• 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

Just a few things....

1-When did 'urging' become 'demanding'?
2-You act is if it is shocking that there is no difference between dems and republicans in their behaviors.
3-Which do you think is a more viable use of income tax revenue (assuming you have some skin in the game)...investment in a company like Solyndra or a nuclear fuel company?

I dont think the fed should be doing the work of the private sector myself...but since they are going to spend Ohioans tax dollars SOMEWHERE, wouldnt Boehner be acting irresponsbily if he didnt try to get some of those tax dollars back into his state? If ther fed doesnt invest 2 billion in THIS company, will it just not invest it anywhere or will they still spend it somewhere?
 
VanceMack said:
Just a few things....

1-When did 'urging' become 'demanding'?
2-You act is if it is shocking that there is no difference between dems and republicans in their behaviors.
3-Which do you think is a more viable use of income tax revenue (assuming you have some skin in the game)...investment in a company like Solyndra or a nuclear fuel company?

I dont think the fed should be doing the work of the private sector myself...but since they are going to spend Ohioans tax dollars SOMEWHERE, wouldnt Boehner be acting irresponsbily if he didnt try to get some of those tax dollars back into his state? If ther fed doesnt invest 2 billion in THIS company, will it just not invest it anywhere or will they still spend it somewhere?
Click to expand...

I'm not against funding for either Solyndra or for nuclear power plants. In fact, I think all nuclear power plants should be owned and operated by the government because only the government has the money to ensure the safe continual operation of these plants.

But the GOP attacks the Democrats for government spending, and in 2010 there was a "Tea Party revolution" that even upset the neo-conservative GOP incumbents.

So I don't really attack neo-conservatives for government spending - I know that the issue with them is "What do you want to spend government money on?" But with Tea Party GOPers they are opposed to even that, and attack Democrats just on that alone. Which is highly disingenuous.
 
samsmart said:
I'm not against funding for either Solyndra or for nuclear power plants. In fact, I think all nuclear power plants should be owned and operated by the government because only the government has the money to ensure the safe continual operation of these plants.

But the GOP attacks the Democrats for government spending, and in 2010 there was a "Tea Party revolution" that even upset the neo-conservative GOP incumbents.

So I don't really attack neo-conservatives for government spending - I know that the issue with them is "What do you want to spend government money on?" But with Tea Party GOPers they are opposed to even that, and attack Democrats just on that alone. Which is highly disingenuous.
Click to expand...

Have you read the Tea Party's position on this?
 
1Perry said:
Have you read the Tea Party's position on this?
Click to expand...

On this particular issue regarding the nuclear power plants? No.

However, it is known that the Tea Party is a libertarian popular movement who believes that the government should cut government spending on most programs.
 
samsmart said:
On this particular issue regarding the nuclear power plants? No.

However, it is known that the Tea Party is a libertarian popular movement who believes that the government should cut government spending on most programs.
Click to expand...

Sure. I'm not sure what that has to do with Boehner though.
 
1Perry said:
Sure. I'm not sure what that has to do with Boehner though.
Click to expand...

As the GOP Speaker of the House, he is the highest ranked political office that belongs to the GOP. And the GOP have been criticizing Obama and the Democratic Party for government spending. And they have proposed government cuts to many important programs funded by the government. Of those programs include important science and research programs, such as NOAA's weather satellites and early warning networks, and even heating oil subsidies for the poor.

So it seems odd that Boehner would favor government spending for energy with regards to nuclear power plants in his home state but also be against spending for energy with regards to heating oil subsidies for the poor.
 
samsmart said:
I'm not against funding for either Solyndra or for nuclear power plants. In fact, I think all nuclear power plants should be owned and operated by the government because only the government has the money to ensure the safe continual operation of these plants.

But the GOP attacks the Democrats for government spending, and in 2010 there was a "Tea Party revolution" that even upset the neo-conservative GOP incumbents.

So I don't really attack neo-conservatives for government spending - I know that the issue with them is "What do you want to spend government money on?" But with Tea Party GOPers they are opposed to even that, and attack Democrats just on that alone. Which is highly disingenuous.
Click to expand...
Which goes back to point two...as if there is a difference between dems and reps. Boehner is no Tea Party republican. He crows over a few drops of cuts to the deficit.
 
samsmart said:
As the GOP Speaker of the House, he is the highest ranked political office that belongs to the GOP. And the GOP have been criticizing Obama and the Democratic Party for government spending. And they have proposed government cuts to many important programs funded by the government. Of those programs include important science and research programs, such as NOAA's weather satellites and early warning networks, and even heating oil subsidies for the poor.

So it seems odd that Boehner would favor government spending for energy with regards to nuclear power plants in his home state but also be against spending for energy with regards to heating oil subsidies for the poor.
Click to expand...

I agreed that the Tea Party has been for cuts. My statement is that I do not know how what Boehner is doing affects that. Boehner is not the Tea Party.
 
1Perry said:
Have you read the Tea Party's position on this?
Click to expand...
Specious question since the Tea Party is not centrally organized nor lead and what maybe the official position of one particular group may or may not be the same among other groups.
 
