Just curious, would any of you vote for Santorum

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Oil production has increased, he has not indicated he wants to reduce production, and I never claimed he was a bigger friend to oil. I am not sure you you really think I said he was a "bigger friend to Big Oil than Bush"? Is that some weird debate technique or do you really think I said that?

Your 4.4 trillion for Bush is lower than I have seen.
Anyway... from readily available numbers
Bush- 4.8 tr
Obama 4.9tr

4.9/48= 1.02 or 102% or
4.8/4.9= 0.98 x 100 =98%

Not sure where your 4.4 came from, but there seems to be variability depending on the source.. When Bush took office it was 5.78 tr. When he left it was 10.626. That is +4.84. I clearly said "at this point. " Debt will continue to rise, but where it is at the end of Obama's second term depends on so many variables it wasn't part of my math. On top of that, some of Obamas debt is the result of war started by Bush, but I didn't try to tease that out either. Anyway, that is the math. Not made up at all.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Your 4.4 trillion for Bush is lower than I have seen.
Anyway... from readily available numbers
Bush- 4.8 tr
Obama 4.9tr

4.9/48= 1.02 or 102% or
4.8/4.9= 0.98 x 100 =98%

Not sure where your 4.4 came from, but there seems to be variability depending on the source.. When Bush took office it was 5.78 tr. When he left it was 10.626. That is +4.84. I clearly said "at this point. " Debt will continue to rise, but where it is at the end of Obama's second term depends on so many variables it wasn't part of my math. On top of that, some of Obamas debt is the result of war started by Bush, but I didn't try to tease that out either. Anyway, that is the math. Not made up at all.

"Not made up at all"

I posted a link to my numbers, you didn't. Let's assume your numbers are corrcet, OK? Maybe they're not made up. But you're sure comparing apples and oranges...

(1) Bush was president for 8 years, Obama for 3. NO ONE denies that the debt is still going up significantly for 2012. Tough to compare debt added in 8 years to debt added in 3. By the time Obama is done, no one is denying he'll add more to the debt than any president in history.

(2) A HUGE portion of Bush's debt was the (in my opinion necessary) response to 09/11. The USA built a HUGE anti-terror infrastructure. Obama hasn't been faced with a life-or-death situation that required a massive expenditure like that. His spending has been, largely, to fund liberal pet projects (giving big $$ to labor unions, green companies, etc).

As I have said, Bush also spent a fortune in Africa, saving 1.2 million lives (money well spent). But Obama gets the Nobel Peace Prize, and Bush gets called a racist.

[RIROCKHOUND]

I am in no means advocating that super high gas prices are GOOD. I'm not even Chu said it would be goo, and he didn't reference any impact other than on transitioning to other energy sources. The context that without a rise in gas prices, we will not move away from fossil fuels. This is probably a true statement

We need some kind of transition away from them, whether you believe we should for climate, pollution or national security. The reality is it will take some serious time to do (decades). The problem is, this can keeps getting kicked down the road...

The last lines:

Never mind that some energy experts say Chu had it exactly right, and that higher fuel prices would encourage consumers to buy more efficient vehicles, discourage suburban sprawl, make renewables more competitive and reduce U.S. reliance on imported oil. Not even Chu’s department is making that argument these days.

Read more: Steven Chu's Europe gas quote haunts President Obama - Bob King - POLITICO.com

[spence]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

I am in no means advocating that super high gas prices are GOOD. I'm not even Chu said it would be goo, and he didn't reference any impact other than on transitioning to other energy sources. The context that without a rise in gas prices, we will not move away from fossil fuels. This is probably a true statement

We need some kind of transition away from them, whether you believe we should for climate, pollution or national security. The reality is it will take some serious time to do (decades). The problem is, this can keeps getting kicked down the road...

The last lines:

Never mind that some energy experts say Chu had it exactly right, and that higher fuel prices would encourage consumers to buy more efficient vehicles, discourage suburban sprawl, make renewables more competitive and reduce U.S. reliance on imported oil. Not even Chu’s department is making that argument these days.

Read more: Steven Chu's Europe gas quote haunts President Obama - Bob King - POLITICO.com

Jesus Bryan, there you go with that "context" again

-spence

[scottw]

many on the left have believed for a very long that high energy prices would be the best way to reduce consumption and force people into energy efficient vehicals and more efficient lifestyles, the left has longed for European level energy costs.....Obama has, on several occasions talked about higher energy prices, he lamented quick rises that the public would not respond well to but he does not have a problem, based on his statements, with high energy prices....I'll get the quotes if you'd like, but it's no revelation...he does have a problem in an election year if gas continues to soar...

