• 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!

Barack Obama pushes for $1bn green tax credits

There are EV's already priced less than the average new car cost in the US. The US uses 25 % of the planet's cheap oil. The only way to lower world oil prices is to decrease demand.

What about supply?
 
We have the highest US production of oil in a decade, how has that lowered world oil prices?

Demand is up faster. World oil production is 89 mb/d. Demand is 91mb/d. That equals shortage and prices go up.
 
Now is not the time to be putting out that kind of money. We don't have the vehicles to utilize this infrastructure. We should wait till they arrive and are affordable to the masses, which won't be for a long time.

In the meantime, Obama should be concentrating on the effects of high gas prices on our citizens right now. I don't think he will, though.

bases garrisoned on 120+ countries and we can't afford infrastructure improvements at home.

the neo-con platform is so frigged up!
 
we should be doing more than tax credits, but it's a start.

what we really need is an energy independence moonshot with the cooperation of a NASA-like entity and private corporations while removing barriers to new nuclear / renewable electrical infrastructure construction.
 
bases garrisoned on 120+ countries and we can't afford infrastructure improvements at home.

the neo-con platform is so frigged up!

shrug...

So tell your Congressman to start cutting spending, eh? That way they can afford to pay for every spending proposal Obama trots out.

But, if you tell your Congressman to implement this latest one...without first cutting spending...then you, sir, are part of the problem and you really have no business talking.
 
shrug...

So tell your Congressman to start cutting spending, eh? That way they can afford to pay for every spending proposal Obama trots out.

But, if you tell your Congressman to implement this latest one...without first cutting spending...then you, sir, are part of the problem and you really have no business talking.

I'm not asking for anymore spending increases, I want massive cuts, especially in overseas spending. My primary opposition in this regard are neo-cons, who are the real problem on the right.
 
bases garrisoned on 120+ countries and we can't afford infrastructure improvements at home.

the neo-con platform is so frigged up!

Defense is our highest priorty and constitutionaly specified. Infrastructure isnt. The neolib? priorities are so frigged up.
 
Defense is our highest priorty and constitutionaly specified. Infrastructure isnt. The neolib? priorities are so frigged up.

Standing Armies even on our soil have no basis in the constitution, but I'm talking about the standing armies that say, have been in Korea since the 50's with no end in sight.

We are no stronger for them being there.
 
I'm not asking for anymore spending increases, I want massive cuts, especially in overseas spending. My primary opposition in this regard are neo-cons, who are the real problem on the right.

Defense spending is only 20% of the budget. I have no problem cutting it, but why start with a critical efficient function? There no point discussing defense when any cuts wouldnt make a dent in the deficit.
 
Standing Armies even on our soil have no basis in the constitution, but I'm talking about the standing armies that say, have been in Korea since the 50's with no end in sight.

We are no stronger for them being there.

Sure they do.

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

Congress shall have the power...To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
 
I just think the entire green jobs thing is aimless. Throw some money here then throw some money there. I just don't see it going anywhere. It is not productive. I love the idea of alternative energy sources but some things cannot be forced before their time. I know we need to experiment but let's get a more focused.

Why do you think that? How familiar are you with the various projects funded and their feasibility? Are you an engineer? Can you give any specific examples?

Or is this just armchair quarterbacking by someone who hasn't even turned on the television?
 
Sure they do.

sigh. another neo-con with the libertarian lean.

you just outlined strict rules that would prevent us from keeping an Amry on foreign soil for the last 50 years.
 
Why do you think that? How familiar are you with the various projects funded and their feasibility? Are you an engineer? Can you give any specific examples?

Or is this just armchair quarterbacking by someone who hasn't even turned on the television?

It doesn't take an engineer to determine feasibility. It takes an economist. And when billions are spent by government for research, another $7500 or $10000/unit in buyers subsidies, and .60/gallon subsidy to render something profitable. The product is not economically feasible
 
sigh. another neo-con with the libertarian lean.

you just outlined strict rules that would prevent us from keeping an Amry on foreign soil for the last 50 years.

Sigh, another personal attack instead of a rebuttal. Moving on.
 
What's the difference between a tax cut and a tax credit? I thought Conservatives liked those?

LOL Are you forgetting the cardinal rule? "If the President wants it, it must be bad. Even if we used to support it it is bad now."
 
Sigh, another personal attack instead of a rebuttal. Moving on.

maybe one day, you will actually figure this line out: no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years
 
Defense is our highest priorty and constitutionaly specified. Infrastructure isnt. The neolib? priorities are so frigged up.


We are not in danger of being conquered. Funding policemen for the world is not in the Constitution. Infrastructure is essential for internal security and prosperity. Isn't funding for prosperity in our interests?
 
Defense spending is only 20% of the budget. I have no problem cutting it, but why start with a critical efficient function? There no point discussing defense when any cuts wouldnt make a dent in the deficit.

spending_2005_half.gif
 
maybe one day, you will actually figure this line out: no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years

The funding for military operations past two years is not done in bulk, but rather within the two year window a new appropriation is passed.
 
The funding for military operations past two years is not done in bulk, but rather within the two year window a new appropriation is passed.

I know how we conveniently got past the original intent of those limitations.

sickening to see libertarians play the game however.
 
It doesn't take an engineer to determine feasibility. It takes an economist. And when billions are spent by government for research, another $7500 or $10000/unit in buyers subsidies, and .60/gallon subsidy to render something profitable. The product is not economically feasible

That's true if direct exchange of money is your only measuring stick.
 
We are not in danger of being conquered. Funding policemen for the world is not in the Constitution. Infrastructure is essential for internal security and prosperity. Isn't funding for prosperity in our interests?

Its a valid argument to disagree with how congress goes about defending the country. Congress calls its military and defense, you call it police. Its also valid to argue infrastructure is essential to security (prosperity isnt in the constitution though). However, trying to directly connect a bridge in montana or an internet cable in wyomning as essential to national security is a stretch. An aircraft carrier or a military base is not. Which is why defense spending typically falls under defense, and infrastructure doesnt.

And its not about whats in our interests (as decided by the govt). Its about what is legally authorized, and creating prosperity is not. THe purpose of the USA is to protect lives and property and to ensure liberty and justice. Prosperity naturally flows through that, but its not the govt jobs to make it.
 
Back
Top Bottom