Posted on 10/01/2011 3:11:51 AM PDT by Kaslin
Nobody likes buying oil from OPEC. Nobody likes coal dust dropping from the sky. We all know that pollution is bad, and greedy oil sheiks are not looking out for us. The problem is, we don't have a realistic alternative fuel option. So we have to live with a bad situation.
President Obama has fast-tracked green energy projects, and the results, thus far, have been awful. The Solyndra scandal is the best example. The feds provided this solar panel company $528 million in loans. Shortly after that, the company declared bankruptcy. See you later, a half-billion taxpayer dollars.
Many Americans were upset by this colossal waste of money, but not The New York Times editorial page. It headlined: "One company's failure should not deter robust public investments in clean energy." Now we know why the nation is more than $14 trillion in debt.
The Times editorial goes on to urge the government to pour more money into "green" industry in conjunction with raising fuel taxes, because that's what's good for America. "The surest way to guarantee that America gets its fair share of (green) business ... would be to enact a comprehensive energy strategy that raised the price of older, dirtier fuels."
Swell. Americans are already taxed to the max, and the Times wants the feds to impose even more taxes to discourage "dirty" fuel use. So, folks who have to drive would pay more as the government artificially drives up the price of energy. That would help the bad economy, wouldn't it? Consumers saddled with higher utility and gasoline costs. Yeah, that's the ticket to an economic rebound for sure.
But The New York Times doesn't care. The paper wants global warming to stop right now! And it blames fossil fuels for the heat wave. So, whatever it takes to get green energy on everybody's plate is going to be supported by the paper and some others on the liberal side even if it means wrecking the economy and running up massive debt.
A few months ago, I had an interesting conversation with T. Boone Pickens, the billionaire investor. He put up his own money to develop a massive wind power project in the heartland. T. Boone thought he'd found the answer: Wind would drive the clean energy movement. But the windmills couldn't deliver enough energy to make a profit. So Pickens folded and put the wind deal up for sale.
If the United States could develop green energy, I'd be first in line to buy some. I recognize the need for clean, efficient fuel. But you don't punish hardworking Americans by wasting their tax dollars and raising their taxes to fund the green dreamscape. That is irresponsible and brutally unfair. With literally trillions of dollars to be made, the private marketplace is where alternative energy should be developed.
If there's real green in it, things will happen.
It's too bad that Obama's got a spending problem instead of being like Clinton who had a woman problem. Hey Barry, keep it in your wallet.
Green energy = forced wealth transfer from tax payers to democrat donors.
Reward your friends.
That is all it is.
Additional taxes on gas, oil, coal and nuclear power will be a boon for the economy... of China and India.
What in the hell can these people possibly be thinking?
To them it's all about wealth redistribution, and anything that aids that goal is to be promoted.
Obama said he would destroy the coal companies by making it too expensive for them to operate. he said that energy prices would necessarily skyrocket under his policies. Anyone with a brain knows this will crush the econiomy and put even larger portions of the population on the "Plantation". We know exactly what they are thinking/planning/plotting. The trouble is, even with it out in the clear air, there is no outrage or significant movement to really push back in a meaningful way.
Obama wants his supporters to march in the streets - our side is the one that ought to take off the bedroom slippers and put on the marching boots...
This is a HIGHLY overlooked factor in the eternal discussion of wealth distribution and the 'evil' super rich. If the government follows the socialist / communist philosophy of leveling / equalizing wealth then innovation DIES!
Pickens, a largely self-made billionaire, has enough wealth to try an idea and then to drop it when it does not work. Since it is his own money, he has little restrictions on going elsewhere. This is conceptualized in economics under the term "Free Capital". It is inclusive of time, labor and money and has in our lifetimes resulted in Apple, Microsoft and other such 'garage' endeavors.
This case of Solyndra shows what happens when a government intervenes. To my mind the absolute key factor was the fact that the "loan guarantees" were tax dollars and no one person was personally invested in the proper use of these dollars. When it is "other people's money" it is an abstraction and for the bureaucrat there is probably no penalty for failure and there is always more money in the pot.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.