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

many on the left have believed for a very long that high energy prices would be the best way to reduce consumption and force people into energy efficient vehicals and more efficient lifestyles, the left has longed for European level energy costs.....Obama has, on several occasions talked about higher energy prices, he lamented quick rises that the public would not respond well to but he does not have a problem, based on his statements, with high energy prices....I'll get the quotes if you'd like, but it's no revelation...he does have a problem in an election year if gas continues to soar...

Well, there's a pragmatic position that says energy costs will rise as carbon sources are finite and global consumption is rising.

There's the Republican position that oil is infinite because God made it so, nobody can tell you that 6000 pound SUV isn't your right to drive by the glory of the American flag and if we do have an issue the free market will have long since resolved the issue (note: probably with Chinese technology).

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Well, there's a pragmatic position that says energy costs will rise as carbon sources are finite and global consumption is rising.

There's the Republican position that oil is infinite because God made it so, nobody can tell you that 6000 pound SUV isn't your right to drive by the glory of the American flag and if we do have an issue the free market will have long since resolved the issue (note: probably with Chinese technology).

-spence

are you making a point or just stomping your feet?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

nobody can tell you that 6000 pound SUV isn't your right to drive by the glory of the American flag -spence

YES HE CAN!!!

Obama: "We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK"

I wonder how much Obama's car weighs and what kind of mileage it gets?

I looked it up...The vehicle fuel consumption is about 8 miles per US gallon.

kinda like everything else with this president isn't it?...does it reflect badly on his character Spence?

I'd post some pics of him eating but it's not pretty and he likes to keep the temps in the rooms that he is occupying Hawaii warm

[justplugit]

Some Math, gas was 9% LOWER (adjusted for inflation) when Bush
left office than when he started.

When Obama took office gas was $1.83/ gal., and now we are headed
for $5 maybe $6. What a difference 3yrs makes.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by scottw

YES HE CAN!!!

Obama: "We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK"

I wonder how much Obama's car weighs and what kind of mileage it gets?

Well, he drove a Chrysler 300 before he was elected and did his
campaining, not mispelled , in an SUV.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Well, there's a pragmatic position that says energy costs will rise as carbon sources are finite and global consumption is rising.

There's the Republican position that oil is infinite because God made it so, nobody can tell you that 6000 pound SUV isn't your right to drive by the glory of the American flag and if we do have an issue the free market will have long since resolved the issue (note: probably with Chinese technology).

-spence

Wait, wait!!!!!

Spence, here's what you said...

"There's the Republican position that oil is infinite because God made it "

OK, Spence. When I made a claim about somehting Obama said, yuo demanded that I prove it.

OK, buddy, what's good for the goose! Spence, please show us a video or post a link of a prominent Republican saying that.

I'm waiting Spence, and I'm all ears.

You just can't help shooting yourself in the foot, can you?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Wait, wait!!!!!

"There's the Republican position that oil is infinite because God made it "

I'm pretty sure that's a Santorum quote

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Wait, wait!!!!!

Spence, here's what you said...

"There's the Republican position that oil is infinite because God made it "

OK, Spence. When I made a claim about somehting Obama said, yuo demanded that I prove it.

OK, buddy, what's good for the goose! Spence, please show us a video or post a link of a prominent Republican saying that.

I'm waiting Spence, and I'm all ears.

You just can't help shooting yourself in the foot, can you?

My remark wasn't in quotes, I was making the point that the Republican position on energy at times sure isn't very pragmatic.

-spence

[scottw]

[QUOTE=RIROCKHOUND;924458] I'm not even Chu said it would be good, and he didn't reference any impact other than on transitioning to other energy sources.

“Somehow,” Chu said, “we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.”



is it possible he thought this would be a bad thing?

