Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
April 16, 2014, 03:49:19 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 46 47 [48] 49 50 ... 82   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Obama: Corruption, Deception, Dishonesty, Deceit and Promises Broken  (Read 77131 times)
tu_holmes
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 15771


With a keen eye for details, one truth prevails.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1175 on: October 06, 2011, 01:22:23 PM »


Way too simplistic as costs and inflation are killing everything. 

So you're saying you're definitely worse off.
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5175


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #1176 on: October 06, 2011, 01:27:16 PM »

So you're saying you're definitely worse off.

10 years - better off

5 - years - probably not as I made a killing from 2004 - 2008 and when Lehman went down - it killed NYC contruction industry.     
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5175


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #1177 on: October 06, 2011, 02:49:27 PM »

Cartwright named to advisory Defense Policy Board (Panetta also names Gorelick, Albright, Harman)
AP ^ | October 4, 2011




EXCERPT

Others Panetta is naming to the advisory board include former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, former deputy attorney general Jamie Gorelick and former Rep. Jane Harman. Panetta, Albright and Gorelick all served in the Bill Clinton administration.

The high-level board provides advice and opinions to the defense secretary on a range of policy issues.


(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...


________________________ ______________________




Mistress of Disaster ping!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1462207/posts

Able Danger, 9-11 Report, Gorelick, and so much more...
various FR links & stories | 08-12-05 | the heavy equipment guy

Posted on Friday, August 12, 2005 2:19:36 PM by backhoe

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A52625-2004Sep26?language=printer

Gorelick has told friends that she would seriously consider an offer some day to serve as defense secretary ...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2172976/posts

DAG Eric Holder was repeatedly told the “Wall” was blocking intel sharing
911FamiliesForAermica.or g ^ | January 27, 2009 | Tim Sumner

Three times during his tenure as Deputy Attorney General, Eric Holder was made fully aware that intelligence sharing with the Criminal Division was not taking place. As the officer in charge of day-to-day operations at the Department of Justice, his lack of due diligence ensured that the ‘Wall’ between the intelligence and criminal divisions of the FBI that Jamie Gorelick had built would remain in place for the foreseeable future. The ‘Wall’ stood as the Clinton administration and intelligence community saw the rising threat of al Qaeda, Ramzi Yousef was prosecuted for making the bomb used in the 1993 attack upon the World Trade Center and “Bojinka” plot to bomb American jetliners, and our embassies in Africa were attacked in 1998.

(snip)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2090020/posts

Countrywide Made Home Loans to Gorelick, Mudd
The Wall Street Journal ^ | 9/25/08 | GLENN R. SIMPSON

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2046736/posts

Guess who’s been involved intimately with Fannie Mae (Anyone remember Jamie Gorelick?)
Rush Limbaugh .com ^ | 7/16/08 | The Maha

From the Maha -

Guess who’s been involved intimately with Fannie Mae? Does the name Jamie Gorelick ring a bell? This woman is everywhere, and Jamie Gorelick got a 26 million payout when she left the place. Jamie Gorelick got 26 million to leave, one of Clinton’s guys, Franklin Raines, Franklin Raines, he was kicked out after corrupting the place. He left shortly before he was taking it in the shorts, but he got out of there with no penalty whatsoever. What is it with these Clinton people? This is why we don’t get any tell-all books on the Clinton administration because they were all set up in these sweetheart deals — money, money, money, money — I still can’t get over this. Congress is not helping poor old Doug Gylfe, so now we have millions of Americans who are priced out of home ownership, which is how this all started. “Any rescue policy to stem forecloses could artificially prop up home prices and perpetuate the affordability crisis,” yet I’ll guaran-damn-tee you if government did nothing and home prices continue to fall then tomorrow the AP would write a story whining and moaning about the lack of asset value for people who still do own their houses. We just can’t win with these people.

(snip)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2085666/posts

Mistress of Disaster: Jamie Gorelick
American Thinker ^ | September 19, 2008 | C. Edmund Wright

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2535774/posts

THEY’RE HERE (WTH??? Jamie Gorelick at the White House/BP meeting!!!)
politico ^ | 6/16/2010 |

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2526486/posts

Gorelick to Head BP Legal Team
Main Justice ^ | June 2, 2010 | Ryan J. Reilly











Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5175


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #1178 on: October 06, 2011, 07:33:30 PM »

Feds to design health insurance for the masses

By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR
Associated Press

Health Video

Advertisement

Multimedia
   Obesity Study: State-By-State Figures
Buy AP Photo Reprints


WASHINGTON (AP) -- The federal government is taking on a crucial new role in the nation's health care, designing a basic benefits package for millions of privately insured Americans. A framework for the Obama administration was released Thursday.

The report by independent experts from the Institute of Medicine lays out guidelines for deciding what to include in the new "essential benefits package," how to keep it affordable for small businesses and taxpayers, and also scientifically up to date.

About 68 million Americans, many of them currently insured, ultimately would be affected by the new benefits package. That's bigger than the number of seniors enrolled in Medicare.

The advisers recommended that the package be built on mid-tier health plans currently offered by small employers, expanded to include certain services such as mental health, and squeezed into a real-world budget.

They did not spell out a list of services to cover, but they did recommend that the government require evidence of cost effectiveness.

"In this day and age, when we are talking about fiscal responsibility, it's a report that recognized that we have to take account of what we can afford while trying to make sure that people have adequate coverage," said panel member Elizabeth McGlynn, director of Kaiser Permanente's center for effectiveness and safety research.

Until now, designing benefits has been the job of insurers, employers and state officials. But the new health care law requires insurance companies to provide at least the federally approved package if they want to sell to small businesses, families and individuals through new state markets set to open in 2014.

Most existing workplace plans won't be required to adopt the federal model, but employers and consumer advocates alike predict it will become the nation's benchmark for health insurance over time.

With the nation divided over President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law, and Republicans condemning it as a government takeover, the administration reacted cautiously to the recommendations.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said in a statement that officials would hold "listening sessions" around the country before any final decisions are made, which could take months. The IOM panel recommended an extensive effort to engage the public.

"Before we put forward a proposal, it is critical that we hear from the American people," Sebelius said. The law extends coverage to about 30 million uninsured people.

Actually, work on the benefits package is already well under way within the HHS department. On the outside, a huge lobbying campaign to shape the final package is about to take off.

Employer groups - particularly those representing low-wage industries - want to keep benefits fairly basic. Since the government is going to be subsidizing coverage for millions of people, a generous plan will drive up costs for taxpayers, they argue. But consumer and patient advocacy groups that helped pass the overhaul law want to make sure their priorities are included.

The health care law requires that essential benefits include outpatient, hospital, emergency, maternal, newborn and children's care, prescription drugs, mental health and substance abuse treatment, rehabilitation, labs, prevention and wellness. But Congress gave the administration lots of leeway to determine the specifics.

In its 300-page report, the Institute of Medicine panel stressed that the package has to be affordable if Obama's overhaul is going to stand the test of time.

The panel used the analogy of a shopper at the supermarket. One option is to fill up your cart with all the groceries you want, and find out the cost at the register.

"The other option is to walk into the store with a firm idea of what you can spend and to fill the cart carefully, with only enough food to fit within your budget," the advisers said. "The committee recommends that (the administration) take the latter approach."

The first option compares to what the government now does with Medicare and Medicaid - it pays all the bills. But the advisers said Obama's plan should be on a budget.

The panel proposed a tough financial test. Few small employer plans currently offer comprehensive mental health coverage, for example. As such services are added, the total cost of the package should stay within a realistic budget target to be set by the administration. That would help keep premiums affordable.

"Without a budget, you could decide to live in a 10,000 square-foot house overlooking the ocean and drive a Jaguar," McGlynn said.

The panel's rough estimate put annual premiums for individual coverage under the plan at $5,500 to $7,000 in 2014, comparable to what employers pay now.

Interest groups will be poring over the recommendations.

"Moving forward, this is truly a lynchpin issue," said Neil Trautwein, vice president for benefits policy at the National Retail Federation. "I think there will be a tug-of-war on this proposal."

The Institute of Medicine is an independent organization advising the government on technical issues.

.

© 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.






We warned you morons! 
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5175


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #1179 on: October 09, 2011, 01:23:08 PM »

Hawker Beechcraft CEO takes on Obama administration
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association ^ | October 9, 2011 | Alton K. Marsh


________________________ ________________________ __


Hawker Beechcraft Chairman and CEO Bill Boisture said targeting of the private aircraft industry both in terms of user fees and fiscal proposals appears to be intentional, and called fiscal policies such as user fees and depreciation schedules “irresponsible.”

The perceived attacks have damaged customer confidence, and contributed to some, perhaps the last 25 percent, of all employee layoffs and workforce reductions, Boisture said. “To have singled out our industry is irresponsible,” he said. “It must be intended,” he said in later comments.

In other remarks, Boisture said his staff decided long ago to treat the current recession as “the new normal,” and unfortunately that has proven true. “The only consistent thing we see is inconsistency,” he said. He added that, “…2012 looks like 2011, which looks like 2010.” What remains is a smaller, agile, efficient, and flexible company, he said. Nearly one million square feet of factory space has been closed, and 20,000 parts have been transferred to third-party manufacturers or to facilities in Mexico.

He said the new strategy to improve and retrofit existing products is seen in the Hawker 400XPR upgrades. “It is a very significant step in that direction,” he said. The company is testing the T-6 Texan as an attack aircraft that will be offered to the world’s air forces. Many of the countries planning to use the T-6 already have them in use as trainers. Another military push is the King Air, now offered for special missions and medical evacuation. Nearly a third of all special missions aircraft in use are built by Hawker Beechcraft.

The upgrades apply as well to the piston-engine models, the twin-engine Baron, and the Bonanza, which received newly designed interiors and cabin temperature control systems.

Hawker Beechcraft is continuing to expand and improve service centers, with a new one about to open in Wilmington, Del., and another just announced in Mexico.

Asked about a downgrade by Moody’s that indicates Hawker is not expected to return to profitability soon, Boisture said, “We are in good standing with our suppliers, customers, and our people. We have strong ownership. We are in good company [concerning the Moody’s rating]. About half the companies in Europe are on the same list.”

Hawker Executive Vice President Shawn Vick, who noted the King Air 250 is getting good reviews around the world for its short- and high-altitude runway capabilities, also took a swipe at the Obama administration. “Hopefully this nonsense ends soon and we can all get back to work,” he said.

Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5175


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #1180 on: October 10, 2011, 06:57:13 AM »

Aimless Obama walks alone
Last Updated: 3:45 AM, October 9, 2011




The reports are not good, disturbing even. I have heard basically the same story four times in the last 10 days, and the people doing the talking are in New York and Washington and are spread across the political spectrum.

The gist is this: President Obama has become a lone wolf, a stranger to his own government. He talks mostly, and sometimes only, to friend and adviser Valerie Jarrett and to David Axelrod, his political strategist.

Everybody else, including members of his Cabinet, have little face time with him except for brief meetings that serve as photo ops. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner both have complained, according to people who have talked to them, that they are shut out of important decisions.

The president’s workdays are said to end early, often at 4 p.m. He usually has dinner in the family residence with his wife and daughters, then retreats to a private office. One person said he takes a stack of briefing books. Others aren’t sure what he does.

If the reports are accurate, and I believe they are, they paint a picture of an isolated man trapped in a collapsing presidency. While there is no indication Obama is walking the halls of the White House late at night, talking to the portraits of former presidents, as Richard Nixon did during Watergate, the reports help explain his odd public remarks.

Obama conceded in one television interview recently that Americans are not “better off than they were four years ago” and said in another that the nation had “gotten a little soft.” Both smacked of a man who feels discouraged and alienated and sparked comparisons to Jimmy Carter, never a good sign.

Blaming the country is political heresy, of course, yet Obama is running out of scapegoats. His allies rarely make affirmative arguments on his behalf anymore, limiting themselves to making excuses for his failure. He and they attack Republicans, George W. Bush, European leaders and Chinese currency manipulation -- and that was just last week.

The blame game isn’t much of a defense for Solyndra and “Fast and Furious,” the emerging twin scandals that paint a picture of incompetence at best.

Obama himself is spending his public time pushing a $450 billion “jobs” bill -- really another stimulus in disguise -- that even Senate Democrats won’t support. He grimly flogged it repeatedly at his Thursday press conference, even though snowballs in hell have a better chance of survival.

If he cracked a single smile at the hour-plus event, I missed it. He seems happy only on the campaign trail, where the adoration of the crowd lifts his spirits.

When it comes to getting America back on track to economic growth, he is running on vapors. Yet he shows no inclination to adopt any ideas other than his own Big Government grab. His itch for higher taxes verges on a fetish.

Harvey Golub, former chairman of American Express, called the “jobs” bill an incoherent mess. Writing in The Wall Street Journal, he said that among other flaws, the bill includes an unheard of retroactive tax hike on the holders of municipal bonds.

“Many of us have suspected that economic illiterates were setting the economic policy of this administration,” Golub wrote, adding that the bill “reveals a depth of cluelessness that boggles the mind.”

The public increasingly shares the sentiment. A new Quinnipiac polls finds that 55 percent now disapprove of Obama’s job performance, with only 41 percent approving. A mere 29 percent say the economy will improve if the president gets four more years.

The election, unfortunately, is nearly 13 months away.

The way Obama’s behaving, by then we’ll all be talking to portraits of past presidents, asking why this one turned out to be such a flop.

They doth protest too much

Even as desperate Pander-crats, including the president, continue to baby-talk the Wall Street hooligans, some of whom have violently attacked police, Mayor Bloomberg gets the point and tone just right.

“What they’re trying to do is take the jobs away from people working in this city,” the mayor told radio man John Gambling Friday. “And some of the labor unions, the municipal unions that are participating, their salaries come from the taxes paid by the people they are trying to vilify.”

Sanity also comes from readers. Sheri Rosen said she works downtown, at 111 Broadway, and is sick of the filth and mayhem.

“We work very hard every day for not that much money,” she writes. “We don’t camp out at a park and act like animals by urinating and stealing milk from the coffee vendors that are also trying to make a living.”

She blasted Council Speaker Christine Quinn and Comptroller John Liu for supporting the demonstrators, saying, “True New Yorkers who work hard for their money won’t forget this on Election Day.”

Reader Harold Theurer sees another angle. Noting the passing of Steve Jobs, he wonders how many protesters carrying Apple products understand how those gadgets came to exist.

“What started out as two men in a garage with ideas and passion would have been nothing more than two guys in a garage with ideas and passion had it not been for an IPO on Dec. 12, 1980, when Apple went public at $22 per share,” he writes.

“Big Bad Wall Street raised $101 million for Mr. Jobs to expand his ideas, create jobs and change the landscape of technology. The next time any of the Wall Street occupiers makes an iTune purchase, it can be traced back to some Big Bad Banker’s belief in Mr. Jobs and his company.”

Class dismissed.

‘Apolitical’ Doublespeak

Future historians looking for the tenor of our era could do worse than rummage through New York Times editorials. They’ll find an archive of incredibly bad ideas and exhibits of the liberal mindset that claims only conservatives have politics.

Take a recent piece on ObamaCare. After noting that the Supreme Court is likely to decide the issue next year, the Times says, “The court must not let politics influence its decision.” Then it goes on to demand the court support the law, saying the individual mandate and “and all other provisions . . . are constitutional and should be upheld.”

No politics there!

Go to blazes, judge!

City Hall ought to get a restraining order against federal Judge Nicholas Garaufis. Not content with demanding a quota system for nonwhite firefighters, the Brooklyn jurist has turned a discrimination complaint into a four-year personal war against Mayor Bloomberg and the FDNY. He ruled last week that a special monitor must oversee all aspects of hiring, training and promotion “for at least 10 years.”

The city is appealing, but it should accept the ruling on one condition: Garaufis sheds his judicial robes to become fire commissioner. That way he’d have to live in the real world instead of looking down on it

Boys of winter

Buck up, Yankee fans. Next year begins on Feb. 19, when pitchers and catchers report to spring training.



Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/aimless_obama_walks_alone_OUgoMTkORRJioLl7B6ZYmN#ixzz1aO3DDv39


________________________ ______________

I'm getting the feeling this fool is not going to run.   I have said so many times. 
Report to moderator   Logged
dario73
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5700


Getbig!


View Profile
« Reply #1181 on: October 10, 2011, 07:32:27 AM »



I'm getting the feeling this fool is not going to run.   I have said so many times. 

If only the nation had such luck.
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5175


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #1182 on: October 10, 2011, 02:05:41 PM »

SPIN METER: Obama disconnects rhetoric, reality
By ERICA WERNER
he Associated Press

6:31 a.m. Monday, October 10, 2011




WASHINGTON — In President Barack Obama's sales pitch for his jobs bill, there are two versions of reality: The one in his speeches and the one actually unfolding in Washington.

When Obama accuses Republicans of standing in the way of his nearly $450 billion plan, he ignores the fact that his own party has struggled to unite behind the proposal.

When the president says Republicans haven't explained what they oppose in the plan, he skips over the fact that Republicans who control the House actually have done that in detail.

And when he calls on Congress to "pass this bill now," he slides past the point that Democrats control the Senate and were never prepared to move immediately, given other priorities. Senators are expected to vote Tuesday on opening debate on the bill, a month after the president unveiled it with a call for its immediate passage.

To be sure, Obama is not the only one engaging in rhetorical excesses. But he is the president, and as such, his constant remarks on the bill draw the most attention and scrutiny.

The disconnect between what Obama says about his jobs bill and what stands as the political reality flow from his broader aim: to rally the public behind his cause and get Congress to act, or, if not, to pin blame on Republicans.

He is waging a campaign, one in which nuance and context and competing responses don't always fit in if they don't help make the case.

For example, when Obama says his jobs plan is made up of ideas that have historically had bipartisan support, he stops the point there. Not mentioned is that Republicans have never embraced the tax increases that he is proposing to cover the cost of his plan.

Likewise, from city to city, Obama is demanding that Congress act (he means Republicans) while it has been clear for weeks that the GOP will not support all of his bill, to say the least. Individual elements of it may well pass, such as Obama's proposal to extend and expand a payroll tax cut. But Republicans strongly oppose the president's proposed new spending and his plan to raise taxes on millionaires to pay for the package.

The fight over the legislative proposal has become something much bigger: a critical test of the president's powers of persuading the public heading into the 2012 presidential campaign, and of Republicans' ability to deny him a win and reap victory for themselves.

"He knows it's not going to pass. He's betting that voters won't pick up on it, or even if they do they will blame Congress and he can run against the 'do-nothing Congress,'" said Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, a senior fellow at the University of Southern California's School of Policy, Planning and Development.

John Sides, political science professor at George Washington University, said Obama's approach on the jobs bill is "more about campaigning than governing."

"He's mostly just going around talking about this and drawing contrasts with what the Republicans want and what he wants and not really trying to work these legislative levers he might be able to use to get this passed," Sides said. "That just suggests to me that he is ready to use a failed jobs bill as a campaign message against the Republicans."

The president's opponents aren't exactly laying it all out, either.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., tried to force a vote on the bill last week, innocently claiming that the president was entitled to one. McConnell knew full well that the result would be failure for the legislation and an embarrassment for Obama.

House Speaker John Boehner, meanwhile, claimed that Obama has "given up on the country and decided to campaign full-time" instead of seeking common ground with the GOP. But Boehner neglected to mention that Obama's past attempts at compromise with Republicans often yielded scant results, as Obama himself pointed out.

The approach for Obama, who is seeking a second term in a dismal economy, is far different than the one he took when running for president. He criticized the GOP then, but talked about ending blue-state and red-state America, replacing it with one America, fixing the broken political system, and fundamentally changing Washington.

That ended up being change he could not bring about, and now analysts say Obama may have little choice but to campaign more narrowly by attacking opponents rather than trying to bring people together.

Obama's attempts at compromise with the GOP on the debt ceiling and budget won him little in the way of policy, instead engendering frustration from Democrats who saw him as caving to Republican demands.

The new, combative Obama isn't looking for compromise. He's looking for a win. And if he can't get the legislative victory he says he wants, he has made clear that he's more than willing to take a political win.

It is, he acknowledges, a result his campaign for his jobs bill is designed to achieve.

Talking up the bill in an appearance last month with African-American news websites, Obama said: "I need people to be out there promoting this and pushing this and making sure that everybody understands the details of what this would mean, so that one of two things happen: Either Congress gets it done, or if Congress doesn't get it done, people know exactly what's holding it up."

EDITOR'S NOTE _ An occasional look behind the rhetoric of public officials.

___

October 10, 2011 06:31 AM EDT

Copyright 2011, The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.


Find this article at:
http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/spin-meter-obama-disconnects-1197664.html
 Print this page  Close .
Report to moderator   Logged
whork
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5211


Getbig!


View Profile
« Reply #1183 on: October 10, 2011, 03:57:27 PM »

If only the nation had such luck.

He should step back and let RP take over but stay on as Foreign Secretary

He sucks at economy but is great at fighting Terrorists
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5175


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #1184 on: October 11, 2011, 06:20:06 PM »


Return to the Article

October 11, 2011
Economic Illiteracy, Thou Art Obama's Defense of Solyndra

By John Tamny
Dissembling about the capital destruction debacle that was his Administration's loan guarantee to bankrupt green-energy firm Solyndra, President Obama told ABC News last week that "if we want to compete with China, which is pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into this space...we've got to make sure that our guys here in the United States of America at least have a shot."

Of course if the president were better schooled in basic economics, he would well understand that "our guys" do have a shot to compete in this space thanks to U.S. capital markets being the deepest in the world. Thanks to angel financing, venture capital, PIPEs, convertible bonds, bonds themselves, and stock issuance, those with a good idea have myriad options when it comes to marrying their innovation with capital.

And there lies the obvious problem with Solyndra. Unable to raise needed operating funds in the private markets, it was forced to go to the federal government to get what our markets would not provide.

The implications for our economy are similarly obvious. Though $535 million is presently a laughable sum to a government that knows no limits, and which doles out a great deal more to support the waste that increasingly symbolizes Washington, there's an unseen quality to this.

Indeed, what's continuously forgotten by our federal minders is that they have no resources. For the Obama administration to guarantee a $500 million dollar loan is for it to ultimately extract $500 million from the private economy where it might have actually funded a real, economy enhancing concept. Unseen is what Microsofts, Intels and Facebooks (the latter's initial funding $500,000 - Facebook supposedly now worth $75 billion) will never see the light of day thanks to the political class's hubristic belief that it knows better than private markets disciplined by success and failure about where capital should be allocated.

As for President Obama's assertion that we need to fund these ideas to "compete", apparently he's oblivious to the basic truth that an idea is not wealth unless the distribution of that which entrepreneurs create is broad. Assuming the Chinese rush ahead of us in the green technology space, in order for its private companies or its government to achieve a return on investment they'll have to sell their innovations into the marketplace; final destination unknown.

In short, assuming the Chinese crack the alternative energy code on the way to market-changing advances for energy and environmental preservation, Americans will enjoy them as though they'd been conceived in Silicon Valley. And for those eager to make the laughable assertion that the Chinese will not sell us those advances, we'll simply purchase them from those they do sell to.

Of course if the opposite occurs, as in if this rush to alternative energy with the money of others proves the capital wasting joke that an already skeptical marketplace presumes, the American economy will be better off for Americans not wasting human, physical and financial capital on something of no economic value. The reality is that the Japanese are ahead of us with televisions, the Italians perhaps are with shoes and clothing, and the Brazilians harvest better coffee beans, but we enjoy all three thanks to our own comparative productivity in other areas.

Basically we let others make our televisions, suits and coffee, and this gives us time to create Google, Coca-Cola and Amazon. A more wealth enhancing trading relationship would be hard to find, but with our president laboring under the absurd notion that trade is war and the imports that reward our productivity hurt us, he's used and is using his power of taxation to force Americans to fund that which the markets don't presently want.

Importantly, there's a lesson here for many on the right in this country deluded by the economy-sapping notion of "energy independence." Just as we'll be the beneficiaries of any worthy Chinese advancements in green technology should they ever materialize, so will we be able to consume the world's oil irrespective of where it's discovered as though it bubbled up in West Texas. Oil is not wealth until it reaches the marketplace, U.S. interests are "size buyers" of the petroleum product, and with there existing no control over the final destination of any commodity, a world awash in oil means we'll purchase as much as we want for as long as we want at the global price.

At present there exists the fiction that oil is expensive when in fact oil is only expensive insofar as the dollar is cheap, so commentators who should know better argue for drilling anywhere and everywhere with an eye on "creating jobs." It should be stressed that this writer has no objection to drilling anywhere and everywhere, but with Texas's implosion (and the resulting collapse of banks bailed out by U.S. taxpayers) during the strong dollar ‘80s in mind, it should be said that we always eventually return to a strong dollar, the latter will quickly expose much of this excitement about oil deposits stateside as non-economic, so let's at least curb our enthusiasm.

Oil is no different than any other commodity desired by market actors, and we should view it much as we do increasingly worthless solar panels made in the U.S. If we want either, there's a market we can enter for both.

Though unaware when he uttered it last week, President Obama's illiterate defense of government subsidization of green energy explains exactly why the government shouldn't be subsidizing it. As he notes the Chinese are spending a lot more on alternative energies than we are, which means we can sit back and either see them fail, or better yet, see them succeed on the way to importing their innovations. Either way we win.

 

checkTextResizerCookie('article_body');
John Tamny is editor of RealClearMarkets and Forbes Opinions, a senior economic adviser to H.C. Wainwright Economics, and a senior economic adviser to Toreador Research and Trading (www.trtadvisors.com). He can be reached at jtamny@realclearmarkets.com.

Page Printed from: http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2011/10/11/economic_illiteracy_thou_art_obamas_defense_of_solyndra_99302-full.html at October 11, 2011 - 08:18:21 PM CDT
Report to moderator   Logged
garebear
Time Out
Getbig V
*
Gender: Male
Posts: 6517


Never question my instincts.


View Profile
« Reply #1185 on: October 11, 2011, 06:30:15 PM »

The buisness climate for everyone I know, my clients, their clients, their clinents clients - is the worse ever anyone can ever remember. 

Even many of the accounts I deal with say things are the worst of their lifetime and getting drastically worse.   

Obama has caused MASSIVE inflation in things that are generally fixed cost items and is collapsing the main street. 


No one asked about your imaginary friends.
Report to moderator   Logged

G
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5175


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #1186 on: October 11, 2011, 06:35:15 PM »

No one asked about your imaginary friends.

Can you dispute the article I posted? 
Report to moderator   Logged
garebear
Time Out
Getbig V
*
Gender: Male
Posts: 6517


Never question my instincts.


View Profile
« Reply #1187 on: October 11, 2011, 07:26:50 PM »

That's like saying let's talk about that raindrop that fell in the Atlantic last Thursday.
Report to moderator   Logged

G
whork25
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 1653

Getbig!


View Profile
« Reply #1188 on: October 12, 2011, 05:51:29 AM »

Maybe you personally - but for the overall country - people are drastically worse off.   The numbers are laid out for you in the clip I posted.   


Talk to any main street business person and ask them what is going on in the economy and if they are better off. 

And its where we are going!  Things are getting drastically worse on so many fronts.   

Thats a lie businesses and rich people are more loaded than ever
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5175


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #1189 on: October 12, 2011, 05:53:15 AM »

Thats a lie businesses and rich people are more loaded than ever

You are so fucked up in the head its not funny. 

Report to moderator   Logged
whork25
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 1653

Getbig!


View Profile
« Reply #1190 on: October 12, 2011, 05:54:37 AM »

You are so fucked up in the head its not funny. 



Probably but my statement is true
Income for big corp has never been higher, so what exactly are you talking about?
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5175


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #1191 on: October 12, 2011, 05:56:22 AM »

I'm talking about main street, mid sized corps, sub s, construction, 1099's, etc, not multinational conglomerates. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5175


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #1192 on: October 12, 2011, 11:26:35 AM »

DOJ: Feds Can Tell Church Who Its Ministers Will Be
Townhall ^ | 10/12/2011 | Terry Jeffrey




In yet another stunning attack on freedom of religion, President Barack Obama's Justice Department asked the Supreme Court last week to give the federal government the power to tell a church who its ministers will be.

The case involves a former teacher at Lutheran school, who along with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is pushing a claim that a Lutheran congregation should be forced to restore her ministry position.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State and American Atheists, Inc. have filed briefs siding with the Obama administration against the church.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints, the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations, and the American Center for Law and Justice are among those who have filed briefs supporting the Lutherans.

In 1999, the Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School in Redford, Mich., hired Cheryl Perich to be a lay teacher on a one-year contract in its kindergarten.

The next year, Perich became a "called" teacher at the school after she became a commissioned minister in the church.

"To receive a call, a candidate must be selected by a local church congregation," said a brief the church submitted to the Supreme Court that was prepared by lawyers at the Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty and Douglas Laycock of the University of Virginia Law School.

"At Hosanna-Tabor, the school board typically presents a choice of candidates to the congregation, and after prayerfully considering the candidates, the congregation extends a call via congregational vote," the brief said. "Once the call has been accepted, the candidate is installed in office via the public rite of 'commissioning,' and is recognized as a 'Minister of Religion, Commissioned' -- also known as a 'commissioned minister.'"

As a minister in the school, Perich taught religious classes, led students in prayer and performed other religious tasks. She was also expected to integrate the teaching of the Lutheran faith into all so-called "secular" classes, including math, science, social studies and art.

In 2004, Perich was diagnosed with narcolepsy and was unable to teach the fall semester. In January 2005, when she could not return, the school hired another teacher to take her place during the spring.

Later that month, according to a brief filed by the Justice Department's Office of the Solicitor General, Perich informed the school's principal, Stacey Hoeft, via email that she would be able to return to work the following month.

The principal informed her they had already hired a replacement teacher for the rest of the year.

The congregation then voted to ask Perich for a "peaceful release from her call."

"'Peaceful release' is a religious act by which a congregation and a called minister agree to release one another from the mutual obligations of the call," says the brief submitted by the church. "Peaceful releases are common, and they leave the called minister in good standing and eligible for a new call."

Perich declined to be peacefully released. In late February, she showed up at the school and met with Principal Hoeft.

"Later that day, Perich told Hoeft that if she were not reinstated, she would sue the church," said the church's brief. "Hoeft immediately asked Perich if that were what she really meant, because a lawsuit would clearly violate the church's conflict resolution policy applicable to called employees. Perich repeated the threat."

The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod explained this teaching in its own brief: "St. Paul teaches in his first letter to the Corinthians that Christians should generally resolve their disputes internally without going to the secular courts for relief." For this reason, the church has developed procedures for settling internal disputes.

A few weeks after the meeting between Perich and Hoeft, the Hosanna-Tabor congregation voted to "rescind Perich's call" because she had threatened to sue the church contrary to the church's teaching.

"The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a complaint against the church under the Americans With Disabilities Act, alleging a single count of retaliation," says the church's brief. "Perich intervened, alleging the same retaliation claim and adding a retaliation claim under state law. Neither complaint alleges disability discrimination. Both complaints request an order reinstating Perich to her former position as a commissioned minister, together with back pay, compensatory damages, punitive damages, and injunctive relief ordering new 'policies, practices, and programs' at the church."

The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod told the court in its brief that its views on the ministry and the settlement of disputes may not be "widely shared" or "widely understood." "But," the church said, "they have been the views of orthodox Lutherans for centuries."

Acting Deputy Solicitor General Leondra Kruger told the court, during oral arguments, that the federal government should be able to trump the church on these decisions.

"Their submission is that the hiring and firing decisions with respect to parochial school teachers and with respect to priests is categorically off limits," said Kruger. "And we think that that is a rule that is insufficiently attentive to the relative public and private interests at stake, interests that this court has repeatedly recognized are important in determining freedom of association claims."

Kruger contended this did not mean the government could order the Catholic Church to ordain female priests. But, even then, according to her argument, it would be a matter of the government weighing "the relative public and private interests at stake."

What is at stake is the First Amendment and the religious freedom of all Americans.

Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5175


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #1193 on: October 12, 2011, 07:31:41 PM »

State Dept Considering 5,662 'Diversity Visa' Applicants from Terror States
CNS News ^ | 10-11-11 | Elizabeth Harrington


As part of its 2012 Diversity Visa program, the U.S. State Department is considering 5,662 applicants from countries deemed ‘State Sponsors of Terrorism’ – Iran, Syria, Sudan and Cuba.

In 2011, the State Department awarded 2,427 Diversity Visas to people from Iran, Syria and Sudan -- 1,842 for Iran; 553 for Sudan; and 32 for Syria.

(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...







I hope Obama moves these people into the WH right next to his daughters. 
Report to moderator   Logged
whork25
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 1653

Getbig!


View Profile
« Reply #1194 on: October 13, 2011, 12:54:53 AM »

I'm talking about main street, mid sized corps, sub s, construction, 1099's, etc, not multinational conglomerates. 

And guess why they are suffering? Because the neocon agenda witch you support is destroying the middle class
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5175


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #1195 on: October 13, 2011, 07:05:23 AM »

Judicial Watch Releases Comprehensive Special Report on President Obama’s 45 Czars
Judicial Watch ^ | October 10, 2011





New Czars Exercise Unprecedented Control over Government Policies and Programs While Operating Under a “Veil of Secrecy”


Judicial Watch, the public interest organization that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, today released “ President Obama’s Czarspdf,” a special report on the President’s appointing of “policy advisors,” many of whom enjoy positions of power and authority in the administration and yet have not been subjected to vetting and confirmation by the U.S. Senate. Judicial Watch’s extensive investigation exhaustively documents these czar appointments and details the control these czars exercise over government operations.

From the report’s introduction:

“This Judicial Watch Special Report analyzes the proliferation of so-called ‘czars’ in the Obama administration. President Barack Obama has installed personal advisors in czar positions in the White House and has created new czar positions elsewhere in the Executive Branch. As of the date of this report, the number of czars that have been appointed by the President, or by others in his administration, appears to total 45. In addition, there are as many as 18 other unfilled or planned czar positions.

“Many of these ‘czars’ are unconfirmed by the Senate and are largely unaccountable to Congress. Further, their activities are often outside the reach of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), creating a veil of secrecy about their precise role in the administration.”


The new report is available at Judicial Watch’s websitepdf

•Czars appointees have seized unprecedented control over major aspects of government policy and programs. In some instances, unconfirmed czars have authority, in seeming violation of the U.S. Constitution, over certain Senate-confirmed officers.

•A number of the czars have been linked to scandals, thefts and kickbacks, flagrant and offensive statements, conflicts of interest, and radical leftist political ideologies and policies.
“Barack Obama’s unconstitutional use of czars to help run his administration is at odds with republican, limited, and accountable government. Obama has simply installed his radical leftist allies in various positions of power while thumbing his nose at Congress and the American people. As we document in this report, too many of these czars have proven to be corrupt or radicals (or sometimes both). No wonder the Obama administration fights tooth and nail to allow these czars to operate in secret. Nevertheless, Judicial Watch managed to develop this comprehensive list of czars as part of efforts to ensure government accountability.”

http://www.judicialwatch.org/news/2011/oct/judicial-watch-releases-comprehensive-special-report-president-obama-s-45-czars



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5175


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #1196 on: October 13, 2011, 07:39:12 AM »


Opinion: Obama's off-target class war
By: Joel Kotkin
October 12, 2011 09:30 PM EDT
 



For many conservatives, the notion of class warfare that President Barack Obama now evokes is both un-American and noxious — a crass attempt to cash in on envy among the masses. Yet the problem is not in class warfare itself — but in being clear what class you are targeting.

In this sense, Obama’s populism is little more than a faux version. He is not really going after the privileges of the super-rich — that would involve actions like removing the advantages of capital gains over earned income or limiting dodges to nonprofit foundations or family trusts. Rather than a war against plutocrats, Obama’s thrust is against the upper end of the middle class, whose income is most vulnerable to higher taxes.

The president is within his rights to use these class warfare tactics; it’s just too bad he is aiming at the wrong target. Exploiting class divisions, in fact, has long been a part of American politics — from the Jacksonian era through Abraham Lincoln, the New Deal and even Bill Clinton. Obama’s sudden tilt toward class warfare may thrill left-wing commentators such as The American Prospect’s Robert Kuttner. But it’s no real threat to the real ruling classes.

Though the president’s rhetoric focuses on “millionaires and billionaires,” his proposals do less harm to the ultrarich and their trustifarian offspring than to the large professional and entrepreneurial classes, whose members are earning more than $200,000 a year. More affluent than most Americans, these members of the upper middle class hardly constitute oligarchs. Ninety percent of the targeted class earns less than $1 million annually. Only a tiny sliver, or .01 percent, are billionaires.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s proposal to raise the target income level closer to $1 million is a concession to political common sense — but still avoids the big distinction between investor and income earner. Meanwhile, the administration’s rhetorical gambit of using Warren Buffett as the class warfare poster boy reveals its fundamental disingenuousness.

Many rich do avoid high taxes through dynastic trusts concocted largely to avoid the Internal Revenue Service. Others, like Buffett, put vast amounts into foundations — in his case, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, where it sits tax free. In addition, the patrician class, because its members tend to be more active investors, also pays less, largely because its capital gains earnings are taxed at a low 15 percent rate, less than half that paid by high-income professionals.

