Add a Comment
- Drill, Baby, drill.
- Reply to this comment
- FUST FIGURE OUT HOW I AM SUPPOSED TO GET A JOB WITH MY HEART PROBLEM SO I CAN HAVE INSURANCE TO COVER IT.
PROBLEM ONE: NOBODY WILL HIRE A PERSON WITH A HEART PROBLEM.
PROBLEM TWO: PREEXISTING CONDITIONS ARE NOT COVERED EVEN IF I COULD GET A JOB WITH THE HEART PROBLEM I HAVE.
PROBLEM THREE: NO JOB NO MONEY FOR MEDICAL CARE OR INSURANCE WHICH I COULD NOT GET ANYWAY AND WOULDN'T COVER PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS IF I COULD GET INSURANCE.
THANK YOU. NOW WHAT DO I DO. FORGOT, HAVE MBA AND 200 IQ - Reply to this comment
- Republican Senator Charles Grassley said: "I felt it was just like a knife in my back."
Sorry Senator but I think maybe it was a broken spout from a tea pot. - Reply to this comment
- The government should be investing in clean energy companies like Solyndra. Yes indeed, I said it---Solyndra! Solyndra did not go bankrupt because the technology was bad or the company was bad. It went bankrupt because their is fierce competition from countries like India and China. Those countries are heavily investing in clean energy. The U.S. should do the same, or we will be left behind.
And people that claim that the free market forces should be left to decide are ignoring that oil companies are the most subsidized form of energy that there is! How about we cancel those ridiculous subsidies to oil companies---it's crazy, they are enjoying record profits!---and use that money to invest in clean energy sources like the rest of the developing world is doing.
This "free market always finds the best way" thinking is nuts! In general it is good to let the market decide, but sometimes we need the Government to give it a push in the right direction? Do people really think that the free market would have built the Golden Gate Bridge, or the Hoover Dam, or invented the Internet, or created the GPS system? Are all these things examples of Socialism, and therefore terrible? Of course not!
We need the Government to invest in good ideas in order to get them going. Clean energy is such an idea. Otherwise we will always be trapped in our oil addiction, which is exactly where the oil companies want to keep us. - Reply to this comment
- Republicans want the free market to apply to solar and wind energy, without any government subsidies. But every single Republican Senator (except for two: Collins and Snowe) voted to continue the government subsidies for Big Oil, which cost U.S. taxpayers $80 billion per year!
What it comes down to is that Republicans are owned by Big Oil, and will do anything to help them keep America addicted to their products. - Reply to this comment
- Obama - "I want to stop giving $4 billion in taxpayer subsidies that are going to oil companies" - try $100 billion a year in military protection subsidies Mr. President, not counting the costs of either of the Iraq wars.
I wish ONE politician from any party would raise this, but apparently it's too toxic for even a liberal. The military is not even required to separate this cost. Anybody whining about subsidies to wind or solar ignores the elephant in the room. Imagine if we subsidized them at the level we do oil - we'd be energy-independent in a lot less time than some blowhard Romney claim. The money spent on the latest Iraq war alone would have hybridized every passenger vehicle in the US (40% less oil consumption) AND built a solar energy grid that would supply two-thirds of our electricity.
I'm not impressed with either candidate on this. It is the biggest national security issue facing our nation, and they both spew the same tired old pap. - Reply to this comment
- GOP fat cats love to talk about the 100 years of oil and 250 years of coal there is left and "why wouldn't we use it? They answer their own question.
I especially love the phrase "clean coal." As a kid we had a coal furnace and I've shoveled tons of it into the furnace and shoveled out tons of ashes. I'm not saying it's responsible for the 50 percent lung capacity I have today due to environmental pollution, but it certainly was a contributing factor. Conversely, I've never heard of wind damaged lungs nor anything but rare cases of people injured by exposure to the sun. Wind blows almost everywhere and when the sun stops shining, it won't affect our energy consumption as we'll all die quite quickly from a frozen solid environment.
The only difference is the profit to be made by the traditional energy producers who don't want economical competition. Bring on solar and wind farms. Neither is as ugly as strip mining for coal or watching a gusher pollute the land around the ugly wellhead.
Just one final observation on traditional fuels. Fracking for natural gas has resulted in well water becoming so contaminated it ignites if you hold a match to the water as it comes from the tap. Does anyone really want to give their family that kind of water to drink?? - Reply to this comment
- Who is Paul Ryan?
A catholic who rejects the teachings of Jesus Christ for the philosophy of atheist Ayn Rand. Nice pick Mitt - Reply to this comment
- My Problem with government intervention into alternative energy resources (And particularly the Obama Administration) is that:
1) Federal goverment involvement always inhibits the process and certainly does not result in the most cost effective results. (Note the cost of the military's alternative jet fuels - outrageously more expensive than their conventional fuels)
2) The neutrality of the government is not guaranteed - we need look no further than Solyndra (sp?) to see how poorly the government does at picking companies that are truly wise investments. The decision was purely made to gain a quick 'solution' that quickly went bust due to the lack of due diligance on the part of government decision makers.
3) The federal government is very poor at long term projections for energy - or at best fails to adequately take into account significant outside influences on alternative energy. For example Ethanol is about to become much more expensive due to the drought we are experiencing across ths nation. Making this more ridiculous is that apparently we (The US) feel we have to go to an international agency to obtain permission to back off the mandate for use of ethanol in our gasoline. Apparently the Obama administration feels the US has no authority to act to resolve the current problem.
By my count that is 3 strikes Prez Obama and you are outta here Bud. You and the federal government have NOTHING to crow about when it comes to alternative energy developement - you have a poor track record and we have no need to allow you to continue to make bad decisions adds dramatically to the cost of energy, that waste our tax dollars, and gives away our nations ability to make critical energy use decisions to some world power that is not concerned with what is best for our country. - Reply to this comment
- "Experts say it's theoretically possible to wean the U.S. off dependence on Middle East oil in eight years, but only if production is boosted dramatically and demand drops significantly, too."
These experts must be working for Mitt Romney. Studies show that the US doesn't have large oil reserves on land, under the lakes, or off-shores. Only the Middle East has these known oil reserves. Currently, the US is even importing Canadian crude oil which is not as pure as Middle East crude oil.
Saying that the US can be entirely self-sufficient in just 8 years under the Romney administration is entirely a false promise. Republican politicians like to say anything, even lying to the public, in order to get elected.
Let's not forget Dick Cheney promise that the invasion of Iraq would not cost US taxpayers a dime. Since that promise, the former Vice-president never mentioned about it in interviews with the press. - Reply to this comment
