffett on finance and economics because your little business has "positive cash flow." ::) How long can I count on you being a supporter of long-time Democrat and Obama supporter Warren Buffett?
Instead of posting nosense from a perennial loser like Bob Shrum
What's Shrum have to do with this thread, and how about attempting to refute his argument IN THE RIGHT THREAD instead of just trying to derail this one and calling him a "loser?"
why not do some research on how cap and trade is going to tax everyone an additional 1000 dollars a year.
Why not do some "research" on cap and trade yourself? Don't assume what I know on a subject unless I give it to you, you slack-jawed moron.
Obama's Carbon Cap-and-Trade Plan Can Boost Growth
Well-structured carbon emissions caps would foster clean-energy technology at scant cost to consumers. The program would even create jobs
By Richard L. Revesz and Michael A. Livermore
President Barack Obama hits three nails on the head with his plan to cap carbon emissions: weaning us off fossil fuels, spurring a wave of investment and job creation, and putting cash in the pockets of Americans who most need it.
In his budget, Obama included a "cap-and-refund" proposal that puts a strict limit on pollution that causes global warming and uses a permit auction to make large companies pay for the right to pollute. The cap on emissions will increase the price of fossil-fuel-based energy to encourage efficiency and new technologies. To protect consumers from rising prices, Obama's plan refunds the revenue from the auctions directly to the American people through a tax credit.
The point of a carbon cap is to make energy efficiency and renewable energy sources more competitive by removing hidden subsidies for dirty energy such as coal. Pollution from fossil-fuel-based energy is known to impose important external costs, from health impacts today to climate change risks tomorrow. By raising the price of carbon emissions, a cap will create incentives for clean energy, efficiency, and conservation.
Sparing Consumer Electricity Costs
Leveling the playing field by forcing fossil-fuel prices to reflect their true cost will spur a wave of clean-energy investment: research and development in new technologies, new factories to produce solar panels and wind turbines, and energy-efficiency retrofits of commercial and residential real estate. That means jobs, and lots of them. While some businesses that rely on dirty energy will be hurt, many others will thrive in the clean-energy economy.
Most carbon cap plans are set up to fail because they reward energy companies with permit giveaways and fail to compensate consumers for increased electricity bills. One such proposal hit the Senate floor last year, only to collapse under the weight of too much spending and not enough protection for the middle class. Obama's cap-and-refund plan avoids these mistakes.
As stated clearly by Peter Orszag, President Obama's budget director, giving away the permits would be nothing more than "the largest corporate welfare program that has ever been enacted in the history of the United States." A cap is going to increase the relative cost of dirty energy whether permits are given away or auctioned because companies will have to use permits they could otherwise have sold in the market. Either way, in deregulated markets, energy companies will pass those costs to consumers. Giving away permits doesn't help consumers; it just transfers wealth to utility companies. The exception is in regulated energy markets, where consumers would have to count on utility regulators to protect their interests.
Add Nonworkers to the Refund Flow
Just as important, almost all of the revenue from the permit auction is returned to the American public, recycling revenue directly into the U.S. economy and protecting consumers. Although prices for energy and energy-intensive goods are likely to rise, the refund can make up and even exceed the additional expenses for most Americans. As an added bonus, since lower-income Americans tend to spend new disposable income quickly—and they benefit the most under a tax-and-refund plan—we can actually expect a jump in consumer spending.
The President's budget is only the very beginning of this process. There are ways to improve it and to involve more Americans.
Under the President's plan, the refunds are distributed by extending the Making Work Pay tax credit, which applies to 95% of working Americans. If all, or nearly all, of the revenue from an auction is directly refunded, most Americans will receive more from the refund than they pay in increased energy prices. Unfortunately, this tax credit would not reach nonworkers, including retirees, people on disability, and the unemployed. Because these populations are among the most vulnerable, the refund should take them into account. As the cap declines, the auction revenue will actually increase, and a plan should be made to distribute the additional funds directly to the American public.
A Cleaner, Healthier Economy
These are important issues, but they deal with how to implement what is a genuinely transformative policy for this country. Right away, the President's proposal will create new investment incentives and get cash into the pockets of working Americans. In the future, as we adjust to a new green economy, the cap will be lowered, generating even greater revenue that will be distributed to the U.S. public.
The results of America's fossil-fuel addiction are clear: We send billions overseas for foreign oil, muck up the environment with coal pollution, and stunt economic development. Breaking that addiction will cause withdrawal symptoms for some, but it is necessary to build a cleaner, healthier economy for all.
Revesz is the dean of New York University School of Law, and Livermore is the executive director of the Institute for Policy Integrity.
-
Another garbage article by a professor who probably never had a job in his life. Shrum lost every single campaign he ever ran. Did you know that????
