http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl … 09162.html
Obama wants oil to rise in price and he is succeding! The hope is he will create demand for green energy and consequently a green economy with green jobs! Except everywhere this has been tried it has failed miserably but it has succeeded at creating unemployment and a poorer middle class and nations in debt!
I would say the article is quite off center. It is easy to relate job losses of the PIIGS countries to green energy (Spain and Italy were mentioned).
What do you think is the result, if you relate the green European experiment to non PIIGS economies? Better not look, it doesn´t fit into the picture. Green energy has double digit growth figures in all central and northern countries of Europe, including the lonely islands of the UK.
The US has a huge carbon footprint. Very much to do, but also a great chance.
Obama may be ingnorant in some areas. I am not a friend of his excessive keynesian deficit spending attitude. But for addressing the green issue he has my full support.
High oil prices act like a stimulus to fire up green energy. And that will definitely create green jobs.
Really? Well let's look at Germany then the strongest economy in Europe and a big investor in the green economy
When you look at the costs of these subsidies you can see it's not a bargin... also studies toytun green energy tend to overlook jobs lost in other sectors and consumers spending power lost as a result of higher energy prices.
If you look into my profile you may find out that i live right in the middle of where things are happening. I only have to open a newspaper and search for job ads.
Being an engineering professional some 20 years ago i was very suspicius about green energy. Today technology is mature. Business cases for windfarming work without subsidies nowadays. To get technology from baby windmill in the backyard to 5 MW power turbines subsidies were payed. Same will happen to other green energies. If oil and gas prices keep rising and nuclear energy is at risk today, the long term strategy of pushing green prooved successful.
Just divide the figure you found in that old article by the job rise of 8% per year, do it for the next 5 years and the figure will be less than the amount of wellfare to be spent if the job growth would not happen in those 5 years.
Time and things change. There may be losses in other sectors, but not due to higher energy prices. I think about my uncle who worked in a GE carburator plant in Michigan some 35 years ago. Today there are no carburators any more, blame progress for this, but such is life.
Back to Obama - at least he has a hint of what has to be done with green energy. That is magnitudes more and better of what his predecessors did.
The US market for green energy is underdeveloped. The chances are huge. I´m not in the green energy business, but i can see all the production wolves rise and smell the prey. And German and Danish companies hunt in packs. Better the US starts on its own or it will be too late.
So don´t always look backward, you won´t see the wave coming. And don´t blame the guy who looked forward and saw it coming.
Just model Germany green energy, in which has been proven a success story and an America will be better off
How can I argue with flowery words and anectdotal personal experiences? I posted a study done in Germany about the farce of the green economy but its dismissed out of hand. Please don't misunderstand im not against green energy only against government picking the winners and losers through subsidies... when the right technology at the right price comes along we'll all flock to it.
I'm slowly building an eco village and most of my green produce is cheaper than conventional ways.
Most green produce out there are design to fail because the elite rich are in control, it just not profitable that we are healthy to them. Why can’t put my produces out there, because I don't have millions of dollar to pay off the greedy legalistic struggle holds.
At least Obama knows he needs the people to get past the puppeteers
"Please don't misunderstand im not against green energy only against government picking the winners and losers through subsidies"
The government already DOES pick the winners and losers through subsidies, and has been for decades. The winner it picked was OIL. The Cato Institute estimates that US taxpayers pay $78 to $158 billion per year in direct and indirect subsidies to oil companies.
The Progress Report sat down and crunched some numbers and estimates that the actual price Americans pay for gasoline, counting the price at the pump plus subsidies ranges from $5.60 to $15.14 per gallon. I would be most interested to see your reaction if you drive up to the pump one day to discover gas was $15 a gallon. Maybe you'd rethink your stance on passenger rail?
Lol! They "crunched" some numbers and came up with a range of 5 to 15 dollars??? Something tells me they aren't that good at crunching!
Because the exact amount of subsidies varies from year to year based on external factors. Read the %&*#@%& article.
Sorry its too long to read all of it but it also is not a fair article. It includes tax money spent on roads and bridges as a subsidy and also add health costs from air polution! I really wonder how good their numbers are!
Eh, it's not that long, but at least you managed to come up with some legitimate criticisms.
Tax money spent on roads and bridges is included because it is an indirect subsidy that encourages driving rather than more efficient alternative forms of transportation. In the 1950s, for example, the US spent billions of dollars on an interstate highway system - and millions of dollars annually ever since maintaining and upgrading it - while Europe and Asia (which have never subsidized oil as heavily as we have) spent comparable sums on passenger rail and other types of public transportation. Today, we have the best highway system in the world, but our passenger rail system is barely clinging to life and other types of public transportation are good only in the very largest cities. As a result, Americans are much more dependent on cars and planes to get anywhere, while Europeans and Asians are more likely to use rail and other forms of public transportation, which are much more efficient than cars or planes.
