Having trouble making ends meet now. Wait till this passes. The ruling party wants to regulate everything.
[quote]hedo wrote:
Having trouble making ends meet now. Wait till this passes. The ruling party wants to regulate everything.
People produce carbon dioxide too, maybe we should just shut some of them up.
I do not know but it may be a good tariff to keep American industry on a level playing field with the third world, maybe could do away with other taxes. What will be done with the tax?
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I do not know but it may be a good tariff to keep American industry on a level playing field with the third world, maybe could do away with other taxes. What will be done with the tax?[/quote]
Don’t you remember Obama said about coal power plants?
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Wholesale-inflation-takes-apf-14410311.html
Energy costs up. Let’s make sure they go higher!
This sounds like it’s worthy of a 5 Year Plan. Long live Dear Leader!
OMG!!1!!!1!! Here come the enviromentalist-nazis!!!11!!!
Glad to know our energy policy is also in good hands. Wonder if he knows what “OPEC” actually stands for?
Energy Secretary Steven Chu may be a Nobel laureate Ph.D. in physics, but his first forays into energy policy suggest he’s a neophyte when it comes to the ways of Washington.
At a forum with reporters on Thursday, the head of the department that has traditionally taken the lead on global oil-market policy, was asked what message the Obama administration had for the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries at its meeting next month.
“I’m not the administration,” the Cabinet secretary replied. “I will be speaking and learning more about this in order to figure out what the U.S. position should be and what the president’s position is.”
Chu, who is still without a deputy, said he feels “like I’ve been dumped into the deep end of the pool” on oil policy.
The day before, reporters asked him about OPEC output levels after a speech to a group of utility regulators. He responded that the issue was “not in my domain.”
Later, in a conference call to reporters, he said his answer reflected “more of my naiveté than anything else.”
Imagine the outcry if a Republican had said something this stupid.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
I do not know but it may be a good tariff to keep American industry on a level playing field with the third world, maybe could do away with other taxes. What will be done with the tax?
Don’t you remember Obama said about coal power plants?[/quote]
One of the differences between Obama and Bush is Obama is not set in stone. I believe he would change his mind if it be prudent.
I believe he will want to get us to a greener energy, but I do no believe he would cut off America?s nose to spite it?s face. Just my opinion
LOL
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
I do not know but it may be a good tariff to keep American industry on a level playing field with the third world, maybe could do away with other taxes. What will be done with the tax?
Don’t you remember Obama said about coal power plants?
One of the differences between Obama and Bush is Obama is not set in stone. I believe he would change his mind if it be prudent.
I believe he will want to get us to a greener energy, but I do no believe he would cut off America?s nose to spite it?s face. Just my opinion
[/quote]
Wrong, read what he has said. Bankrupting the coal industry? The word tool comes to mind. This guy is unprepared and does not have any new idea that Jimmy Carter, the buffoon hasn’t tried. Some of you people either have not lived through the 70s or either have no recall.
[quote]tom63 wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
I do not know but it may be a good tariff to keep American industry on a level playing field with the third world, maybe could do away with other taxes. What will be done with the tax?
Don’t you remember Obama said about coal power plants?
One of the differences between Obama and Bush is Obama is not set in stone. I believe he would change his mind if it be prudent.
I believe he will want to get us to a greener energy, but I do no believe he would cut off America?s nose to spite it?s face. Just my opinion
Wrong, read what he has said. Bankrupting the coal industry? The word tool comes to mind. This guy is unprepared and does not have any new idea that Jimmy Carter, the buffoon hasn’t tried. Some of you people either have not lived through the 70s or either have no recall.
[/quote]
Well I lived through the end of 50’s I became politically aware in the 60’s and was a pretty good observer in the 70?s. What was I supposed to have recalled
Obama’s choices are to become a laissez-faire capitalist or watch the empire crumble.
Personally, I would rather he let it crumble.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Obama’s choices are to become a laissez-faire capitalist or watch the empire crumble.
Personally, I would rather he let it crumble.[/quote]
Aren’t they the same ?