BTW - Ralph Nader and Buffet both say this cap and trade insanity will have no impact. Even Obama himself said everyones' electric bills will "necessarily skyrocket".
Those were his words not mine.
-
Another garbage article by a professor who probably never had a job in his life.
A professor (without whom you wouldn't have your so-called law degree) isn't a job??? Doesn't it pay a salary and does it not signify a certain degree of expertise in a given field? Is there a reason why you do not refute the arguement but attack the messenger, as you, Dogshit and several other repugnant repubes here aften do? ???
Shrum lost every single campaign he ever ran. Did you know that????
Is there a reason you are attempting to derail this thread with a personal attack on Shrum without debating the merits of his assessment IN THE PROPER THREAD? ::)
BTW - Ralph Nader and Buffet both say this cap and trade insanity will have no impact.
Just men I respect (though Nader less so), but they are nevertheless two individuals opinion refuted by many others.
Even Obama himself said everyones' electric bills will "necessarily skyrocket".
Those were his words not mine.
[/quote]
Show me the quote within the proper context of the overall statement on cap and trade, and I will give you props.
-
A professor (without whom you wouldn't have your so-called law degree) isn't a job??? Doesn't it pay a salary and does it not signify a certain degree of expertise in a given field? Is there a reason why you do not refute the arguement but attack the messenger, as you, Dogshit and several other repugnant repubes here aften do? ???
Is there a reason you are attempting to derail this thread with a personal attack on Shrum without debating the merits of his assessment IN THE PROPER THREAD? ::)
Just men I respect (though Nader less so), but they are nevertheless two individuals opinion refuted by many others.
Those were his words not mine.
Show me the quote within the proper context of the overall statement on cap and trade, and I will give you props.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kerry-picket/2008/11/02/obama-energy-prices-will-skyrocket
Check this out. Click on the video. His words from an interview. Tell me where I am misrepresenting anything that he himself said that rate will go up and people will get higher bills.
-
From what I have seen and heard, wind energy is not very efficient and takes up a lot of land and electricity. I think research to expand alternative energy sources is great but we can't penalyze US production in the meantime. This technology could be 10-20+ years away. In the mean time, companies and people will suffer.
-
From what I have seen and heard, wind energy is not very efficient and takes up a lot of land and electricity. I think research to expand alternative energy sources is great but we can't penalyze US production in the meantime. This technology could be 10-20+ years away. In the mean time, companies and people will suffer.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kerry-picket/2008/11/02/obama-energy-prices-will-skyrocket
Click on this interview. This is Obama in his own damn words saying our eletric rates with skyrocket and costs get passed on to us.
Have I misrepresented anything?????
-
Benny, it is well known that the smartest people academically are not always the best at running companies. In fact, I would argue that many extremely successful business owners were not top of their class. A good businessman has to master many more skills than pure academics. Do you believe professors would make the best business leaders? If you do, it ends our argument right there because most real world professionals would disagree. Perhaps you have little real world experience to understand my point.
I believe governors have much better experience as leaders compared to senators for similar reasons. A governor must balance so many variables to run a successful state, whereas a senator makes laws based on what they feel is in the best interest of the people they represent.
-
The comparison is not between Bush and Obama. Bush didn't really run major companies himself. A better comparison would be Obama and Romney. Unfortunately Romney didn't get the republican nod. He'd probably be great in the current situation.
-
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kerry-picket/2008/11/02/obama-energy-prices-will-skyrocket
Check this out. Click on the video. His words from an interview. Tell me where I am misrepresenting anything that he himself said that rate will go up and people will get higher bills.
If you can’t persuade the American people that, yes, there is going to be some increase on electricity rates on the front end, but that over the long term, because of combinations of more efficient energy usage and changing light bulbs and more efficient appliances, but also technology improving how we can produce clean energy that the economy will benefit.
I think I got the gist of what I needed to know from that link you posted. You get no props. ;D
If you want to oppose improvements in energy usage over the long haul, that is your prerogative. All I know is that your party is at the short end of the stick, the right legislation will pass, and you won't be able to do anything but grumble on getbig (as you do daily) and cradle your nuts as you cry yourself to sleep at night. ;D
-
The comparison is not between Bush and Obama.
Of course it is. Bush is your MBA wet dream of a president, and he SUCKED.
A better comparison would be Obama and Romney. Unfortunately Romney didn't get the republican nod. He'd probably be great in the current situation.
Romney didn't get the nomination because he did not have what it takes, and he never will have the charisma or character to be president. His flip flops are legendary. In addition, he'd have a lot of explaining to do given the MASSIVE amounts of people he fired running his businesses. Not a good history in a period of skyrocketing unemployment.
