Dutch fall out of love with windmills

Page 2 of 2  


Yep, but they drill, connect to a pipeline and leave. Plus they pull a fortune out of the ground.
Nothing to worry about, not like I'm the one that needs to be convinced.
--
Dan Espen

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

As always, "big money" is trying to cash in on government largesse. Were there no such giveaways, no one would spend a dime on such nonsense.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
(PeteCresswell) wrote:

The money is in BUILDING them, not USING them. We already have over 14,000 abandoned wind turbines in the U.S. When the government subsidies run out, the things go bust.
http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/46519
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/21/2011 3:55 PM, HeyBub wrote:

Exactly!
And in 5 years we'll have hundreds of formerly gooberment subsidized ethanol plants suffering the same fate.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

But at least with these you can probably repurpose them fairly easily to make whiskey (g).
--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Per Stormin Mormon:

Could there be a connection.... -)

Deficits by presidential term at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms
Interesting to me is that, in recent times, the Republicans - the self-professed guardians of fiscal responsibility - have been the worst offenders while the Dems - characterized by the other side as irresponsible - have been the ones that actually reduced the deficit.
--
PeteCresswell

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Of course the debt by Presidential terms is an entirely useless metric (no matter who is in office) since it is the Congress that spends the money and the President has realtively little directly to do with it since RMN was told by the Supremes that he couldn't sequester money on his own.
--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I also have problems with this one. The major real influence on revenues isn't the Congress, either it is the general economy. I generally look at year-over-increases in spending as the real metric for spending. In that case, neither side has exactly covered themselves in glory. The only time that spending increases actually abated was in the first five years after the GOP took over the Congress. Compared to the previous five years, the next five saw an average increase in spending y-o-y that was > 1% lower than the five years before. Toward the end of that five year, and then accelerating in the next five (and going into Katy Bar The Door mode after around 2003 or so) the GOP found how much fun it is to spend money (something the Dems had long known being the majority for more than 40 years) and joined their counterparts across the aisle in shoveling money out the door hand over fist. A few years the GOP reformed, and like all reformed addicts, have compensated too much to the other side.
--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Stormin Mormon wrote:

Slight correction: All TAX measures must originate in the House. SPENDING bill may be introduced in either body.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

They were "in power" at the time. The party in power does what it pleases.

I was watching Brooks give an interview and I would elect him President in a heartbeat. He seems to have an uncanny grasp on what's wrong: "Americans want services from their government they're not willing to pay for." Whether it's money for wars or welfare, we expect too much out of too little revenue. He gives me hope that the Republican party can return to some semblance of sanity and leadership because he cuts through partisan BS with sharp knife (and wit).
I especially liked his comments about Newt. He asked if we want the man who couldn't run the House worth a damn to now run the entire country. He expressed serious disaffection with Obama's lack of leadership but tempered that with the acknowledgment that people who tell the truth to the American electorate don't stand much chance of getting elected or re-elected.
We've "had it all" for many years after WWII and we want that to continue, despite the massive changes that have taken place in the world and the fact that we were basically the only game in town after the war - European and Asian manufacturing dropped to the lowest levels ever because their factories were destroyed, leaving us with a gigantic playing field that's been shrinking ever since.

