• 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!

Hating New Taxes I Get, but why Hate Green Energy?

I do not believe the government should subsidize any business, ever.

..what a thing to say.

So not only do you believe that the government shouldn't engage pioneer new developments in products or services (even ones which the private industry won't touch), but you wouldn't even be willing to support business who are willing to do these things either.

Also you'd be against the gov doing anything in transport, health care or any of the other services generally service millions of people (although not profitable) The UK and EU do many of these things but the people are very happy and the services generally do a good job.

If the results were better, it was cheaper and the people were happy, why on earth would you not want to do it other than for purely ideological reasons...?

Do you think the military should be privatized or something as well?
 
If the US cut its massively bloated defence budget by at least two thirds it would still have by far the largest military in the world and enough taxpayer revenue to have the best public healthcare system in the world too plus extra for a lot more besides

Armaments expenditures 2013 were more than the next 13 countries combined

View attachment 67196001

Its odd that the US taxpayer doesn't seem to mind this level of waste for the military yet screams bloody murder at the prospect of paying for universal healthcare :roll:


Couldn't agree more!
 
..what a thing to say.

So not only do you believe that the government shouldn't engage pioneer new developments in products or services (even ones which the private industry won't touch), but you wouldn't even be willing to support business who are willing to do these things either.

I see nothing wrong with his position. The government should not be assisting business develop new products or spending public funds to develop new products themselves.
 
NASA....

But did Solyndra kill anybody or am I missing something?

Sure money was wasted, but NASA could have been a waste of money too. In fact there are plenty of things NASA do, such as experiences, which turn out useless but they're done because they might help us all. And besides, we're now seeing private ventures into them. Even if the government starts something, it doesn't mean others can't compete later if it turns out to be a success, look at the US post office and now all the private delivery services. All I'm saying is why not let the government at least try, especially in the more new fields, sure it could have some risks but if they're onto something, boom!! A brand industry for jobs

Actually...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Express_Statutes

You can not directly compete against the postal service and business have been closed that violated such laws in the past.
 
I see nothing wrong with his position. The government should not be assisting business develop new products or spending public funds to develop new products themselves.

So what do you say to all those countries which are happy with their public health care, do you think that they should move towards the US instead.

What do you think about NASA, medicare and medicate, all should go?

What about building roads and maintaining parks?

Should the gov even have an army?
 
I can assure you, it certainly looks like a phobia to non American eyes, otherwise, you'd get you act together and have universal health care...instead of running for the hills at the mere mention of the public option. I feel sorry for all those people who die every year who don't have health care, go bankrupt because of help related issues or stick doing a job they hate because they won't have health care otherwise.

Maybe if people in the US wasn't so damn scared of the gov, they could make it do things which everyone likes

I honestly don't care what it, " looks like" to a foreigner. You have no idea what it's like dealing with the bumbling bureaucratic morons in Washington.
 
I see nothing wrong with his position. The government should not be assisting business develop new products or spending public funds to develop new products themselves.

One need only look at Germanys renewables fiasco to see where a governments idealogical overcommittment to useless renewables technologies can lead

800,000 households cut off last year because they could no longer pay their extortionately high subsidised green energy cost. A further 1.1 million households are expected to follow suit this year :(
 
Yes you can...you just won't make any money

Which isn't really a business, now is it? The government has always protected itself from competition and it will continue to do so going forward.
 
..what a thing to say.

So not only do you believe that the government shouldn't engage pioneer new developments in products or services (even ones which the private industry won't touch), but you wouldn't even be willing to support business who are willing to do these things either.

Also you'd be against the gov doing anything in transport, health care or any of the other services generally service millions of people (although not profitable) The UK and EU do many of these things but the people are very happy and the services generally do a good job.

If the results were better, it was cheaper and the people were happy, why on earth would you not want to do it other than for purely ideological reasons...?

Do you think the military should be privatized or something as well?
There really is no sense in reading past the first paragraph of your post. It is more than evident that you haven't a clue what you're talking about. I never said nor did I imply any of what you are implying. Have a nice day.
 
One need only look at Germanys renewables fiasco to see where a governments idealogical overcommittment to useless renewables technologies can lead

800,000 households cut off last year because they could no longer pay their extortionately high subsidised green energy cost. A further 1.1 million households are expected to follow suit this year :(

link please...Mostly I see people singing the praises of the Germans, the outages you speak of, ones every 4 years they say, and that's in more rural areas. Plus they have outages less frequently than most countries still
 
I see nothing wrong with his position. The government should not be assisting business develop new products or spending public funds to develop new products themselves.

The Government provides a very valuable service and assistance to these types of new industries. Previous investment from the government into private sector technologies has allowed for things like the internet, commercial flight, and new energy advancements.
 
There really is no sense in reading past the first paragraph of your post. It is more than evident that you haven't a clue what you're talking about. I never said nor did I imply any of what you are implying. Have a nice day.

You just said, "I do not believe the government should subsidize any business, ever."

So, it's a pretty reasonable stretch to take from that you don't believe the government should engage in pioneering new products or services or to support private industries attempting to achieve such as well. It's also a reasonable stretch to note that you wouldn't want government involvement in certain types of industries that historically require government assistance to remain viable, like healthcare and transportation.
 
link please...Mostly I see people singing the praises of the Germans, the outages you speak of, ones every 4 years they say, and that's in more rural areas

Ivory tower green idealism is no substitute for hard economic reality

The Germans launched into massively subsidised wind and solar power with power prices rising 80 per cent in real terms in little over a decade. Unable to pay skyrocketing power bills, 800,000 German households have been disconnected from the grid – with that number growing by 300,000 each year. In addition, almost 7 million German households are suffering “fuel poverty” – forced to choose between eating or heating.


