America Decides 2012

[Balthagor]

That's a gross oversimplification. Republicans, in general, prefer small government and free markets. I think you can say they believe in respecting the right of each to have what they have and earn. You can't claim all Republicans are _____ without letting others label other groups as they please.

[Col_Travis]

The US is in for a world of hurt should obama win again

Looking at both candidates i'm pretty sure this is true regardless of who wins. That being said I personally feel that Obama is the lesser of 2 evils.(but will most likely throw my vote at whatever 3rd party candidate is on the ballot like i do every year)

Too bad the majority of the American population won't do this when it comes to a third party candidate.

[Col_Travis]

Romney will be fully occupied pushing things back to a center ground,to accomplish any major push into the right.And he'll have to fight congress most of the way to the center.

On the very positive side,under romney the US would see a huge increase of jobs just due to carbon fuel industry growth.Coal, gas,and oil industries will very likely get green lights on many projects that will create a huge flood of jobs and substantially boost the countries exports of such.

Meaning more money flowing into the country, more money staying in the country,and many more people who want to work having the chance.North Dakota right now is a prime example of how things will improve country wide.Starting pay for many fast food workers in N.D. is now about $15 a hour.$25 a hour for waiters and waitresses.And average oil company new hires about $70k a year.And you can still right now get a same day hire job there for the oil companies.N.D. had a 2.9% unemployment rate in july.

Chemist, geologist who? Your looking at an industry that doesn't hire people off the streets like McDonalds. You need the proper education and training to do most of the jobs in the petrochemical industry. Most people who are qualified to work in this industry are already working in it, are we going to call back retiries? Those who are graduating college and tech schools with the proper skills have already been hired before they graduate. I work in this industry and what you'er talking about wont make a dent in the unemploment numbers at all!

[Chesehead]

Romney will be fully occupied pushing things back to a center ground,to accomplish any major push into the right.And he'll have to fight congress most of the way to the center.

On the very positive side,under romney the US would see a huge increase of jobs just due to carbon fuel industry growth.Coal, gas,and oil industries will very likely get green lights on many projects that will create a huge flood of jobs and substantially boost the countries exports of such.

Meaning more money flowing into the country, more money staying in the country,and many more people who want to work having the chance.North Dakota right now is a prime example of how things will improve country wide.Starting pay for many fast food workers in N.D. is now about $15 a hour.$25 a hour for waiters and waitresses.And average oil company new hires about $70k a year.And you can still right now get a same day hire job there for the oil companies.N.D. had a 2.9% unemployment rate in july.

Chemist, geologist who? Your looking at an industry that doesn't hire people off the streets like McDonalds. You need the proper education and training to do most of the jobs in the petrochemical industry. Most people who are qualified to work in this industry are already working in it, are we going to call back retiries? Those who are graduating college and tech schools with the proper skills have already been hired before they graduate. I work in this industry and what you'er talking about wont make a dent in the unemploment numbers at all!

They still hire out a lot of unskilled labor to do the grunt work and actually build the well. I know high school dropouts in Alaska that can go up to the North slope and pull in 100K no problem. The oil industry also trickles down where even the waiters and strippers make a lot of money of the workers.

[Hullu Hevonen]

would not say there are any unscilled labour, you simply have to know where to assign who, where their skilles will be of most effect. Romney would only be another Obama, not really getting much done, bikiering with congres or the house. Romney would try to reverse much of the little Obama has manage to do. Thats not progress. US really needs a third party, not maybe so strong, but still strong enough to prevent one party dominating the Congress or House.

Though I don't think US will 'decide' to put a third party into the power play. By European standards, both the Dems and Reps are quite close to each other on the political scale, after all they originated from the same Democratic-Republican Party.

[elmonstruo]

That's a gross oversimplification. Republicans, in general, prefer small government and free markets. I think you can say they believe in respecting the right of each to have what they have and earn. You can't claim all Republicans are _____ without letting others label other groups as they please.

maybe ur right but i still dont trust the republican party

[fool]

That's a gross oversimplification. Republicans, in general, prefer small government and free markets. I think you can say they believe in respecting the right of each to have what they have and earn. You can't claim all Republicans are _____ without letting others label other groups as they please.

That's the story anyway, but as far as I can see Republicans are far from card-carrying liberals, even if they do have a few in their ranks.

[tkobo]

They still hire out a lot of unskilled labor to do the grunt work and actually build the well. I know high school dropouts in Alaska that can go up to the North slope and pull in 100K no problem. The oil industry also trickles down where even the waiters and strippers make a lot of money of the workers.

Exactly.Paid training is very common right now for these jobs.There are now even websites that do nothing but track and post the job openings in north dakota.
Right now, you can get a walk on hire for :

* Pipeline jobs
* Oil and gas jobs
* Riggers
* Linemen
* Oil field job
* Offshore jobs

People with experience will definitely have a leg up,but the shortage is so large they are begging for people regardless of exp.

Fistalis , it doesnt look like you have a clue on the subsidies oils and energy companies get.There will be no huge increase in "government spending" for oil, because by far the greater bulk of oil subsidies are tax oriented.With by far the largest of those being a rule that lets such companies use certain expenses in the year they are accrued,rather then waiting til the year after.

The difference between obama and romney on this is HUGE.Romney wont piss away anywhere near the amount of government money on crack pot boondoggles like:

*Solar Trust of America- bankrupt
*Bright Source -heading to bankruptcy
*Solyndra -bankrupt
*LSP Energy - in bankruptcy proceedings
*Energy Conversion Devices - in bankruptcy proceedings
*Abound Solar - in bankruptcy proceedings
*SunPower - on its way to bankruptcy
*Beacon Power - bankrupt
*Ecotality - on its way to bankruptcy
*A123 Solar - in bankruptcy proceedings
*UniSolar - failing fast,but still held up by government funds
*Azure Dynamics - in bankruptcy proceedings
*Evergreen Solar - in bankruptcy proceedings
*Ener1 - in bankruptcy proceedings
etc...

Theres roughly 300 examples of this on obamas ledger .With more than $10 bil pissed away so far.

[Col_Travis]

That's a gross oversimplification. Republicans, in general, prefer small government and free markets. I think you can say they believe in respecting the right of each to have what they have and earn. You can't claim all Republicans are _____ without letting others label other groups as they please.

That's the story anyway, but as far as I can see Republicans are far from card-carrying liberals, even if they do have a few in their ranks.

Unfortunatly, both the Republicans and Democrats tend to catter to the 'Lunatic Fringe' and not the Center.

[The Khan]

[Fistalis]

Fistalis , it doesnt look like you have a clue on the subsidies oils and energy companies get.There will be no huge increase in "government spending" for oil, because by far the greater bulk of oil subsidies are tax oriented.With by far the largest of those being a rule that lets such companies use certain expenses in the year they are accrued,rather then waiting til the year after.

Now you're just splitting hairs. Fundamentally it doesn't matter if its a "reduction in revenue" due to subsidies or an "increase in spending". Its the same thing, more tax payer money going to oil companies. As to Obama/romney being any different, you're ignoring that the overall policy is the same, the only difference is in which private corporations they wanna pump tax dollars into. Its corporate socialism no matter who you vote for. Solar subsidies work the exact same way as oil subsidies, they are no different. With the Bulk being Tax based.

Funny how you try to spin solar subsidies as obama wasting money and at the same time claim that the exact same type of subsidies for oil don't count as "spending money". Which one is it? Are tax based subsides spending tax payer dollars or not? You can't have it both ways and try to define it by whichever suits your purpose.

[Balthagor]

...chuckle...

[Hullu Hevonen]

Just a note, socialism is not only subsides, allmost of the political spectrum support subsides of some sort in some area.

From what you read in the news, it's Reps and Dems this or that, what about the rest of the political spectrum? or you read about people complaining about the US gov. Where's the rest, do Americans only have 2ish opinions?

[tkobo]

your wrong,hugely so.

When the government hands out money its taken in, and gets nothing of value for it,like all the "green" job companies folding up...its just money pissed away.Thats money taken in, and then throw away.

When the government chooses to NOT take in money,in an effort to support a company that actually produces a product ,provides tons of stable jobs,and a huge amount of tax income for said country,it cant piss the money away,because of course it didnt ever have in in its psossesion to do so with.It will probably piss other money away though, just to make up for it.

See, that was very easy to understand.I understand subsidies are difficult to understand,and that their workings evade many who actually put an effort into understanding them, let alone those who just spout whats germinated in their head from the last pundit they listened to for a few minutes....But the difference between throwing away money you have collected, and not collecting the money and pissing it away is rather simple to understand.

In the one case (a) the government takes money from a source.In the other (b) it allows the source to keep its money.In the one case (a),it then wastefully pisses away the money.In the other case (b),it cant wastefully piss away the money,because it hasnt collected the money.

if you need a real life example.I have a paypal account.You can be "test subject" zero,you can pretend i am the government and i have just requested you give me $1k.Once you send me that money, ill piss it away frivolously.For instance,ill use the money i took from you to hire an employee who doesnt do his job.i can find one very close....in other words,ill take money from one place, redistribute it as i see fit ,thru a subsidy in which i pay out the money i took.

Then we'll pick someone else from the forum,they will be test subject 1, and i wont request $1k from them.We'll consider his none requirement to pay, a subsidy for him from me.And then, since i havent actually taken any money from him, i wont piss it away.

We'll see which course works out best for each of you.And of course the difference between a subsidy in which actual money is payed out, and one in which money is NOT paid out.

By the way,to help you a bit.....
Largest energy subsidy in the US is the Foreign tax credit.most companies that pay taxes in more than one country can claim this.This type of subsidy requires NO cash payout on the governments part.

Next is the tax credit for production of non-conventional fuels.Again,NO cash payout required here.

Next is expensing of exploration and R&D costs.This is another tax adjustment subsidy,that involves NO cash outlay from the government.

These three subsidy types, apply to nuclear,fossil and green energy.And are very different than the cash give aways obama is doing with various green energy projects.

In fact, in 2011 the federal government applied about $24 billion in energy subsidies.Renewable energy and energy efficiency accounted for $16 billion of the federal support,at least $6 bil of which were cash handouts to green energy companies (with about an additional $4bil in loan guaranties,which become cash handouts when the companies fold bringing the total to about $10bil) according to the Congressional Budget Office, while the fossil-fuel industry received circa $2.5 billion in tax breaks and no cash handouts.Nuclear of course made up some of the remaining balance.

And the result,fossil and nuclear continues to produce their much need energy products,and green energy continued its long string of failures and bankruptcies.

[Fistalis]

In fact, in 2011 the federal government applied about $24 billion in energy subsidies.Renewable energy and energy efficiency accounted for $16 billion of the federal support,at least $6 bil of which were cash handouts to green energy companies (with about an additional $4bil in loan guaranties,which become cash handouts when the companies fold bringing the total to about $10bil) according to the Congressional Budget Office, while the fossil-fuel industry received circa $2.5 billion in tax breaks and no cash handouts.Nuclear of course made up some of the remaining balance.

So you're suggesting that oil companies don't receive loan guaranties as well? lol Seriously you need to get your facts straight. A loan guarantee system as been in place for oil and natural gas producers since 1999 as a matter of fact loan guarantees were available for up to 80% of the cost of the alaska pipeline. Again its not different, both industries receive tax breaks and loan guaranties. And no matter how you dice it its tax payer money going to companies whether they defer a tax or directly give it to them.

Attempting to portray one Corporate give away as good and another as a horrible use of tax payer dollars is just hypocritical. We shouldn't be subsidizing either, but if were going to subsidize one, we should subsidize other forms in order to not skew the market in favor of one particular form of energy.

I'm always amazed when people who supposedly support free market systems wish to skew the market by removing subsidies for competition while removing regulation on the biggest market holders. Like Mr. Romneys plan proposes.

Now personally I'm not fond of Obama's either.(i don't think we should be subsidizing industries at all) But at least his method keeps an almost equal playing field between the different energy producers. Both receive the exact same types of subsidies. Tax breaks, loan guarantees etc. While more is spent on Green at least hes not attempting to remove subsidies all together for one while reducing regulation on the other.