Nice choice, isn't it? The Devil or the Deep Blue Sea.
It could also be that the Chinese demand better wages, the job losses reverse and revenues rise enough to cover the deficit because business is "good" once again. What burns me is the number of people who insist the deficit is all Obama's doing, even for things that were appropriated long before anyone knew his name like continuing benefits for all the soldiers of WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Bosnia, GW1, Somalia, etc.
President Bush inherited a budget surplus (the first in decades). Then, hit with a recession, he was forced into deficit, just like Obama. Then he cut taxes, growing the deficit to $400 billion a year. Then, the economy boomed between 2005 and 2008, reducing the deficit to $200 billion a year. Then, the financial crisis hit, and the Bush deficit ballooned to $400 billion again.
When Obama took over in 2009 during the worst recession since the Great Depression he signed an $800 billion spending increase at the same time that GDP and tax collections tanked. The combination of these two factors--growth in spending and a drop in revenue--exploded the deficit to $1.4 trillion. In 2010, the economy and tax collections improved modestly, and the deficit shrank to $1.3 trillion annualized.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_deficit_chart.html
Republicans insist that President Obama has exploded the size of federal government spending in his tenure as President, and it is true that he has increased it. But President Bush actually increased federal spending by more than 2X as much as Obama has.
Federal government spending has risen under President Obama, mostly because of the $800 billion stimulus designed to offset the massive recession he inherited from President Bush. But the increase in federal spending under Obama is dwarfed by the colossal increase under President Bush . . . From 2000 to 2008, under President Bush, Federal spending rose by $1.3 trillion, from $1.9 trillion a year to $3.2 trillion a year.
From 2009 to 2011, meanwhile, under President Obama, federal spending has risen by $600 billion, from $3.2 trillion a year to $3.8 trillion a year. It has also now begun to decline. In other words, federal government spending under President Bush increased 2X as much as it has under President Obama.
What really troubles me, aside from the hypocrisy of those wanting to blame Obama for spending increases properly credited to Bush, is that the increase in government spending isn't the only factor that has caused the deficit. What some pols conveniently (deliberately?) forget is the precipitous fall-off in government revenue from taxes.
Sadly, Obama's stimulus hasn't had as big an impact on the economy or tax collections as he and his advisors like Tax Cheatin' Timmy G. promised it would. The sheer enormity of the mess Obama inherited suggests it's possible that nothing would have fixed our stalled economy by now. Approaching the next election even rabid Obama supporters are unhappy with his over-promising along with many of the decisions he has made. But who's *really* to blame?
There are two reasons for the collapse. The Bush tax cuts, which reduced revenue, and the weak economy, which has reduced the incomes and capital gains upon which most federal taxes are based. President Bush cut taxes in 2001 and 2003. These tax cuts hit federal revenue, while federal spending growth continued. This combination ballooned the deficit in the early years of the Bush presidency.
By the middle years of the Bush presidency, however, on the strength of the housing boom and strong economic growth (much of it, unfortunately, was illusory: built on borrowed money with too much leveraging and too little real collateral) federal revenues began to grow rapidly. By 2007, in fact, the gap had almost closed. But that huge surge wasn't sustainable. When the housing bubble burst the economy plunged into deep recession. And then President Bush handed President Obama the worst recession in more than 70 years, leaving Obama to both take the blame and clean up the mess.
The recession eviscerated federal revenues, which still have not regained their 2007 bubble highs. President Obama's stimulus, meanwhile, helped add about $600 billion to federal spending. The combination of these two factors ballooned the deficit from $400 billion when President Bush left office to nearly $1.3 trillion now.
Even those who believe the "Bush Boom" was real and not just debt-fueled "book cooking" will eventually have to admit the recession and financial crisis began on his watch, and the deficit was already exploding when President Obama took office. It's very hard to escape the conclusion that President Bush bears a lot of the responsibility for our current quagmire. A quick look at:
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/debt_deficit_brief.php
There are several unmistakable bulges in the deficit that correspond to the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, WWII and the AfRaq wars. Wars cost money and to cut taxes in the middle of a war projected to cost more than 3 trillion dollars was almost certain to increase the deficit. But voters on the right appear to believe that Great War Fairy will magically appear and cover those debts. Voters on the left also appear to believe the Medicare and Social Security Fairies will magically cover the shortfalls that will soon plague those programs. These fairytales will eventually come to a very unhappy ending as long as spending overtakes revenues.
In apportioning blame, it's important to note that Congress approved all of the decisions by both Presidents regarding the economy. Both sides have contributed mightily to the mess that is our current economy.
Voters were deliriously happy as Congress cut taxes and increased spending - we had, so we thought, our cake and got to eat it, too. Some are cheering now as Republicans promise us that by cutting taxes and spending we'll find our way out of the deep, dark woods. In the real world, Greece and the UK have shown that enacting austerity in the midst of a fragile recovery doesn't work. Less spending results in even less growth and less tax revenues. It's a bitter, vicious cycle that in the past has often led to war when economics caved in on themselves and entire countries entered economic death spirals.
In short, we all want our free lunch. We expect the Great War Fairy to pick up the tab for wars that have gone on twice as long as WWII and with victory just as elusive as it was on day one. Politicians know how much we like our wars and our welfare, and promise more each election even though the numbers tell us that at some point in the future the waiter is going to bring us a check for all those lunches and we'll end up having to wash dishes to pay for it. Lots and lots of dishes. Very dirty dishes.
What troubles me the most is that former and current SecDefs from both parties agree that this is exactly the wrong time to force across the board cuts on the Pentagon. I'm not sure we'll ever learn the lesson of staying away from wars of choice, as SecDef Gates (R) said, because wars of necessity come along often enough. With tensions rising both with China and Iran, will we have both the stomach and resources to deal effectively with those situations? Those former SecDefs say no, and I tend to agree with them.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/with-super-committee-dead-showdown-likely-over-defense-cuts /
<<The arguments against defense cuts haven't just come from the right, though. Secretary of Defense Panetta has been arguing against them since August and, most recently, just yesterday: Automatic spending cuts that could result from a special congressional committee's failure to reach a deficit-reduction agreement could "tear a seam" in defense, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said on Monday.>>
Reading some of the China news agencies comments reminds me of what the Japanese were saying about our interfering in their oil supply chain:
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/indepth/2011-11/21/c_131259724.htm
<<First, it is an unwise move if it insists on playing a meddling hand in the South China Sea disputes. Some analysts take it risky that Washington would stake its prestige on a remote and strategically third-rate ally when it provokes a clash with a neighboring far stronger nation, whom the U.S. has been increasingly counting on to recover its dislocated economy, combat terrorism and shared challenges, and deal with a host of global problems. A couple of months ago, Prof. Lyle Goldstein painted a doleful picture in the Foreign Policy magazine. He said if U.S. leaders heed his advice, they should shed most commitments in Southeast Asia, which he portrays as a region of trivial importance situated adjacent to an increasingly powerful China. He maintained that "Southeast Asia matters not a whit in the global balance of power."
When tense maritime stand-offs occur in the heated region, it is wise for the U.S. to avoid getting embroiled in the intricate disputes poisoning regional politics, in lieu of what it is currently doing: sowing discord or acting as an agitator in the flare-up. Otherwise, Washington risks a new diplomatic setback for the so-called unconceivable "gains.">>
We're already on the glidepath to a confrontation. It could even come to a head right before the 2012 election. All that has to happen is that someone in either government does something truly stupid. I mean how likely is that? (-"
-- Bobby G.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

