[excon]

Hello again, tom:

there are some like me who argue that intentionally weakening the US dollar is effectively a default .

I don't disagree at all. That doesn't mean we should INTENTIONALLY put it out of its misery.

But, you're not arguing, are you, that Obama is the first president who ruined our dollar? Bwa, ha ha ha ha...

excon

[tomder55]

your taxes are low,

it's always about collecting more taxes isn't it ? It's never about reigning in out of control spending by the Leviathan . The rest of your response about interest rates ,and printing money I agree with as you know... and especially about our ponzi scheme entitlements that now includes the unfunded Obamacare .

[tomder55]

Hello again, tom:I don't disagree at all. That doesn't mean we should INTENTIONALLY put it out of its misery.

But, you're not arguing, are you, that Obama is the first president who ruined our dollar? Bwa, ha ha ha ha...

excon

No I'm not.. why would you think that ? I've certainly argued often against our monetary polices in the last 2 decades .

[paraclete]

But, you're not arguing, are you, that Obama is the first president who ruined our dollar? Bwa, ha ha ha ha...

excon

Of course he is arguing that, BO is the epitamy of all evil in his mind, but BO hasn't ruined the dollar, Congress has as it proves that the opposite of progress is congress

[speechlesstx]

If the EPA gets their way anyone that owns property and has a puddle could soon be an eco-criminal subject to their heavy handed tactics.

Republican leaders of the House Science Committee are accusing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of rushing a rule to establish broad authority over streams and wetlands.

In a letter to the agency on Friday, Reps. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) and Chris Stewart (R-Utah) alleged that it is trying to initiate a “sweeping reinterpretation” of its jurisdiction in a potential new rule.

The regulation to expand the EPA’s oversight would give it “unprecedented control over private property across the nation,” they asserted.

In September, the EPA began the process of asserting that it can regulate streams, estuaries and other small bodies of water under authority granted by the Clean Water Act. The agency said that the new rule is necessary to clear up confusion caused by two recent Supreme Court cases.

The EPA said making sure that regulations protecting clean water apply to those smaller waters ends up protecting larger lakes and rivers downstream.
Republican lawmakers have attacked the move and accused the agency of making a broad power grab. They worry that the EPA’s science has not been thorough enough to warrant a new rule.

“In light of the significant implications this action would have on the economy, property rights, and state sovereignty, this process must be given more thought and deliberation to allow for important, statutorily-required, weighing of the scientific and technical underpinnings of the proposed regulatory changes,” Smith and Stewart wrote on Friday.

Smith is the chairman of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, and Stewart leads its environment subcommittee.

The proposal is currently under review at the White House’s budget office, where most major rules are subjected to scrutiny before being unveiled to the public.
Once the proposal is released, the EPA will accept public comments and revise the regulation before finalizing it.

The lawmakers want the EPA to give a copy of the proposal to the agency’s science advisory board, which is made up of outside experts from academia and businesses, for a thorough review.
Releasing the proposal before the board has had a chance to look at it “would be to put the cart before the horse,” they claimed in their letter.
In a statement emailed to The Hill Friday afternoon, the EPA said that it has received the lawmakers’ letter and will review it.


Read more: GOP: EPA move 'unprecedented' - The Hill's RegWatch
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

This is their response to losing 9-0 in a SCOTUS case that determined an Idaho couple had the right to sue the EPA for arbitrarily deeming part of their property protected wetlands and threatening them with fines of $75,000 per day if they didn't bow to their demands.

Trust me, the EPA will attempt a huge power grab here and they need to be reined in before private property rights become largely a thing of the past.

[speechlesstx]

The Goracle has vented his spleen again on Keystone:

The proposed Keystone XL pipeline is "ridiculous" and "an atrocity," said former Vice President Al Gore on Thursday.

Speaking at an event honoring the 10th anniversary of the progressive think tank Center for American Progress, Gore praised President Barack Obama's efforts on climate change, stating that he thinks the president is sincere and that it will be a legacy issue for him. But on Keystone XL, which is waiting to hear its fate from the Obama administration, Gore was unequivocal.

"I hope as he gets down to the licklog, as he gets down to the decision on the Keystone XL pipeline, that he understands what this means," Gore said. "This should be vetoed. It's an atrocity, it's a threat."

Gore, who just concluded his third annual 24 Hours of Reality event, compared the reliance on fossil fuels -- particularly those derived from tar sands, which the Keystone pipeline would spur further development of -- to a drug addiction.

"Junkies find veins in their toes when their arms and legs go out," Gore said. "We are now at a point where we are going after dangerous and dirty fuels."

Because the proposed pipeline crosses an international border, the northern part of it must get approval from the State Department before it can go forward. The issue has been a major source of controversy for the Obama administration, as environmental groups argue that the pipeline would exacerbate global warming.

And where we aren't going after "dangerous and dirty fuels" we're killing off our eagle population and destroying the view, but who cares about that? OK Al, I give, let's just keep moving it by train.

[talaniman]

canadian pipeline map - Bing Images

Pipelines are for profit, wind mills are for energy. You worry about birds, not a bad thing at all, but I worry about birds, animal, fish, and people who suffer when those pipelines rupture, and there have been plenty of those.

[tomder55]

"The Quixotes of this Age fight with the Wind-mills of their owne Heads."

[talaniman]

"The Quixotes of this Age fight with the Wind-mills of their owne Heads."

Tilting at windmills

The figurative reference to tilting at windmills came a little later. John Cleveland published The character of a London diurnall in 1644 (a diurnall was, as you might expect, part-way between a diary or journal):


"The Quixotes of this Age fight with the Wind-mills of their owne Heads."

The full form of the phrase isn't used until towards the end of the 19th century; for example, in The New York Times, April 1870:


"They [Western Republicans] have not thus far had sufficient of an organization behind them to make their opposition to the Committee's bill anything more than tilting at windmills

[speechlesstx]

canadian pipeline map - Bing Images

Pipelines are for profit, wind mills are for energy.

Right, GE and all these power companies are putting them up out of pure concern for the environment. Bwa ha ha ha!

[speechlesstx]

Meanwhile, what if the federal government held an auction for solar and wind leases and nobody showed?

BLM holds solar auction for Colorado public lands — and no one shows

[paraclete]

Right, GE and all these power companies are putting them up out of pure concern for the environment. Bwa ha ha ha!

You can never have too many pipelines and what's one more in a land of pipelines

[speechlesstx]

You can never have too many pipelines and what's one more in a land of pipelines

You know, I live in Texas which is in an oil boom and I never notice any pipelines, they just go about their business unnoticed. On the other hand those darn windmills are an increasingly worse eyesore.

[talaniman]

When a pipeline that's generally underground and out of sight ruptures in your front yard you will notice.

[speechlesstx]

When a pipeline that's generally underground and out of sight ruptures in your front yard you will notice.

It does happen, but you should know how strictly pipelines are regulated. There is nothing energy companies are more stringent about than safety.

[talaniman]

The problem is more related to maintenance, replace, repair, and inspection. Not easy on underground pipes of any kind and very labor intensive.

[speechlesstx]

One of Obama's pet projects, Abound Solar, another of thosse who took stimulus money and tanked, has left the beautiful state of Colorado a toxic dump behind.

Bankrupt solar panel firm took stimulus money, left a toxic mess, says report

A Colorado-based solar company that got hundreds of millions of dollars in federal loan guarantees before going belly-up didn't just empty taxpayers' wallets - it left behind a toxic mess of carcinogens, broken glass and contaminated water, according to a new report.

The Abound Solar plant, which got $400 million in federal loan guarantees in 2010, when the Obama administration sought to use stimulus funds to promote green energy, filed for bankruptcy two years later. Now its Longmont, Colo., facility sits unoccupied, its 37,000 square feet littered with hazardous waste, broken glass and contaminated water. The Northern Colorado Business Report estimates it will cost up to $3.7 million to clean and repair the building so it can again be leased.

“As lawyers, regulators, bankruptcy officials and the landlord spar over the case, the building lies in disrepair, too contaminated to lease,” the report stated.

The owner of the property tried to force a bankruptcy trustee to clean the facility, but the report said it would "place humans at imminent and significant health risk." One of the hazards is the presence of cadmium, a cancer-causing agent that is used to produce the film on the solar panels, the report said.

While the loan guarantees exposed taxpayers to hundreds of millions of dollars, the federal government lost a total of $70 million backing the failed company. Unsold inventory which should have been used to offset those losses, including 2,000 solar panels, mysteriously disappeared, according to the National Legal and Policy Center.

"If a coal, oil or gas company pulled something like that the EPA would send out SWAT teams and the U.S. Marshals to track down the offenders, bankrupt or not," the center said in a report of its own.

Now that's what I call "green" energy.

[paraclete]

I prefer deep green energy myself

[Tuttyd]

One of Obama's pet projects, Abound Solar, another of thosse who took stimulus money and tanked, has left the beautiful state of Colorado a toxic dump behind.



Now that's what I call "green" energy.

Yes, but just because it is done badly doesn't mean that it can't be done well.

[tomder55]

Yes, but just because it is done badly doesn't mean that it can't be done well.

That's pretty much the same argument I use when examples of leakage are cited as an example of the negatives of fracking .