scottm1207

Why "Drill, Baby, Drill!" Does Not Translate Into Effective National Energy Policy

"As an American living in France, I think the Americans could learn something from looking outside their national borders. The French get 80% of their electrical power from nuclear and another 12% from hydro. Per capita French energy consumption is 60% per cent of the Amerian level and the average Frenchman emits six tons of carbon dioxide versus twenty one tons for the average American"

And the French produce nothing that the rest of the world wants, and the french work about 12 hours a week, if they can find a job, so it's not surprising they consume less energy.

Energy Independence: It's About Demand, Not Supply

Chris B. You've learned your empty, leftist rhetoric well, grasshopper. Your fantasies of the Utopian States of America, once your Marxist leader leads us all to the promised land, are very amusing, indeed.

Dikeman Skeptical of 'Game Changing' New Energy Technologies

Please tell me what oil company has net margins of 70% so I can dump every other stock and ETF I own (including the GEX solar ETF in which I am down) and buying that one.

No Matter Who's Elected, Alternative Energy Wins

"Would we have gone to the moon without government involvement? "

Hardly a rationalization for further government profligacy, and outright corrupt paybacks to those in the universities, government bureaucracies, and environmental and "community" organizations who elect the democrats, and who receive research grants, lifetime jobs, and massive state and federal funding in return.

Everything They Tell You About Solar Is Wrong - Travis Bradford

Wake me up when solar is more than 2 or 3% of the total power consumed in the country. Until then, it's still pie in the sky. And don't include the government-forced purchases of solar power by utilities.

I invested in the GEX ETF because I know the heavy heel of government will funnel billions of dollars in to solar power, despite the limited utility of it. I hope to make back some small portion of what governement takes from me and my business.

Impact of Candidates' Tax Plans on Deficit Worsens

Or should that be, relies upon? LOL

Impact of Candidates' Tax Plans on Deficit Worsens

AS long as congress spends like drunken sailors, and refuses to junk the current entitlement ponzi schemes, nothing will change.

And did this group use static or dynamic analysis? Me thinks uhbama's plans to increase taxes will temporarily increase tax revenue until the taxpayers revolt at being fleeced, and either end their economic activity that the government relys upon, or they shelter their income from taxes as always happens when the marxists bludgeon them with irrationally high taxes.

Nationalizing Oil: Well-Intentioned, But Wrong

"One man's "spending" is another man's "investment"... I don't think private industry is any more efficient, on average, than government."

Well, that's about the most idiotic comments I've seen on here yet. LOL.

Government spending is anything but investment. There is no accountability for earning a return on the investment. There is no expectation of earnings, because it's simply a give-away for the quid pro quo of votes. There is no efficiency in operations to earn a profit, there is little value in what government invests in, because people value little of what government provides, beyond basic services.

And when governments own businesses with a profit motive, their earnings have to be the same as a private business in order to raise capital. And when you raise capital, there has to be a return on capital to attract investment. And when a business says they're not in it for profit, they attract no investment and cannot run the company. Anyone who thinks socialism is more effective than capitalism is either smoking too much pot, or they want us to return to the 1500's style of living.

Government exists to keep order in society, not mold society to what it's short-sighted, dogmatic leaders want. Or it should exist only for that reason. When you let pliticians of all stripes try to social engineer, you get unintended consequences largly worse than the disease they sought to cure.

And when government fails, do they cease what they were doing, or do they keep trying harder to do what failed in the first time by spending more money and ruining more lives? It's the latter. Then you end up in socialism that has to get thrown off in violent revolution.

Keep the politicians out of our lives. Keep government in the business of protecting basic freedoms and the millions of individual humans will live better lives and make better personal and business decisions than Ivy League bureaucrats will.

Nationalizing Oil: Well-Intentioned, But Wrong

Barnburner. When government runs anything they do not earn profits. They sustain loses. They will fleece the golden goose until it's dead or dying. When the economy collapses because government runs a productive business into the ground, there will be no profit because costs will exeed the revenue.

Once government takes the step toward socializing one part of the economy, they will think they can do the rest to the remainder of the economy and you get a Soviet Union, East Germany, Venezuela, name any number of totalitarian dictatorships in which freedom evaporates and government dictatorship tramples the "people" that the liberals say they're trying to "help".

If you believe government knows best, then move to Cuba and enjoy the fruits of government bounty.

Nationalizing Oil: Well-Intentioned, But Wrong

"The experienced and skilled people of the oil industry are not going to quit and start selling pencils on the street just because their checks are coming from the Government instead of some oil company."

But htey will stop being so productive when they're in government jobs with no accountability for productivity as most government jobs are. And when the governement caves in to the unions who want everything but want to give nothing in return hike wages far beyond what the market would bear, prices will go up, productivity will go down, prices will go up, or government spending will go up to cover it.

Plus when the oil boogeyman is slain, then the government, er envious, ignorant, liberal activists will set their sights on some other boogeyman industry to vilify, appropriate, and start the cycle over again. It's been done many times in history and always fails.

There is nothing "Progressive" about socialist thought. It's been tried and failed many times over.

Nationalizing Oil: Well-Intentioned, But Wrong

"And the oil co. coffers would go a long way towards easing our federal deficit."

Hey, Moron. The government already gets vastly more of oil revenues thorugh taxes than the companies get in profits. Federal, State, and local governments get over 30% of revenues and the oils companies get anywhere from 8 to 12% profits.

The problem is SPENDING! Every senator and representative wants to buy votes by promising some new social spending program with their name on it. And they do stupid things like paying ILLEGAL immigrants welfare and health benefits, though they all pay little or no income taxes, because they claim 7 dependents and have no withholding. And we build bridges to nowhere, and bike paths and unused rail lines, and any number of wasteful spending projects to impress voters and buy their votes.

Get the government out of the buisness of deciding by fiat who wins and loses and you'll have lower prices and more product. Get them out of the business of spending vast sums of money they have to steal by gunpoint from productive Americans and there will be no deficit to cover by more appropriations from you and me (who ulitmately pay the taxes that corporations transfer to the government).