You could argue that cars and planes fit our independent national character better than rail, but that won't save our pocketbooks when oil hits $150 a barrel. Meanwhile, European and Asian countries with good existing rail infrastructure will be sitting pretty.
Health costs from oil-related air pollution aren't really a subsidy to oil companies, but they have directly increased the amount of money we pay, both as taxpayers and as consumers, on health care, so I think it's fair to include them in a calculation of the "true" cost per gallon of gasoline.
We've always been a mobile society. To say that roads are a subsidy for oil companies is like saying roads were a subsidy for horse breeders before cars came along... and what will they be a subsidy for in the future battery manufactures or solar panel factories? In deed if you're going say roads are a subsidy for oil companies you have to include every business that uses them and then they are a subsidy for everyone that has a job... anyway that's ridiclous!
That's true to an extent, but obviously Europe and Asia have roads, too. By itself, building roads does not constitute a subsidy to oil companies, but building roads to the exclusion of all else does.
Europe and Asia spread their spending out much more evenly, so people have more options, while in many small and mid-sized American cities (my own included), people are almost entirely dependent on cars to get anywhere.
To give you an example, in 2002 the US DOT budget was about $60,000,000,000. It spent it in the following way:
$32.3 billion (54%) - Highways
$14 billion (23%) - Aviation/ airports
$5 billion (8%) - Mass transit
$4 billion (7%) - Maritime
$521 million (<1%) - Amtrak
In contrast, in 2001 the BBC reported that the Labour Party planned to spend the following sums on transport in the UK over the next three years:
£21.3bn (13%) - Roads
£60.4bn (36%) - Rail
£58.9bn (36%) - Local transport
£25.3bn (15%) - London
(The article I found didn't report on air or maritime spending in the UK, but if you subtract air and maritime spending from the US budget, the difference in public investment between roads and public transportation becomes even starker.)
The UK transportation system sounds like it has its share of problems, but purely from the perspective of resilience in the face of high oil prices, the British public is going to be far better off than we Americans.
Because Europe is a socialist country! Mass transit is subsidized by the government! In fact its subsidized here as well and still loses money! I pay for the MTA in my property tax and every business has an MTA tax even the private profitable bus company that competes with the MTA!
~sigh~ Way to derail the most reasonable conversation I've ever had with you.
You may be interested to know that back in the early days of air travel, rail passengers were taxed to subsidize air infrastructure - one of the reasons passenger rail died in this country. Complaining about government subsidies of mass transit while ignoring the much larger subsidies we give to roads and air travel is both hypocritical and absurd.
Passenger rail died because its inconvenient and slow. It can't ever be profitable even with subsidies because its a bloated bureacracy of overpaid union workers and political appointees that are not accountable and nothing more than parasites.
As to the subsidies a review of your comparison shows Europe doesn't spend enough on roads... besides which if you compare the amount of miles of roads in the USA to Europe I think you'll find we far exceed them so its no surprise we spend more. Not to mention this is a favorite place for politicians to put money to reward their union contributors or their corporate backers. Anyway I still thing it's wrong to assign those costs to oil companies as subsidies... that's just an attempt to demonize oil.
kerryg, I was following the conversation between you and ladylove and too was surprised at how civil and logically it was proceeding, and then BLAM! It fell all to hell... I knew LadyLove couldn't go more than 600 words without mentioning "socialism." lolll
Over in old Europe (Netherlands, Denmark, Germany, France..) the gas price is 1,50 Euro/liter.
So multiply by 3,8 to get US gallons and then by roughly 1,40 USD/Euro and you get:
7,98 USD/gallon at european filling stations. That includes some 4,50 USD/gallon of taxes. It is some 3,50 USD/gallon for oil market price and processing.
lalo - If you pay some 4,00 USD/gal, this seems o.k. to me. And you are lucky in the US, no taxes.
No taxes? Lol! We pay about a dollar a gallon in taxes and that doesn't include the tax payer funded subsidies that Kerryg is talking about.
I agree. The article was totally off center.
