US Politics - Screwing Up the rest of the World Edition

[Shryke]

Opposing corporate welfare for alternative energy companies is not the same as restricting alternative energy research.

Opposing the way you encourage and fund alternative energy via the tax system is most certainly restricting alternative energy.

The pledge means the popular production tax credits (PTCs) – which have helped drive a surge in new wind energy investment in the US, making it the second largest wind energy market in the world after China

Romney's campaign later confirmed he planned to allow the tax credits to lapse, stressing that he favours an energy policy environment where technology-specific incentives are removed.

However, green groups, renewable energy industry insiders, and Democrats were all quick to point out that Romney's desire for a level playing field on energy policy does not extend to oil and gas, where he has pledged to retain up to $40bn of subsidies and tax breaks that President Obama wants to see phased out.

So yeah, the right is just against an expansion of alternative energy.

[Commodore]

Opposing the way you encourage and fund alternative energy via the tax system is most certainly restricting alternative energy.

The tax system is a bad way to fund alternative energy (see Solyndra), it distorts the market and steers investment toward poor/risky ventures.

Investment should be based on rate of return, not how it takes advantage of the tax code.

If you have an idea for alternative energy development, find some rich person like Romney to fund it. Don't go begging to the taxpayer.

[awesome possum]

The tax system is a bad way to fund alternative energy (see Solyndra), it distorts the market and steers investment toward poor/risky ventures.

Investment should be based on rate of return, not how it takes advantage of the tax code.

Gosh, you do realize the Solyndra well has been milked for all it's worth, right? And that it actually wasn't much in the first place. It's amazing that you've been schooled on the facts regarding Solyndra at least four or five times yet still use it as if it means something.

If you have an idea for alternative energy development, find some rich person like Romney to fund it. Don't go begging to the taxpayer.

I don't think anyone is begging. I believe they're using their administrative powers to make decisions. But hey, that's a good soundbite if you don't think about it.

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

I don't think that Romney is a really bad candidate. Obama's made a lot of hay over Romney's tax returns, but I really question how much effect that'll have in November. McCain got similar results by branding Obama a "celebrity" in the summer of 2008, and as a result his poll numbers drifted up a little bit, but then the real campaign started and everybody forgot about it. August is a long way from November, and it's not clear that voters care terribly much about a person's biography in any case.

(And from what I've read, Obama knows this already, and that the tax returns issue is meant to serve as the foundation for a campaign against Romney's policies. You can see that in the ad he released on Thursday the campaign

.)

Beyond that, Romney's problems are largely Republican problems. Basically any Republican politician who was in office since before 2009 would have changed their positions on a number of prominent issues. It's not as Romney had fringe views in 2006--he was the conservative alternative to John McCain in 2008, and on that basis was endorsed by The National Review. And I can't imagine any Republican candidate in 2012 winning without adopting the Ryan plan and taking a position on immigration that will alienate Latinos. And that's what really could hurt Romney--perceptions of extremism have cost candidates as much as three percentage points, and in this election that could be the difference all by itself.

A 2008 +15 sample now gives him +6, a +13 sample now gives him +6, and a +14 sample now gives him +11

I think it's more likely that people are remembering wrong. People often remember voting for a winning President when they didn't really. I don't know what accounts for it, but it's something that polls have picked up on since the early 1960s at least, where you'd never have guessed that Kennedy barely won the election considering how many people said that they voted for him.

[Sci-2]

Gosh, you do realize the Solyndra well has been milked for all it's worth, right? And that it actually wasn't much in the first place. It's amazing that you've been schooled on the facts regarding Solyndra at least four or five times yet still use it as if it means something.

I don't think anyone is begging. I believe they're using their administrative powers to make decisions. But hey, that's a good soundbite if you don't think about it.

I'm gonna lean a bit in Commodore's direction.

Or least I want to see some informed opinions on this -> Do you think there's an opportunity cost to Green Energy investment in a recession where things that would have a greater probability of return are passed over in favor for things that have more environmental benefits?