[scottw]

[QUOTE=RIROCKHOUND;924458]

The last lines:

Never mind that some energy experts say Chu had it exactly right, and that higher fuel prices would encourage consumers to buy more efficient vehicles, discourage suburban sprawl, make renewables more competitive and reduce U.S. reliance on imported oil. Not even Chu’s department is making that argument these days.

wouldn't be a very good argument...Obama motors can't sell the Volt, a boatload of Obama investments in green energy have gone belly up and we're still dependent on foreign oil where it is a powder keg currently....Obama is currently arguing for higher taxes on oil and gas companies however, which should help the cost of oil and gas plummet...right?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

I am in no means advocating that super high gas prices are GOOD. I'm not even Chu said it would be goo, and he didn't reference any impact other than on transitioning to other energy sources. The context that without a rise in gas prices, we will not move away from fossil fuels. This is probably a true statement

We need some kind of transition away from them, whether you believe we should for climate, pollution or national security. The reality is it will take some serious time to do (decades). The problem is, this can keeps getting kicked down the road...

The last lines:

Never mind that some energy experts say Chu had it exactly right, and that higher fuel prices would encourage consumers to buy more efficient vehicles, discourage suburban sprawl, make renewables more competitive and reduce U.S. reliance on imported oil. Not even Chu’s department is making that argument these days.

Read more: Steven Chu's Europe gas quote haunts President Obama - Bob King - POLITICO.com

"without a rise in gas prices, we will not move away from fossil fuels. "

Not true. We don't want gas prices to rise, that's not a healthy reason to transition to renewable energy. What we want is for renewable green energy to be cheaper than gas is today. Rockhound, if we set gas at $100 a gallon, then yes, it will be cheaper to buy crappy electric cars, and it will be cheaper to pay $50,000 to convert our houses to geo-thermal.

BUT WHO DOES THAT HELP? Anyone? Not that I see...

"The reality is it will take some serious time to do (decades)."

That's true, we are decades away from realistically-priced green energy. The question is, what do we do in the meantime? Because in the meantime, the world will use lots of oil. The countries that provide that oil, some of which are not very nice places, will make tons of money. It seems to me that here in America, we could use tons of money. Why let others get rich off of us? Why not cash in our lottery ticket, too? This is an issue for which I cannot fathom the view on the left, it's literally incomprehensible to me.

"The problem is, this can keeps getting kicked down the road..."

We are? Kicking the can down the road? Obama gave $500 million of our money (which he had to borrow from the Chinese) to Solyndra. Billions and billions of stimulus $$ went to green energy.

Rockhound, whoever invents the first electric car that actually works for American families, will instantly become the richest person who has ever lived. That's all the incentive that the private sector needs. They're working on it. It's just a hard problem to solve.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

That's true, we are decades away from realistically-priced green energy.

Mostly because of a very strong fossil fuel lobby. You are a math guy right? Try adding in all of the costs associated w/ oil, coal, natural gas into the mix and see where it comes out. You might be suprised. It would have to be an honest assessment that includes the cost of military involvement in the middle east, taxes and special tax breaks, etc. It is pretty complicated, but the numbers are interesting.

Also, the Volt a crappy car? I don't know where you get your info on that, but it has been almost unanimously received as a well made, incredible piece of engineering and gets excellent reviews for performance. Was that just "hyperbole", too?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Mostly because of a very strong fossil fuel lobby. You are a math guy right? Try adding in all of the costs associated w/ oil, coal, natural gas into the mix and see where it comes out. You might be suprised. It would have to be an honest assessment that includes the cost of military involvement in the middle east, taxes and special tax breaks, etc. It is pretty complicated, but the numbers are interesting.

Also, the Volt a crappy car? I don't know where you get your info on that, but it has been almost unanimously received as a well made, incredible piece of engineering and gets excellent reviews for performance. Was that just "hyperbole", too?

"the Volt a crappy car? I don't know where you get your info on that"

From consumer demand. Even with a $7500 tax credit thanks to Komrade Obama, nobody wants them. (allow the hyperbole, as the truth is, almost nobody wants them).

Hard Times For the Chevy Volt - HUMAN EVENTS


Zimmy, you corrcetly stated that when you talk about the cost of oil, lots of thing sneed to be factored in. Try reading the link I posted, which talks about what the Volt ultimately costs, when you factor in the government subsidies.

And who ends up paying $40,000 for Chevy Volts? Not poor folks, but wealthy folks. So despite liberal claims that conservatives are the ones who want to make the rich richer, here is a case where Obama is giving everyone who buys a Volt (wealthy people), a $7500 thank-you from the feds.

How many janitors and men's room attendants are plunking down$40,000 for a car? Zero. I'd think bleeding heart liberals would be opposed to giving handouts to people who have $40,000 to purchase a car?

