What Are the Consequences of Obama Failing?

[SirJosephPorter]

Limbaugh has been criticizing the Republicans. Some Republicans responded by criticizing Limbaugh in return. Since their criticism was unfounded, they apologized. But that's hardly the scenario that you postulated, of them grovelling at his feet, being forced to apologize. THAT is what I want you to back up. I will conceed that when you described them as "grovelling" you were using hyperbole. Show me the forcing.

OK, so we pretty much agree as to what happened. Several Republican politicians criticized Limbaugh hand later apologized. Now you may think that their criticism of Limbaugh was unfounded (you come across as Limbaugh fan), I think they were quite justified.

And herein lies the difference. If the criticisms were unjustified, then there is nothing remarkable that they apologized. However, if the criticisms were justified (as I think they were), then their apologizing only means that they were forced to apologize. They realized that political price to pay for criticizing Limbaugh was just too big and if they want to keep their job (and not have a challenge in the primaries) they better apologize. To me, that is the same as being forced to apologize.

Any politician who has so much power in the Republican Party, who can make or break the politicians, is the de facto leader in my opinion.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Limbaugh has been criticizing the Republicans.

Extrafire, Limbaugh does not criticize Republicans in the same sense that he criticized Democrats. He criticizes Republicans because they re not being right wing enough. But he is a true party loyalist. He did support McCain enthusiastically, after a few initial reservations.

In spite of his occasional criticism of Republicans, he is a Republican politician himself (who masquerades as an entertainer).

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Explain please, how he forcibly took on the mantle of leadership.

That is simple, Extrafire (let us leave aside the de facto argument, I think we have argued it to death). By his incendiary, over the top rhetoric, he managed to rile up the extremist base of the party, who swarm like piranhas anybody who dares criticize Limbaugh. The base has made him de facto leader, nobody dares criticize him. He forcibly took on the mantle by sowing discord, division and dissension in the Party.

It is not for nothing that Democrats want to portray his as the leader. If a divisive, extremist figure like Limbaugh is identified as the Republican leader, that will ensure that Republicans stay out of power for a long time to come.

And I think it will be years before Republicans come back to power (my guess is 2014). Eventually Republican leadership will realize that letting Limbaugh be the leader is the surest way to cut their own throats, they will make room for moderates in their party (at present moderates are leaving the party in droves, senator Specter was only the tip of the iceberg) and that will be the time for Republican renewal.

But I don’t see that happening while Limbaugh is the de facto leader.

 

[Tonington]

Here's the article I was referring to:

The BBC ran an article this week titled “Acid oceans ‘need urgent action‘” based on the premise:

The world’s marine ecosystems risk being severely damaged by ocean acidification unless there are dramatic cuts in CO2 emissions, warn scientists.
​

This sounds very alarming, so being diligent researchers we should of course check the facts. The ocean currently has a pH of 8.1, which is alkaline not acid. In order to become acid, it would have to drop below 7.0. According to Wikipedia “Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.179 to 8.104.” At that rate, it will take another 3,500 years for the ocean to become even slightly acid. One also has to wonder how they measured the pH of the ocean to 4 decimal places in 1751, since the idea of pH wasn’t introduced until 1909.

Yes, I've read this before. It's not very convincing, except for the loons over at WUWT.

Acidification doesn't mean something has to already be an acid. It describes the water chemistry just fine, it is becoming more acidic. After all, the pH scale is measuring the H+ ions in an aqueous solution, and as the pH drops, you have more H+ ions. Of course the pH scale is logarithmic, so the difference between 8.14 and 8.25 is about 28.8% (10^8.25/10^8.14=1.28). Second, there will be huge problems before the ocean ever becomes acidic. It's an equilibrium problem. Check out this graph, and look at the CO3 ion, the carbonate ion that is so important to marine ecosystems.

At a pH of 8.14, the ocean is already low in carbonate, though the surface waters are still saturated. You add more H2CO3, that's carbonic acid, and the finely tuned balance that exists in nature between carbonate and bicarbonate (HCO3) very soon will be unbalanced, the equilibrium shifts more towards bicarbonate, and you no longer have enough carbonate, even when the surface waters are saturated with it. There will be not enough carbonate for shellfish, corals, diatoms, etc. to build/maintain their exo-skeletons.

And in regards to measuring pH, how do you know what the temperature was say 500 million years ago? They use proxies. If you know how much carbon dioxide is in the air, you can use equilibrium and air-ocean exchanges to estimate.

This does indeed sound alarming, until you consider that corals became common in the oceans during the Ordovician Era – nearly 500 million years ago – when atmospheric CO2 levels were about 10X greater than they are today. (One might also note in the graph below that there was an ice age during the late Ordovician and early Silurian with CO2 levels 10X higher than current levels, and the correlation between CO2 and temperature is essentially nil throughout the Phanerozoic.)

Except the Ordovician era didn't build up it's concentration in the atmosphere in less than two centuries. The deep ocean has time to mix when you have a building concentration over millions of years. When the ocean is well mixed, you don't have this problem. Our oceans today are not well mixed, and certainly would take millenia to come to an equilibrium if we stopped perturbing it today.

There seems to be no shortage of theories about how rising CO2 levels will destroy the planet, yet the geological record shows that life flourished for hundreds of millions of years with much higher CO2 levels and temperatures. This is a primary reason why there are so many skeptics in the geological community. At some point the theorists will have to start paying attention to empirical data.

Ahh, the classic idiotic reply. It's idiotic because it requires no thought, which is probably why the folks at WUWT liked it so much.

The shallow ocean corals that we have today evolved from deep sea corals. In the deep sea, where the waters essentially never mix with surface waters, the higher atmospheric carbon dioxide would not be as large a problem. It's only a problem when they move into shallow waters 40 million years ago, which happens when atmospheric carbon dioxide is less than 600 ppm.

If you really want to learn something, and aren't interested in just posting some crap you found that you think sounds smart, try reading these. I know you won't, but I'll post it here anyways. Maybe some others who stumble by this will want to learn what science is telling us.

Dynamic patterns and ecological impacts of declining
ocean pH in a high-resolution multi-year dataset

Southern Ocean acidification: A tipping point
at 450-ppm atmospheric CO2

Imminent ocean acidification in the Arctic projected with the NCAR
global coupled carbon cycle-climate model

Anthropogenic ocean acidification over
the twenty-first century and its impact on
calcifying organisms

 

[Extrafire]

OK, so we pretty much agree as to what happened. Several Republican politicians criticized Limbaugh hand later apologized. Now you may think that their criticism of Limbaugh was unfounded (you come across as Limbaugh fan), I think they were quite justified.

And herein lies the difference. If the criticisms were unjustified, then there is nothing remarkable that they apologized. However, if the criticisms were justified (as I think they were), then their apologizing only means that they were forced to apologize. They realized that political price to pay for criticizing Limbaugh was just too big and if they want to keep their job (and not have a challenge in the primaries) they better apologize. To me, that is the same as being forced to apologize.

Any politician who has so much power in the Republican Party, who can make or break the politicians, is the de facto leader in my opinion.

This is a de facto admission that you made it up. There was no forcing, you just twisted and invented things to interpret events the way you want them to be.

Once again you can't back up your claims. You're so pathetic.

 

[Extrafire]

Limbaugh has been criticizing the Republicans.

Extrafire, Limbaugh does not criticize Republicans in the same sense that he criticized Democrats. He criticizes Republicans because they re not being right wing enough.

Exactly, why else would he criticize them? Duh!

But he is a true party loyalist. He did support McCain enthusiastically, after a few initial reservations.

No he's no party loyalist. He's a true conservative. He chose the lesser of two evils. Far lesser.

In spite of his occasional criticism of Republicans, he is a Republican politician himself (who masquerades as an entertainer).

More invention from you to try to justify your claims. What tripe!

 

[Extrafire]

Explain please, how he forcibly took on the mantle of leadership.

That is simple, Extrafire (let us leave aside the de facto argument, I think we have argued it to death). By his incendiary, over the top rhetoric, he managed to rile up the extremist base of the party, who swarm like piranhas anybody who dares criticize Limbaugh. The base has made him de facto leader, nobody dares criticize him. He forcibly took on the mantle by sowing discord, division and dissension in the Party.

Repeating the same BS over and over will not make it true. Adding more and more BS to the pile will not make it true either. Give it up already!

It is not for nothing that Democrats want to portray his as the leader. If a divisive, extremist figure like Limbaugh is identified as the Republican leader, that will ensure that Republicans stay out of power for a long time to come.

Well at least you're finally admitting that his "leadership" is an invention of the Democrats.

And I think it will be years before Republicans come back to power (my guess is 2014). Eventually Republican leadership will realize that letting Limbaugh be the leader is the surest way to cut their own throats, they will make room for moderates in their party (at present moderates are leaving the party in droves, senator Specter was only the tip of the iceberg) and that will be the time for Republican renewal.

But I don’t see that happening while Limbaugh is the de facto leader.

He isn't their leader, de facto or otherwise, as well you know. Democrats saying so doesn't make it so. Who do you think you're convincing? Give it up already.

 

[Extrafire]

Yes, I've read this before. It's not very convincing, except for the loons over at WUWT.

Acidification doesn't mean something has to already be an acid. It describes the water chemistry just fine, it is becoming more acidic. After all, the pH scale is measuring the H+ ions in an aqueous solution, and as the pH drops, you have more H+ ions. Of course the pH scale is logarithmic, so the difference between 8.14 and 8.25 is about 28.8% (10^8.25/10^8.14=1.28). Second, there will be huge problems before the ocean ever becomes acidic. It's an equilibrium problem. Check out this graph, and look at the CO3 ion, the carbonate ion that is so important to marine ecosystems.

At a pH of 8.14, the ocean is already low in carbonate, though the surface waters are still saturated. You add more H2CO3, that's carbonic acid, and the finely tuned balance that exists in nature between carbonate and bicarbonate (HCO3) very soon will be unbalanced, the equilibrium shifts more towards bicarbonate, and you no longer have enough carbonate, even when the surface waters are saturated with it. There will be not enough carbonate for shellfish, corals, diatoms, etc. to build/maintain their exo-skeletons.

And in regards to measuring pH, how do you know what the temperature was say 500 million years ago? They use proxies. If you know how much carbon dioxide is in the air, you can use equilibrium and air-ocean exchanges to estimate.



Except the Ordovician era didn't build up it's concentration in the atmosphere in less than two centuries. The deep ocean has time to mix when you have a building concentration over millions of years. When the ocean is well mixed, you don't have this problem. Our oceans today are not well mixed, and certainly would take millenia to come to an equilibrium if we stopped perturbing it today.

Ahh, the classic idiotic reply. It's idiotic because it requires no thought, which is probably why the folks at WUWT liked it so much.

The shallow ocean corals that we have today evolved from deep sea corals. In the deep sea, where the waters essentially never mix with surface waters, the higher atmospheric carbon dioxide would not be as large a problem. It's only a problem when they move into shallow waters 40 million years ago, which happens when atmospheric carbon dioxide is less than 600 ppm.

If you really want to learn something, and aren't interested in just posting some crap you found that you think sounds smart, try reading these. I know you won't, but I'll post it here anyways. Maybe some others who stumble by this will want to learn what science is telling us.

Dynamic patterns and ecological impacts of declining
ocean pH in a high-resolution multi-year dataset

Southern Ocean acidification: A tipping point
at 450-ppm atmospheric CO2

Imminent ocean acidification in the Arctic projected with the NCAR
global coupled carbon cycle-climate model

Anthropogenic ocean acidification over
the twenty-first century and its impact on
calcifying organisms

As usual, you cherry pick the data and reports to suit your purpose. Not to mentiion your confused attempts to explain in your own words. What's the point of talking to you? :roll:

 

[Cannuck]

This is a de facto admission that you made it up. There was no forcing, you just twisted and invented things to interpret events the way you want them to be.

Once again you can't back up your claims. You're so pathetic.

I think Joey's problem is that he takes event completely out of context and he over simplifies it. Politicians apologize all the time for fear that they have offended "somebody"...and it's not just politicians. I've lost count of how many times some public figure has apologized for something that somebody deemed offensive, derogatory, politically incorrect or just plain politically hot. Whether it was Democrat Harry Reid apologizing for being too hard on Republicans, Mel Gibson for his rant against the Joos or Liberal Scott Reid and his beer and popcorn comments, I don't read near as much into apologies as Joey. Attacking Rush probably didn't get them any support and it probably lost them support. Apologizing was a vote getter at best and a money getter at the very least. That has more top do with the voting public and the political system than Joey's perceived "Rush Power".

 

[Extrafire]

Getting back to the topic of this thread (and ignoring the SJP myths that Republicans want a depression and Limbaugh is their leader) I'll address the matter of Obama's economic incentives. At this time I will also ignore his socialist objectives and focus on the likelyhood of economic recovery or collapse.

There are those who fear that no matter what Obama does at this point, he can't stop a depression. I fear they may be correct.

YouTube - Gerald Celente on Fox and Friends The Greatest Depression 31 May 2009

But as bad as the fiscal picture is, panic-driven monetary policies portend to have even more dire consequences. We can expect rapidly rising prices and much, much higher interest rates over the next four or five years, and a concomitant deleterious impact on output and employment not unlike the late 1970s.

About eight months ago, starting in early September 2008, the Bernanke Fed did an abrupt about-face and radically increased the monetary base -- which is comprised of currency in circulation, member bank reserves held at the Fed, and vault cash -- by a little less than $1 trillion. The Fed controls the monetary base 100% and does so by purchasing and selling assets in the open market. By such a radical move, the Fed signaled a 180-degree shift in its focus from an anti-inflation position to an anti-deflation position.

The percentage increase in the monetary base is the largest increase in the past 50 years by a factor of 10 (see chart nearby). It is so far outside the realm of our prior experiential base that historical comparisons are rendered difficult if not meaningless. The currency-in-circulation component of the monetary base -- which prior to the expansion had comprised 95% of the monetary base -- has risen by a little less than 10%, while bank reserves have increased almost 20-fold. Now the currency-in-circulation component of the monetary base is a smidgen less than 50% of the monetary base. Yikes!

Get Ready for Inflation and Higher Interest Rates - WSJ.com

 

[Extrafire]

This person has an interesting theory that may shed some light of why Obama's economic policies are the way they are. And maybe why they will make the situtation worse.

Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage." Disraeli
_______________________________________________________________


Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law, St. Paul , Minnesota , points out some interesting facts concerning the Presidential election:

* Number of States won by: Democrats: 19 Republicans: 29
* Square miles of land won by: Democrats: 580,000 Republicans: 2,427,000
* Population of counties won by: Democrats: 127 million Republicans: 143 million
* Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Democrats: 13.2 Republicans: 2.1

Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Republicans won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country.

Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare..."
Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the "complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.
If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegals and they vote, then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.

Hello Birdy: R. I. P. USA

 

[Extrafire]

Political interference in the capitalist economy is a no-no. The market must be free to choose its own way.

More evidence emerges that Chrysler Dealer closings was politically motivated
Rick Moran
I wrote yesterday of the possibility that Chrysler dealers who had been given the ax were disproportionately Republican - many of them large contributors to GOP candidates and the RNC.

Now comes more evidence that these dealer closings were politically motivated. Through Reliapundit at Astute Bloggers, we learn that the lawyer for the dealers being torpedoed believes that the closings were ordered not by Chrysler, but by the White House: (via Reuters )


A lawyer for Chrysler dealers facing closure as part of the automaker's bankruptcy reorganization said on Tuesday he believes Chrysler executives do not support a plan to eliminate a quarter of its retail outlets.
Lawyer Leonard Bellavia, of Bellavia Gentile & Associates, who represents some of the terminated dealers, said he deposed Chrysler President Jim Press on Tuesday and came away with the impression that Press did not support the plan.

"It became clear to us that Chrysler does not see the wisdom of terminating 25 percent of its dealers," Bellavia said. "It really wasn't Chrysler's decision. They are under enormous pressure from the President's automotive task force."

The dealer closings were not ordered by the bankruptcy judge but by the White House. This puts a whole new light on how the dealers to be closed were chosen and, more importantly, who did it.

And Jim Hoft has found an incredible piece of information. Apparently, a politically connected group of Democrats who own six Chrysler dealerships not only were allowed to keep them, but their competition was deep sixed. Hoft has a link to a blog on the Chrysler dealer shutdowns run by Joey Smith who reports:

The company is called RLJ-McLarty-Landers, and it operates six Chrysler dealerships throughout the South. All six dealerships are safe from closing. The dealer locations are:

Bentonville, AR (northwest Arkansas)
Lee's Summit, MO (south of Kansas City, MO)
Branson, MO
Olathe, KS (near Kansas City)
Bossier City, LA (near Shreveport)
Huntsville, AL

The interesting part is who the three main owners of the company are. The owners are Steve Landers (long-time car dealer, 4th-generation dealer), Thomas "Mack" McLarty (former Chief of Staff for President Clinton), and Robert Johnson (founder of Black Entertainment Television and co-owner of the NBA's Charlotte Bobcats). Landers has given money to Republicans in the past, but McLarty campaigned for Obama in 2008, and Johnson has given countless amounts of money to Democrats over the years.


This thing is getting stinkier by the hour. And it's starting to smell like rotten bananas - as in the tactic the White House is using is something you'd find in a central American banana republic and not the greatest nation on earth.

I wrote a piece on my own blog a while back when Chrysler dealer George Joseph wrote a letter published on AT about his own troubles with being shut down. In that piece, I made the argument that what we were seeing was not socialism, but gangsterism. And how did it happen?

It can happen because we are barking up the wrong tree when we accuse the Democrats of practicing socialism. Any Chicagoan recognizes what's going on as pure gangsterism - the application of power through the use blackmail, threats, and pure muscle and the devil take the Constitution, the rule of law, and simple fairness.

It can happen because we've elected a president who aggrandizes power unto himself while running roughshod over individual rights.

This story is about ready to explode. All the ingredients are there for a gigantic political scandal that would shake the Obama administration to its foundation and perhaps take down several high ranking officials. All that's needed is one connecting piece of evidence that would tie the White House Automotive Task Force to some political arm of the Democratic party.

American Thinker Blog: More evidence emerges that Chrysler Dealer closings was politically motivated

 

[gopher]

''Political interference in the capitalist economy is a no-no. The market must be free to choose its own way.''

If so, why didn't anyone on this board object when Bush came up with his three stimulus bills?

 

[Extrafire]

Because government has a terrible track record of choosing winners and losers when it comes to economics.

Letter from a Dodge dealer

letter to the editor

My name is George C. Joseph. I am the sole owner of Sunshine Dodge-Isuzu, a family owned and operated business in Melbourne, Florida. My family bought and paid for this automobile franchise 35 years ago in 1974. I am the second generation to manage this business.


We currently employ 50+ people and before the economic slowdown we employed over 70 local people. We are active in the community and the local chamber of commerce. We deal with several dozen local vendors on a day to day basis and many more during a month. All depend on our business for part of their livelihood. We are financially strong with great respect in the market place and community. We have strong local presence and stability.


I work every day the store is open, nine to ten hours a day. I know most of our customers and all our employees. Sunshine Dodge is my life.


On Thursday, May 14, 2009 I was notified that my Dodge franchise, that we purchased, will be taken away from my family on June 9, 2009 without compensation and given to another dealer at no cost to them. My new vehicle inventory consists of 125 vehicles with a financed balance of 3 million dollars. This inventory becomes impossible to sell with no factory incentives beyond June 9, 2009. Without the Dodge franchise we can no longer sell a new Dodge as "new," nor will we be able to do any warranty service work. Additionally, my Dodge parts inventory, (approximately $300,000.) is virtually worthless without the ability to perform warranty service. There is no offer from Chrysler to buy back the vehicles or parts inventory.


Our facility was recently totally renovated at Chrysler's insistence, incurring a multi-million dollar debt in the form of a mortgage at Sun Trust Bank.


HOW IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CAN THIS HAPPEN?


THIS IS A PRIVATE BUSINESS NOT A GOVERNMENT ENTITY


This is beyond imagination! My business is being stolen from me through NO FAULT OF OUR OWN. We did NOTHING wrong.


This atrocity will most likely force my family into bankruptcy. This will also cause our 50+ employees to be unemployed. How will they provide for their families? This is a total economic disaster.


HOW CAN THIS HAPPEN IN A FREE MARKET ECONOMY IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?


I beseech your help, and look forward to your reply. Thank you.


Sincerely,



George C. Joseph
President & Owner
Sunshine Dodge-Isuzu

American Thinker Blog: Letter from a Dodge dealer

 

[Extrafire]

And if that isn't enough, now Obama and his Democrats want to really hammer the economy with carbon taxes. You'd think they could take a lesson from someone who's gone before them:

California: Harbinger of National Doom?

If you were given the perfect country, could you mess it up as bad as California? Begin with fertile, productive, well-irrigated soils capable of growing just about anything. Add vast agricultural tracts and miles upon miles of wine country with lush, bountiful vineyards. Include majestic mountain ranges containing rich deposits of gold, silver and other useful metals, and covered with thick, immense forests with every type of timber imaginable. Toss in critical navigable rivers to move these resources to market. Insert vast oil and natural gas deposits while you are at it, along with wind, water, geothermal and solar resources. Give it a long coastline with beautiful beaches, plentiful fresh water, ocean fisheries, many natural harbors, a well-connected transportation grid with first-class roads, rails and airports too. Don’t forget universities at the cutting edge of technology and an unparalleled educational system.

Bestow all the natural building blocks necessary for a well-balanced, diversified, leading economy that is virtually guaranteed to bring unparalleled prosperity to your people—a smorgasbord of natural blessings. Then on top of it all, throw in days spent skiing at sunrise on Lake Tahoe and swimming at sunset in San Francisco the same day. This is the Golden State.

Yet California is imploding. And it is dragging the rest of the country with it.

California is home to America’s leading manufacturing belt, the nation’s largest high-tech center (Silicon Valley), and one of its most productive agricultural areas (the Central Valley). As a stand-alone economy, it is bigger than Canada, Brazil, India and even Russia. It is also the most populous state, with one in eight Americans calling California home.

But just look at the next headline you see that says “California.” Whether it’s an article on finance, economics, government, crime, morals or some other subject, the glaring question is: What went wrong?


[...]

A crisis of another sort is strangling Californian industries. California has some of the most progressive environmental laws in the world. It needs environmental laws, because vast swaths of the state are a polluted mess.

However, misdirected and poorly timed environmentalism is also inhibiting job growth and sending jobs out of state—as well as out of country.

The New York Times reports that Californian businesses are being slammed by new requirements to curb carbon dioxide emissions at a time when they are already struggling to survive in a very tough economy. In 2006, the state passed laws to curb carbon dioxide emissions from all economic sectors, including transportation, manufacturing and real-estate development. The result: People are paying more to travel and make purchases, manufacturers are moving out of state or to places like China (taking jobs with them), and just look at the real-estate industry.

CalPortland’s formerly profitable Mount Slover limestone cement facility is a powerful example. The state of California says the company must reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 12 percent per ton of cement. The company estimates that to retrofit its operations will cost in excess of $220 million—for just one plant. But there is not nearly enough limestone in its quarry to justify such an expense. The result is that the plant, which has produced cement for over 100 years, will probably be shut down. People will be laid off, and the state will take a tax revenue hit. Future shipments of cement will probably be imported from Mexico.

Every manufacturer across the state will be subject to what is essentially a massive carbon tax. So multiply CalPortland’s problems by the thousands.

On June 18, the New York Times gave another example of environmental activism gone awry. Apparently, unions are exploiting environmental laws to blackmail companies into signing labor agreements and becoming unionized. The latest developments in this regard are taking place in the solar energy field.

To reduce California’s dependence on polluting-but-inexpensive fossil fuels, which it has in abundance, state legislators decided they would promote solar power plant construction. However, an unpredicted turn of events has resulted. Laws designed to protect the environment are being used to hold up projects designed to help the environment. How so? California’s giant worker unions want a foot in the door.

If a company proposes to build a plant, but does not agree to be unionized, unions inundate the company with demands to study the effect of their proposed project on all kinds of endangered creatures, from the short-nosed kangaroo rat to the Delhi Sands flower-loving fly. The studies add hundreds of thousands of dollars and years of delay to a development plan—if the plans pass at all, since the unions are sure to produce their own scientists at public hearings.

Not only are Californians forced to pay the higher cost of solar energy, but they are forced to pay the higher cost of union labor when the plants are constructed and operated. The unions get their plants and union jobs, or else Californians get no jobs at all.

All this environmental regulation and strangulation couldn’t come at a much worse time for California.

California: Harbinger of National Doom? | Columns | theTrumpet.com

Given that the average American household debt is over $600,000 (and growing) (combined personal and government obligations), not to mention unfunded government liabililties, how can they recover? How can they avoid depression? By spending $trillions? Printing $trillions? Massive inflation?

It could get real ugly before it gets better.

 

[Cannuck]

If so, why didn't anyone on this board object when Bush came up with his three stimulus bills?

Where have you been? I would say that those against the stimulus bills outnumbered those for.

 

[gopher]

And what would anybody on this forum suggest to fix the mess created by Bush. Give me specific solutions, not Republican propaganda.

 

[gopher]

''Where have you been? I would say that those against the stimulus bills outnumbered those for.''


Only a little. Certainly not to the extent made against Obama's actions.

 

[Cannuck]

The mess wasn't created by Bush. It's been in the works for some time now. Until you can wrap your ideological head around that simple reality, there really isn't much to discuss.

 

[Cannuck]

Certainly not to the extent made against Obama's actions.

Probably because Obama's actions are worse and the extent of the problem is becoming clearer.