Obama’s biggest problem with class is that his policies have made a bad situation worse. During both the Clinton administration and most of the George W. Bush years, the rich prospered. But so, too, did middle- and working-class homeowners, professionals and construction workers.


Today, however, only the high-end housing market, roughly 1.5 percent of the market, is flourishing. The vast majority have seen their property values shrink — down 30 percent since 2006. Markets, like Manhattan , which is increasingly dominated by foreign investors, have surged — the average price of a New York condo or co-op has topped $1.4 million, a nifty 3 percent increase over last year.

But to a large degree, this reflects those who are the biggest beneficiaries of the largesses of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke: hedge fund managers, investment bankers, the corporate aristocracy and officials of “too big to fail” banks. For these financiers, the time since the economic collapse has been very fat years — at least until the European debt crisis.

The situation, however, has been far worse for small businesses — with serious consequences for job creation. The number of start-ups with employees — the traditional source of new jobs — has dropped 23 percent since 2008. Most entrepreneurs, according to the National Federation of Independent Business, expect the job market to weaken and unemployment to stay high for the foreseeable future.

“Corporate profits may be at a record high,” said Bill Dunkelberg, chief economist of the National Federation of Independent Business, “but businesses on Main Street are still scraping by.”

Obama’s phony class war also carries considerable political risk. As Mark Penn, the former Clinton adviser, and others have pointed out, the newest Obama tax strategy most penalizes the professionals who flocked to his cause in 2008 . These voters — concentrated largely in high-tax, high-cost blue states — are also particularly vulnerable to any reduction of write-offs for mortgage interest and state taxes.

Obama’s left turn also fails to address the America’s biggest problem: how to ignite broad economic growth.

It should now be clear to all but the most deluded that the administration’s bankrolling of massive solar projects and embrace of hopeless causes like high-speed rail have not reaped much of a bonanza. Indeed, in many places where the administration’s “green” agenda has been adopted most fervently, like California, unemployment rates now surpass even Michigan’s.

Obama’s misguided economic notions can be seen even when he looks to solve our critical jobs shortage. In addition to the “green jobs” fiasco, the president is looking to Silicon Valley and the information economy — which have lost jobs since 2006. Facebook, Apple, Google and the rest may be swell representatives of American ingenuity — but employ relatively few people in America, and mostly the best educated and thus least vulnerable.


In contrast, the administration displays relatively little support — and passion — for the many middle-income Americans who depend, directly or indirectly, on industries like oil and gas, warehousing, construction and, except for the bailed-out auto firms, manufacturing. In these sectors, only the fossil-fuel industry has done well — adding more than 500,000 generally well-paying jobs since 2006, despite the Environmental Protection Agency’s best efforts to slow its progress.

Workers in the energy field – in which salaries average more than $100,000 annually — reasonably fear their jobs could be threatened if Obama is reelected. This could damage his appeal in states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, where many working-class voters are now counting on new oil and gas finds to spur the growth of high-wage employment.

So how best to confront America’s growing class division? With serious economic growth beyond Wall Street. A flatter tax system with fewer exemptions, limiting trusts and foundations and ending the preference for capital gains would force the wealthy to re-engage the economy. They would have fewer ways to hide their money. Sweep aside both subsidies for oil and gas companies and the renewable industry, regulate sensibly and market forces can drive exploration and development.

Will Republicans support this approach? Many seem almost incapable of acknowledging the threat to democracy and our social order now posed by the growing concentrations of wealth that eerily recall the 1920s. Others prostitute themselves to fossil-fuel industries — the way the Democrats kowtow to rent-seeking green capitalists. Meanwhile, with Obama’s once strong support on Wall Street weakening, they seem all too eager to dance to big money’s tune to fill their own coffers.

It’s time to finally acknowledge that the whole “trickle down” from Wall Street approach has been discredited — and with it the current regime of class privilege. You don’t have to be a member of Occupy Wall Street to doubt that what’s good for the top investment bankers is necessarily good for the vast majority of the country.

Neither mindless budget-cutting nor politically motivated redistribution can solve the growing economic divide or create new wealth. Instead, we need a tax and policy regime that stops favoring financial insiders and instead focuses incentives on the grass-roots hard work and ingenuity that have long been America’s greatest economic asset.

Joel Kotkin is the author of “The Next Hundred Million: America in 2050.” He is a distinguished senior fellow in urban futures at Chapman University and an adjunct fellow at the Legatum Institute in London.
 
 
© 2011 POLITICO LLC
 
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5175


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #1197 on: October 14, 2011, 07:09:29 PM »

Rumors swirling in DC that Obama is already collecting Americans'private health records
The Daily Caller ^ | October 14, 2011 | Matthew Boyle
Posted on October 14, 2011 6:26:05 PM EDT by matthewreporter

The Obama administration adamantly denies it, but rumors are circulating in Washington that his Department of Health and Human Services is already collecting Americans’ private health information, or at least preparing itself to do so.

Rep. Denny Rehberg, the chairman of the House appropriations subcommittee on Labor, Health & Human Services and Education formalized the rumors by asking about them in a letter to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius on Thursday.

“Specifically, I have been told that HHS has already procured a contractor to build a database and that this contractor has already taken steps to acquire personal health care data from a large claims database,” Rehberg wrote. “I would like to know if these reports are, in fact, true. If so, it would represent an egregious violation of the privacy rights that the American public rightfully demands.”

(Excerpt) Read more at thedc.com ...
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5175


Doesnt lie about lifting.


View Profile
« Reply #1198 on: October 17, 2011, 06:11:46 AM »

Obama’s Big Green Mess
Daily Beast ^ | Oct 17, 2011 | Daniel Stone & Eleanor Clift





This summer, federal inspectors made a routine visit to 11 homes in St. Louis to see what taxpayers got for the $5 billion that President Obama spent to help Americans weatherize their homes to save energy.

What they found was quite a surprise. Some of the energy-efficient furnaces installed at taxpayer expense spewed carbon monoxide that could poison occupants. New water heaters lacked required pressure valves, putting them in jeopardy of exploding. And a handful of contractors—unfamiliar with the nuances of specialized weatherization work—had used air blowers in homes with asbestos, potentially dispersing the cancer-causing agent, according to several Energy Department inspector-general reports.