The success of Bain Capital helped Romney buildhis personal fortune, and the fact that he wasn't afraid to cut jobs for the sake of the bottom line will always come back to haunt him.
Romney's big success in leveraged buyouts—which he prefers to call the less loaded term "venture capital"—opens Romney to charges that he chased big money at the expense of the little guy. Such criticism sank his '94 Senate bid against Ted Kennedy, and Democrats are ready to stir things up again should he emerge again in 2012.
I predict Obama's economic stimulus and bank bailout plans will be successful anyway, and when the economy bounces back, your whole theory that "academics" can't run a successful government will no longer be a worthy argument.
-
Benny, it is well known that the smartest people academically are not always the best at running companies. In fact, I would argue that many extremely successful business owners were not top of their class. A good businessman has to master many more skills than pure academics. Do you believe professors would make the best business leaders? If you do, it ends our argument right there because most real world professionals would disagree. Perhaps you have little real world experience to understand my point.
I believe governors have much better experience as leaders compared to senators for similar reasons. A governor must balance so many variables to run a successful state, whereas a senator makes laws based on what they feel is in the best interest of the people they represent.
An excerpt from a Kevin Hall article on Romney's background translating into a successful presidency(2008):
However, business skills seldom have translated into effective presidencies.
"These (effective presidencies) are certainly not cookie-cutter things," warned Fred I. Greenstein, a professor emeritus in politics at Princeton University.
Previous experience is relevant, he said, "but it may point to different directions, and you can't just project from a job title or category."
Peanut farmer Jimmy Carter made millions in agribusiness, for example, but as president he micro-managed issues so closely that it virtually paralyzed his presidency, said Greenstein, the author of the 2004 book "The Presidential Difference: Leadership Style From FDR to George W. Bush."
Bush, who like Romney earned a Harvard master's in business administration, delegates so much that he views himself as more a decider than a manager.
Successful presidencies, Greenstein said, often depend on political skills such as those touted by Democratic Illinois Sen. Barack Obama or Romney's chief Republican rival, Arizona Sen. John McCain. Both have forged reputations as successful political leaders by reaching across the partisan aisle to find common ground on issues of mutual interest.
Management guru Jack Welch, the former CEO of General Electric, cites six business leadership traits for an effective president: authenticity, communicating a vision, hiring good people, resilience, sensing shifts and the ability to execute.
When sizing up a candidate, he says in the current issue of Business Week, voters should pay close attention to leadership.
"Its characteristics, in the corporate world and the political arena, are universal — and unmistakable," Welch wrote.
-
If you can’t persuade the American people that, yes, there is going to be some increase on electricity rates on the front end, but that over the long term, because of combinations of more efficient energy usage and changing light bulbs and more efficient appliances, but also technology improving how we can produce clean energy that the economy will benefit.
I think I got the gist of what I needed to know from that link you posted. You get no props. ;D
If you want to oppose improvements in energy usage over the long haul, that is your prerogative. All I know is that your party is at the short end of the stick, the right legislation will pass, and you won't be able to do anything but grumble on getbig (as you do daily) and cradle your nuts as you cry yourself to sleep at night. ;D
So we get higher taxes in the short term, with a HOPE that things will get better in the future according to a president who has no experience whatsoever in this area????
-
If the left can get taxes up, they will never come back down. Even if the origional purpose becomes obsolete, the cash flow will get funneled into something else.
Anything that gets funded should equate to an equal fiscal cut somewhere else.
-
If the left can get taxes up, they will never come back down. Even if the origional purpose becomes obsolete, the cash flow will get funneled into something else.
Anything that gets funded should equate to an equal fiscal cut somewhere else.
Bingo. This is about taxing us more and nothing else. Additionally, these "taxes" are going into the general fund and are not going to anything that will offset the higher bills people have to pay not only through the product they purchase, but their own energy consumption as well.
This whole thing is a complete waste of time and money.
-
Don't know how it works out on the east coast... but it's like with the tobacco taxes here, they tax the shit out of cigs, chew, etc and the claim is that it is going to medical research and to reimburse that state for the costs of treating people who can't pay that have smoking related health issues. In reality, it all goes into the general fund.
-
Benny, I was not a fan of the Bush presidency and have stated that numerous times here.
To me, it seems unwise to put restraints on business during a recession. I would wait till the economy rebounds before making any sacrifices for alternative energy programs that won't pay off in the short term.
-
The President hosted an event focused on "Investing in Our Clean Energy Future," with experts from inside and outside government. On the table were how crucial investments in clean energy and new technologies are included in the budget.
March 23, 2009
Yeah BENNY - its obvious that your messiah is well invested with BP/DUKE/DUPONT etc.
You = SUCKER
-
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/average-price-electricity-climbs-all-time-record
:)