• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Boehner Demands $2 Billion for Ohio Plant After Solyndra

Am I the only one opposed to giving away more of our tax-money no matter what?

2Billion is a lot of damned money
 
Am I the only one opposed to giving away more of our tax-money no matter what?

2Billion is a lot of damned money

Technically, the government doesn't give them the money. It merely offers to banks to guarantee the loan if something goes bad, so in theory, there could be 0 taxpayer dollars spent. Or we could be on the hook for everything if the deal goes sideways.
 
The only reason solar energy hasn't caught on in this country is because we continue to place it 5th or 6th behind:

1. oil
2. coal
3. hydro
4. nuclear

But if you really took a closer look at the U.S. solar power industry and stopped gauging it based on the Solyndra scandale alone you'd realize that the industry is viable and can be profitable if given half the change the top four energy industries have been given.

One way to change the way U.S. homeowners and consumers think about solar energy might be to make them standard for home construction just as we currently do for things like hot water tanks or A/C units. Right now, we look at the solar energy industry as being part of electric grids competing with oil, natural gas, hydro-electric or nuclear energy to power entire cities/communities. But if we make them standard home installations, the solar panel industry would BOOM overnight! Congress could even tie-in selling back energy to local utility companies so that these industries don't feel infriged upon (unless you just say "let choice and competition within the free market system do what it do"...I'm all for that!).

U.S. Solar Energy industry

As for Boehner pimping federal funding for a local nuke plant, all I can say is he's once again playing politics trying to have it both ways. Classic politics...:roll:
There ar emuch more reasons why Solar hasnt caught on but the two primary reasons are 1-Cost to the consumer and 2-once you have solar installed, who do you tax for energy consumption? Neither party wants it.
 
I'd prefer to just have all nuclear power plants be owned and operated by the government. Maybe set it up as a government corporation similar to how the Postal Service is organized.

Yeah, that's doing well isn't it?
 
Most probably have no idea its subsidized. The government hands out money to nuclear to construction to disposal. In many ways it's cradle to grave welfare. Without subsides, nuclear won't exist. They get construction loan guarantees, money per kilowatt and money for disposal of the facility. Cradle to grave welfare in the nuclear industry.



Wrong. Do you not understand the difference between a loan a loan guarantee?

I realize that once the government committs to funding it's an open check. Just like Solyndra. The Obama administration wanted to give them even more. Just like with the military. They will commit 2 billion to build a new jet fighter but once the over runs are up to 7 billion the government is still there with the money.
 
I'd prefer to just have all nuclear power plants be owned and operated by the government. Maybe set it up as a government corporation similar to how the Postal Service is organized.

OMG you can't be serious. The fed having absolute control of our energy assets. I can not think of a worse idea. One year after the fed owns the assets, 50% of the consumers will be paying for all of the energy and the other half will be living large without having to pay for their energy consumption. The entire system would crash within 2 years due to the incompetence of unaccountable, political bureaucrats that graduated in the bottom of their class in college.
 
Congress_Takes-R_jpg_250x1000_q85.jpg
 
There are much more reasons why Solar hasn't caught on but the two primary reasons are 1-Cost to the consumer and 2-once you have solar installed, who do you tax for energy consumption? Neither party wants it.

The cost could be drastically reduced if solar panels were made standard for home construction. They're really not that expensive. You can buy a solar panel from anywhere between $400-1,500.

As far as taxing the energy solar panels would produce, that is the big mystery now isn't it? The answer should be NOBODY! But that's the problem...

Local utility companies don't want solar energy to catch on for that very reason...it reduces energy consumption. Therefore, there's no incentive for local utility companies to allow solar panel installation to become standardized in home construction. There's also the competition solar power would have with the coal industry.

Those who think solar power is some fuex industry really haven't done their homework. For me, it's a matter of changing how we as homeowners approach solar power. Change the incentive from a "energy efficiency tax credit" to a standard appliance you buy with your home and the industry would thrive. Give the homeowner the choice up from if they want to have a solar panel installed on their home and you will see this industry change overnight.
 
The cost could be drastically reduced if solar panels were made standard for home construction. They're really not that expensive. You can buy a solar panel from anywhere between $400-1,500.

As far as taxing the energy solar panels would produce, that is the big mystery now isn't it? The answer should be NOBODY! But that's the problem...

Local utility companies don't want solar energy to catch on for that very reason...it reduces energy consumption. Therefore, there's no incentive for local utility companies to allow solar panel installation to become standardized in home construction. There's also the competition solar power would have with the coal industry.

Those who think solar power is some fuex industry really haven't done their homework. For me, it's a matter of changing how we as homeowners approach solar power. Change the incentive from a "energy efficiency tax credit" to a standard appliance you buy with your home and the industry would thrive. Give the homeowner the choice up from if they want to have a solar panel installed on their home and you will see this industry change overnight.
Precisely correct. Energy companies dont want it, state and local municipalities dont want it...everyone knows there will be a tax hole that SOMEONE will have to fill.

I dont think it is as economical and viable as you imagine. If it were more home owners would use it. Panels are the cheapest part of the equation.
 
Precisely correct. Energy companies dont want it, state and local municipalities dont want it...everyone knows there will be a tax hole that SOMEONE will have to fill.

I dont think it is as economical and viable as you imagine. If it were more home owners would use it. Panels are the cheapest part of the equation.

Maybe things have changed or I'm misremembering........but I think it was like $25-$30,000 to retrofit my house to run solely on solar when I checked a few years ago.
 
Maybe things have changed or I'm misremembering........but I think it was like $25-$30,000 to retrofit my house to run solely on solar when I checked a few years ago.
Thats what I recall as well...We were looking at renovating some rentals...thought it would be a nice benefit to offer tenants...no to low utilities. Problem is that the ROI just never gets there. As soon as it would pay for itself you would have to buy replacement parts.
 
I realize that once the government committs to funding it's an open check. Just like Solyndra.

Not really. I suspect you don't get the difference between the two. Solar in the US is fighting a very unfair fight against the Chinese and lesser extent the Germans. We simply are not providing the same kind of resources to our solar that other countries are giving to them. It's amusing to watch people demand the end to subsidies and then decry the death of American manufacturing. Giving up support to fledgling industries is basically sending them into a gladiator arena armed with wooden swords when the Germans and Chinese are arming their gladiators with diamond edged blades.

Nuclear has existed since the 50s and is still reliant upon subsidies to get off the ground, get running and to dismantle.

The Obama administration wanted to give them even more. Just like with the military. They will commit 2 billion to build a new jet fighter but once the over runs are up to 7 billion the government is still there with the money.

See above. It helps to understand what you are talking about before posting. You appear less of a fool that way. And the F-35 basically doesn't have an alternative. That's partially why we have no choice. As opposed to say the advanced artillery Cheney killed and the Comanche that we didn't necessarily need.
 
Not really. I suspect you don't get the difference between the two. Solar in the US is fighting a very unfair fight against the Chinese and lesser extent the Germans. We simply are not providing the same kind of resources to our solar that other countries are giving to them. It's amusing to watch people demand the end to subsidies and then decry the death of American manufacturing. Giving up support to fledgling industries is basically sending them into a gladiator arena armed with wooden swords when the Germans and Chinese are arming their gladiators with diamond edged blades.

Nuclear has existed since the 50s and is still reliant upon subsidies to get off the ground, get running and to dismantle.



See above. It helps to understand what you are talking about before posting. You appear less of a fool that way. And the F-35 basically doesn't have an alternative. That's partially why we have no choice. As opposed to say the advanced artillery Cheney killed and the Comanche that we didn't necessarily need.

Solar is also fighting a fight against oil.
 
Solar is also fighting a fight against oil.

Solar is fighting coal. Oil is fighting coal. Hell, every energy source is fighting coal. Coal gets crazy subsidies. Not to mention puts the cost of pollution on everyone else. If they had to cover the damage their sourced pollution cost, coal would be extremely cost prohibitive.
 
Not really. I suspect you don't get the difference between the two. Solar in the US is fighting a very unfair fight against the Chinese and lesser extent the Germans. We simply are not providing the same kind of resources to our solar that other countries are giving to them. It's amusing to watch people demand the end to subsidies and then decry the death of American manufacturing. Giving up support to fledgling industries is basically sending them into a gladiator arena armed with wooden swords when the Germans and Chinese are arming their gladiators with diamond edged blades.

Nuclear has existed since the 50s and is still reliant upon subsidies to get off the ground, get running and to dismantle.


See above. It helps to understand what you are talking about before posting. You appear less of a fool that way. And the F-35 basically doesn't have an alternative. That's partially why we have no choice. As opposed to say the advanced artillery Cheney killed and the Comanche that we didn't necessarily need.
If your statement is true why is it that all the up and coming countries, such as Iran, Iraq, Syria, North Korea, Vietnam, Jordan, United Arab Emirates, Taiwan, Indonesia, & Thailand, go for nuclear energy as an upgrade rather than solar, wind or other "green" technologies ?
 
House Speaker John Boehner attacked the Obama administration for financing failed solar-panel maker Solyndra LLC, saying government shouldn’t pick winners and losers. That hasn’t stopped him from demanding that the U.S. make a winner of a nuclear-fuel plant in Ohio, his home state.
Boehner is backing a $2 billion Energy Department loan guarantee sought by USEC Inc. (USU) for its American Centrifuge Plant in Piketon, Ohio, aimed at enriching uranium for commercial nuclear reactors.
“When it comes to emerging energy technologies, the Republicans don’t want to pick winners and losers -- unless it’s nuclear power,” Ellen Vancko, nuclear energy and climate-change project manager in the Washington office of the Union of Concerned Scientists, said in an interview.
The collapse of Solyndra, which filed for bankruptcy protection last month, two years after receiving a $535 million federal loan guarantee, isn’t a reason to withhold financing from USEC, Boehner said in a Sept. 30 posting on his website. He cited a promise by Obama in his 2008 presidential campaign to aid the company.
“In the midst of the Solyndra controversy that has raised serious questions about the Obama administration’s oversight of taxpayer dollars, hundreds of Southern Ohio workers stand to lose their jobs if the Obama administration reneges on the president’s promise to support an energy project in the small town of Piketon, Ohio,” Boehner wrote. “I urge the administration to not betray the citizens of Ohio.”
USEC’s political action committee has given $10,000 to committees supporting Boehner since 2010, according to filings with the Federal Election Commission.

Boehner Demands $2 Billion for Ohio Plant After Solyndra - Bloomberg

Blatant hypocrisy can hurt candidates. Allen Keys for example called Hillary Clinton a carpet bagger, later he went to Illinios to run against Barack Obama and lost. For those who do not know what a carpet bagger is someone who runs for office in a district he or she does not live in or has lived there for only a short time in order to run for office in that district.
 
If your statement is true why is it that all the up and coming countries, such as Iran, Iraq, Syria, North Korea, Vietnam, Jordan, United Arab Emirates, Taiwan, Indonesia, & Thailand, go for nuclear energy as an upgrade rather than solar, wind or other "green" technologies ?

Because the land cost to energy output is higher. Furthermore Iran, Syria and North Korea are using the programs to make nuclear weapons as a primary goal. The civilian energy is largely just a byproduct. Iran, Syria and North Korea all went with reactors that produce far more waste then is necessary. North's Korea's plutonium reactor is a near copy of the breeder reactor the UK used to mass produce fuel for its nuclear weapons. Taiwan may have a secret nuclear program like South Korea did back in the early 90s.

