Obama Energy Strategy Explained

A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within.

– Ariel Durant

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Obama Energy Strategy Explained

  1. gator69 says:

    “Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins — or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.”

    — Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals

  2. miked1947 says:

    To truly understand O’Bambi’s policy on anything you must firs determine what day it is and which way the wind is blowing. Once those have been settled then you will understand he has not set policy other than disruption of everything.
    Some would follow a policy if divide and conquer, He follows a policy of divide and disrupt to truly destroy. There will be nothing left to conquer.

  3. Bill Gannon says:

    Those whom forget about the past, are doomed to repeat it. The Roman Empire come’s to mind. Military stretched to the limit, insane debt, 86.8 Trillion, and no body in Washington DC, has the moral compass to fix any of it. Only thing missing is a fat Nero playing a fiddle.

  4. DarrylB says:

    Another energy coming to light.
    The left is opposing the nomination of Susan Rice because it has been reported that she and her husband have a 300 to 600K interest in TransCanada, the company which is trying to construct the new pipeline into the U.S.
    Of Course Bill McKibben is all over this.
    The other likely candidate to replace Hillary Clinton is John Kerry.
    I wish we had some say in this. The more I know of her, the more I like her. Any ideas?

    • Only that it is rickety judgment like yours that Ariel Durant was talking about (the kind that got Obama elected, and then even re-elected). Just because the Insane Left fight among even themselves, does not mean any of them are worthy of your trust. I am appalled that all Americans are not already aware of this. I don’t call them the Insane Left for no good reason; none of them have true character, competent judgment on any subject, or — and this is the telling point — personal honesty. Susan Rice determinedly misled the American people at the mere behest of Obama (all the talk about “changing the talking points” before she got them is just another Obama-serving lie, and you should know that).

      • Richard T. Fowler says:

        Susan Rice would not have been carrying water for “Obama” at the U.N. all these years if she weren’t a radical. No moderate would have stuck around that long doing that job.


  5. DarrylB says:

    Make that another ‘another energy ISSUE coming to light’

  6. Camanawanalayu says:

    Is it me or is Obama simply implementing the same economic system that is bankrupting California. Someone explain why the California economy isn’t exploding and unemployment sinking like a lead balloon with all the tax increases on the rich in California, if increasing tax on the top 2% is so great for the economy?

    • The explanation is that the gains made by the so called rich due to their productive efforts are necessary for the producer to have a future and to be able to produce more so as to create a better future. If effect, profits are nothing but the cost of the future held in reserve until they become necessary to pay for said future. Without profit, there is no future for the producer nor for the society with whom the producer trades his product for the things he needs. Taxing the rich is not only stealing from the rich what is rightfully theirs but it also steals from the future of the society who sanctions such theft.

      A simple thought experiment to illustrate the above. Imagine you are a potato farmer. You have held in reserve seed potatoes to plant next year’s crop. Now, that reserve of seed potatoes were part of the crop harvested from last year’s crop. Now, let the state come in and tax the excess over last years seed potatoes. You, as a potato farmer must then give part of that excess to the state. You thereby have less excess to divide between what you can sell and what you must retain as seed potatoes. To have the same crop as last year, you must save seed potatoes as you did last year. You thereby have a smaller portion to sell for your needs and wants to carry you over till next years crop. So also does the society you trade with have less potatoes to eat.

      Now you say the government has the excess and can make up the difference. Yes but it costs to collect the taxes, it costs to enforce the taxes, and all the government employes involved with such activities must survive on the potatoes they take from you and others like you. All of which only supports government and not private society. Hence the private society has to make do with less potatoes than if the government had not taxed the gains in the potato crop.

      So tax enough “profits” to support a growing government with an ever increasing tendency to spend more than it takes in and the private society has less decreasing to no future. The private society will shrink as the government grows. Ultimately, both the government and the private society has no future because it has been consumed by government and both will collapse.

      There is no thing as a free lunch. A government can promise one but cannot deliver without sizable unintended consequences that are the cost of delivering on such promises. An increasing unemployment and a decreasing quality of life are a major portion of those unintended consequences. Ultimately all that stealing from the future accomplishes is to make the future more costly and more difficult to pay for.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *