(03-11-2013 01:30 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I think this is kind of a side issue isn't it? We know that corn ethanol isn't really the way to go - we aren't going to replace oil that way. Need to concentrate on improving other technologies. In any case, we don't want to fall behind other countries who are working on those solar, wind, other biofuels - if we want high-tech jobs in the U.S., the energy sector is one place where we need to stay ahead, or at least not fall behind.

Not a side issue. It illustrates how poorly government makes good choices. We are pouring a ton of money into ethanol and have over the years. It is a disaster as a green fuel. So why would we think government now will make a good choice with solar, wind, etc.?

(03-11-2013 10:53 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 01:30 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  I think this is kind of a side issue isn't it? We know that corn ethanol isn't really the way to go - we aren't going to replace oil that way. Need to concentrate on improving other technologies. In any case, we don't want to fall behind other countries who are working on those solar, wind, other biofuels - if we want high-tech jobs in the U.S., the energy sector is one place where we need to stay ahead, or at least not fall behind.

Not a side issue. It illustrates how poorly government makes good choices. We are pouring a ton of money into ethanol and have over the years. It is a disaster as a green fuel. So why would we think government now will make a good choice with solar, wind, etc.?

You do know why we went with ethanol, right? They needed to find a substitute for MTBE which was getting into the water system. MTBE doesn't break down in water so it was getting into the water supply. We do need to find an alternative to the use of corn but until there is a suitable substitute, I am fine with using corn over some man made chemical.

This is the future!! We should have been here 25 years ago.

http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2013/01/2...ered-cars/

(03-12-2013 08:16 AM)BobL Wrote:  This is the future!! We should have been here 25 years ago.

http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2013/01/2...ered-cars/

Just need to dramatically bring down the price. It is very promising though.

(03-12-2013 12:00 AM)RobertN Wrote:  You do know why we went with ethanol, right? They needed to find a substitute for MTBE which was getting into the water system. MTBE doesn't break down in water so it was getting into the water supply. We do need to find an alternative to the use of corn but until there is a suitable substitute, I am fine with using corn over some man made chemical.

You do know why MTBE was in gasoline, right? The changes to the Clean Air Act in the 90s requiring oxygenates.

When MTBE leaked from undergroundtanks, gasoline and other chemicals leaked too. All that other stuff was/is in the water too. And, remember that all the underground tanks in this state were required to be changed out to new technology or stop being used by 2000.

Do you think that ethanol causes no pollution in its production and transport? Nothing in life is free.

Is the air pollution creating by non-oxygenated gas worse than the water pollution causes by MTBE or other pollution from ethanol?

(03-11-2013 01:45 PM)PeoriaHuskie11 Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 01:32 PM)Huskie_Jon Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 12:58 PM)PeoriaHuskie11 Wrote:  The U.S. alone produces enough food to feed the world. Whether or not we use the corn for livestock feed or for ethanol.

Typical Leftist response. You can afford it, so it is our right, even our perogative to take it.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/busine...50075.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/...t.biofuels

http://www.greenoptimistic.com/2008/06/2...long-term/

Then again, when have Communists ever let staring people get in the way of their plans? They just get sacrificed for the "common good".

Ask the farmers of Klamath Falls, Oregon about all the wonderful things the envirocommies have done for them.

Green is red.

When did you start caring about the poor?

Bio-fuel is not the way to get off of fossil fuel. I agree with that.

Just because I do not want to use Government force to steal even more money from people who earned it, keep a large portion of it for myself(administrative costs, dont-cha-know), and then give away a very small protion of it to the poor as a handout, and then take all the credit for helping the poor doesn't mean I do not care for the poor. If I did that, I would be just another Liberal hypocrite.

I give my own money to charity, and I confess that I should give more, but not because some pompus pinhead from academia or DC says I need to give my ever elusive "fair share".

I would also love to see the unemployment rate get back below 5%, as it was before the annointed one took office. I think that would help the poor a whole lot more than keeping them on the dole as Liberals prefer to do.

Liberals do not seem to mind the high unemployment rate, as long as they can fudge the figures to keep the rate under 10% by discounting those who have given up looking for work. Escaping blame is much more important to the Progressives than actually solving problems.

Look at what the Liberal politicians did to the farmers of the Klamath Basin. They shut off their water supply and destroyed their crops, but they compensated the farmers with a government handout, so in the Liberal mindset, that makes everything even. Forcing people who wanted to be productive to go on the dole is how Liberals define compassion. They really care about the poor.

(03-12-2013 10:01 AM)Huskie_Jon Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 01:45 PM)PeoriaHuskie11 Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 01:32 PM)Huskie_Jon Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 12:58 PM)PeoriaHuskie11 Wrote:  The U.S. alone produces enough food to feed the world. Whether or not we use the corn for livestock feed or for ethanol.

Typical Leftist response. You can afford it, so it is our right, even our perogative to take it.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/busine...50075.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/...t.biofuels

http://www.greenoptimistic.com/2008/06/2...long-term/

Then again, when have Communists ever let staring people get in the way of their plans? They just get sacrificed for the "common good".

Ask the farmers of Klamath Falls, Oregon about all the wonderful things the envirocommies have done for them.

Green is red.

When did you start caring about the poor?

Bio-fuel is not the way to get off of fossil fuel. I agree with that.

I would also love to see the unemployment rate get back below 5%, as it was before the annointed one took office. I think that would help the poor a whole lot more than keeping them on the dole as Liberals prefer to do.

(03-12-2013 10:52 AM)BobL Wrote:  

You realize that graph points to a "George Bush" recovery since job losses turned around long before any over Obama's policies had a chance to be implemented or have any effect (positive or negative).

(03-12-2013 10:55 AM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 10:52 AM)BobL Wrote:  

You realize that graph points to a "George Bush" recovery since job losses turned around long before any over Obama's policies had a chance to be implemented or have any effect (positive or negative).

haha...I assume that your comment is tongue in cheek...

(03-12-2013 10:59 AM)BobL Wrote:  haha...I assume that your comment is tongue in cheek...

Nope.

Look at when the recovery started. What Obama polices would have had an effect by then?

Answer -- None. Stimulus wasn't in the economy, etc. Remember, even Obama said the shovel ready jobs weren't ready.

(03-12-2013 11:21 AM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 10:59 AM)BobL Wrote:  haha...I assume that your comment is tongue in cheek...

Nope.

Look at when the recovery started. What Obama polices would have had an effect by then?

Answer -- None. Stimulus wasn't in the economy, etc. Remember, even Obama said the shovel ready jobs weren't ready.

First I posted the graph to show HJ he is full of sh1t.

What did bush do policy wise to stimulate the economy...

Bush 2008 stimulus bill 150 billion.
Bush bank bailout at 700 billion.
Bush auto bailout 17.5 billion.

The stimulus was mostly one time tax rebates to individuals and families..that will certainly provide a boost but is in now way going to provide sustained economic improvement.

The bank bailout..as much as well all hated it was required in order to steady the ship and prevent an all out collapse.

The auto bailout was also a good move to stem the job losses and help prevent further economic chaos.

But no of these provided for long term economic growth and no real benefit to the country other than the some temporary relief.

(03-12-2013 11:54 AM)BobL Wrote:  First I posted the graph to show HJ he is full of sh1t.

What did bush do policy wise to stimulate the economy...

Bush 2008 stimulus bill 150 billion.
Bush bank bailout at 700 billion.
Bush auto bailout 17.5 billion.

The stimulus was mostly one time tax rebates to individuals and families..that will certainly provide a boost but is in now way going to provide sustained economic improvement.

The bank bailout..as much as well all hated it was required in order to steady the ship and prevent an all out collapse.

The auto bailout was also a good move to stem the job losses and help prevent further economic chaos.

But no of these provided for long term economic growth and no real benefit to the country other than the some temporary relief.

Maybe HJ is, maybe not. Not agreeing/disagreeing.

I'm just pointing out that Obama's policies did not start the recovery. The things you cited about happened under W, largely, and the job losses turned around long before O had any chance to do anything.

I think W sucks. I'm not defending him. I'd argue that the economy was already turning around before O did anything. Your graph proves that. So, the next question would be, why is this recovery so bad compared to others? Is it because O's policies are bad and holding us back?

That is what the graph seems to indicate.

(03-12-2013 12:15 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 11:54 AM)BobL Wrote:  First I posted the graph to show HJ he is full of sh1t.

What did bush do policy wise to stimulate the economy...

Bush 2008 stimulus bill 150 billion.
Bush bank bailout at 700 billion.
Bush auto bailout 17.5 billion.

The stimulus was mostly one time tax rebates to individuals and families..that will certainly provide a boost but is in now way going to provide sustained economic improvement.