Wind Power Costs send Germans back to the Stone Age ? STOP THESE THINGS

I really don't want our government to be emulating this misguided renewable model given we have already seen energy bills rise 37% in the last two years here already despite rock bottom crude prices.

This is not good :(

elelctricity-prices-relative-to-purchasing-power.jpg

Guess which of the above nations have the highest committment to renewables and these are 2011 figures ? The disparity is much worse now
 
Last edited:
So what do you say to all those countries which are happy with their public health care, do you think that they should move towards the US instead.

What do you think about NASA, medicare and medicate, all should go?

I think space exploring and welfare have nothing to do with the purpose of government.

What about building roads and maintaining parks?

Should the gov even have an army?

I don't even support the existence of the state. :2razz: However, since it's here and isn't going anywhere anytime soon, I'm opposed to them having a standing army, I'm opposed to them building roads, and I'm opposed to the government having ownership of any more property than they need to function.
 
I don't even support the existence of the state. :2razz: However, since it's here and isn't going anywhere anytime soon, I'm opposed to them having a standing army, I'm opposed to them building roads, and I'm opposed to the government having ownership of any more property than they need to function.

What you seem to be advocating is a return to the law of the jungle and the survival of the fittest.

Civilization replaced that quite some time ago now and most would certainly agree that that was a good thing too :wink:
 
There really is no sense in reading past the first paragraph of your post. It is more than evident that you haven't a clue what you're talking about. I never said nor did I imply any of what you are implying. Have a nice day.


Well sadly you seem to avoid actually answering my questions anyway so can't say I'll miss you. Although I perhaps shouldn't of stated what I said in the second paragraph, I'd be surprised if you denied or even addressed it anyway
 
NASA....But did Solyndra kill anybody or am I missing something? Sure money was wasted, but NASA could have been a waste of money too. In fact there are plenty of things NASA do, such as experiences, which turn out useless but they're done because they might help us all. And besides, we're now seeing private ventures into them. Even if the government starts something, it doesn't mean others can't compete later if it turns out to be a success, look at the US post office and now all the private delivery services. All I'm saying is why not let the government at least try, especially in the more new fields, sure it could have some risks but if they're onto something, boom!! A brand industry for jobs
No...Solyndra just pissed away tax dollars to reward political favors. The US budget for renewables this year is 46 billion. That doesnt take into account the DOE budget and its investment in renewables. The world budget is around 214 billion. Our spending is not inadequate...especially considering the overall limited return on investment.
 
I think space exploring and welfare have nothing to do with the purpose of government.



I don't even support the existence of the state. :2razz: However, since it's here and isn't going anywhere anytime soon, I'm opposed to them having a standing army, I'm opposed to them building roads, and I'm opposed to the government having ownership of any more property than they need to function.

Wow, do you realise what you believe would mean the death of millions probably billions of mostly poor people. And doesn't that bother you?
 
However, one thing I've noticed in this particular section of the site (Environment & Climate Issues) that there is huge group of people who not only deny climate change, but also any efforts which would combat the effects.
I am very active in that section. I do not deny climate change, and have only come across two or three who do. Most of us see climate change is real, but disagree that man's contribution is more than natures. If you wish to come across as someone with intelligence and sensibility, please make sure you see the nuances.

Now I understand why people wouldn't be happy with the carbon tax element which is usually pushed, but why push against the physical element to it? Such as building, wind farms, solar, tidal and alternative forms of energy, plus also things like coastal defenses, building regulations and other measures which would defend against a rising ocean.
I don't like wind or tidal but love the idea of solar and geothermal. Wind is ugly on the landscape and unpredictable. Then as it ages, the maintenance costs will get incredible. I am cautious about Tidal because I know so little about it, but suspect it isn't friendly with the larger sea life.

My problem is the subsidies used to build these green energies. Then specifically, in my area, they stopped building planned wind farms because the energy is wasted. Too much untimely power, and no infrastructure to move it to needed areas. Wind solar and tidal need fossil fuel standby power, which operates less efficient wile in standby. We need storage capability before expanding too much on alternate power.

What type of regulations would you use? I can only assume an authoritarian plot that forces people to spend more.
 
Wow, do you realise what you believe would mean the death of millions probably billions of mostly poor people. And doesn't that bother you?

I don't see why it would mean the death of anyone.
 
No...Solyndra just pissed away tax dollars to reward political favors. The US budget for renewables this year is 46 billion. That doesnt take into account the DOE budget and its investment in renewables. The world budget is around 214 billion. Our spending is not inadequate...especially considering the overall limited return on investment.

If your numbers are correct, that's seems like a fair and practical point
 
I am sort "old school" at 58. The gang of hooligans I hang out with at the golf course are all sort old school themselves. (50-80 years old) We love talking about, and sharing info on the new technologies that are out there. We see better things coming in the future. But, we also want to do it in a way that doesn't cost jobs, and doesn't need endless years of taxpayer subsidizing. If a product works, the people will use it.

That's what the alarmists and warmers don't seem to get, and why they are almost exclusively progressives and liberals.
 
I don't see why it would mean the death of anyone.

You do know that there are people dying in america today because of lack of health care don't you? If so just add all the children, old people, disabled people and poor people in the world to that
 
Interesting...assuming for a second climate change was true after all, what do you think should be done? I can't imagine that business would be willing to spend money on things which have no financial benefits to them.

Climate change is real. There is no assuming about it. First off, I don't think a little warming is a bad thing. More CO2 makes for healthier plants on earth. If we do wish to do anything about it, we first need to understand better how much impact we actually have. I contend that our impact is mostly from aerosols and land use. And the CO2 is a very, very small part of the change.

Would you give up your comfy home and move into a grass hut, so you don't live on a plot of land covered by concrete, asphalt, and a building?
 
Back
Top Bottom