But since then the EPA has been abused as the backdoor to creating legislation without voting. Essentially, when they can't get laws passed. They abuse the EPA to get what they want anyway.
One example of this is the EPA ruling to stop mountaintop removal mining using the Clean Water Act as a backdoor to shutting them down.
http://wvgazette.com/News/201110063355
This is also an example of the EPA overstepping it's power. Many lawsuits throughout Appalachia are proceeding against the EPA on this. Obama is the one that signed the executive order on this which killed thousands of jobs through the region.
It's likely and hopeful this ban on mountaintop removal mining will be lifted, but not after potential millions of dollars in revenue for the region has been lost in the duration of the ban.
Statistics: Posted by Znath — October 10th, 2011, 7:41 pm
]]>
America just need to get back to producing. We're not good for anything now-a-days. We're all service, but when it comes to actually making and selling things, it all goes to overseas.
Let's get rid of the minimum wage, OSHA and all environmental standards? Sounds like a great idea to me. What's occuring is a case of global labor arbitrage. It's not like we don't receive any benefit from it; we most certainly do, in what amounts to lower prices for products we purchase every day. Whether that's worth higher unemployment and a higher trade deficit is another matter entirely.
Personally - and I admit I have not done near as much study on the topic as I would like - I think the U.S. needs to stop being the world's glutton and stop consuming so much more than it produces. We're trading away massive amounts of U.S. dollars by doing so, which effectively means we're trading away America's asset one 32" TV at a time.
One of the world's wealthiest men has actually written about this many times in the past. You may be interested in reading his thoughts; he is a much more intelligent man than I am.
Statistics: Posted by LondonLooter — October 10th, 2011, 4:11 am
]]>
]]>
If you think of it this way.
A solar research professor could either pay 5 cents per kW to do his research assuming the lab uses heavy machinery plenty of test equipment, the bills will probably run in the area of 1000 per month.
and then hire 5 students to aid the research at around lets say 500 per month each. The students could then get great work experience through college and the research gets done fairly quickly.
Under a carbon tax or environment where solar and wind are subsidized power then costs 8-10 cents per kW.
This rate is consistent with price hikes from states that heavily subsidize "green" energy.
The bill goes then to 2000 per month. And then he can only hire 3 student assistants. The research time increases almost by double.
Or if you look by the cost of energy in eco-states like California where there are ZERO coal plants.
15 cents per kW. The bill then jumps to 3000 per month. In that case the professor pays 4 student's wages toward power alone. With 1 student assistant, the research slows to a crawl.
Energy cost goes hand in hand with prosperity and economic progress.
So why not cut back on the wasted money into solar and wind subsidies. We can have cheap power for a while and in that time we can look into sources of clean and potentially cheaper energy. If solar was given a competitive chance, maybe we'd see higher than the pitiful 8% efficiency they currently trickle out. As far as open space goes. A solar plant takes up the space over 5 times the amount that coal ever does INCLUDING the space taken by coal mines. This is due to the inefficiency of solar cells.
Another problem the economy has run into is energy costs at the hand of the Obama administration. This is why he's losing the vote in Appalachia. Since he couldn't pass his carbon taxes, he's gone through the EPA. Obama has signed several executive orders to kill mining operations. Then the EPA regulations throw more fines and restrictions on mines and power plants. Where do you think companies will pass that cost?
Billions of dollars are wasted on these regulations and billions more are lost due to the progress that is restricted by expensive energy.
Statistics: Posted by Znath — October 4th, 2011, 4:27 pm
]]>
Most of the things on that list ARE his fault though.
eg. deficit spending, healthcare premiums are a direct result of something he did, unemployment.
These are thing directly linked to things he's supported.
The stimulus.. 800BILLION dollars was meant to "prevent over 8% unemployment" so he promised.
So what did we get for this cost?
Mind you this is enough money to buy everyone in the world a good bike.
Enough money to buy over 20000 solid gold Sherman tanks.
We got.... 9% unemployment?? lolwut?
It was made to, over a 10 year span, save 900k-2.3 mil jobs. 1 year ago, factcheck.org stated that it's "[i]ncreased the number of people employed by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million" and "[l]owered the unemployment rate by between 0.7 percentage points and 1.8 percentage points." So without the stimulus package, we'd be seeing 10-11% instead.
Quote:
Then on top of that you get "GREEN ENERGY" subsidies like Solyndra.
There's 500mil we'll never see again...
And Solyndra isn't the only one other solar companies crapped out too but got our money.
Yes, because that was totally Obama's fault. Not big businesses who invested more in foreign countries than our own. The problem here was that China came in and said, "Hey, we can do it cheaper. Like everything else."
Quote:
Some of it went into public works projects... and some supported crap which makes no difference.
So nearly a Trillion dollars down the drain and all it got us was a collapse in the market
and a degraded credit rating for the nation...
Here is an actual list of what was invested in, rather than "crap that makes no difference." I think everything there does indeed make a difference. Oh, and don't pretend that not doing this would've led us to economic prosperity. The plan had its effect, no matter how much you try to marginalize it.
The Congressional Budget Office projected the stimulus package would increase GDP growth by 1.4%-3.8% by the end of 2009. (Note: This did not mean GDP growth would be up1.4%-3.8%. It just meant the economy would be that much better, even if it remained in recession. Actually, the CBO projected the economy would contract 3% for 2009.) In fact, the economy contracted 2.6% in 2009, and expanded 2.6% in 2010. Source.
Quote:
You literally could have done a better job burying the money sent to Solyndra.
That scandal still unraveling at the seams...
It's a great example of how green energy subsidies are a waste of time and money.
Solyndra was a company that couldn't competently make it in the market.
Not only was it in a State that hates making jobs and taxes every little thing into oblivion (CA)
but it's solar power... the money pit of energy since the 50's.
Yes, solar energy is the devil's magic. Any hardworking, patriotic American would only rely on dependable fossil fuel.
I'm glad we had such keen eye to pick out all these flaws, with amazing postcognitive abilities. If only the people who had been evaluating this company since 2005, when the original energy law came into existence, had those powers on their team. They would've seen this from a mile away in their years of meticulous analysis. After it happened.
Quote:
It's harder to link Obama's performance to inflation and stuff like that.
But at the same time.... 4% vs half a percent is hard to ignore.
Obama just loves his inflation. If only he hadn't increased the standard of living in China or created record-breaking harsh winters to give us poor crop yields. Damn that Obama!
Statistics: Posted by Nateman — October 4th, 2011, 11:15 am
]]>
DEATHmage172 wrote:
this infographic exploits people who don't understand the former point.
Isn't politics all about exploiting people who don't understand the big picture?
Point taken
Statistics: Posted by Blackmage172 — October 4th, 2011, 8:17 am
]]>
this infographic exploits people who don't understand the former point.
Isn't politics all about exploiting people who don't understand the big picture?
Statistics: Posted by Jackstick — October 4th, 2011, 5:14 am
]]>
]]>
The Judicial Branch can't really do anything until it effects cause the bill to be unconstitutional, and that fact is proven via lawsuits.
Statistics: Posted by Snake1235 — October 3rd, 2011, 11:56 pm
]]>
Only if it makes it to him.
What he said. There are hundreds of other politicians you should be angry at, as well as Obama. The president does not make bills. That is my problem. Yes, he signed on them, but this infographic exploits people who don't understand the former point.
Statistics: Posted by Blackmage172 — October 3rd, 2011, 10:39 pm
]]>
Melancholia wrote:
While we're at it, want to include the Judicial Branch into this?
I don't usually like to blame the President for the problems in America, and frankly it just seems wrong to do so. I'm not huge on politics and wouldn't know the EXACT power of his job, but the way I see it he only makes up a third of the government. To me, the President is somewhat of a scapegoat. A lot of people seem to just target him easier because he's a single person, while we could easily target a single member of the Senate for going along with a "bad law".
Statistics: Posted by Rayseima — October 3rd, 2011, 10:27 pm
]]>
I was only judging based off of the things I'm aware he had an impact on.
Statistics: Posted by Znath — October 3rd, 2011, 10:25 pm
]]>
And he has to sign it.
Only if it makes it to him (short version of me agreeing with Blackmage). Don't take it as defense for Obama since I never really supported him by any means. While we're at it, want to include the Judicial Branch into this?
Statistics: Posted by tipsyGnostalgic — October 3rd, 2011, 9:50 pm
]]>
Statistics: Posted by Snake1235 — October 3rd, 2011, 9:38 pm
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
Dakota.
Statistics: Posted by Dakota Lesmercy — October 3rd, 2011, 4:44 pm
]]>
These are thing directly linked to things he's supported.
The stimulus.. 800BILLION dollars was meant to "prevent over 8% unemployment" so he promised.
So what did we get for this cost?
Mind you this is enough money to buy everyone in the world a good bike.
Enough money to buy over 20000 solid gold Sherman tanks.
We got.... 9% unemployment?? lolwut?
Then on top of that you get "GREEN ENERGY" subsidies like Solyndra.
There's 500mil we'll never see again...
And Solyndra isn't the only one other solar companies crapped out too but got our money.
Some of it went into public works projects... and some supported crap which makes no difference.
So nearly a Trillion dollars down the drain and all it got us was a collapse in the market
and a degraded credit rating for the nation...
You literally could have done a better job burying the money sent to Solyndra.
That scandal still unraveling at the seams...
It's a great example of how green energy subsidies are a waste of time and money.
Solyndra was a company that couldn't competently make it in the market.
Not only was it in a State that hates making jobs and taxes every little thing into oblivion (CA)
but it's solar power... the money pit of energy since the 50's.
It's harder to link Obama's performance to inflation and stuff like that.
But at the same time.... 4% vs half a percent is hard to ignore.
Statistics: Posted by Znath — October 3rd, 2011, 4:29 pm
]]>
Blackmage already summed this up.
Statistics: Posted by LondonLooter — October 3rd, 2011, 3:05 pm
]]>