Obama wants your electricity cost to "skyrocket"

[Snipe]

"Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers." -- Barack Obama

Barack Obama thinks that the best way to lead us in these though times is to have your electricity rates "skyrocket". Apparently it is for the good of everyone if we all spread the wealth now to pay skyrocketing energy rates.

I rent to working class Americans. That is what I do. I am a landlord and that is my job. I am proud of the work that I do providing housing to Americans and the services and options in housing that I provide.

Most of them pay their own utilities, but for some of them I pay utilities. Those that pay utilities would not like to see them skyrocket, they have had a hard time paying for rising utility costs over the years. I have apartments where I pick up that cost, but that cost is incorporated in the price of the apartment. Power isn't free to me, and it is passed on as part of the cost to rent an apartment. If my costs go up, their costs go up. I don't do this because I am mean or selfish, I do this because it is the cost of living. Barack Obama is about to raise the cost of living for every American, tax cuts be damned.

This is the full transcript in context, lest I be attacked:


The problem is not technical, uh, and the problem is not mastery of the legislative intricacies of Washington. The problem is, uh, can you get the American people to say, “This is really important,” and force their representatives to do the right thing? That requires mobilizing a citizenry. That requires them understanding what is at stake. Uh, and climate change is a great example.

You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know — Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.

They — you — you can already see what the arguments will be during the general election. People will say, “Ah, Obama and Al Gore, these folks, they’re going to destroy the economy, this is going to cost us eight trillion dollars,” or whatever their number is. Um, if you can’t persuade the American people that yes, there is going to be some increase in electricity rates on the front end, but that over the long term, because of combinations of more efficient energy usage, changing lightbulbs and more efficient appliance, but also technology improving how we can produce clean energy, the economy would benefit.

Note the last bit that I highlighted. He says that people will say it will cost us trillions of dollars as a scare tactic (8 trillion is his own estimate). I think he is right about that. It is scary to claim that under his plan electrical costs will skyrocket.

It also shows to me that he doesn't know how much it would cost and doesn't care because for him it is the right thing to do. He didn't argue that it won't cost 8 trillion dollars. In fact, he concedes that your electricity cost will skyrocket. Those are his words, not mine. It is not apparent at all that he has run the numbers and deemed this to be beneficial in an economic sense. It appears that he believes this is the right way to go, and that belief trumps any real life economic consequences.

To his defense he does provide an argument that over time this investment will provide a benefit, or at least he gives lip service to that. But he doesn't tell us the initial upfront cost. He also doesn't tell us how much, when or where we would benefit down the road. All he assures us is that energy costs would "skyrocket". Spread the wealth for the greater good.

He is a dangerous man and CHANGE is coming.

What good are his tax cuts or his promises for welfare checks for people who don't pay federal taxes if everybody's energy bill will "skyrocket".

Here is another quote:


What I’ve said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else’s out there...

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.

That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel and other alternative energy approaches.

The only thing I’ve said with respect to coal, I haven’t been some coal booster...if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can.

It’s just that it will bankrupt them.

Obama has a more aggressive plan than anyone else, he clearly states that. He is proud of that. And that plan is going to cause your energy bill to rise more than anyone else, because he is more "aggressive".

He openly talks with pride about bankrupting people that provide us energy using coal. Coal provides 49% of the electricity of the United States. The United States has more coal than any other natural resource.

Again, here is the quote in full context:


Let me sort of describe my overall policy.

What I’ve said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else’s out there.

I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are being placed, imposed every year.

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.

That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel and other alternative energy approaches.

The only thing I’ve said with respect to coal, I haven’t been some coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as a ideological matter as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it.

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can.
It’s just that it will bankrupt them.

Obama has a nice plan to bankrupt the coal industry. He does support clean coal technology, which we don't currently have (http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/usa/press-center/reports4/false-hope-why-carbon-capture.pdf). It would be nice if coal or anything else was clean, but we don't currently have that technology. It doesn't exist. It is pie in the sky technology.

What is the optimal amount of pollution? Ask yourself that. It is not zero. If zero pollution was the goal, nobody here would drive to work tomorrow. Nobody could flick on a light tomorrow. With no pollution our standard of living would collapse. It is a cold hard fact. We live in a world with tradeoffs. The optimal amount of pollution is much greater than zero if you want to live your life as you think you should. And when you flick on that light you are flicking on coal.

I wish the world was all pie in the sky in reality. I wish we could wish away all the bad things that people don't like. In reality it doesn't happen that way. In reality under Obama he will bankrupt people that build coal powered plants and cause your electricity to skyrocket. That isn't right wing distortion, that is his plan.

He is going to make your bills skyrocket. I am not making this up. This is part of his plan and it has been part of his plan all along.


Obama: I’ll make energy prices “skyrocket” (http://hotair.com/archives/2008/11/02/obama-ill-make-energy-prices-skyrocket/)

[wkrq59]

Would you repeat that anew?

[jdm2000]

Here's what I love: Drudge and whatever site he linked to are acting like the tapes have been "hidden" until just now, and some brave soul just released them.

Except they've been available on the internet since January! January! But because Drudge (and apparently this site he is linking to) are all about manufacturing news, they now get to "reveal" this information to the world.

I know Drudge doesn't hide his partisan leanings, but I gotta tell you, based on the way he does things, he's a real piece of work.

[jdm2000]

By the way, I realize the GOP talking point is he has a plan to "bankrupt the coal industry." I note that those quotes you have only talking about a company wanting to BUILD a plant, and how that would bankrupt that COMPANY. Is my reading comprehension right that Obama doesn't say anything about (1) current plants in operation and (2) bankrupting the industry?

[Snipe]

Would you repeat that anew?

Yes I will. Under Barack Obama's plan electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Those are not my words, those are his.

Check this out:


"Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers." -- Barack Obama

It is that simple and I am not making it up. That is his plan. That is how Barack Obama explains his plan. I am not distorting the facts. That is what Barack Obama intends to do to the American people.

I sympathize with you Q. I would not have believed it first glance myself. A candidate for President intends to make electricity rates skyrocket. I had to check the source material just to make sure he actually said it.

I don’t know how anyone can defend those statements on the face of it. Maybe they can attack the messenger, but I don’t know how they can defend the message. Talk about a disaster waiting to happen.

Thank you Q.

[Snipe]

Here's what I love: Drudge and whatever site he linked to are acting like the tapes have been "hidden" until just now, and some brave soul just released them.

Except they've been available on the internet since January! January! But because Drudge (and apparently this site he is linking to) are all about manufacturing news, they now get to "reveal" this information to the world.

I know Drudge doesn't hide his partisan leanings, but I gotta tell you, based on the way he does things, he's a real piece of work.


"Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers." -- Barack Obama

This is the first that I have heard of this quote. I searched the web and I couldn't find it to be reported by any major news media outlet before yesterday. In fact I couldn't find a trace of anyone reporting it at all. You have to wonder why that is. Is this not news?


By the way, I realize the GOP talking point is he has a plan to "bankrupt the coal industry." I note that those quotes you have only talking about a company wanting to BUILD a plant, and how that would bankrupt that COMPANY. Is my reading comprehension right that Obama doesn't say anything about (1) current plants in operation and (2) bankrupting the industry?

I am not a member of the GOP and I don't get the talking points.

I don't think it would be a good idea to bankrupt a company that builds a coal plant. I guess we can expect no new coal plants. I am surprised that you are fine with that. I am surprised that anyone is fine with that. Coal produces more energy in America than any other resource, and it is our most abundant resource.

I think the major point is that he is saying that the cost of energy will skyrocket under his plan. He is upfront about that and I don't know how you can spin that. You can attack Drudge or the GOP, but these are Obama's words.

I can see why his plan is tough to defend. Who wants to defend it?

[jdm2000]

Snipe,

Sorry if I'm coming off as combative. My ire is really more directed at Drudge (which first "reported" this Saturday) and the way that site is run. The whole Ashley Todd thing was really the Drudge Report nadir for me.

CNN at least has reported on this story, and Palin made statements about it in campaign stops over the weekend.

Again, sorry if I came off as attacking you. It was not my intent. I can't wait for the election to be over and for Xavier basketball to start.

[Snipe]

I have thick skin JDM. For the record I don't check out Drudge often if at all. I have probably been there less than five times this year. I don't know who Ashley Todd is. For the sake of this thread I don't care either.

My question to you is this quote from you:


I note that those quotes you have only talking about a company wanting to BUILD a plant, and how that would bankrupt that COMPANY.

Are you OK with that? Do you think it is a good idea to bankrupt any company that would build a coal-fired plant to supply Americans with a cheap, reliable and home grown supply of energy? Do you really believe that? Can't you see what a bad idea this is?

This is from the non-Drudge ABC news (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/09/biden-says-no-t.html), featuring talking Joe Biden:


The animated, close-talking Biden then put his hands on the woman’s shoulders and launched into a passionate, finger-wagging argument that he and Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., do not support clean coal.

“We're not supporting clean coal,” Biden said. “Guess what? China is building two every week, two dirty coal plants. And it's polluting the United States, it's causing people to die.”

“So will you support wind and solar and alternate technologies?” the woman questioned.

“Absolutely, before anybody did,” came Biden’s reply. “The first guy to introduce a global warming bill was me 22 years ago. The first guy to support solar energy was me 26 years ago. It came out of Delaware.”

“But guess what?,” he continued. “China's gonna burn 300 years of bad coal unless we figure out how to clean their coal up because it's gonna ruin your lungs and there's nothing we can do about it.”

“No coal plants here in America!” pledged the Democratic vice-presidential nominee.

No new coal plants in America. I think these guys are spelling it out, and we should take them at their word.

I also like the Algore-rythem of Biden claiming to be the first guy to advance global warming and support solar energy. If you locked him in a room with a microphone for fifteen minutes odds are that he would probably claim that he invented the internet.

The Democratic leader of the Senate Harry Reid claimed that "Coal makes us sick".

The Democratic Vice Presidential nominee says "No new coal plants in America".

The Democratic Presidential nominee says that under his plan costs for electricity will skyrocket and that he intends to bankrupt any company that builds a new coal powered plant.

If you don't see the economic disaster in this, I can't explain it to you any clearer than that. This would be a disaster for the economy and it would do economic harm to every American.

[drudy23]

Are you on the McCain payroll?

[Snipe]

No Drudy, and I am not a big fan of John McCain.

I don't want my electricty bill to skyrocket either.

[drudy23]

How many politicians do you know of that actually follow through with anything they promise?

[Snipe]

Drudy, my fear is that he will keep his promise and that he will increase the cost of energy and bankrupt companies that build new coal fired plants. I am not claiming that he is lying about this, I am afraid of what would happen to our economy if he does exactly what he said he wants to do.

[nuts4xu]

This is a sample of the ideas that Obama has that concern me as a voter. He has a lot of far fetched ideas, with little or no idea how to implement these strategies. This idea, if it is to be implemented, will result in an even worse economy than what we are dealing with right now.

Lord help us all.

[Giddyup37]

Drudy, my fear is that he will keep his promise and that he will increase the cost of energy and bankrupt companies that build new coal fired plants. I am not claiming that he is lying about this, I am afraid of what would happen to our economy if he does exactly what he said he wants to do.

clean coal, biodiesel, wind, solar, nuclear. all that will help us end our reliance on foreign oil...I think both candidates want that to be a major focus of our future...

[Snipe]

clean coal, biodiesel, wind, solar, nuclear. all that will help us end our reliance on foreign oil...I think both candidates want that to be a major focus of our future...