[quote]hedo wrote:
Having trouble making ends meet now. Wait till this passes. The ruling party wants to regulate everything.
Regulation does not help an economy if it is done in large amounts…
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Obama’s choices are to become a laissez-faire capitalist or watch the empire crumble.
Personally, I would rather he let it crumble.
Aren’t they the same ?
[/quote]
Yes, laissez-faire means “let it be”. So that would mean a hands off approach, aka not doing anything about it.
[quote]hedo wrote:
Having trouble making ends meet now. Wait till this passes. The ruling party wants to regulate everything.
“Well, I guess we should call this the ANTI-industrial revolution.”
— Atlas Shrugged
[quote]ricrac777 wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Obama’s choices are to become a laissez-faire capitalist or watch the empire crumble.
Personally, I would rather he let it crumble.
Aren’t they the same ?
Yes, laissez-faire means “let it be”. So that would mean a hands off approach, aka not doing anything about it.[/quote]
Now that you mention it…that is a good point; however, I believe to try and keep “fixing” the economy will lead to even more disastrous effects that if it were to be just “left alone”; for example, the natives are getting restless. How much longer until they get fed up with the fed to do something “drastic”?
Free people are the biggest threat to the empire and those in government are so blind to this fact that it will be their undoing. Their only other option is to enslave us to the point that we are incapable revolting; however, that will not happen in this country. People are too free spirited here to allow it.
[quote]hedo wrote:
Glad to know our energy policy is also in good hands. Wonder if he knows what “OPEC” actually stands for?
Energy Secretary Steven Chu may be a Nobel laureate Ph.D. in physics, but his first forays into energy policy suggest he’s a neophyte when it comes to the ways of Washington.
At a forum with reporters on Thursday, the head of the department that has traditionally taken the lead on global oil-market policy, was asked what message the Obama administration had for the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries at its meeting next month.
“I’m not the administration,” the Cabinet secretary replied. “I will be speaking and learning more about this in order to figure out what the U.S. position should be and what the president’s position is.”
Chu, who is still without a deputy, said he feels “like I’ve been dumped into the deep end of the pool” on oil policy.
The day before, reporters asked him about OPEC output levels after a speech to a group of utility regulators. He responded that the issue was “not in my domain.”
Later, in a conference call to reporters, he said his answer reflected “more of my naiveté than anything else.”
Imagine the outcry if a Republican had said something this stupid.[/quote]
Well, at least 1) he’s AWARE he doesn’t know shit and 2) is comfortable admittting it – which is more than we get from most of 'em. Of course, his modesty doesn’t change the fact that he’s completely unqualified for the position…
[quote]SinisterMinister wrote:
hedo wrote:
Glad to know our energy policy is also in good hands. Wonder if he knows what “OPEC” actually stands for?
Energy Secretary Steven Chu may be a Nobel laureate Ph.D. in physics, but his first forays into energy policy suggest he’s a neophyte when it comes to the ways of Washington.
At a forum with reporters on Thursday, the head of the department that has traditionally taken the lead on global oil-market policy, was asked what message the Obama administration had for the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries at its meeting next month.
“I’m not the administration,” the Cabinet secretary replied. “I will be speaking and learning more about this in order to figure out what the U.S. position should be and what the president’s position is.”
Chu, who is still without a deputy, said he feels “like I’ve been dumped into the deep end of the pool” on oil policy.
The day before, reporters asked him about OPEC output levels after a speech to a group of utility regulators. He responded that the issue was “not in my domain.”
Later, in a conference call to reporters, he said his answer reflected “more of my naiveté than anything else.”
Imagine the outcry if a Republican had said something this stupid.
Well, at least 1) he’s AWARE he doesn’t know shit and 2) is comfortable admittting it – which is more than we get from most of 'em. Of course, his modesty doesn’t change the fact that he’s completely unqualified for the position…
[/quote]
True on all points, but I do give him a lot of credit for not being so full of hubris that he tries to give the impression he knows it all.