before Bush's first budget hit the stands. According to the CBO, the U.S. last had a surplus during fiscal year (FY) 2001. This was the one that started in October of 2000, a full month before the election.

largely follows the fall in income.

up. Every year. In fact if you look at the scoring of the Joint Committee on Taxation, you will note that the fall off the first wasn't as bad as they said it would and it turned back positive the second year with the JCT saying it would fall for the entire 10 years.

By 2007, in fact,

Heavy lies the head that wears the crown.

year or so indicated that most of the really bad happening involving the federal government took place when the vote was heavily bipartisan. Be carefule what you wish for (g).
.
--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Newt ran the House just fine, thank you. His contract with America even resulted in Clinton signing legislation that "ended welfare as we know it".

What does telling the truth have to do with Obama?

One of the few things you've posted that is true. So, why the class warfare that blames all the USA's problems on the wealthier, successful Americans? For example, you constantly complain that the loss of maufacturing jobs is due to evil corporations. Yet here you acknowledge that there are powerful world economic forces directly involved.

Welcome to the club. It burns me when you claim the current recession and collapse in housing prices is all Wall Street's fault. I and others here have given you our list and it's long and includes everyone from Wall Street, to govt, to those that bought houses they could not afford because they believed housing only went up.
I also don't recall blaming all of the deficit on Obama. Nor have I seen anyone else here, ie Kurt, KRW, etc either. What we have said is that under Obama the rate of adding to the deficit has increased greatly due to SPENDING. Spending has increased 40% in just the past 4 years. $4tril in new debt has been added under Obama, bringing the total to $15tril $4tril of the $15tril in just 3 years. Was there excessive spending under Bush and the Republican Congress? Yes. But his deficits averaged $250bil a year. The current deficit is $1.6 tril. See the difference?
We also take exception when someone tries to point to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as being major contributors to the $15tril deficit because it's simply not true.

Which shows why the tax cuts were needed and how well they worked. Thank you. And unless one had a crystal ball and could see the subrpime collapse coming, it was reasonable to assume the deficit would continue to decline. All that would have been needed was to control spending. Or even better, under Bush, they could have controlled spending then, in which case the deficit would have been either smaller or non-existent.
Then,

Cool. Sounds good. A one time thing blew the deficit out to $1.4tril. So, tell us then, why is it that now, 3 years later, we have a deficit of $1.6tril? And why Obama's last budget shows deficits of $1tril a YEAR FOR THE NEXT DECADE? And that's under the assumption that the economy has recovered soon and has a healthy growth rate.