A fair number of countries also go with nuclear because the seller of the plant offers financing. Essentially their direct short term costs are low. As opposed to the high startup costs normally associated with nuclear and that currently exist for most fuel sources aside from natural gas.

Furthermore the UAE is planning the largest solar plant in the world. Taiwan has a number of solar manufacturers that are competing with South Korea and China. Indonesia just started on its first wind plant. I can keep going, but the lesson here is to Google stuff before posting. Countries you named are going with green technologies. You look really stupid when you cite countries as proof that green doesn't work when those countries are using green technologies.

Furthermore just because nations are going towards nuclear doesn't mean anything I said is wrong. How you figured that, I'm not sure.
 
Last edited:
After almost 70 years of producing uranium, I believe we can safely remove the "experimental" label here, especially since Iran is doing it as well, don't you think ?

If you are a Doctor you are considered to only practice medicine, never mastered. This in no way means that a doctor isn't a good doctor but over the years he will only get better. Just as nuclear power we will experiment with it more and more ever finding new ways to lessen the waste it creates. Best answer for cheap energy with the up in coming decades of more electric cars on the market.
 
Because the land cost to energy output is higher. Furthermore Iran, Syria and North Korea are using the programs to make nuclear weapons as a primary goal. The civilian energy is largely just a byproduct. Iran, Syria and North Korea all went with reactors that produce far more waste then is necessary. North's Korea's plutonium reactor is a near copy of the breeder reactor the UK used to mass produce fuel for its nuclear weapons. Taiwan may have a secret nuclear program like South Korea did back in the early 90s.

A fair number of countries also go with nuclear because the seller of the plant offers financing. Essentially their direct short term costs are low. As opposed to the high startup costs normally associated with nuclear and that currently exist for most fuel sources aside from natural gas.

Furthermore the UAE is planning the largest solar plant in the world. Taiwan has a number of solar manufacturers that are competing with South Korea and China. Indonesia just started on its first wind plant. I can keep going, but the lesson here is to Google stuff before posting. Countries you named are going with green technologies. You look really stupid when you cite countries as proof that green doesn't work when those countries are using green technologies.

Furthermore just because nations are going towards nuclear doesn't mean anything I said is wrong. How you figured that, I'm not sure.
The only stupid things here are your assumptions of what I figure and your lack of comprehension that these countries are foregoing all that "green" energy and building nuclear energy as their answer to their growing energy needs or as you put it "to make nuclear weapons as a primary goal. " If nuclear needs to be heavily subsidized like some in this thread have said then why would these countries dump money into a sinkhole when they could be going with sustainable green technology that is "safe" ?
 
Last edited:
If you are a Doctor you are considered to only practice medicine, never mastered. This in no way means that a doctor isn't a good doctor but over the years he will only get better. Just as nuclear power we will experiment with it more and more ever finding new ways to lessen the waste it creates. Best answer for cheap energy with the up in coming decades of more electric cars on the market.
Best answer for future needs is nuclear, the same thing I have said above using all those countries that are planning nuclear for their energy needs instead of other "green" technology. It appears doubtful to me that such energy needs would also require their governments to subsidize them as some here have presented the case against nuclear power as efficient.
 
Not really. I suspect you don't get the difference between the two. Solar in the US is fighting a very unfair fight against the Chinese and lesser extent the Germans.

Indeed they are. Nowhere is the solution to that being to simply give them millions of dollars.

We simply are not providing the same kind of resources to our solar that other countries are giving to them. It's amusing to watch people demand the end to subsidies and then decry the death of American manufacturing. Giving up support to fledgling industries is basically sending them into a gladiator arena armed with wooden swords when the Germans and Chinese are arming their gladiators with diamond edged blades.