[Paladin of Ice]

Commodore, how do you feel about Republican senators trying to forbid the Navy from using alternative energy?

http://www.reuters.c...E86G1BZ20120717

Republican critics of the biofuel plan, led by senators John McCain and James Inhofe, found enough support within the Senate Armed Services Committee in May for two proposals that could limit additional spending.

The measures would stop spending on fuels that cost more than conventional fuels, and prevent spending on refineries that would help scale up production of still-experimental fuels. They were added to a bill authorizing defense programs in 2013.

(This despite the Navy attempting to explain that by creating a greater demand for those products, that would naturally cause price to drop, and price will never drop without greater demand.)

http://www.guardian....eet-republicans

The US Navy has gone into battle to save its "great green fleet" from Republicans in Congress who are trying to sink the ambitious biofuel project in what should have been its finest hour.

The aircraft carrier USS Nimitz and a strike force of 71 jet fighters, helicopters and transport planes, set off on a demonstration voyage off the Hawaiian island of Oahu this week, powered by a 50-50 mix of conventional fuels and algae or cooking oil.

An Australian Navy commander also joined the Nimitz in a biofuel-burning helicopter.

But the voyage that should have been the pinnacle of the navy's green aspirations instead found the Pentagon and Obama administration fending off Republican attacks on the biofuels project.

Lets see other conservative responses to alternative energy. I wonder what the Heritage Foundation has to say on the subject.

http://www.talkradio...rd-gimmick.html

Beware The “Renewable Energy Standard” Gimmick

Some state and federal lawmakers are pushing a law to increase your energy bills. It’s called a Clean Energy Standard, sometimes a Renewable Energy Standard. It requires electric utilities to use a certain level of so-called “clean” or “green” energy to generate power. For example, saying that 25% of electricity must come from green sources by the year 2025.

It’s like requiring drivers to to fill at least a fourth of their tank with gasoline that costs twice as much per gallon, or even more. These laws are made to sound environmentally friendly, while the cost to you gets ignored. But when utilities switch from affordable sources like fossil fuel to expensive sources like wind or solar, your electric bills go up.

Rush Limbaugh denies that that the solar industry even exists:

http://grist.org/ren...ies-dont-exist/

And says that investigating alternative energy is actually an attempt to end American greatness:

http://www.rushlimba...rican_greatness

Lets throw in a few others for good measure:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/support-for-federal-backing-of-renewables-slips-driven-by-gop-skepticism/2011/11/10/gIQA97kX9M_story.html

http://www.washingto...grams-renewabl/

http://www.upi.com/B...45201305316012/

At a hearing Friday of the House Natural Resources Committee, U.S. Rep. Doug Lamborn, R-Colo., criticized the Obama administration's efforts to develop both renewable and traditional energy sources, characterizing them as showing an "inherent distrust and opposition to conventional fossil fuels."

House Republicans introduced three bills this spring that aimed to restart and accelerate offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. All three were passed early this month, with the most recent, the provocatively named "Reversing President Obama's Offshore Moratorium Act," voted on Thursday.

Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., claimed the House Republicans proposals treat renewable energy as "an invisible issue" that is "subsumed by an oil-above-all approach." In addition, Markey asked that House Republicans "reconsider their decision to zero out loan guarantees for wind and solar in their budget." Markey's state is home to the Cape Wind project, which would put 130 wind turbines off the coast of Cape Cod with the goal of generating three-quarters of the cape's energy requirements.

Markey joined Bromwich in voicing concern about reports that the Department of Energy has decided to stop accepting applications for loan guarantees for renewable energy project. The two men said the Energy Department decision could have a chilling effect on renewable energy projects at a time when the Department of Interior was trying to expedite renewable energy project permits.

No, I don't know why anyone would think Republicans have something against using energy sources other than oil.

[Shryke]

The tax system is a bad way to fund alternative energy (see Solyndra), it distorts the market and steers investment toward poor/risky ventures.

Investment should be based on rate of return, not how it takes advantage of the tax code.