The bank bailout..as much as well all hated it was required in order to steady the ship and prevent an all out collapse.

The auto bailout was also a good move to stem the job losses and help prevent further economic chaos.

But no of these provided for long term economic growth and no real benefit to the country other than the some temporary relief.

Maybe HJ is, maybe not. Not agreeing/disagreeing.

I'm just pointing out that Obama's policies did not start the recovery. The things you cited about happened under W, largely, and the job losses turned around long before O had any chance to do anything.

I think W sucks. I'm not defending him. I'd argue that the economy was already turning around before O did anything. Your graph proves that. So, the next question would be, why is this recovery so bad compared to others? Is it because O's policies are bad and holding us back?

That is what the graph seems to indicate.

First I think all agree this last recession was by far the worst economic crisis since the depression. Second both Reagan and Bush raised taxes during their respective recessions.

Reagan increased corporate taxes and gas taxes during his recession.

Bush raised income tax rates and imposed an excise tax during his recession.

Coincidence?

(03-12-2013 12:15 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 11:54 AM)BobL Wrote:  First I posted the graph to show HJ he is full of sh1t.

What did bush do policy wise to stimulate the economy...

Bush 2008 stimulus bill 150 billion.
Bush bank bailout at 700 billion.
Bush auto bailout 17.5 billion.

The stimulus was mostly one time tax rebates to individuals and families..that will certainly provide a boost but is in now way going to provide sustained economic improvement.

The bank bailout..as much as well all hated it was required in order to steady the ship and prevent an all out collapse.

The auto bailout was also a good move to stem the job losses and help prevent further economic chaos.

But no of these provided for long term economic growth and no real benefit to the country other than the some temporary relief.

Maybe HJ is, maybe not. Not agreeing/disagreeing.

I'm just pointing out that Obama's policies did not start the recovery. The things you cited about happened under W, largely, and the job losses turned around long before O had any chance to do anything.

I think W sucks. I'm not defending him. I'd argue that the economy was already turning around before O did anything. Your graph proves that. So, the next question would be, why is this recovery so bad compared to others? Is it because O's policies are bad and holding us back?

That is what the graph seems to indicate.

HJ claimed the unemployment rate was under 5% when Obama took over...well it was 7.5% HJ is talking out of the wrong orifice again.

(03-12-2013 10:01 AM)Huskie_Jon Wrote:  Just because I do not want to use Government force to steal even more money from people who earned it, keep a large portion of it for myself(administrative costs, dont-cha-know), and then give away a very small protion of it to the poor as a handout, and then take all the credit for helping the poor doesn't mean I do not care for the poor. If I did that, I would be just another Liberal hypocrite.

I give my own money to charity, and I confess that I should give more, but not because some pompus pinhead from academia or DC says I need to give my ever elusive "fair share".

I would also love to see the unemployment rate get back below 5%, as it was before the annointed one took office. I think that would help the poor a whole lot more than keeping them on the dole as Liberals prefer to do.

Liberals do not seem to mind the high unemployment rate, as long as they can fudge the figures to keep the rate under 10% by discounting those who have given up looking for work. Escaping blame is much more important to the Progressives than actually solving problems.

Look at what the Liberal politicians did to the farmers of the Klamath Basin. They shut off their water supply and destroyed their crops, but they compensated the farmers with a government handout, so in the Liberal mindset, that makes everything even. Forcing people who wanted to be productive to go on the dole is how Liberals define compassion. They really care about the poor.

Lol. In Bush's final year the unemployment rate went from 4.9% in Jan 2008 to 7.6% in Jan 2009 and rapidly declining. In Clinton's final year the unemployment rate held fairly steady at 4%. He took office with the unemployment around 6.5% and it steadily declined.

http://www.davemanuel.com/historical-une...states.php

I actually find it offending that you blame only the liberals for all of Americans problems. The blame lies with all politicians, liberal or conservative. Neither party has been helpful to the American people in a long, long time.

On the serious side, thank you and anyone else for donating to charity. If anyone wants to donate to a charity organization that actually uses 100% of the money for missions and has no overhead paid for by donations.

http://www.umcor.org/

(03-12-2013 12:41 PM)BobL Wrote:  HJ claimed the unemployment rate was under 5% when Obama took over...well it was 7.5% HJ is talking out of the wrong orifice again.

No, he didn't. He claimed it was 5% before Obama took it over, not when he took it over. I think his reference was to earlier in W's presidency, not specifically January of 2009. At least that I how I interpreted it.

(03-12-2013 12:38 PM)BobL Wrote:  First I think all agree this last recession was by far the worst economic crisis since the depression. Second both Reagan and Bush raised taxes during their respective recessions.

Reagan increased corporate taxes and gas taxes during his recession.

Bush raised income tax rates and imposed an excise tax during his recession.

Coincidence?

Not sure everyone agrees with your first point. Even if that is the case, the policies implemented under W to deal with the recession showed more positive directions than that of Obama. That really can't be disputed.

Reagan revamped the tax code dramatically, cutting rates.

And, how did GHWB's recession work out?

If raising taxes during a recession is good, you then didn't vote for Obama since he temporarily lowered the SS tax, and turned the Bush tax cuts into the Obama tax cuts.

It is hard to have it both ways.

(03-12-2013 10:01 AM)Huskie_Jon Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 01:45 PM)PeoriaHuskie11 Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 01:32 PM)Huskie_Jon Wrote:  

(03-11-2013 12:58 PM)PeoriaHuskie11 Wrote:  The U.S. alone produces enough food to feed the world. Whether or not we use the corn for livestock feed or for ethanol.

Typical Leftist response. You can afford it, so it is our right, even our perogative to take it.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/busine...50075.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/...t.biofuels

http://www.greenoptimistic.com/2008/06/2...long-term/

Then again, when have Communists ever let staring people get in the way of their plans? They just get sacrificed for the "common good".

Ask the farmers of Klamath Falls, Oregon about all the wonderful things the envirocommies have done for them.

Green is red.

When did you start caring about the poor?

Bio-fuel is not the way to get off of fossil fuel. I agree with that.

Just because I do not want to use Government force to steal even more money from people who earned it, keep a large portion of it for myself(administrative costs, dont-cha-know), and then give away a very small protion of it to the poor as a handout, and then take all the credit for helping the poor doesn't mean I do not care for the poor. If I did that, I would be just another Liberal hypocrite.

I give my own money to charity, and I confess that I should give more, but not because some pompus pinhead from academia or DC says I need to give my ever elusive "fair share".

I would also love to see the unemployment rate get back below 5%, as it was before the annointed one took office. I think that would help the poor a whole lot more than keeping them on the dole as Liberals prefer to do.

Liberals do not seem to mind the high unemployment rate, as long as they can fudge the figures to keep the rate under 10% by discounting those who have given up looking for work. Escaping blame is much more important to the Progressives than actually solving problems.

Look at what the Liberal politicians did to the farmers of the Klamath Basin. They shut off their water supply and destroyed their crops, but they compensated the farmers with a government handout, so in the Liberal mindset, that makes everything even. Forcing people who wanted to be productive to go on the dole is how Liberals define compassion. They really care about the poor.

You know perfectly well that both sides use questionable numbers and make it look better than it really is. That's been going on for decades.

(03-12-2013 02:52 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 12:41 PM)BobL Wrote:  HJ claimed the unemployment rate was under 5% when Obama took over...well it was 7.5% HJ is talking out of the wrong orifice again.

No, he didn't. He claimed it was 5% before Obama took it over, not when he took it over. I think his reference was to earlier in W's presidency, not specifically January of 2009. At least that I how I interpreted it.

It's pointless to say it was 5% before Obama took it over, if it rose a bunch before Obama took it over. I think we all know that.

(03-12-2013 03:02 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 12:38 PM)BobL Wrote:  First I think all agree this last recession was by far the worst economic crisis since the depression. Second both Reagan and Bush raised taxes during their respective recessions.

Reagan increased corporate taxes and gas taxes during his recession.

Bush raised income tax rates and imposed an excise tax during his recession.

Coincidence?

Not sure everyone agrees with your first point. Even if that is the case, the policies implemented under W to deal with the recession showed more positive directions than that of Obama. That really can't be disputed.

Reagan revamped the tax code dramatically, cutting rates.

And, how did GHWB's recession work out?

If raising taxes during a recession is good, you then didn't vote for Obama since he temporarily lowered the SS tax, and turned the Bush tax cuts into the Obama tax cuts.

It is hard to have it both ways.

Reagan did raise taxes during his recession..this came after his initial revamping.

The temporary SS tax cut was part of the stimulus..Obama wanted to raise taxes for those earning over 250k.

As for HJ his wording clearly implied unemployment was less than 5% when Obama took over...though I do see your point.