A Personal Note from T. Boone Pickens

[The Real Bingo]

Originally Posted by Gomer

It wasn't that way under the Clinton Administration. It became that way under the Bush Admin and with Republican control of the House and Senate.
PAYGO - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Seems to me that having the same party control Congress and the White House is not a good thing. During the Clinton years, Congress was Republican controlled.

[MTAtech]

During the 1930s and 40s the Democrats controlled Congress and the WH and basically saved the country.

[Chuckiechan]

First of all, let me say that I endorse Picken's plan. The guy is willing to put his money where his mouth is.

No, he is putting his mouth where our money is - he admits that without subsidies for his rich landowner buddies - read Republican - , the project will not be economically viable.

He wants to put windmills on cattle land so barren you can have no more than two or three cows per acre.

http://nysenergyplan.com/presentatio...Attachment.pdf

He gets 2 cents a kilowatt subsidy, plus a 5 year depreciation write-off. What a rip off! A 25% return on investment is definitely not "Democrat approved" rates of return. "Big Wind" is making it's money by shuffeling taxpayer money into subsidies and write offs, and returning basically nothing in usable electricity.

[Atomic Rooster]

Here's an interesting tidbit from the poll in the opening post, National Poll: Americans Say Pickens' Energy Plan Can Work - Sacred Heart University

Support for oil drilling in places such as Utah, Alaska and Colorado moved to 71.6% from 68.4% in 2005. And, nearly two-thirds, 64.1%, supported drilling for oil along U.S. coastal waters. Majorities also supported providing tax incentives for development of energy alternatives (77.5%) and allowing the government to permit new oil refineries as needed (72.8%)

[MTAtech]

Let's not forget that all operating nuclear plants did so with large government subsidies.

[J.Pope]

Originally Posted by MTAtech

The Pentagon's budget was $400B in 2004. Now it's $600B. Can we go find $200B to cut and do what we did in 2004?

I bet you can find a whole lot more to cut than the Pentagon's budget. You can find some good examples here:The unending battle against pork barrel spending

Some of the things the government is spending our money on is just crazy. The military should get whatever they need to keep our men and women in the armed forces as safe as they can.

[MTAtech]

Originally Posted by J.Pope

I bet you can find a whole lot more to cut than the Pentagon's budget. You can find some good examples here:The unending battle against pork barrel spending

Some of the things the government is spending our money on is just crazy. The military should get whatever they need to keep our men and women in the armed forces as safe as they can.

Yeah, some earmarks are waste but if one totals the amount of all the earmarks it's not anything close to $200 billion. While everyone may philosophically agree that "the military should get whatever they need to keep our men and women in the armed forces as safe as they can," that's a blank check and many of that money has nothing to do with keeping anyone safe. Much is unneeded weapons programs that we can do without.

[J.Pope]

Originally Posted by MTAtech

Yeah, some earmarks are waste but if one totals the amount of all the earmarks it's not anything close to $200 billion. While everyone may philosophically agree that "the military should get whatever they need to keep our men and women in the armed forces as safe as they can," that's a blank check and many of that money has nothing to do with keeping anyone safe. Much is unneeded weapons programs that we can do without.

I guess you are one of those hippies that thinks the world will all disarm themselves if we do. Do you think that every one is just going to hold hands and get along? Think again buddy. The only way to peace is through strength.

I don't have the facts and I haven't totaled it all up, but I would put money on it that there is well over $200 billion in earmarks and unnecessary government projects and programs.

[MTAtech]

Originally Posted by J.Pope

I guess you are one of those hippies that thinks the world will all disarm themselves if we do. Do you think that every one is just going to hold hands and get along? Think again buddy. The only way to peace is through strength.

I don't have the facts and I haven't totaled it all up, but I would put money on it that there is well over $200 billion in earmarks and unnecessary government projects and programs.

First, I'm glad that you admit that you don't have the facts. According to Wikipedia, "The total Congressional earmarks for fiscal year 2008 numbered 11,780 worth $18.3 billion." Even though that number is the highest in history, it is chump change compared to the total federal budget of $2.5 trillion or the deficit at about $500 billion. Claiming that eliminating earmarks is going to have a dramatic effect on reducing the budget deficit is pure nonsense. If that is what McCain is claiming you should re-think your support of him.

Second, some of the earmarks are for good causes. In 2000, candidates Bush and McCain spared over a cancer research earmark because McCain is against earmarks. Stopping all earmarks sometimes throws the baby out with the bathwater.

Third, there is a big difference between "disarming" and spending $400 billion on the military. That's already more than the rest of the world spends combined. Spending another $200 billion, besides being 10 times the funds spent on earmarks, makes the rest of the world suspicious of what we're up to and results in destabilizing nuclear proliferation.

[osprey4]

I, for one, am looking forward to President Obama's fiscal restraint. His pledge to balance the budget in his first term despite all those special interests demanding more money is especially courageous. And his promise to lower regulatory barriers to make energy innovation profitable is most forward-thinking.