If you have an idea for alternative energy development, find some rich person like Romney to fund it. Don't go begging to the taxpayer.

1) Solyndra was funded via loans from the government, not tax breaks. It also went under because the Chinese gave bigger loans to their solar industry. That and an unexpected turn-around in the price of certain elements.

2) Why some rich guy, why not some rich government? Unlike private investors, the government has an interest in general welfare, not just a specific short term rate of return. This is why the public funds basic research. It's too long term and too uncertain for the private market. And yet, the private market needs that base of knowledge/experience/technology/etc to advance. See stuff like the internet. The public sector built it, the private sector ran with it and we get what we have today.

3) Further to the above, private sector investment will only switch over when the rate of return is good and, more importantly here, not a really long time in coming. Research, start-up time, plain old completely-missing-the-signs and other such issues mean that private investment doesn't always transition to new investments at the optimal time.

And finally:

4) specific to alternative energy, the private sector has proven rather terrible at predicting the future shape of the market. They have consistently screwed up their predictions and always in the same direction. That direction being "they think alternative energy won't do as well as it actually ends up doing".

PS - As another point here is that the energy market is tied to all sorts of other markets. Hydrocarbon products are used in a huge variety of industrial applications, not just power generation. Every hydrocarbon burned for power generation is a hydrocarbon not used for another application with many less alternative sources. And since hydrocarbons are a limited resource, this can be an issue. The government can, through investment and tax breaks and all that, shift the allocation of hydrocarbon resources to those other sectors.

[Shryke]

I'm gonna lean a bit in Commodore's direction.

Or least I want to see some informed opinions on this -> Do you think there's an opportunity cost to Green Energy investment in a recession where things that would have a greater probability of return are passed over in favor for things that have more environmental benefits?

I'm not sure what you are asking.

There's always an opportunity cost. But environmental benefits are a benefit. You can't act like they are nothing. You can even, if you choose to be completely capitalist here, attach a dollar value to environmental benefits. And those dollar values are LARGE.

The question is not one of returns since the govenrment isn't in the business of turning a profit anyway. The issue here is that the government wants to encourage the production of alternative energies because we will need them and because most governments want the technology there to use and they also want a piece of that upcoming market. Basically, as (for instance) wind power becomes a bigger and bigger industry, it's a real nice time to be the country with lots of people who build and develop wind turbines.

And thirdly, what does "in a recession" have to do with this?

[Shryke]

I don't think that Romney is a really bad candidate. Obama's made a lot of hay over Romney's tax returns, but I really question how much effect that'll have in November. McCain got similar results by branding Obama a "celebrity" in the summer of 2008, and as a result his poll numbers drifted up a little bit, but then the real campaign started and everybody forgot about it. August is a long way from November, and it's not clear that voters care terribly much about a person's biography in any case.

(And from what I've read, Obama knows this already, and that the tax returns issue is meant to serve as the foundation for a campaign against Romney's policies. You can see that in the ad he released on Thursday the campaign

.)

Beyond that, Romney's problems are largely Republican problems. Basically any Republican politician who was in office since before 2009 would have changed their positions on a number of prominent issues. It's not as Romney had fringe views in 2006--he was the conservative alternative to John McCain in 2008, and on that basis was endorsed by The National Review. And I can't imagine any Republican candidate in 2012 winning without adopting the Ryan plan and taking a position on immigration that will alienate Latinos. And that's what really could hurt Romney--perceptions of extremism have cost candidates as much as three percentage points, and in this election that could be the difference all by itself.

The pivot has always been the plan. But talking about Romney himself is part and parcel of that. Paint Romney as the rich, out of touch tax dodger and it's easier to tie him to his plans to shift the tax burden off the rich and on to the lower classes.

And Romney is a pretty bad candidate.

- His only government experience he can run on he can't mention anymore because of Rombamacare (or Obamneycare if you prefer)

- His business experience is tied to a bunch of unpopular shit like outsourcing and aborted fetii, which is why he keeps having to twist and wiggle about what specific things at Bain he was for and what things he totally never knew about when he signed those forms.