It does not appear that Barack supports coal or nuclear power. He may give some lipservice to these things when he tacts to the center during an election year, but I don't believe he will work to expand the coal or nuclear power industries. If you look at statements that he has made in the past he is no friend of coal or nuclear power.

[Juice]

Barry wonders why he did not beat Hillary in states like West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. And it is not the reason Murtha has come up with.

[Snipe]

Here is a statement issued (http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS225182+23-Sep-2008+PRN20080923)by Mike Carey, President of the Ohio Coal Association:


Regardless of the timing or method of the release of these remarks, the message from the Democratic candidate for President could not be clearer: the Obama-Biden ticket spells disaster for America's coal industry and the tens of thousands of Americans who work in it.

These undisputed, audio-taped remarks, which include comments from Senator Obama like 'I haven't been some coal booster' and 'if they want to build [coal plants], they can, but it will bankrupt them' are extraordinarily misguided.

It's evident that this campaign has been pandering in states like Ohio,Virginia, West Virginia,Indiana and Pennsylvania to attempt to generate votes from coal supporters, while keeping his true agenda hidden from the state's voters.

Senator Obama has revealed himself to be nothing more than a short-sighted, inexperienced politician willing to say anything to get a vote. But today, the nation's coal industry and those who support it have a better understanding of his true mission, to 'bankrupt' our industry, put tens of thousands out of work and cause unprecedented increases in electricity prices.

In addition to providing an affordable, reliable source of low-cost electricity, domestic coal holds the key to our nation's long-term energy security - a goal that cannot be overlooked during this time of international instability and economic uncertainty.

Few policy areas are more important to our economic future than energy issues. As voters head to the polls tomorrow, it is essential they remember that access to reliable, affordable, domestic energy supplies is essential to economic growth and stability.

Obama's energy policy would be an economic disaster for our region.

That is some change that you can believe in.

[jdm2000]

I'm still confused how he "revealed himself today" when this audio HAS BEEN ON THE INTERNET AT THE SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE'S WEBSITE FOR NINE MONTHS.

Let's call it what it is: Matt Drudge "found this for the first time over the weekend" and the right-wing leaning blogs and press ran with it in a last-ditch effort to sway voters. I'm down with that.

[DC Muskie]

There are so many things that the Socialist is going to screw up, I can only hope Snipe will keep track of them on a note card or something.

[Smooth]

Drudy, my fear is that he will keep his promise and that he will increase the cost of energy and bankrupt companies that build new coal fired plants. I am not claiming that he is lying about this, I am afraid of what would happen to our economy if he does exactly what he said he wants to do.

Nothing will happen to the economy because the company will then be deemed "Too big to fail" and they will raise taxes on the richest 5% to bail it out and then some lazy poor guy will go out and create jobs and clean energy and our economy will thrive.

Or something like that.

[Stonebreaker]

Are you on the McCain payroll?


I don't believe so. He sounds like a concerned American who has to decide (during a time that energy has become vastly expensive) which candidate to vote for.

Let's see....the dems/Obama don't want to:

-drill offshore (some of this could produce fairly quickly), or hamstring the companies so that it wouldn't make sense to
-Invest in nuclear power...the safest, cleanest, and probably (long-term) cost effective.
-go with Clean Coal.

It's only 'alternative fuels', which may not be viable for widespread usage for awhile. How is that going to benefit Americans for the next 10 years?

Voting for Obama means that you don't care if we keep paying tons of money to people that don't like us, and forgoing thousands of jobs at home in the energy sector.
I'm sorry, but...I fail to understand how people can support that position.

[vee4xu]

Are you on the McCain payroll?

Heck no, he does this crap for kicks. You would think someone with so much to say would tried to get paid. And in Snipe's case he should go for getting paid by the word.

[MuskiePimp23]

As opposed to what VEE, being on the Obama payroll...You appear to be on the Obama payroll...Did you volunteer to make phone calls for him?

Vote for McCain. He is the better choice for America.

[Snipe]

There are so many things that the Socialist is going to screw up, I can only hope Snipe will keep track of them on a note card or something.


Heck no, he does this crap for kicks. You would think someone with so much to say would tried to get paid. And in Snipe's case he should go for getting paid by the word.

DC & Vee, do either of you think skyrocketing prices for electricity would be good for the economy or seniors on fixed incomes? What do you think of the subtance of the plan? What do you think of bankrupting people who build new coal fired plants? Honest questions.

[Snipe]

This board has political partisans on both sides. Nobody really stepped forward to defend Obama's plan. I was wondering how anyone could. If he goes through with this it would be a disaster for the economy. This is one instance where I hope the politician is lying to me.

When we flick on a light switch in Cincinnati we flick on coal. You see those barges coming up and down the river loaded with black? All coal. It is a huge part of the local economy. Here is an interesting fact: More freight tonnage goes through the Ohio River than the Panamal Canal or the St. Lawrence Seaway (which connects the Great Lakes to the Atlantic Ocean). It really is an incredible amount of commerce, and it is done on barges with bulk goods. Some of it is crops, or building materials, but most of it is coal. Coal is an economic lifeline.

It is a huge part of your life whether you recognize it or not. We aren't in a wind belt that is condusive to turbine energy, and we aren't in the sun belt for solar either. We could be shutting down industry and commerce in our own state and moving those jobs to other states. And the tax on the coal plants would transfer the wealth to the wind and solar industries that can't compete with our coal on price. Our whole region would be hit hard under Obama's plan.

It is an economic disaster for all Americans, but it would hit this region with a lead mallet.

[Strange Brew]

This board has political partisans on both sides. Nobody really stepped forward to defend Obama's plan. I was wondering how anyone could. If he goes through with this it would be a disaster for the economy. This is one instance where I hope the politician is lying to me.

When we flick on a light switch in Cincinnati we flick on coal. You see those barges coming up and down the river loaded with black? All coal. It is a huge part of the local economy. Here is an interesting fact: More freight tonnage goes through the Ohio River than the Panamal Canal or the St. Lawrence Seaway (which connects the Great Lakes to the Atlantic Ocean). It really is an incredible amount of commerce, and it is done on barges with bulk goods. Some of it is crops, or building materials, but most of it is coal. Coal is an economic lifeline.

It is a huge part of your life whether you recognize it or not. We aren't in a wind belt that is condusive to turbine energy, and we aren't in the sun belt for solar either. We could be shutting down industry and commerce in our own state and moving those jobs to other states. And the tax on the coal plants would transfer the wealth to the wind and solar industries that can't compete with our coal on price. Our whole region would be hit hard under Obama's plan.

It is an economic disaster for all Americans, but it would hit this region with a lead mallet.

Silly Snipe, it's not about policies or substance. It's about hope and change and change/hope. The evil rich that make too much money and the dope in the White House. Very few of Obama's policies can be rationally defended. Unless of course you are a hard left socialist that believes in infanticide and the elimination of heavy industry as a sacrifice to the religion of Global Warming (or is it climate change? I can't keep up.)

[PM Thor]

Now seriously Snipe (and others), why would anyone take the bait and argue about this?

It's just yet another stupid, asinine thread started to draw in people to argue over irrelevant (YES, I said IRRELEVANT) so called issues, right before the election.

People have become numbed to your threads. You can only yell so much before people don't even hear you anymore.

If Obama wins, I expect the next 4 years of this board to be filled with anti-leftist diatribes by Snipe, with none of them being relevant....ever.

[Snipe]

Now seriously Snipe (and others), why would anyone take the bait and argue about this?

It's just yet another stupid, asinine thread started to draw in people to argue over irrelevant (YES, I said IRRELEVANT) so called issues, right before the election.

People have become numbed to your threads. You can only yell so much before people don't even hear you anymore.

If Obama wins, I expect the next 4 years of this board to be filled with anti-leftist diatribes by Snipe, with none of them being relevant....ever.

You are right Thor. I made the whole thing up. You are brilliant and none of what I say matters.

This whole thread was going well until you exposed me. I secretly feared that you would discover my mission and tell everyone why I was wrong.

The only thing that I would ask in my defense is that in the future please keep your posts on topic. If you want to talk about the issue that would be fine.

I started this thread. It wasn't to have the same conversation with you, again....

Please keep your posts on topic. If you have something relevant to say go ahead. If not, spare me the time. I could do without the lecture. I didn'tt expect that you have anything relevant to say anyway. I had pretty low expectations for you coming in, and you didn't even hit the low bar.

Sad, but expected.

[Cheesehead]

Perhaps Obama can redistribute the Bengals all around the NFL.

I would vote for him if he could do that.

[jdm2000]

DC & Vee, do either of you think skyrocketing prices for electricity would be good for the economy or seniors on fixed incomes? What do you think of the subtance of the plan? What do you think of bankrupting people who build new coal fired plants? Honest questions.

Fine, I'll play! I can't stand to see you upset, Snipe.

* Skyrocketing prices for seniors on fixed incomes? Well, I don't know about you, but I think that our energy bills over the last few years have already been "skyrocketing." As for whether it would be good for the economy--well, in a short-term, purely economic sense, I would say no. But in the long-term, encouraging people to find other non-foreign dependent, more eco-friendly, and perhaps less expensive alternatives, it might be just what we need.

And to make a point that I think you might agree with: We have a thread discussing our outrageous debt, I believe, and how no one wants to do anything about it. We are clearly a nation that refuses to make short-term sacrifices for the long-term good (i.e., suck it up, cut some spending or raise some more income now, pay off some debt, get us back to good). This, to me, is the same kind of situation--the plan may have some short term pain, but if the long-term gain is justified (by finding environmentally friendly sources that reduce our dependence on foreign energy), I say go for it.

As for the seniors? Like I said, they're probably already feeling it--with those higher expenses going into the pockets of the energy producers. And I believe that the seniors will be taken care of in some way or other, to dull the sting--after all, neither side wants to tick them off, because they actually vote.

* Bankrupting people who build new coal fired plants - Well, on the one hand, if that is the policy choice that's made by our elected officials, those people shouldn't build new plants if they don't want to go bankrupt. You know, if someone were to go out tomorrow and start making lead paint, that company would be bankrupt in no time. I'd have no sympathy for that--they knew the deal going in to it, and chose to do it. So, from the stand point of, is it somehow wrong that they be bankrupted, well, if that is the policy choice Congress makes, then so be it. Living in a democracy means you have to take the stuff you don't agree with along with the stuff you do (obviously while retaining the right to complain about it).

From a substantive perspective, if the goal is to get cleaner, more renewable sources of energy, then I understand why the building of new coal-fired plants would be discouraged.

One last point: I'm not sure how big this impact would actually be on the Ohio economy. I grew up in coal mining country in Ohio (Jackson County). It is my understanding that we have exactly zero mines still operating in the county. It's just not the economic driver that it once was.

[dc_x]

This board has political partisans on both sides. Nobody really stepped forward to defend Obama's plan. I was wondering how anyone could. If he goes through with this it would be a disaster for the economy. This is one instance where I hope the politician is lying to me.

Snipe, nobody will respond because your original post is silly. You make it sound like Obama wants to raise our energy bills just because he is mean. As if his policy is just to raise energy costs just for the hell of it.

People read a headline that says "Obama wants your electricity cost to skrocket" and instantly ignore the thread. If you wrote a post that fairly presents an issue, you will generate a debate. But your post is no different than all the negative campaign ads that the entire country ignores.

Read the original text you posted:


They — you — you can already see what the arguments will be during the general election. People will say, “Ah, Obama and Al Gore, these folks, they’re going to destroy the economy, this is going to cost us eight trillion dollars,” or whatever their number is. Um, if you can’t persuade the American people that yes, there is going to be some increase in electricity rates on the front end, but that over the long term, because of combinations of more efficient energy usage, changing lightbulbs and more efficient appliance, but also technology improving how we can produce clean energy, the economy would benefit.

Obama's quote is pretty clear - he is saying in order to achieve long term benefits for the economy and the environment, there will be short term pain. I know absolutely nothing about this issue and have no idea if his plan makes sense, but it's pretty clear to me that Obama has a reason why energy costs need to go up. I think we are all fairly certain that he's not raising energy costs just to be a jerk.

[Snipe]

JDM,

Energy prices have risen over the years and people feel the pinch. It looks to me that the Obama plan would cause those costs to “skyrocket” even more. You seem to be arguing that since energy prices have gone up in the past that Obama’s plan would not have a net effect on prices. I fail to see the logic in that.

Also note that the original Obama quote was a response to the San Francisco Chronicle editorial board on the subject of climate change. It does not appear that he has done a cost-benefit analysis, and it doesn’t appear that a long term financial gain is the endgame. The principle reason for doing this is “climate change”, which in itself is a debatable problem that is hard to estimate.

You yourself threw out the “reduce our dependence on foreign energy” card. Coal and natural gas are domestically produced. I don’t see how discouraging their use would reduce our dependence on foreign energy. Coal and natural gas are some of our most abundant resources.

You talk about seniors not feeling the pain. “I believe that the seniors will be taken care of in some way or other, to dull the sting--after all, neither side wants to tick them off, because they actually vote.”

How is that going to be done? Let me get this straight, first we will see energy prices “skyrocket”, then we will have to do something to aid certain classes of people for “skyrocketing” energy prices. So if you don’t get that aid, not only will you pay your own skyrocketing energy prices but those of your neighbor as well. I am not sure that is a better plan.

The United States Government has spent hundreds of billions of dollars investing in alternative energy over the years. Let’s look at the track record of that spending.

A good deal of the money spent has gone into R&D for nuclear energy and the building of nuclear power plants. Barack isn’t a fan of nuclear energy. We aren’t building new nuclear plants. It doesn’t matter if nuclear energy is greenhouse friendly; we have invested billions in a technology that we refuse to use. (Though there is still a substantial portion of our energy still coming from nuclear power plants). Those plants are going to have to be replaced because they were built decades ago. And what will we replace them with?

The largest current government program for alternative energy is ethanol. Barack supports ethanol. Ethanol is a bloated inefficient program and it is a bad idea. What is the track record of our government in spending tax dollars on alternative energy? It isn’t good. It does not appear that either the bang for the buck or the long term upside is there.

Look at the solar power plants. They are expensive, they take up hoards of space, and they don’t produce the megawatts that coal plants do. Solar panels go bad and need to be replaced. These are not one time investments, and they can’t compete on cost. Same goes for wind turbines.

I don’t know what to say of your argument that if Congress wants to bankrupt coal plants they have the right to do so. I guess they do have that right. They also have the right to start a war with Canada. That doesn’t make either a sound idea.

[Snipe]

DC-X,

I did not claim that Obama is raising energy taxes just to be a jerk. That is a distortion of my position. I am sorry if I used terms like “skyrocket” or “bankrupt”. The reason that I used them is that Obama used those terms.

If I titled a post “Obama wants to cut taxes for 95% of Americans” would that be silly? That is his stated plan. What is different in saying that “Obama wants your electricity costs to skyrocket”? Like the tax example above that is his stated plan and skyrocket is the word that he choose.

You act like I distort the facts, yet I include his quote in full context for the reader to decide. Your defense of him actually used the quote that I gave. My intent was to put the facts on the table and talk about it, not to distort his position or portray him as a jerk for “skyrocketing” our energy prices.

I think that this plan would be an economic disaster. You admit yourself that you “have no idea if his plan makes sense”. The Ohio Coal Association thinks it is a bad plan, and it could have disastrous effects to the regional economy.

I am all for getting the facts out there and having a substantive debate. I did not try to distort Obama’s position in any way. Under Barack Obama’s energy plan, the cost for electricity will skyrocket. Those are his words and it is his plan. You don’t think it is fair to highlight that or use it in a headline. I disagree. I don’t think it is negative campaigning, I think it is an honest and factual representation of his plan.

I apologize if you think the whole thing is silly. You claim that I did not fairly present this issue and I disagree. I have been critical but fair. I have posted his quotes in the proper context. I guess we can agree to disagree.

[Emp]

This board has political partisans on both sides. Nobody really stepped forward to defend Obama's plan.
----------
Spit take! The premise that there is political dialogue on this board, esp with snipe, is hilarious. The cycle of talking points tricked up as personal opinion is continuous. In this case, the premise is that someone owes us a duty to rebut yet another berserk, lengthy borrowed blog rant.

Good Xavier sports board, though.

[Snipe]

Thanks Emp.

Obama said that the cost of electricity would skyrocket under his plan. Those are his words, and it is his plan. It is not a talking point.

If Obama puts this plan into action it could do serious economic harm. Do you like his plan?

[Raoul Duke]

This is largely semantic, but Obama doesn't want your electricity cost to 'skyrocket.' He wants to adopt alternative energy, and accepts skyrocketing energy costs as a consequence. At least that's how the quote reads to me.

I want beer, and am willing to pay money for it, but that doesn't mean I want to pay money for it. I would rather have it be free, but I'm willing to accept the fact that it's not.

Anyway, I otherwise agree with you for the most part. I know that nuclear technology is immensely safer and cheaper than it was the first time around. At least before the economy tanked (I don't know the situation today) there were suitors lining up, ready and willing to build cheap, safe, and efficient nuclear power plants. I think new coal plants are also immensely cleaner than existing ones. (Not as sure about that as I am with nuclear power though.)

Snipe has pretty much laid out the large-scale barriers to those types of power. It's politics, with appeal to emotion instead of reason.

To me, a classic example of this was in the 1970's when environmental activists opposed the Dept. of Interior's policy of thinning federal forests. Those activists, in an appeal to emotion, felt that cutting down trees was bad and mean. ("Someone think of the trees!") Through lobbying efforts, they got their way. Now, thirty or so years later, you have overgrown forests throughout the country. This has horribly exacerbated the spread of forest fires; it had the opposite effect of what environmental activists intended. They have now changed their stance.

The point is, if you want to save the environment, be rational about it instead of acting on emotional appeal. If nuclear and clean(er) coal are rational options, use them. I don't think Obama is going to seriously consider either.

One other barrier that hasn't been mentioned is local opposition. It's my understanding that nuclear and coal plants face huge opposition at the local level, so maybe Obama's speech is moot anyway.

[Snipe]

Maybe I should have titled the post:

"Obama Plans for your electrical cost to skyrocket" I am not sure if that would make much of a difference to dc x, but there you have it.

I agree that the appeal is emotional instead of rational when it comes to alternative energy.

Why don't we have clean renewable fuel that lasts forever? Who could possibly be against that? If the answer is the reduction in the standard of living for all Americans many people would be against it. It doesn't appear that cost-benefit analysis has been done. It is an emotional appeal. Barack has made many such appeals.

And you make a great point about the unintended consequences of environmental politics. Michael Crichton has a great bit on the history of the managment of Yellowstone. It is part of a speech you can find here: Link (http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-complexity.html) Lots of interesting stuff there if you have five minutes, the Yellow Stone stuff is a bit down the page and you will see a picture of Yellowstone to know that you are there.