Not at all. I'm trying to show you an example of how free enterprise creates high paying middle class jobs, TAXES, demand for infrastructure (public sector union jobs, construction jobs..) WITHOUT the heavy hand of Government. This is the way it is SUPPOSSED to be.Originally Posted by Havakasha
WE ALL understand how free enterprise works. Thank you.
Govt involvement doesnt have to be "HEAVY".
There is nuance and a matter of degree. Something
that you seem to not understand as you have published 100%
negative articles on the future technoloigies of the world involving
alternative energy. Keep sticking your head in the sand.
Dont many startup industries get govt help in the early stages? I thought I read that the computer industry was one of these.
Even Gov. Romney has been talking about private/govt partnerships. Earth to SiriuslyWrong.
He aint no Marxist.
Last edited by Havakasha; 01-27-2012 at 10:14 AM.
Any govenrment aficionado (i.e. statist wannabe) would most certainly tell you that government is involved in the start up of all things. Biden was spouting that during his first year in office.
I do laugh at the irony that the villified oil and gas industry is the source of these high paying jobs, TAX REVENUE and demand creation of public services.
Walter Isaacson on Steve jobs:
“He was really into supporting Obama in 2012…He wanted to make ads for Obama.”
Those TV spots would have been quite something, said Isaacson, considering the strength of Apple’s advertising reputation. “He felt that you needed to do that kind of ‘It’s Morning in America’ thing that Hal Riney did for Reagan,” said Isaacson.
It would have been a rare foray into politics for Jobs, whom Isaacson said “he just didn’t focus on politics.” (In case you were wondering, Isaacson said the topic of the 2012 Republican field never came up).
“He was fine with government policies, in general,” said Isaacson.
SiriuslyWrong: "Damn Communist". lol
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/66803.html
We’ve heard the same tired ideas during the primaries, and we will hear them again in the Republican response to the State of the Union Address on Tuesday night: candidates offer plenty of attacks on Obama, but no new vision for America’s energy future.
Gingrich may be the man who wrote the book, Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less: A Handbook for Solving Our Energy Crisis, but Romney is just as eager to rely on the same fossil fuels we’ve been using for the past 100 years. Romney’s energy blueprint, included in his “Believe in America” economic plan, calls for flinging open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to energy companies, sinking wells into the deepwater, and expanding fracking in the Marcellus Shale, despite a long list of environmental and public health concerns (not to mention small earthquakes).
Neither Romney nor Gingrich has a fresh plan for an energy future built on innovation and cutting-edge technology. Neither one talks about how better-performing cars are putting 150,000 Americans to work right now and helping slash our oil addiction at the same time. Neither one trumpets the fact that American engineers are already making breakthroughs in the next generation of solar technology. And neither one of them urges America to lead what has been estimated as the $243 billion global clean energy market.
Instead, both Romney and Gingrich seem to view renewable technologies as a wasteful distraction. This despite the fact that the Department of Defense—the nation’s largest consumer of energy—has pledged to get 25 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2025 because of national security concerns.
The candidates like to demagogue about energy independence, but they have no plan to achieve it besides doing more of the same—an approach that hasn’t worked so far. We saw it in Gingrich’s acceptance speech in South Carolina. “I want America to become so energy independent that no American president ever again bows to a Saudi king.” That is a fine aspiration, but instead of encouraging Detroit to build more fuel-efficient engines or farmers to grow sustainable biofuels, he called for expanding offshore drilling and approving the Keystone XL pipeline.
When your home has 1.6 percent of the globe’s proven oil reserves and you consume 26 percent of the world’s supply, there is a limit to how much you can influence supply. That's not politics; it's geology.
And building a pipeline from a friendly ally won’t help much when the pipeline operators routinely say in the Canadian press that a primary goal of Keystone XL is to access Asian markets. The same operators have refused in Congressional testimony to commit to selling the majority of their oil to the United States. Instead, they are rerouting it out of the Midwest and into the “Foreign Trade Zone” in Port Arthur, Texas, where companies get incentives to export from of the United States.
Approving a pipeline to help dirty tar sands oil get to Asia is not a long-term plan for America’s energy system. Opening more ocean waters to drilling won’t position us to lead the next generation of energy breakthroughs. But that doesn’t stop Gingrich and Romney from singing the same old song again and again.
President Obama recognizes that America’s energy leadership will be built on clean technologies. Last week he kicked off his presidential campaign advertising with an ad devoted to the economic power of clean energy. I expect he will highlight it again in the State of the Union.
Here is how I expect the GOP candidates to respond: They will criticize Obama’s clean energy programs and sprinkle in fossil fuel buzzwords like Keystone and drilling. But their complaints can’t cover the fact that they have no fresh ideas, no innovation, and no groundbreaking vision for America’s energy future.
From MYDD.com
No fresh idea's?
How about letting markets work? That should be really fresh to you - the liberal market interventionist -- no, no, it's not socialism, we just want governement to manage markets to make things "fair" - you know, reward everyone when one takes the most risk. Share the wealth.....
JOBS are in ND folks. You can flip eggs for $15 an hour. They need houses, roads, sewage treatment plants... Eventually, they will need schools... All of these middle class public union jobs courtesy of the private sector - no need for goverment to create demand here - markets are at work.
How can we take ANYTHING you say seriously when you call President Obama a Marxist (and cantback it up), yet call yourself a centrist?
How can we take ANYTHING you say seriously when you stated that Peter Schiff's prediction that the Dowwill be 1,400 or gold will rise to $12,000 in the next 2 years was "BOLD"?
How can we take ANYTHING you say seriously when your favored "economist" Mr. Schiff has gotten so many of his predictions wildly wrong and yet has NEVER admitted to being wrong once.
The answer is that we CANT take you seriously.
You can try to exaggerate the liberal point of view with regard to govt. (much like Peter Schiff does) but it just makes you look SeriouslyAmateurish.
Last edited by Havakasha; 01-30-2012 at 12:07 PM.
Havasucker, I said the typology tests graded me as a centrist. I am conservative minded when it comes to the economy and government. DUH.
You are the one who cannot be taken seriously. Here we have a clear case of free markets at work, and you go on to say this thread is about energy policy. You are stupid. You are highly partisan. You refuse to recognize obvious things. For example, what is going on in ND is GOOD for society.
Where is your comment that this is a good thing? Nope. Can't do it. It's not on the piece of paper you have to read to figure out what your "position" is.
I don't need to exaggerate. You make the point for me.
Reply With Quote