- His time at the Olympics even has issues, since he saved the Olympics by becoming a lobbyist and getting the Federal govenrment to give him a ton of money, which he then siphoned off to his own businesses and friends of his and such. (that one I expect to show up later once the actual current olympics have faded a bit)

- He's got shit to hide. His tax returns are something that, since it appears around at least 2002, he doesn't want anyone to see. And that pressure is really starting to mount.

- He's just ... not charismatic. He doesn't relate well, says dumb stuff, laughs creepily everytime he has to lie and just doesn't come off well.

- And because of the two things above, he's been hiding alot from the press and that's not a strategy you want to have to use. The media may be shit, but they demand their scraps and pats on the head. And they can turn nasty if they don't get them. And Romney's campaign just isn't that good at keeping them at bay or keeping their cool.

- And finally, motherfucker just isn't a good campaigner at all. He's made some serious rookie mistakes here and so have the people he's hired. Even many on the right think he sucks at this.

[Sci-2]

I'm not sure what you are asking.

There's always an opportunity cost. But environmental benefits are a benefit. You can't act like they are nothing. You can even, if you choose to be completely capitalist here, attach a dollar value to environmental benefits. And those dollar values are LARGE.

The question is not one of returns since the govenrment isn't in the business of turning a profit anyway. The issue here is that the government wants to encourage the production of alternative energies because we will need them and because most governments want the technology there to use and they also want a piece of that upcoming market. Basically, as (for instance) wind power becomes a bigger and bigger industry, it's a real nice time to be the country with lots of people who build and develop wind turbines.

And thirdly, what does "in a recession" have to do with this?

Basically, should loans like those given to Solyndra been given to other businesses that would have higher probability of success [and would that success create more jobs].

The recession part b/c I'm asking if money used (or, in the case of tax incentives, money not given to the government) to fund green energy could have been better spent on things that would have created more jobs [and aided in economic improvement].

Note I'm not stating a position, I'm genuinely curious about this.

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

Shryke:

I think you're underestimating the degree to which Romney will simply lie about, play down or ignore unpleasant aspects of his biography. Romney can run on his government experience by ignoring Romneycare and talking about jobs. He can run on his business experience by pretending that he wasn't involved in outsourcing. Every presidential candidate gives a distorted version of their biography. And it generally doesn't matter because a candidate's biography rarely matters much.

As far as charisma is concerned, I wouldn't make any great claims for Romney--I don't think he's a great candidate, just a not-bad one--but what you say about him sounds a lot like what liberals said about George W. Bush, and we know how that turned out. Romney doesn't come off well to you (or to me) because he's speaking to a hostile audience.

And when it comes to saying "dumb stuff" and making "rookie mistakes," every presidential campaign has moments like that. Obama got tired one day and said something about the "fifty-seven states." George W. Bush put his foot in his mouth all the damn time. Campaign moments like that made the news for a day and then people forget them or laugh them off.

[Shryke]

Basically, should loans like those given to Solyndra been given to other businesses that would have higher probability of success [and would that success create more jobs].

The recession part b/c I'm asking if money used (or, in the case of tax incentives, money not given to the government) to fund green energy could have been better spent on things that would have created more jobs [and aided in economic improvement].

Note I'm not stating a position, I'm genuinely curious about this.

That assumes jobs right now are your only concern. Investment in alternative energy is also looking at future growth in the industry and other factors like weaning yourself off oil and the like.

[Titus Pullo]

I've never really read your posts before. But as a dick, i recognize a dick when i see one,

Sounds like a personal choice.

and i think a little over a hundred posts probably doesn't give you much room to strut around swinging your dick at other members.

Really? There's an incubation period then? Is this forum a place where you have to "pay your dues" before you can act just like everyone else ?

You'll of course ignore this, being a dick and all

Well no. I hear what you're saying. .... You just have zero frame of reference about where it originated here. So that makes you both a ****, AND an ***, which is convenient.

, but as a dick i've found that its easier to engage with other people in these forums and have them respond to my posts by being less dickish.

I'm not here for "ease." I'm here because I see a lot of nonsense. So whenever I see swaths of people arrogantly bloviating about "teh free marketz", and calling anyone "crazy" who doesn't agree with their "no problem" view of the world, something compels me to hold that kind of pablum accountable. You seem to feel put off by the reciprocity, but have no problem with the antagonizer(s).

The key word in all of this is, of course, dick, and a need to show less of it.

LOL, really? How's your fight going? Doesn't seem very well.

Now it can be difficult, because all dicks want to do is fuck, but before you find yourself fucking your hand put your dick away and perhaps be more respectful.

Soon as they do.

Just some advice. Mmm-kay.

In other words, "you're new here... so shut your mouth, and recognize that only we can act arrogant!!"

Good talk.

Let us know when you have anything pertinent to bring to the topic.

[Shryke]

Shryke:

I think you're underestimating the degree to which Romney will simply lie about, play down or ignore unpleasant aspects of his biography. Romney can run on his government experience by ignoring Romneycare and talking about jobs. He can run on his business experience by pretending that he wasn't involved in outsourcing. Every presidential candidate gives a distorted version of their biography. And it generally doesn't matter because a candidate's biography rarely matters much.

It seems to be mattering right now. It mattered in the primary too. He can lie about it of course. He is right now. He lies about pretty much everything really. But that doesn't mean he can get away with it completely and what we are seeing over the last few months is that his lies aren't killing the issue at all.

You are assuming the issue of what's he's done in the past and what kind of person he comes off as will just not matter at all and that's not an assumption I'd say is supported by any evidence we have.

As far as charisma is concerned, I wouldn't make any great claims for Romney--I don't think he's a great candidate, just a not-bad one--but what you say about him sounds a lot like what liberals said about George W. Bush, and we know how that turned out. Romney doesn't come off well to you (or to me) because he's speaking to a hostile audience.

No, it's in fact the exact opposite here.

People said GWB came off as dumb. But he had "folksy charisma" or "drink a beer with"-ability in spades. Romney, on the other hand, no one really accuses of being dumb. But he comes off as out of touch. And it's got nothing to do with a hostile audience. He comes off worse then Kerry in public appearances and that's saying something.

And when it comes to saying "dumb stuff" and making "rookie mistakes," every presidential campaign has moments like that. Obama got tired one day and said something about the "fifty-seven states." George W. Bush put his foot in his mouth all the damn time. Campaign moments like that made the news for a day and then people forget them or laugh them of.

Every politician has gaffs. But not all to the same level and not all the same amount. Romney's foreign trip, for instance, was a goddamn disaster. And should have been a walk in the park. And that's just the most recent.

Just because not all campaigns are perfect doesn't mean all campaigns are the same. Even people who don't like Obama will usually admit he's really good at campaigning. Romney isn't.

And like I said, it's not like this isn't something tons of people both on the right and on the left have pointed out. Just off the top of my head, Rupert Murdoch said his campaign staff aren't prepared at all.

[Kalbear]

There are plenty o political and strategic arguments for alt fuel too. The free market is a good force - but it helps to know all the variables and not assume that it is a simple commodity only.

[Titus Pullo]

Besides as has been demonstrated to TP time and again, there are two key points:

Demonstrated, and then put in proper perspective, yes.

1. Peak oil is not a cliff event wherein prices will suddenly and irretrievably be disastrously high. Even worst case scenarios of depletion agree with this. As the price steadily rises, various alternatives become more economically attractive and thus go into wider use.

What are you talking about? Of course it could create a cliff event. Sure, in the very best-case scenario, it could be a slow drawdown where no cliff is reached. But that doesn't preclude one. It most certainly DOES create conditions (Iran attacked, Hormuz mined, run on banks, Euro break-up) that could send prices skyrocketing. That is because the world no longer has the spare capacity to adjust to disruptions in oil production and our "just-in-time" delivery system.