It is NOT the governments place to subsidize for profit businesses. How much more should we have pored into Solyndra? I hate this arguement. The problem wasn't that we blew the money, it was that we did not give them enough. **** that. The problem was that the Chinese pulled the rug out from underneath what Solyndra was trying to do. Investors could see this coming from miles away which is why they stayed away. How then does another company ever compete with the company that the government is poring billions into? How much of these billions then find their way back into campaign coffers?

Nuclear has existed since the 50s and is still reliant upon subsidies to get off the ground, get running and to dismantle.

Nobody has any desire to deal with all the regulations put in place to simply allow to keep the government involved.

See above. It helps to understand what you are talking about before posting. You appear less of a fool that way. And the F-35 basically doesn't have an alternative. That's partially why we have no choice. As opposed to say the advanced artillery Cheney killed and the Comanche that we didn't necessarily need.

Bite me. Don't tell me that I simply do not understand. We have these over runs because NO ONE in government demands accountability. It's just open the check book. I would demand a bid that was binding. You build it for the amount you bid or the government takes legal action. Funny, it works in the real world where people can't just take the money from someone else.

If you do not believe you can do that, don't bid. If we decide that the new jet isn't worth the actual 10 billion it would actually cost to build, we don't build it.
 
The only stupid things here are your assumptions of what I figure and your lack of comprehension that these countries are foregoing all that "green" energy and building nuclear energy as their answer to their growing energy needs or as you put it "to make nuclear weapons as a primary goal.

I now question your capacity to read much less think. You cited several countries who are doing both as evidence that green energy doesn't work. I like how you attacked Green energy as being non-viable by citing a country who's building the largest solar plant in the world. That's amusing.

How does that make you intelligent? Furthermore, after someone pointed that out to you, you not only refuse to change your position but you start insulting someone who is clearly superior to you in knowledge and education much less critical thinking skills. Cruisin' for a bruisin' you are.

"If nuclear needs to be heavily subsidized like some in this thread have said then why would these countries dump money into a sinkhole when they could be going with sustainable green technology that is "safe" ?

Asking questions that were already answered in the post you quoted suggests you either can't read or understand English properly, or simply don't give a **** what people write, you just go off on whatever you want.

Best answer for future needs is nuclear, the same thing I have said above using all those countries that are planning nuclear for their energy needs instead of other "green" technology. It appears doubtful to me that such energy needs would also require their governments to subsidize them as some here have presented the case against nuclear power as efficient.

You look really stupid when you make an argument that was refuted in the posts above you.

1) Countries you named are doing both green and nuclear
2) Countries doing nuclear are sometimes doing it for nuclear weapons programs
3) Countries who are importing nuclear are doing it somewhat because manufactures offer lending reducing short term capital costs.

None of those back your arguments up. You seem very intent upon ignoring whatever contradicts your arguments. You may be selected for a certain basement award if you keep going like this.
 
Last edited:
House Speaker John Boehner attacked the Obama administration for financing failed solar-panel maker Solyndra LLC, saying government shouldn’t pick winners and losers. That hasn’t stopped him from demanding that the U.S. make a winner of a nuclear-fuel plant in Ohio, his home state.
Boehner is backing a $2 billion Energy Department loan guarantee sought by USEC Inc. (USU) for its American Centrifuge Plant in Piketon, Ohio, aimed at enriching uranium for commercial nuclear reactors.
“When it comes to emerging energy technologies, the Republicans don’t want to pick winners and losers -- unless it’s nuclear power,” Ellen Vancko, nuclear energy and climate-change project manager in the Washington office of the Union of Concerned Scientists, said in an interview.
The collapse of Solyndra, which filed for bankruptcy protection last month, two years after receiving a $535 million federal loan guarantee, isn’t a reason to withhold financing from USEC, Boehner said in a Sept. 30 posting on his website. He cited a promise by Obama in his 2008 presidential campaign to aid the company.
“In the midst of the Solyndra controversy that has raised serious questions about the Obama administration’s oversight of taxpayer dollars, hundreds of Southern Ohio workers stand to lose their jobs if the Obama administration reneges on the president’s promise to support an energy project in the small town of Piketon, Ohio,” Boehner wrote. “I urge the administration to not betray the citizens of Ohio.”
USEC’s political action committee has given $10,000 to committees supporting Boehner since 2010, according to filings with the Federal Election Commission.