Disputatious71 said:
Specious question since the Tea Party is not centrally organized nor lead and what maybe the official position of one particular group may or may not be the same among other groups.
Click to expand...

So we'll just slam them for this because well, somebody might be O.K. with it. :roll:
 
1Perry said:
So we'll just slam them for this because well, somebody might be O.K. with it. :roll:
Click to expand...
Not sure exactly what side of the fence you have decided to fall on, but their is no single Tea Party it is not lead by a single group or individual and whatever you may find as being the position of A Tea Party still cannot be the position of all the Tea Parties nationwide, their only common position I know of is fiscal responsibility, responsible spending & less taxes.
 
While in theory I support nuclear power,

I do find it amusing that those who bash Obama for picking winners while praising the free market are pushing for one of the most subsidized power sources in America.
 
Disputatious71 said:
Not sure exactly what side of the fence you have decided to fall on, but their is no single Tea Party it is not lead by a single group or individual and whatever you may find as being the position of A Tea Party still cannot be the position of all the Tea Parties nationwide, their only common position I know of is fiscal responsibility, responsible spending & less taxes.
Click to expand...

So why were they even brought into this discussion?
 
obvious Child said:
While in theory I support nuclear power,

I do find it amusing that those who bash Obama for picking winners while praising the free market are pushing for one of the most subsidized power sources in America.
Click to expand...

I've seen few support it being subsidized. Even those that did seemed to be not real enthused about it. Perhaps if you feel that someone holds that position you should take them up on it as opposed to some generalized statement like this.
 
conservativeguy said:
In this instance the potential liabilities from producing uranium may be more than any lender would agree to get involved in. If there was an accident in this experimental process the lawyers would go after the deep pockets of the lenders. On the other hand it may be crony capitalism......both parties are guilty as charged.
Click to expand...

Huh? Enrichment is relatively safe. Mining uranium is not that dirty. What exactly are you talking about?

The problem is that nuclear plant construction is historically horrifically over budget and over time. Banks don't lend without guarantees. Boehner is pushing for more government involvement in the economy after he bashes Obama for that.

The hypocrisy is reaching fever pitch here.
 
Disputatious71 said:
I am glad you also understand that nuclear energy is sustainable whereas experimental technology is not economically sustainable but maybe in the future.
Click to expand...

You mean to the tune of 76 or so BILLION in subsidies in fiscal year 2010 alone?

"economically sustainable" really?
 
obvious Child said:
Huh? Enrichment is relatively safe. Mining uranium is not that dirty. What exactly are you talking about?

The problem is that nuclear plant construction is historically horrifically over budget and over time.
Click to expand...

Because they are financed by the government.
 
Disputatious71 said:
At least nuclear power is a proven efficient producer of electricity, unlike all these "green" technologies that have yet to cost less than current methods even with their government funded offsets! Even the article makes this clear ...
Click to expand...

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:
 
Last edited:
Disputatious71 said:
Not sure exactly what side of the fence you have decided to fall on, but their is no single Tea Party it is not lead by a single group or individual and whatever you may find as being the position of A Tea Party still cannot be the position of all the Tea Parties nationwide, their only common position I know of is fiscal responsibility, responsible spending & less taxes.
Click to expand...
That is spot on.
 
1Perry said:
Because they are financed by the government.
Click to expand...

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.
 
samsmart said:
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.
Click to expand...

You can't be serious? You can't export nuclear energy like you can oil or natural gas. Besides, if the government owned nuclear power plants they'd likely tax the hell out of them! This is the one reason I oppose nationalizing domestic energy except where it comes to competing on the international market.

To that, I'd rather the government owned oil and gas fields like other nation-states do. Atleast then the country would have a better chance and picking their international partners in the global marketplace. Not saying they should own all domestic oil fields. Just one or two so that they can't be pushed around as far as being manipulated for the cost of imported oil like we are now by OPEC.

Let private companies retain their hold in domestic markets and compete accordingly with global markets. Just my 2-cents worth; but I'd never advocate the government owning a domestic energy industry that couldn't be exported or be in competition with in the private sector.
 
Last edited:
Objective Voice said:
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:
Click to expand...
It is in 5th or 6th place for no other reason than it is not cost effective and efficient enough to compete with the other more popular energy alternatives in place in the USA at this time.
 
1Perry said:
I've seen few support it being subsidized. Even those that did seemed to be not real enthused about it. Perhaps if you feel that someone holds that position you should take them up on it as opposed to some generalized statement like this.
Click to expand...

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.

Because they are financed by the government.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Do you not understand the difference between a loan a loan guarantee?
 
Disputatious71 said:
It is in 5th or 6th place for no other reason than it is not cost effective and efficient enough to compete with the other more popular energy alternatives in place in the USA at this time.
Click to expand...

Like oil which got I believe in excess of $60 billion in subsidies last year?
Or Coal which got an estimated $345 billion?
US Coal Subsidy $345 billion: Harvard Study « Commercial Climate

Hydro's going to be cheap as fuel is essentially free.

It's not really a good argument to claim it's not cost effective when 3 out of the top 4 are getting major subsidies that distort the true cost.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom