Environmentalism is an aristocratic movement of those that have gotten theirs, so they no longer need industrial progress to maintain their life of leisure.

Environmentalism IS industrial progress - creating more with less.

quote:

Originally posted by Dr Chango:
Environmentalism IS industrial progress - creating more with less.

Like Obama's boon-doggles? Solyndra is emptying their stock into dumpsters. Maybe you meant, waste a lot to waste a lot?

Solyndra was one investment in a very successful portfolio, and it was selected by an independent board - not Obama.

quote:

Originally posted by Dr Chango:
Solyndra was one investment in a very successful portfolio, and it was selected by an independent board - not Obama.

"very successful portfolio"?

quote:

According to one analysis, at least 12 clean energy companies “are having trouble after collectively being approved for more than $6.5 billion in federal assistance.”

"not Obama"

Of course, with Obama everything is always someone elses fault.

http://news.investors.com/Arti...tmare.htm?src=IBDDAE

Its almost like the whole thing was just another scam to bleed taxpayer money to Obama's cronies or somethin'.

Solyndra is just 3.4% of the DOE's solar portfolio and 2% of the total loan guarantee program. Overall, the program is a success, but it wasn't designed to make a profit. It's an investment in the future - one of the best things Bush ever did.

quote:

Originally posted by Dr Chango:
Solyndra is just 3.4% of the DOE's solar portfolio and 2% of the total loan guarantee program. Overall, the program is a success, but it wasn't designed to make a profit. It's an investment in the future - one of the best things Bush ever did.

DOE has $14,705,882,352 invested in Solar?

quote:

12 clean energy companies “are having trouble after collectively being approved for more than $6.5 billion in federal assistance.

You state: "Overall, the program is a success"

With nearly half either failed or in trouble? Obama doesn't appear to be any better at this than anything else he attempts.

Maybe Obama considers that failure rate acceptable, because he is risking our money and not his own?

I hate to admit it, but if Bush's overall program breaks even, it's a raging success. If it loses just a little, which is likely, it will have been a good investment in the future.

 
Name calling.
          "... Chango-Crap"

*CJ

The DOE has spent or conditionally committed $15.5 million to solar investments. Solyndra is 3.4% of that, and less than 2% of the total.

It's irrational to judge Bush's whole program on one bad investment.

Wasn't the topic the Keystone Pipeline?

Deceive, distort and DIVERT.

 
Name calling.
          "... Chango-Crap"

*CJ

Spent or committed.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...d-the_b_1223262.html

Sometimes it's nice to see a thoughtful article rather than sound bites.

quote:

Originally posted by JohnT:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...d-the_b_1223262.html

Sometimes it's nice to see a thoughtful article rather than sound bites.

Good article, John... thanks for posting it.

quote:

... The war between the communists and the capitalists has ended and... both sides have won. There is a broad consensus on the need for a mixed economy.

Successful capitalist states like the U.S. require a large, consumer-oriented middle class, and until recently our middle class was growing. Enlightened capitalists see the danger of poverty in the midst of great wealth. That is why extreme poverty is minimized by a social safety net that has been built to assure political stability. Capitalists need consumers and poor people can't buy things. Socialists, like those in "Red" China have learned the importance of private property and individual reward. Today, the commies have stock options and the capitalists have come to terms with the need for a safety net. ...

The real issue that we need to engage in is a debate about the extent and strategic direction of government involvement in the economy, not the necessity of that involvement. ... A political system that overtaxes income and profits can discourage risk-taking and entrepreneurship. A system that discourages work by providing too many entitlements can destroy the work ethic. These are not trivial concerns, but there is another side to the story: First, a society that impoverishes workers and does not allow wage earners to join the middle class will find that too few people can buy the goods and services produced by that society. Second, a society that under-taxes itself will be unable to generate the resources to make long-term investments in infrastructure and basic knowledge. Finally, a society that provides no help or economic mobility to its poor while allowing its wealthy to avoid taxation loses the moral standing needed to encourage public service and sacrifice in the public interest.

Amen, sir... amen.

*CJ