Boehner Demands $2 Billion for Ohio Plant After Solyndra - Bloomberg

Oh the horror!!!! God forbid we invest money into something actually works. :rofl
 
Indeed they are. Nowhere is the solution to that being to simply give them millions of dollars.

Simply give? Perhaps no, but you'd be a total moron to think that a gladiator armed with a wooden sword stands a real chance against a gladiator in full armor with a diamond tipped sword.

It is NOT the governments place to subsidize for profit businesses. How much more should we have pored into Solyndra? I hate this arguement. The problem wasn't that we blew the money, it was that we did not give them enough. **** that. The problem was that the Chinese pulled the rug out from underneath what Solyndra was trying to do. Investors could see this coming from miles away which is why they stayed away. How then does another company ever compete with the company that the government is poring billions into? How much of these billions then find their way back into campaign coffers?

You completely missed the point here. Your stance basically gives up more and more jobs to foreign competitors who's governments don't play fair. You are essentially willing to drive the US economy into the ground purely on ideology. We can't eat ideology for dinner. Well, I can't. It doesn't matter if it's the governments place to or not in your opinion. The fact right now on the ground you cannot change is that foreign governments are not playing fair. You are essentially demanding that American firms play at a distinct disadvantage. Your angle is pure politics where I'm discussing something far more complex. Essentially if we give our industry no help, they will get eventually slaughtered in the global market. Tell me how that helps America. And do a better job then when you ran from showing how people are forced at gun point to buy US debt.

Nobody has any desire to deal with all the regulations put in place to simply allow to keep the government involved.

Perhaps you have no idea what happened at Chernobyl? I guess you think it's okay for a plant to have an insufficiently dense inner core to protect against radiation leaks? Would you live near a nuclear plant that had seriously shoddy safety records? People like you I feel have never gotten burned by a lack of regulation, so thus you have no idea what the worse that can happen. Tell me, do you think that the parent of the child who got to see their child die as shiga toxins liquified his brain is for less regulation at fast food joints? I feel like you have no idea how you benefit from regulation.

Bite me. Don't tell me that I simply do not understand.

I don't have to. Your posts and lack of demonstrated knowledge about the subjects do that for me.

We have these over runs because NO ONE in government demands accountability.

The biggest offenses are actually in the CIA and black ops where lack of accountability is essentially built in. You are harping up the wrong tree.

It's just open the check book. I would demand a bid that was binding. You build it for the amount you bid or the government takes legal action. Funny, it works in the real world where people can't just take the money from someone else.

Well, considering we have no alternative, they have us by the balls. There is accountability, we COULD kill the project, we'd just have to restart from basically nothing with no 5th generation multirole fighter. Considering the time line of how long it takes to get something like that out in force, we'll be at a significant handicap in any future conflict. Furthermore, we have an obligation to our allies to get that plane out and about.

If you do not believe you can do that, don't bid. If we decide that the new jet isn't worth the actual 10 billion it would actually cost to build, we don't build it.

Well, the bid itself was unrealistic. The F-35 is expected to do a variety of roles that a number of planes today perform. We expect to to be a full fledged air superiority fighter, to a VTOL close air support. That's a huge number of missions it has to perform between the two and we want them all done well. The bid on the F-35 was grossly underestimated and we should have known that we could not get what we wanted for that price.
 
Oh the horror!!!! God forbid we invest money into something actually works. :rofl

Anyone surprised that Apdst has no problem calling for more spending when it's a Republican asking for it?
Anyone surprised that Apdst has no problem calling for more government subsidies when t's a Republican asking for it?

*chirp*

*chirp*

No hands go up.
 
Back
Top Bottom