Almost nobody wants these cars. They're insanely expensive, and they're not practical.

No hyperbole. Just fact. Not facts that you will like, or even admit given your rabid fanaticism, but facts nonetheless.

Hard Times For the Chevy Volt - HUMAN EVENTS

"it has been almost unanimously received as a well made, incredible piece of engineering"

Despite some as-yet unexplained fires after crash-tests?

http://www.slashgear.com/volt-misses...oals-05206315/

The Volt was a sales flop, despite the fact that the feds were offering a $7500 rebate.

What do you say, Zimmy?

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Hard Times For the Chevy Volt - HUMAN EVENTS

I say that your silly, biased article has sales #'s that are less than half of what actual sales were at the end of the calendar year, never mind what they will be for the model year. So you get "crappy" from some moron who says "crummy," but does not speak at all about the technology, reliability, or performance of the car? As far as the rest of the "crap", new technology always costs much more to produce initially. Over time, the actual cost associated with it drop as well as the total cost of the investments. I see the Hannity type simpletons use the same stupid math game to say each volt costs $250,000. Yeah, if they only sold them for one year and never again.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

I am in no means advocating that super high gas prices are GOOD. I'm not even Chu said it would be goo, and he didn't reference any impact other than on transitioning to other energy sources. The context that without a rise in gas prices, we will not move away from fossil fuels. This is probably a true statement.

I've had a few clients that host conferences about clean energy. I leave on Sunday to go to Atlantic City for yet another one. One thing that is always referenced when considering new technologies is the price of oil. Things like "This technology is projected to be of comparable costs when oil is at $120/barrel" is a frequent mantra.

I've read that if Iran were to close off the Strait of Hormuz, oil is projected to spike to around $145-160/barrel and then settle $130-150/barrel. If that happens, mark my words, bills about clean energy will be back in Congress and a major call for more clean energy will happen.

I'm not much of a conspiracy person, but Iran "initiating" war would be an ideal case for Obama. Just as was stated during Bush's run for a second term, no president has lost a reelection while the US is at war. Also, after being reelected, oil prices would be through the roof and Obama's clean energy initiatives would actually be more affordable than oil.

Granted, there's a lot of speculation and hearsay in the above, but crazier things have happened. Stay Tuned.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

I've had a few clients that host conferences about clean energy. I leave on Sunday to go to Atlantic City for yet another one.
.

JD, leave your wallet home.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You make some very compelling points. But I expect gas to hit at least $5 this summer, and that's right when folks will be thinking about the election. $5 gas will not play well for Democrats. If this wasn't an election year for Obama, $5 gas would indeed be good or his green energy agenda (even though it would be bad for all of us).

I never thought about a conflict increasing his chances...

I think Iran and Obama's push to eliminate the oil and gas welfare give him an "out." I hope no one is surprised of the timing of Obama coming out in the last week or so and saying that we need to stop this welfare to the oil companies.

He will be able to displace blame for high gas prices by leveraging the record-breaking profits by oil companies and a continual push-back by the Republicans on his clean energy initiatives.

I can hear it now: "While there is no short-term solution to high gas and oil prices (my note: which there really isn't), my clean energy initiatives would help prevent these kinds of spikes in the future. But the Republicans are continually preventing progress towards getting us away from foreign oil."

And you know what, he'll be arguably right. Our economy hinges on a region that is less civilized than the Flinstones. Conflict in the Middle East immediately results in higher oil prices which then translated into higher fuel costs... thus raising prices on groceries, consumer goods and anything else that requires shipment.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Good luck in AC, don't chase any inside straights.

Originally Posted by justplugit

JD, leave your wallet home.

Appreciate the well wishes. Fortunately, I'm not much of a gambler. I was in Vegas for 9 days in early-February and I lost about $40 playing slots. Played mostly because I was out socializing with a client - cheaper than a meal out there.

This trip will be more of the same. Maybe a couple trips to the craps table, but that's about it.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

I can hear it now: "While there is no short-term solution to high gas and oil prices (my note: which there really isn't), my clean energy initiatives would help prevent these kinds of spikes in the future. But the Republicans are continually preventing progress towards getting us away from foreign oil."

you nailed it....except his clean energy initiatives keep going bankrupt and that's not the repubs fault...maybe they're just underfunded?...yep....that will worK

I was curious as to which Obama clean energy initiatives the Republicans could be blamed for thwarting since it seems as he's gotten most of what he wanted and it just hasn't turned out so well...this was the best I could find...


Here’s some of the renewable energy tax provisions, that congress could have had a chance to vote up or down, if the GOP had not filibustered the entire bill, rather than let the Bush era tax cuts for the rich expire.

Baucus Amendment 4727: To change the end date from 2010, by extending till December 2011:

1. Section 1603 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act – cash in lieu of tax credit for businesses not making a profit and unable to take the 30% tax credit

2. Tax credits for heavy hybrid and natural gas vehicles and a 30% investment tax credit for alternative fuel refueling stations.

3. Tax breaks for ethanol, 36 cents a gallon for blenders, and 8 cents a gallon for small producers. A 54 cents per gallon tariff on ethanol imports.

4. A $1-per-gallon production tax credit for biodiesel and biomass diesel and the small agri-biodiesel producer credit of 10 cents per gallon extended through 2011.

5. A 50-cent-per-gallon tax credit for biomass and other alternative fuels.

6. Tax credits for energy-efficient appliances and homes.

8. Adding $2.5 billion in funding for Section 48C the advanced energy manufacturing 30% tax credit for companies manufacturing advanced clean energy products and materials.

9. Reinstating the Research and Development tax credit.

Source: Clean Technica (Republicans Kill Section 1603 Renewable Energy Cash Grants - CleanTechnica)



isn't this CORPORATE WELFARE??? cash handouts and special treatment through the tax code...hmmmmm?

my favorite is CASH for businesses not making a profit that's great!

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

I've had a few clients that host conferences about clean energy. I leave on Sunday to go to Atlantic City for yet another one. One thing that is always referenced when considering new technologies is the price of oil. Things like "This technology is projected to be of comparable costs when oil is at $120/barrel" is a frequent mantra.

I've read that if Iran were to close off the Strait of Hormuz, oil is projected to spike to around $145-160/barrel and then settle $130-150/barrel. If that happens, mark my words, bills about clean energy will be back in Congress and a major call for more clean energy will happen.

I'm not much of a conspiracy person, but Iran "initiating" war would be an ideal case for Obama. Just as was stated during Bush's run for a second term, no president has lost a reelection while the US is at war. Also, after being reelected, oil prices would be through the roof and Obama's clean energy initiatives would actually be more affordable than oil.

Granted, there's a lot of speculation and hearsay in the above, but crazier things have happened. Stay Tuned.

You make some very compelling points. But I expect gas to hit at least $5 this summer, and that's right when folks will be thinking about the election. $5 gas will not play well for Democrats. If this wasn't an election year for Obama, $5 gas would indeed be good or his green energy agenda (even though it would be bad for all of us).

I never thought about a conflict increasing his chances...

Good luck in AC, don't chase any inside straights.

[spence]

Sounds like it could be a breakthrough product innovation.

LED's are tricky to manufacture, they're almost like making semi-conductors. To get the performance they're after I'll bet an entirely new process had to be invented. A lot of materials science.

Suggesting a new 50 dollar bulb to their product portfolio would likely get met with resistance in the board room. With short-term shareholder value driving most companies they're very careful on how R&D budgets are allocated.

But an R&D investment to capture a prize is a great marketing opportunity....

Cost will come down as volume manufacturing improves and fast followers produce competing products.

The strategic benefit from new technology like this is huge considering the present energy demand on a weak infrastructure. A 10 million dollar incentive is a drop in the bucket, and virtually all the value created long-term will be in the private sector.

Congratulations Philips, I raise my glass to thee.

-spence

[scottw]

right, I hear they also have a $500 energy efficient toaster that is supposed to be in Home Depot next week...should sell like hotcakes....raise two glasses Spence

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

right, I hear they also have a $500 energy efficient toaster that is supposed to be in Home Depot next week...should sell like hotcakes....raise two glasses Spence

Toasters consume a lot of watts but are only used for small increments of time. Same goes for coffee makers and hair dryers It wouldn't make sense to invest a lot of R&D for a more efficient toaster, coffee maker or hair dryer.

Now if super efficient coils could be created for just in time delivery of hot water or commercial steam production...you might have something worthy of government incentive.

Over time, this technology might of course trickle down into consumer electronics. That 100 watt toaster, coffee maker or hair dryer will come, just don't get impatient.

-spence