As it closes in on retrofitting 600,000 homes, the government’s weatherization program—a key element of President Obama’s green-energy initiative—has had its share of happy, energy-saving customers. But it has also been riddled with problems. In one review, Energy Department investigators found that 14 percent of weatherization projects surveyed, from Tennessee to West Virginia, failed to meet safety or quality standards. Many customers were poor or elderly, with few resources to pursue wayward contractors.

It turned out that as so much money was being spent so quickly, a lot of state and local governments, as well as contractors, simply weren’t ready for the job at hand. "You don’t have trained people to do those jobs in places like Arizona or Florida," says Earl Devaney, chairman of the Recovery Board and Obama’s handpicked watchdog to oversee stimulus spending. "It turned into a cottage industry." A senior Energy Department official agreed: "We were clearly not ready to take all this money, especially at the state level." green-first-report-co04

Washington’s scandal du jour has been Solyndra. The California solar company received a rushed half-billion-dollar clean-energy stimulus loan from the Obama administration, only to go bankrupt and potentially leave taxpayers on the hook—despite warnings from career officials that both Solyndra and the larger solar industry were facing financial pressures.


But it is far from the only blemish on the administration’s much-touted green agenda. In addition to weatherization problems, an internal Labor Department report disclosed this month that a multibillion-dollar program to retrain workers for green-energy jobs met only 10 percent of its goal of creating 80,000 jobs. A federal renewable-energy lab in Colorado that got nearly $300 million from another green-energy program began laying off 10 percent of its workforce last month.


Overall, as the $787 billion economic stimulus—the primary engine for the green-energy agenda—came to an end Sept. 30, it is clear that the program created far fewer jobs than promised. So-called green-collar jobs are notoriously hard to tally, but numerous estimates by gleeful Republicans put the taxpayer cost of each green-energy job created by the stimulus at more than $1 million.

The White House acknowledges it hit bumps but insists the payoff will become clearer down the road. "Any time you take historic action you’re certainly going to learn lessons," says Heather Zichal, Obama’s chief energy and environment adviser. "These investments are not just about the jobs they are creating today but also support the long-term competitiveness and health of this important sector of our economy."


Some of the biggest immediate beneficiaries of the green revolution, ironically, may have been politicians themselves. Executives of the top 50 recipients of the government’s green-energy aid have donated more than $2 million to federal campaigns since Obama took office. Some of the biggest recipients of green stimulus money—including NRG Energy and Consolidated Edison—made six-figure donations to candidates and interest groups. The industry as a whole has ponied up more than $5 million from its executives and political action committees, a notable increase from a formerly quiet sector. Democrats have been the main beneficiaries of clean-energy money. But Republicans have tapped their allies in the fossil-fuel industries—Exxon Mobil and Koch Industries have been the biggest donors, and overwhelmingly to Republicans—for more than $20 million in donations since Obama took office.

The clean-energy agenda quickly took on the trappings of the money-for-access game endemic to Washington. Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, a chief backer of Obama’s agenda, hosted a roundtable in Washington in June 2009 with a dozen major clean-energy executives eager to build projects in his home state of Nevada. Within a year, at least eight executives from those companies donated to Reid’s reelection campaign. Reid’s office declined to comment.

Republicans put their own squeeze on the industry, pressing for federal largesse while publicly denouncing Obama’s program. House Speaker John Boehner, a leading critic on Solyndra, urged Obama to allocate clean-energy grants for a nuclear-enrichment project in Ohio, his home state, just three months after one of the company’s executives donated to Boehner’s reelection campaign. According to Maplight.org, a nonpartisan researcher of money’s influence on politics, Boehner has received nine major donations from nuclear-energy advocates. A spokesman for Boehner says there’s nothing improper about the speaker’s support of nuclear energy.

Obama’s sweeping goal is to generate 80 percent of America’s energy from clean sources by 2035. And there have been major victories. Since he took office, the U.S. has doubled its renewable-energy generation and has become the top researcher and producer of advanced batteries for hybrid and electric cars, long a holy grail of sustainable transport.

Frances Beinecke, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council, told Newsweek that Obama’s deal with automakers to double fuel efficiency by 2025 was "the biggest accomplishment we could have asked for" in the administration’s first few years. "In 20 years, kids won’t know how to pump gas," says Rep. Ed Markey, a Democrat from Massachusetts.

More recently, however, Obama’s environmental supporters have been whipsawed by reversals. The president softened several pollution regulations, most notably canceling an effort by his own EPA to toughen ozone standards. And the State Department prepared to approve a pipeline to carry crude from Canadian tar sands to Gulf of Mexico refineries, infuriating people who saw the project as a source of the very "dirty" fuel Obama had promised to reduce. By last month, in the wake of Solyndra, the green groups that had embraced Obama’s vision of a greener economy were suddenly enraged, in some cases sparking street protests and arrests outside the White House.

Internally, some have questioned Energy Secretary Steven Chu’s role in overseeing the efforts, noting that the Nobel laureate with the keen grasp of physics at times seems to lack political skills. On one occasion, Chu prepared a dense PowerPoint presentation to brief Obama on the complexities of last summer’s BP oil spill. After Chu narrated six slides, one senior adviser who attended the meeting recalled that Obama simply stood up and said, "Steve, I’m done."

The administration is trying to change the narrative on its green record. But the appetite for another round of federal aid is waning, especially as pressures grow on Congress to cut the U.S. deficit.

Even some Democratic defenders offer only cautious support. "I think we admit we’re not perfect," says Sen. Barbara Boxer, the California Democrat who chairs the environment committee. "There’s always a risk when you fund innovation, but if we abandoned going to the moon when a spacecraft exploded ... where would we be today?"



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



WTF!
Report to moderator   Logged
dario73
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 5700


Getbig!


View Profile
« Reply #1199 on: October 17, 2011, 07:10:50 AM »

But it is far from the only blemish on the administration’s much-touted green agenda. In addition to weatherization problems, an internal Labor Department report disclosed this month that a multibillion-dollar program to retrain workers for green-energy jobs met only 10 percent of its goal of creating 80,000 jobs. A federal renewable-energy lab in Colorado that got nearly $300 million from another green-energy program began laying off 10 percent of its workforce last month.

LOL!!

Failure is the new standard at the oval office.  Pathetic.

More information will come out on the hundreds of loans given to failed or about to fail "green" companies.
Utter incompetence.
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 ... 46 47 [48] 49 50 ... 82   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!