What do you think 2008 would have been if we didn't starting bailing the giants out at the 11th hour? Cliff event.

2. Investment into alternatives is already underway and has been for years if not decades.

Yup. Decades of tinkering. ... Negligible levels of progress. ... Certainly in terms of production rates and production estimations going forward.

Now, one can argue (and TP does) that our alternatives won't be able to expand fast enough or be versatile enough to make up the shortfall, and whether or not that's true, it's at least a good argument.

Remaining skeptical while not showing how (or anyone who says) it can be done really is just a sign of someone steadfast on remaining obtuse.

You and others like you have been asked a number of times how we can possibly maintain needed growth to the tune of an 18 million bpd increase over the next 8 years. Solar and wind and other renewables don't move freight, and don't propel commerce, and they're not really a part of this equation. So you're asked if you believe unconventional production of tight oil fields can increase 6-8 fold within eight years. None have asserted such. Why?

Where is the needed increase in production going to come from when considering a 4% decline in existing capacity? Still waiting.

[Anya, Vengeance Demon]

Shryke:

I'm not saying that Romney's background will have no effect on the election. I'm saying that the personal qualities of a candidate generally have a small effect on election results, one that is easily swamped by many other factors. This is a widely held view among political scientists who study elections. This post from Andrew Gelman is pretty representative.

I'm also not saying that all candidates are the same, just that all candidates fuck up, and the fact that Romney also fucks up doesn't tell us very much. The foreign trip that you described as a goddamn disaster will be forgotten in a couple of weeks, just like any number of other news stories that broke in July or August and then evaporated after the campaign. This is still well before most people start following the election at all closely.

And yeah, Romney doesn't have "folksy charm" like George W. Bush did. But qualities like that are fungible. What strikes you as Romney being out of touch could strike somebody else as confidence. Media observers tend to see a candidate one way if he's losing and another way if he's winning. Obama was "serenely confident" in 2008 and "aloof and out of touch" in 2010.

Or let me put this another way. At this time in 1992, Bill Clinton was widely seen as a loser, with favorability ratings that were basically underwater. During the primary, which Clinton won only after a long grueling contest that lasted well into April, the prevailing view was that Clinton was doomed:

[The prevailing view is that] Democrats “are building their November coffin right this minute here in Chicago,” as an office-holding Cook County Democrat told us. They cannot stop, he said, because they don’t know how, and there is no party authority to tell them.

The only way out of the coffin now, he went on, would be an unexpected upset of Clinton by former Sen. Paul Tsongas next Tuesday in Illinois or Michigan. Otherwise the lid on the coffin will be nailed shut, a ghoulish gift for George Bush on Nov. 3.

Even after his opponents dropped out of the race, a large number of primary voters wrote in Ross Perot's name. After the primary was over, both George H. W. Bush and Ross Perot had double digit leads over Clinton. And yet we all know how this story ends. Clinton wasn't just an average candidate, he was a great candidate, a political rock star whose reputation lives on more than a decade after he left office.

I'd be very surprised if Romney turned into another Bill Clinton. But if even a great candidate like Clinton can seem like a failure in the summer before an election, surely it's too soon to write off Romney as a bad candidate.

[Shryke]

Shryke:

I'm not saying that Romney's background will have no effect on the election. I'm saying that the personal qualities of a candidate generally have a small effect on election results, one that is easily swamped by many other factors. This is a widely held view among political scientists who study elections. This post from Andrew Gelman is pretty representative.

I'm also not saying that all candidates are the same, just that all candidates fuck up, and the fact that Romney also fucks up doesn't tell us very much. The foreign trip that you described as a goddamn disaster will be forgotten in a couple of weeks, just like any number of other news stories that broke in July or August and then evaporated after the campaign. This is still well before most people start following the election at all closely.

It barely matters now. The US generally doesn't give a shit about what foreigners think.

What it shows is his basic incompetence at the whole campaigning thing. How does one fuck up a foreign handjob tour? He couldn't hit a single country without offending the shit out of someone.

And yeah, Romney doesn't have "folksy charm" like George W. Bush did. But qualities like that are fungible. What strikes you as Romney being out of touch could strike somebody else as confidence. Media observers tend to see a candidate one way if he's losing and another way if he's winning. Obama was "serenely confident" in 2008 and "aloof and out of touch" in 2010.

Firstly, these qualities being "fungible" doesn't make much sense.

And secondly, charisma is definitely a thing. It's a huge predictor of success in many areas even.

Favourable/Unfavourable numbers among voters are pretty skewed against Romney.

Or let me put this another way. At this time in 1992, Bill Clinton was widely seen as a loser, with favorability ratings that were basically underwater. During the primary, which Clinton won only after a long grueling contest that lasted well into April, the prevailing view was that Clinton was doomed:

Even after his opponents dropped out of the race, a large number of primary voters wrote in Ross Perot's name. After the primary was over, both George H. W. Bush and Ross Perot had double digit leads over Clinton. And yet we all know how this story ends. Clinton wasn't just an average candidate, he was a great candidate, a political rock star whose reputation lives on more than a decade after he left office.

I'd be very surprised if Romney turned into another Bill Clinton. But if even a great candidate like Clinton can seem like a failure in the summer before an election, surely it's too soon to write off Romney as a bad candidate.

That reasoning doesn't work. It relies on the idea that Romney could somehow turn out to be a good candidate, something even you don't seem to put any faith in while arguing it.

And you shouldn't. Romney's been running for years now. We know what he's like. And if anything, he seems to have gotten worse at it the closer we get to the election.

You wanna look at 1992, let's look at 2008 where Obama led McCain from like May onward. There were the convention blips, but other then that the polls were consistent that Obama was gonna win. And this year the polls are, if anything, more consistent.

[Noroldis]

Commodore:

Hydraulic fracking is a good example of a once nonviable technology that matured in response to price incentives.

Hydrofracking is still unviable – from an environmental standpoint, that is. If you don't believe me, watch the film Gasland.

From an economic standpoint, hydrofracking has indeed (and unfortunately) become viable. Well, up until comes the time in the future for taxpayers to pay the bill to decontaminate all the soil that's been and will be polluted by hydrofracking.

Titus Pullo:

Yup. Decades of tinkering. ... Negligible levels of progress. ... Certainly in terms of production rates and production estimations going forward.

Did you even read Paladin of Ice's post about Conservatives' obstructionist shenanigans concerning the development of alternative energy? Or did the logical "Conservatives in general and Republicans in particular have long been doing all they can to prevent the development of alternative energy sources, as directed by their Big Energy sugar daddies" conclusion escape you?

[Commodore]

Commodore, how do you feel about Republican senators trying to forbid the Navy from using alternative energy?

I have no opinion. Not sure what the point is of these massive link dumps of GOP politicians contradicting my posts. I don't claim to speak for them, or vice versa. At best they are marginally better than the alternative.

You can post all the links you want, doesn't change the idea that it's wrong to use taxpayer money to invest in private companies. Corporate welfare is never justified. If a company is worth investing in, why do they need to get their capital by force via the government? We have agencies all over the government with their own slush funds set up to just hand out dump trucks full of cash to whomever. It's not even earmarked by Congress, just approved by some faceless committee no one voted for. HARP, TARP, the Import Export Bank, the DoE Green Energy slush fund. It's insane, and a guarantee of fraud, waste, and abuse. But hey, just say you're "Investing In America" and it's all good.

I would love to see a law outlawing all bailouts, subsidies, and guaranteed loans. You would quickly see which companies/banks are viable and which are feeding off the taxpayer. And investment would be steered to legitimately viable entities. Alot of supposedly smart businessmen would be exposed as frauds who knew how to game the system.

It amazes me how people here think they have the pulse of the electorate and are so sure of the outcome in November. My posture is always to assume people don't agree with me (which is generally true).