Anyone got $50billion to loan Obama?

[PadreBrian]

Yeah, it’s more of a political move to help the states losing manufacturing jobs. He knows 50B won’t do shit.

The economy isn’t that bad.
What needs to be fixed:

Stop the falling dollar by stopping inflation….up the intrest rate a tad, and START spending less!…ie having Iraq pickup the yearly tab for defense. Stop costly illegal immigration by fining employers who break the law.

STOP the 100% tax deduction for US corporations for foreign offices (stops the out-sourcing…costing jobs). Yank China’s must favored nation status (100% duty free crap from China). All the while US goods have huge tariffs levied against them.

End the bio-fuel crap. It’s causing crazy food inflation. Just stop it.

We need to be 100% energy independent. More Solar, wind, AND Nuclear. Yes, clean cheap SAFE nuclear…just like europe uses. Why let wackos 1/2 a world away control our energy economy? f-that.

[bsrsharma]

And get all those troops stationed abroad home and close those bases. Keeping US military in Britain, Germany, Italy, Japan etc., 60 years after WW2 is sheer nonsense. And if you ask those countries privately, they want to get rid of the bases and use it for something useful. Per Ron Paul’s estimate, a reconsideration of our foreign obligations can save up to $1 Trillion.

[bsrsharma]

And get all those troops stationed abroad home and close those bases. Keeping US military in Britain, Germany, Italy, Japan etc., 60 years after WW2 is sheer nonsense. And if you ask those countries privately, they want to get rid of the bases and use it for something useful. Per Ron Paul’s estimate, a reconsideration of our foreign obligations can save up to $1 Trillion.

[bsrsharma]

And get all those troops stationed abroad home and close those bases. Keeping US military in Britain, Germany, Italy, Japan etc., 60 years after WW2 is sheer nonsense. And if you ask those countries privately, they want to get rid of the bases and use it for something useful. Per Ron Paul’s estimate, a reconsideration of our foreign obligations can save up to $1 Trillion.

[bsrsharma]

And get all those troops stationed abroad home and close those bases. Keeping US military in Britain, Germany, Italy, Japan etc., 60 years after WW2 is sheer nonsense. And if you ask those countries privately, they want to get rid of the bases and use it for something useful. Per Ron Paul’s estimate, a reconsideration of our foreign obligations can save up to $1 Trillion.

[bsrsharma]

And get all those troops stationed abroad home and close those bases. Keeping US military in Britain, Germany, Italy, Japan etc., 60 years after WW2 is sheer nonsense. And if you ask those countries privately, they want to get rid of the bases and use it for something useful. Per Ron Paul’s estimate, a reconsideration of our foreign obligations can save up to $1 Trillion.

[equalizer]

WSJ clearly lays out that nuclear is NOT economically feasilbe without massive subsidies from Govt and/or ratepayers, and carbon Gore tax. It’s the Economics, Stupid: Nuclear Power’s Bogeyman

http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/05/12/its-the-economics-stupid-nuclear-powers-bogeyman/?mod=WSJBlog

A new generation of nuclear power plants is on the drawing boards in the U.S., but the projected cost is causing some sticker shock: $5 billion to $12 billion a plant, double to quadruple earlier rough estimates. Acknowledging that historical costs for nuclear plants always doubled or tripled their initial estimates. So $12 billion is minimum cost for nuclear plant.

Cambridge Energy Research Associates Inc., a research and consulting firm in Massachusetts that is a unit of IHS Co, all types of power plants are feeling the pinch. Components and construction materials for nuclear power plants scored the biggest run-up in costs, up 173% — nearly tripled — since 2000. Most of that increase has taken place since 2005. Costs for turbines used to generate wind power more than doubled, at 108%, and natural gas-fueled and coal-fired plants saw their capital costs nearly double, up 92% and 78%, respectively.

If anything, the index likely minimizes the rising cost of building power plants, because it doesn’t factor in financing costs, and it doesn’t include fuel costs

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121184813975221465.html

[equalizer]

WSJ clearly lays out that nuclear is NOT economically feasilbe without massive subsidies from Govt and/or ratepayers, and carbon Gore tax. It’s the Economics, Stupid: Nuclear Power’s Bogeyman

http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/05/12/its-the-economics-stupid-nuclear-powers-bogeyman/?mod=WSJBlog

A new generation of nuclear power plants is on the drawing boards in the U.S., but the projected cost is causing some sticker shock: $5 billion to $12 billion a plant, double to quadruple earlier rough estimates. Acknowledging that historical costs for nuclear plants always doubled or tripled their initial estimates. So $12 billion is minimum cost for nuclear plant.

Cambridge Energy Research Associates Inc., a research and consulting firm in Massachusetts that is a unit of IHS Co, all types of power plants are feeling the pinch. Components and construction materials for nuclear power plants scored the biggest run-up in costs, up 173% — nearly tripled — since 2000. Most of that increase has taken place since 2005. Costs for turbines used to generate wind power more than doubled, at 108%, and natural gas-fueled and coal-fired plants saw their capital costs nearly double, up 92% and 78%, respectively.

If anything, the index likely minimizes the rising cost of building power plants, because it doesn’t factor in financing costs, and it doesn’t include fuel costs

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121184813975221465.html

[equalizer]

WSJ clearly lays out that nuclear is NOT economically feasilbe without massive subsidies from Govt and/or ratepayers, and carbon Gore tax. It’s the Economics, Stupid: Nuclear Power’s Bogeyman

http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/05/12/its-the-economics-stupid-nuclear-powers-bogeyman/?mod=WSJBlog

A new generation of nuclear power plants is on the drawing boards in the U.S., but the projected cost is causing some sticker shock: $5 billion to $12 billion a plant, double to quadruple earlier rough estimates. Acknowledging that historical costs for nuclear plants always doubled or tripled their initial estimates. So $12 billion is minimum cost for nuclear plant.

Cambridge Energy Research Associates Inc., a research and consulting firm in Massachusetts that is a unit of IHS Co, all types of power plants are feeling the pinch. Components and construction materials for nuclear power plants scored the biggest run-up in costs, up 173% — nearly tripled — since 2000. Most of that increase has taken place since 2005. Costs for turbines used to generate wind power more than doubled, at 108%, and natural gas-fueled and coal-fired plants saw their capital costs nearly double, up 92% and 78%, respectively.

If anything, the index likely minimizes the rising cost of building power plants, because it doesn’t factor in financing costs, and it doesn’t include fuel costs

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121184813975221465.html

[equalizer]

WSJ clearly lays out that nuclear is NOT economically feasilbe without massive subsidies from Govt and/or ratepayers, and carbon Gore tax. It’s the Economics, Stupid: Nuclear Power’s Bogeyman

http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/05/12/its-the-economics-stupid-nuclear-powers-bogeyman/?mod=WSJBlog

A new generation of nuclear power plants is on the drawing boards in the U.S., but the projected cost is causing some sticker shock: $5 billion to $12 billion a plant, double to quadruple earlier rough estimates. Acknowledging that historical costs for nuclear plants always doubled or tripled their initial estimates. So $12 billion is minimum cost for nuclear plant.

Cambridge Energy Research Associates Inc., a research and consulting firm in Massachusetts that is a unit of IHS Co, all types of power plants are feeling the pinch. Components and construction materials for nuclear power plants scored the biggest run-up in costs, up 173% — nearly tripled — since 2000. Most of that increase has taken place since 2005. Costs for turbines used to generate wind power more than doubled, at 108%, and natural gas-fueled and coal-fired plants saw their capital costs nearly double, up 92% and 78%, respectively.

If anything, the index likely minimizes the rising cost of building power plants, because it doesn’t factor in financing costs, and it doesn’t include fuel costs

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121184813975221465.html

[equalizer]

WSJ clearly lays out that nuclear is NOT economically feasilbe without massive subsidies from Govt and/or ratepayers, and carbon Gore tax. It’s the Economics, Stupid: Nuclear Power’s Bogeyman

http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/05/12/its-the-economics-stupid-nuclear-powers-bogeyman/?mod=WSJBlog

A new generation of nuclear power plants is on the drawing boards in the U.S., but the projected cost is causing some sticker shock: $5 billion to $12 billion a plant, double to quadruple earlier rough estimates. Acknowledging that historical costs for nuclear plants always doubled or tripled their initial estimates. So $12 billion is minimum cost for nuclear plant.

Cambridge Energy Research Associates Inc., a research and consulting firm in Massachusetts that is a unit of IHS Co, all types of power plants are feeling the pinch. Components and construction materials for nuclear power plants scored the biggest run-up in costs, up 173% — nearly tripled — since 2000. Most of that increase has taken place since 2005. Costs for turbines used to generate wind power more than doubled, at 108%, and natural gas-fueled and coal-fired plants saw their capital costs nearly double, up 92% and 78%, respectively.

If anything, the index likely minimizes the rising cost of building power plants, because it doesn’t factor in financing costs, and it doesn’t include fuel costs

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121184813975221465.html

[waiting for bottom]

This is just another in the long and soon to grow line of empty Obama promises. He has no clue how to pay for any of this….and people still eat it up.

[waiting for bottom]

This is just another in the long and soon to grow line of empty Obama promises. He has no clue how to pay for any of this….and people still eat it up.

[waiting for bottom]

This is just another in the long and soon to grow line of empty Obama promises. He has no clue how to pay for any of this….and people still eat it up.

[waiting for bottom]

This is just another in the long and soon to grow line of empty Obama promises. He has no clue how to pay for any of this….and people still eat it up.

[Author]

Posts