True, but it took 8 years under Bush. Obama has managed it in just 3 years.

If that's true, then spending should have gone up one year, in 2009. Yet, here we are in 2011 and spending is $3.8 tril. In 2008, it was $3.0 tril. There goes that argument.

It's actually a bit less, from $1.8 tril to $3.0, but close enough. You think maybe 911 and all the money that had to be spent on homeland security, taking out the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, etc had something to do with it? Granted, they should have cut spending elsewhere, but of course you libs would have none of that, would you?
And again, that is over 8 years of Bush compared with 3 years of Obama.

It's actually $3tril to $3.8.

It hasn't declined one bit. Right now the FORECAST is for it to decline from $3.8tril to $3.7 tril. That's a tiny decrease and only a FORECAST. Meanwhile, your pal Obama is running around screaming "Pass it now!" for his new $500bil spending bill. Do what he wants and the budget just went up another .5tril in one shot. See the problem here?

Sure, no one is denying that is a factor too. But why is it that Obama's own budget shows deficits of $1tril a year for the next decade? A budget that includes the forecast that the economy will have recovered? See the problem?

It did have about the effect than many predicted it would though.

Nothing can satisfy the rabid loons that Obama has chosen to align himself with. Some hate him for keeping Gitmo open. Some for accelerating the war in Afghanistan. Some for changing his mind on trying terrorists in NYC. Some for bombing Libya. Some for not spending even more. Many for not creating some ultimate socialist utopia.
And ironically those same loons fail to give him credit for even Obamacare. Must be tough being Obama.

What collapse is that? What we have is a SPENDING problem.

Yes, but as you acknowledge, the deficit was declining and down to just $161bil by 2007. Here's a new question. Are you for or against a balanced budget ammendment?

What huge surge, Mr. Monday morning quaterback? The ecomomy was doing OK, but it wasn't spectacular. There was no particular reason to think that housing was going to collapse suddenly.
>When

No denying that. But it's what Obama has done that in response that is the problem. For example, the economy was already in a severe crisis. Was that the time to ram through Obamacare, which polls showed then and continue to show now, the public did not want? Was it a good idea to burden businesses with that cost and uncertainty? Was it a good idea to halt all new drilling in the Gulf because of one oil well? Was it a good idea to vilify much of business, from drug companies and healthcare companies to Wall Street? Is it a good idea to engage in classwarfare on those making $200,000 a year, many of whom are small business owners, where most new jobs are created? Is it a good idea to have the NLRB suing Boeing to prevent a new factory in SC that will emply 2000 from opening? Is it smart to be screwing around with Boeing and the 787 with $100bil in orders and tens of thousands of jobs depending on it?

$600bil? Where did that come from? Just the one stimulus bill was $850bil. And if it was $600bil over 3 years, why is spending this year at $3.8 tril and why is it forecast at about that level for next year? Must be a magical $600bil.

If it was debt fueled book cooking under Bush, what the hell is it under Obama? Does Obama or you support a balanced budget ammendment?


No war fairies. Per your own statements above, the deficits under Bush were declining and were down to $161bil in 2007. With some spending restraint and had not the subprime recession occured, the deficit could have been taken to zero.
>Voters on the left also appear to believe the Medicare

That's true. But which side now is willing to address them? Who is in favor of a balanced budget ammendment? Who has put forth a plan to tackle entitlement spending? From the whitehouse all we hear is class warfare and crickets...

Funny, I thought what they showed was were socialism, big govt, and reckless spending will get you.

Look where more govt spending has gotten us. Solyndra done anything for you lately?

My, my. I would think you'd be in favor of military spending cuts. You don't like it when we use the military, so why not make cuts. Don't you just want to send Al-Qaeda a cake?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Per Stormin Mormon:

I claim no expertise, but AFIK it is not a matter of running out of oil: there will always be oil at a price.
The real issue is the crossover point between the cost curves of fossil-based energy and renewable energy.
I have no clue what the slopes of those curves look like and therefore not the faintest idea when they will cross... but that *is* the issue, not "running out" of oil.
--
PeteCresswell

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That is indeed the issue. And if there wasn't a tree in front of my house I'd go for some kind of solar yesterday.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 21/11/2011 00:03, (PeteCresswell) wrote:

Or nuclear energy. Then the cost of wind energy becomes irrelevant.
Another Dave
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.