Even though Obama has preached about Green Jobs, he really hasn't done anything on that front. In fact, his actions kind of suggests that he's being backed by oil companies. Like right before the BP Gulf Oil Spill, Obama gave a speech showing his support for off-shore drilling and how it was "totally" safe. I think he passed some sort of legislation or something, but I can't seem to recall. However, the point is...he if was truly as "green' as you paint him out to be - he would never have considered doing something so devastating to the environment. I personally think he was just sprouting crap about green jobs to appease his party.
I assume the recent, terrible hike in gas prices has more to do with the instability in the Middle East, which got a bit worse with Egypt's revolt. Not that it wasn't bad enough already.
Though to be fair, I agree that Obama has failed miserably at creating employment and bolstering a failing middle class. I hate how he seems to believe shoving a ton of $$ at the problem will solve it. All the social programs that he's created have been relatively unsuccessfully in the long run and has put the US government even deeper in debt, which is probably crippling the economy. I think he has to reevaluate his priorities and focus on fixing the economy first. While I don't blame him for the state of the economy, I do wish he'd done things differently.
After all, we can't build a green future if we don't have the $$ for it.
Look at this link
"but it has succeeded at creating unemployment and a poorer middle class and nations in debt!" Isn't this the present state in the US, and it is not, I repeat, not a green economy.
Yeah, well, what can you do? I suppose now that our bought-and-paid-for dictators in North Africa got their butts kicked, we can let the 2.3 billion we are in the process of spending on "green" jobs keep flowing.
But all this state and national debt and unemployment is a result of the Banksters stealing all the money. Has nothing to do with O'Bama.
Bush has double the national debt and lost jobs over focus on fighting in Iraq over cheap oil. Coupled with USA (per capita) leaving the largest carbon foot print on the face of the earth. Since USA has run out of oil and cheap oil cost too much to fight over. What makes better sense is local Green energy, it create many more jobs locally also.
My Health will give me more happiness in the long run than money; still, I think North American can have both,
A little off topic, but for less than the cost of a modest car, I can outfit my house with a system that would produce an excess of electricity and I would never have to pay another electric bill the rest of my life. Just got to convince the wife...
With all the money you will save on electricity, tell her what you could bye her with all that money
Obama has in his first 2 years created more debt than Bush did in his 8 years! You think we're fighting for cheap oil... well maybe you can tell me how much oil we get from Iraq every year and why prices are increasing?
NOOOO- he put the 2 wars Bush started ON BUDGET, unlike Bush. AND--he was black-mailed into continuing the Bush tax cuts, which is the cause of 60% of the deficit!
Stop blaming Obama for Bush's doings, just so'se you can get your Bushites back!!
to be fair with bush , he was ignorant chap...but yes history would rate him as man who brought usa down...
Not if they have their way. They are re-writing history any chance they get.
Wrong! War funding comes mainly from discretionary spending... in fact have of that spending is for the wars... and tax cuts do not cost anything... oh you didn't bother to mention the 300 billion in NEW stimulus spending Obama stuck in that tax cut bill... if Obama was so worried about adding to our debt why did he do that?
he had to ...he was left with no other option when he took the charge...ignorant bush hadn't left much of option...in fact from Reagen to Obama , if one person takes most of blame it is bush...he took usa down...his election was biggest mistake ever ...
The stimulus spending was for the American people...unlike Bush/Paulson's TARP, which was for the banks.
And, in fact, had he not been hampered, the stimulus would have been much more, and made much more of a recovery.
Just here in my state, job-creating funds had to be converted into "tax-cuts for the wealthy" to get Snow and the other Republican woman to go along with it.
It's a dam shame.
Every good idea gets hi-jacked, and must bow-down to tax-cuts for the wealthy!
60% of the deficit is the tax-cuts.
"And, in fact, had he not been hampered, the stimulus would have been much more, and made much more of a recovery."
How exactly was it "hampered"?
Oh yeah, the minority party that couldn't stop the stimulus bill from becoming law later hampered it.
Mad magazine is not a news source.
I just gave you one example!
My state, MA, had job-creating funds in the waiting....from the stimulus bill. Infra-structure repair.Would have given many people jobs, created spending around the area, etc.
Olympia Snow and the other Republican woman from NE (can't remember her name!! Small, brown-hair...talks funny)--anyway, they told Obama the only way they would vote for the stimulus bill is if he would take that job money away from jobs, and put it into tax cuts instead.
What was he to do? They made it into all or nothing....compromise, or get nada.
And NOW they say "compromise is out of the question"...
and you wonder why I'm mad? Cause "I'm conscious, M'thr F'kr" credit: "House Party"
Sorry, I must have missed the High Times article on this.
Take my word for it...it happened.
What? The President can be blackmailed by what was at the time a minority party?
Yes really. Have you been asleep the past 2 years? Wake up!
Obama is one part of the process, House is 2, Senate is 3.
You need all 3 to reach a decision.
1+1-1=2......not enough to get it done.
Obama used reconciliation on healthcare. Options up.
He had to give up tax-cuts for unemployment insurance.
Repubs held uninsured up for blackmail. Nice people, huh?
Here's but one example of it:
"Despite the hardship in his district, Ryan (Paul) voted against extending unemployment benefits in November on the pretext that it would add more than “one dime to the deficit.”
Ryan then turned around and voted for the benefits when they were coupled with an extension of the Bush tax cuts, which would add seven trillion dimes to the deficit."
And adding to the deficit!
And you expect me to read from a site labeled "progressive.com" while you refuse to read a speech transcript because it was on Breitbart?
Good point. You stick to your facts, I'll stick to mine.
Presidents today, are so puppeteer by the rich elite, I wonder how much power a President really has. Otherwise, I would not understand why Obama’s raising the war budget to its highest level ever.
Obama has spent at a quicker pace. If Obama is allowed to serve 8 years he will have spent multiples of what Bush spent. I doubt the Obama Administration has come anywhere close to the nearly $40 trillion spent during eight years of Bush.
In addition, how do you prove this, unless you factor in all Obama’s potential speeding from all his programs? Most of Bush's worst over-spending was not included in the official budgets.
I have faith Obama will save large pile of money over time or they will end up in China's growing portfolio. The stock market has recovered much of its lost; Home prices are no longer plummeting; we've gained jobs over the last six months; the auto industry didn't crash and burn. Health care will cost everyone, including government, less.
Give Obama a break from Bush’s almost unsupportable and humiliating spiral.
I don't know where you're getting your facts from... I suspect you're just making them up!
http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/ … s-spending
I am good at math from http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/ … s-spending
Where does it add up that Obama has in his first 2 years created more debt than Bush did in his 8 years!
Obama has already added mire than 5 trillion in new debt!
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 … w-records/
I have heard media figures from 2 trillion to your 8 trillion assuming The Media's has Double Standard, like America with double moral. About 1.6 trillion, Debt from Other Bailouts Congress has already in place from Bush, it sound like a few other areas there were double dipping too.
I do admire Reagan he went into deep dealt first term and balance the budget his second term wail running a cold war. Yet many think Obama is an assume anti Christ, if thats true, then will any of us see a second term,? funny ah
Bush is President again?
Jeez, I go out for some cheap oil that we fought for and return to this.
And said without the merest hint of a blush!
Our reliance on oil is a huge problem, and I support any attempts to lessen it. The excellent English journalist Johann Hari actually has a very good piece on cheap oil and why we are creating our own destruction here: http://johannhari.com/2011/03/11/when-w … g-disaster
Sorry but this is nothing but a fear mongering scare piece. I question nearly every one of his claims particularly global warming... I would even go so far as to suggest that oil is NOT a finite resource... at least there is one theory that claims oil bubbles up from the core of the planet! Even in this piece the author suffers crop failures and weather patterns around the globe can't be proven to be the result of global warming while at the.same time suggesting they are part of a disturbing pattern and then comparing unrest today to unrest in the 1700 from crop failures! We definitely need alternate sources of energy and they are coming not because government has decided to back one technology or another but because it's a good idea! However until these new technologies become economically worthwhile people wont embrace them and all government will do is distort the market hurting some while helping others and in the long run will probably end up backing the wrong technology!
oil is NOT a finite resource...well wait for just 25 years and secondly we cannot be thinking of just ourselves...that is anti christ...we must think of coming generations too...poor obama is pro christ and people get him wrong...so sad
Oh, it's not sad pisean...it's deliberate!!
Obama is pro-Christ? Really? Other than sitting in a church that spewed hate for 20 years, what exactly has Obama done to create this impression?
every thing...obama is perfect example of being follower of jesus...one may not like it but this is how jesus wanted world to be......now is the time and obama is showing the way...no weapons , no bullying the world, no manipulations in middle east , no closing down border , loving thy neighbors (mexico) , loving thy enemies (iran/china) , being pro poor , being on side of helpless...you name it ,he does it...yes he can...
Endorsing the abomination of abortion, approving of homosexuality, playing the race card, pushing for government charity instead of charity beginning where it should be...in the heart....yeah, he's a real angel.
jesus insisted on forgiving and hating the sin not the sinner...jesus never promoted violence , never hated any one...infact jesus seeked forgiveness for even those who killed him...now that is what is called following christ in real sense not hating , killing , bullying which bush did...so bush was poles apart from christ...obama can be said to be pro christ and some where in middle...
I always thought he hated the sin and not the sinner!
Lol!! You're delusional!!!
nope...i am not but yes haters of obama are...actually people hollowly follow christ...they claim they do but when it comes to doing what christ did and living like christ lived , they vanish...
I think if Obama and his followers would stop acting like he is the Second Coming, I'd be a little more open to this kind of discussion.
Unfortunately Obama lost me with his whole promise of the oceans ceasing their rise and the planet beginning to heal with his election, not to mention Michelle Obama's moment of zen where she concluded that "only Barack can save our souls".
Funny--I missed all that. Must have been broadcast on Fox.
I think you just don't like any view that is different from yours.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id … _article=1 (last paragraph)
http://neveryetmelted.com/2008/02/16/th … your-soul/
But I'm sure you'll ignore it since it doesn't paint the Community Organizer in a very good light....
I'll ignore it cause it's Breitbart!
Psy-op master of Fox news.....he wouldn't know a LIE if it bit him in the butt, let alone the truth.
And the other I'm sure is just the same. Refuse to soil my mind with that smut. Hear enough of it here.
But liberals can post information from left leaning websites and we're all supposed to take it as gospel. How do you spell h-y-p-o-c-r-i-s-y?
Never mind that in both cases it is word for word transcripts of the speech in question.......
Who says left-wing sites are gospel?
You people think the New York Times has no credibility!
Everybody is free to believe what they want.
I refuse to read smut.
@billy i am not follower of obama.. ..i was just trying to counter people who call him names like anti christ ...becoz if people actually start living like christ , well we wont have corporates of present state to start with...and it is very very difficult and in current era's life style ,impractical to duplicate christ...if obama becomes even 1% of how christ lives , he would be thrown out of office...but atleast he is not poles apart for christ like bush was...he is pro christ in comparison...
Hate for the anti-American activity of the American gvt.
Something you seem to spout very much these days yourself.
In fact-- I'd put you Obama-haters on par with Wright for criticizing America...only Wright spoke the truth!
Abiotic oil is at best controversial and at worst complete hogwash. The "evidence" consists mainly of one oil field that briefly appeared to be refilling (but is now declining again) and a few more found in unexpected places, but all have alternate explanations that fit easily within the biotic theory.
Obama isn't making much a difference than Bush, because the gas prices is skyrocketing, its just sad.
Surely you haven't missed on all these Republican gvr's who are turning away the stimulus money?
I'd call that out-right spitting in Obama's face! And the people's.
Jobs are turned away. Infra-structure repair is turned away. Christie stopped building on that train(?), but the people STILL have to pay for the incomplete project though it will never be finished!
And it's not for deficit reduction, because they already increased the deficit by billions!!!
It's ALL to ruin Obama's chances at being a succesful president.To hell with the American people....power in politics is all that matters to the Republibaggers.
It's really bordering on _____.
I won't say it, but you get my drift.
by Scott Belford 3 weeks ago
This is, of course, an open question since he has just started his four years, but since the RINO Party is already saying defeating Covid and growing the economy is a disaster, I thought I would start a thread that proves them wrong.I just listed two things he has done:- Got America well on its way...
by lady_love158 12 years ago
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/02/11/s … est-since/Seems even democrats dislike the job Obama has done on reducing unemployment... well I'm not surprised!!
by retief2000 8 years ago
Obama's wars for oil, is this just the latest?Libya, Yemen and now Iraq/Syria - is this just the latest war for oil that Obama is waging? Libyan oil supplies Italy and France, the war there was to protect that flow. Obama destroyed Qaddafi just to replace him with something worse. Is Syria next and...
by American View 11 years ago
Can you believe it. In response to a question at a town hall in Decorah, Iowa, Monday evening, President Obama said that when Congress returns in September, "I'll be putting forward...a very specific plan to boost the economy, to create jobs and to control our deficit. And my attitude is get...
by fishskinfreak2008 13 years ago
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100122/ts_nm/us_obama"Let me dispel this notion that we were somehow focused on that (healthcare) and so as a consequence not focused on the economy. First of all, all I think about is how are we going to create jobs in this area".Well, healthcare is indeed...
by savvydating 6 years ago
Obama's Presidency is nearing it's end. What is his legacy, in your view?All opinions are welcome. I am interested to hear how different people view Barak Obama, as Commander-In-Chief.
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
Copyright © 2023 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective owners.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|