Why did Reagan tear down Carter's WH solar panels?

[amy31416]

Lots of articles about solar returning to the WH since the Obama administration had a recent about-face, probably to try to schmooze the dimmer elements in their base.


One thing that is brought up frequently in these articles is how Reagan tore down Carter's solar water heating system...why the hell would he do that, except to be weirdly vindictive?

I'm sure the Heritage Foundation has a reasonable explanation somewhere....

Examples:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-05/solar-panels-on-white-house-roof-removed-by-reagan-to-return-under-obama.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harvey-wasserman/could-a-solar-green-white_b_751521.html

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0503-22.htm

[MozoVote]

I don't think Reagan had them removed right away. The roof was being renovated in the mid 1980s, the panels were old, and Reagan expressed no interest in returning them there.

Certainly Reagan viewed Carter's presidency as a failure and would scrub away artifacts of it where the opportunity arose.

[ghengis86]

He was in the tearing down mode?

(mr. White house maintenance man, tear down these solar panels!)

[pcosmar]

:confused:
Never heard of it. Did he? Did he order it? or was it done on someone Else's order?

Please details.
It does not seem like building maintenance would have been a high priority or an executive decision.

[amy31416]

:confused:
Never heard of it. Did he? Did he order it? or was it done on someone Else's order?

Please details.
It does not seem like building maintenance would have been a high priority or an executive decision.

Ya got me, but here's an article I'm skimming. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=carter-white-house-solar-panel-array

So far, everything I've read just makes it seem like Reagan was being a petty, corporatist douchebag. But most of the sources reporting are lefty, so who knows?

[Fozz]

Probably his anti-Carter arrogance.

[pcosmar]

Ah,

http://www.pangolin.com/images/spin_vga.jpg

[wormyguy]

I thought it was because they didn't work?

[amy31416]

I thought it was because they didn't work?

According to several articles, they're still in use in at least one location--some college. The rest are in museums and/or purchased by the Chinese.

Still kind of murky to me though.

[Stary Hickory]

I thought it was because they didn't work?

Bingo, but lets just go ahead and jump to extremes and assume Reagan was an evil man who would tear down a perfectly functioning apparatus for cheap/free energy to spite the previous president. Yes let us make this assumption because it makes so much damn sense.

You can be assured either they did not work or were a pain in the ass to keep around and hardly worth the effort.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Bingo, but lets just go ahead and jump to extremes and assume Reagan was an evil man who would tear down a perfectly functioning apparatus for cheap/free energy to spite the previous president. Yes let us make this assumption because it makes so much damn sense.

You can be assured either they did not work or were a pain in the ass to keep around and hardly worth the effort.

Well I mean, Reagan did sign the 1986 Firearms ban. So.....:D

[invisible]

It was because someone discovered they had been installed by unlicensed contractors without a building permit, and they didn't meet the zoning regulations for a "historic district".

[reardenstone]

It was because someone discovered they had been installed by unlicensed contractors without a building permit, and they didn't meet the zoning regulations for a "historic district".

LOL!!! If only it were so and we could expose the whole iron of it!

[Meatwasp]

Lots of articles about solar returning to the WH since the Obama administration had a recent about-face, probably to try to schmooze the dimmer elements in their base.


One thing that is brought up frequently in these articles is how Reagan tore down Carter's solar water heating system...why the hell would he do that, except to be weirdly vindictive?

I'm sure the Heritage Foundation has a reasonable explanation somewhere....

Examples:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-05/solar-panels-on-white-house-roof-removed-by-reagan-to-return-under-obama.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harvey-wasserman/could-a-solar-green-white_b_751521.html

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0503-22.htm
OMG how awful of him. I am sure he came out of his grave to did something to my tomato plants and apple tree because they didn't do too good.
OMG shame on him!

[AlexMerced]

Reagan had plenty of mistakes, doesn't mean he was a horrible president, I'm still very troubled by his handling of AIDS, not that I htink he should of spent federal dollars or created policy but he decided to not acknowledge it at all and pass it off as a gay disease. Although, it perspective this was very common view at the time.

And yes, I'm aware of the debate about AIDS as discussed on a recent Lew Rockwell interview, but still at the time while I don't think president should be pushing policy and spending they can have a role of galvanizing individuals to cooperate to solve problems with their words.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Reagan had plenty of mistakes, doesn't mean he was a horrible president, I'm still very troubled by his handling of AIDS, not that I htink he should of spent federal dollars or created policy but he decided to not acknowledge it at all and pass it off as a gay disease. Although, it perspective this was very common view at the time.

And yes, I'm aware of the debate about AIDS as discussed on a recent Lew Rockwell interview, but still at the time while I don't think president should be pushing policy and spending they can have a role of galvanizing individuals to cooperate to solve problems with their words.

If you measure Reagan's terms through liberty you can absolutely say he was a horrible president. S&L, Weapons Bans, Foreign interventions, massive increase spending (increased debt loads), etc.

[Carl Corey]

He probably got tired of running out of hot water within 5 minutes.

The only reliable green energy we have is from dams and nuclear power plants.

[erowe1]

Reagan tore down Carter's solar panels?!

That is too great! Good for him!

[Bruno]

If you measure Reagan's terms through liberty you can absolutely say he was a horrible president. S&L, Weapons Bans, Foreign interventions, massive increase spending (increased debt loads), etc.

Let's not forgot the escalation of the War on Drugs People.

[TinCanToNA]

Solar panels from the 1970's? Unless they were some kind of uber DARPA prototype, they were likely extraordinarily low-power, low-efficiency devices. After a decade, their performance must have been dismal. If they're still in use, I suspect it's more of a ceremonial or "legacy" thing and not because they are themselves providing ample power.

Spacecraft (as in satellites, etc.) were the only real users of solar panels in the past because photovoltaics have always been extremely ineffective at providing energy, but they offer advantages that are able to be exploited by spacecraft. Photovoltaics, except for some select applications, are generally a waste as terrestrial power sources. It seems that what Reagan did was eliminate waste in this small instance.

[Dreamofunity]

NPR of all stations, while mentioning this story, said something about the panels being largely ineffective when mentioning him taking them down.

[SLSteven]

I thought it was because they didn't work?

A politician that gets rid of things that don't work? The politician just wants to insure that the politician doesn't have to work.

[tjeffersonsghost]

If you measure Reagan's terms through liberty you can absolutely say he was a horrible president. S&L, Weapons Bans, Foreign interventions, massive increase spending (increased debt loads), etc.

I totally agree. He damn near tripled the national debt, put men in harms way in Grenada, weapons bans and on and on. He talked a great game though....


Bingo, but lets just go ahead and jump to extremes and assume Reagan was an evil man who would tear down a perfectly functioning apparatus for cheap/free energy to spite the previous president. Yes let us make this assumption because it makes so much damn sense.

You can be assured either they did not work or were a pain in the ass to keep around and hardly worth the effort.

Actually yeah it was as simple as tearing down for no reason. Regan said that we are a great nation and we don't need to worry about our energy problems that we had no reason to sacrifice because we are a great nation.

For as bad of a president Carter was I can easily make the case the he was actually more conservative than any Republican since him.

He was more fiscally responsible than Nixon, Regan, Bush, or Bush (As shown in link 1) He also created more jobs in his one term as far as % than anyone since him and did so without killing the national debt (As shown in link 2).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms

A big reason why many say his presidency failed was the Iran Islamic uprising but ya know something, that really had nothing to do with him. He refused to go in and bomb them like many wanted. That was just more blowback from previous administrations that he had to come fix. He passed deregulation laws on rail, phone, trucking, and airlines. Id say he was easily the more conservative than any Republican president since...

[Original_Intent]

He was in the tearing down mode?

(mr. White house maintenance man, tear down these solar panels!)

:D

[Kludge]

//

[erowe1]

I totally agree. He damn near tripled the national debt, put men in harms way in Grenada, weapons bans and on and on. He talked a great game though....



Actually yeah it was as simple as tearing down for no reason. Regan said that we are a great nation and we don't need to worry about our energy problems that we had no reason to sacrifice because we are a great nation.

For as bad of a president Carter was I can easily make the case the he was actually more conservative than any Republican since him.

He was more fiscally responsible than Nixon, Regan, Bush, or Bush (As shown in link 1) He also created more jobs in his one term as far as % than anyone since him and did so without killing the national debt (As shown in link 2).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms

A big reason why many say his presidency failed was the Iran Islamic uprising but ya know something, that really had nothing to do with him. He refused to go in and bomb them like many wanted. That was just more blowback from previous administrations that he had to come fix. He passed deregulation laws on rail, phone, trucking, and airlines. Id say he was easily the more conservative than any Republican president since...

The links you provided don't back up your claims. The relevant test for conservatism isn't growth of national debt, but increase in federal spending. According to your first link, Carter was absolutely terrible in that measure. Reagan and Clinton were far better (Reagan with a Democrat Congress that pushed him to spend more than he wanted and Clinton with a Republican Congress that pushed him to spend less than he wanted).

And in what way is increase in number of jobs a reflection of the conservatism of the president? As you can see in the graph AF provided here (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=263005), if you separate out government and private sector goods-producing employment, and observe its path over time (and not just using the imaginary benchmarks of the beginnings and ends of presidential terms), it's clear that Reagan's first term began with a serious drop in goods-producing private-sector employment that almost erased its growth over Carter's term, and it then grew until the 90-91 recession. Meanwhile, Carter also oversaw continuation of pretty much the same rapid rate of growth in government jobs that had been going on continuously since LBJ, whereas Reagan's two terms saw the most modest growth (and at one point even a decrease) in government jobs of any president from 1939 until now.

I'm not a Reagan worshiper. And simply being less bad than most other presidents is admittedly setting the bar awfully low. But, all things considered, Reagan was arguably the least bad president since Coolidge. You could maybe put him below Ford, but you'd have to take into account Ford's lack of opportunity to do much damage.

In addition to what I've already pointed out in response to your points, here are some other things I've written here before. I think our approach to Reagan shouldn't be either embrace or shear disavowal. It should be using him to our advantage in convincing other Republicans to drop the neoconservatives.


1) Reagan's speeches were generally great. He communicated messages that should resonate well with Ron Paul supporters and did it better than any other politician I know of. We should be able to get some pretty good mileage out of his speeches by sending youtubes of them to Republicans we're trying to bring over to our side. In fact it wouldn't be a bad idea for us to compile a catalog of great Reagan speeches to use on our friends when they try to marginalize us, so we can say, "But I'm just giving you classic Reagan conservatism here."

2) Reagan was not nearly as brash when it came to committing American military to dangerous occupations and operations as the neoconservatives are. He also, for most of his presidency, did not adhere to their agenda of promoting democracies abroad, and instead held to the Kirkpatrick doctrine, which was still interventionist, but more America-first, less expensive, and less bloody. See here for something good for your neocon friends who idolize Reagan: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article..._ronald_reagan

3) Reagan is the only president since Johnson (and probably before) who oversaw an actual decrease in domestic federal spending during his tenure, and he did this with a Democrat Congress who fought him all the way. He also oversaw a smaller increase (though still an increase) of entitlement spending than any president since Johnson (and probably before). And the annualized growth rate during his presidency of the total budget, even including his bloated military/Cold War spending was 2.6%, less than half that of G. W. Bush, and not much higher than the lowest growth rates, which were seen by G. H. W. Bush and Clinton. http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0510-26.pdf

4) Yes, Reagan went whole hog on spending on the Cold War. And yes he was badly mistaken to do that. But if we're honest about it, spending on a cold war is not nearly as bad as spending on hot wars, which Reagan did less than most other presidents, Republican or Democrat (see #2 above).

So when it comes to appealing to Reagan as an example, we should be able to find some common ground with people, or even challenge their assumptions on the above (and probably some other things some of you can mention). We might even be able to agree that he's the most conservative president we've had since Coolidge (which is at least reasonable, even if debatable).

Then, after building that bridge, there might be a good opportunity to say, "But it really is a shame that our situation is so bad that the Republican party can't do any better than Reagan for setting it's high water mark?" and point out how the deficits skyrocketed under him and how poisonous that legacy has become for the party with Cheney saying early in G.W.'s ultra-left-wing presidency that "Reagan proved deficits don't matter."

That segue brings up a good opportunity to address the question, "Can we really do better than Reagan?" by saying, "Sure we can. Take a look at Ron Paul. He's the only Republican who has been consistent in sticking to the libertarian conservative principles that Reagan championed in those great speeches but just couldn't stick to consistently enough in his actions as president."

[tjeffersonsghost]

And in what way is increase in number of jobs a reflection of the conservatism of the president? As you can see in the graph AF provided here (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=263005), if you separate out government and private sector employment, and observe its path over time (and not just using the imaginary benchmarks of the beginnings and ends of presidential terms), it's clear that Reagan's first term began with a serious drop in private-sector employment that almost erased its growth over Carter's term, and it then grew until the 90-91 recession. Meanwhile, Carter also oversaw continuation of pretty much the same rapid rate of growth in government jobs that had been going on continuously since LBJ, whereas Reagan's two terms saw the most modest growth (and at one point even a decrease) in government jobs of any president from 1939 until now.



Oddly enough your chart FURTHER proves my point about Carter. When Carter took office there were 21 Million Goods Producing Workers. When he Left there were 25 million. We have never hit there since even with 75 million more people and $12 more trillion in debt. So thank you for further proving my point.

[Fredom101]

Reagan had plenty of mistakes, doesn't mean he was a horrible president, I'm still very troubled by his handling of AIDS, not that I htink he should of spent federal dollars or created policy but he decided to not acknowledge it at all and pass it off as a gay disease. Although, it perspective this was very common view at the time.

And yes, I'm aware of the debate about AIDS as discussed on a recent Lew Rockwell interview, but still at the time while I don't think president should be pushing policy and spending they can have a role of galvanizing individuals to cooperate to solve problems with their words.

He tripled the size of government.
Who cares about solar panels?

[Icymudpuppy]

Solar panels from the 1970's? Unless they were some kind of uber DARPA prototype, they were likely extraordinarily low-power, low-efficiency devices. After a decade, their performance must have been dismal. If they're still in use, I suspect it's more of a ceremonial or "legacy" thing and not because they are themselves providing ample power.

Spacecraft (as in satellites, etc.) were the only real users of solar panels in the past because photovoltaics have always been extremely ineffective at providing energy, but they offer advantages that are able to be exploited by spacecraft. Photovoltaics, except for some select applications, are generally a waste as terrestrial power sources. It seems that what Reagan did was eliminate waste in this small instance.

Not Photovoltaic solar panels. Hot water solar panels. It's basically a greenhouse with a concave reflective floor, and black pipes to absorb the heat at the center of the dish. The black pipes are made to collect the suns heat the same way the collector on a sattelite dish collects the reflected signal.

[erowe1]

Oddly enough your chart FURTHER proves my point about Carter. When Carter took office there were 21 Million Goods Producing Workers. When he Left there were 25 million. We have never hit there since even with 75 million more people and $12 more trillion in debt. So thank you for further proving my point.

Once again, you're using the silly time limits of the beginnings and ends of when someone took office, as if policies and their effects make clean cuts like that. Once you disclaim that fallacy, your point doesn't stand any more. Or do you imagine that the '81 recession should somehow be pinned to Reagan and not Carter?

Also, the relevant data on that graph that is really reflective of fiscally liberal policies is the government worker line, not the goods-producing worker line. Both lines (once you include the 81 recession) reflect very poorly on Carter. But the government worker one especially shows how our government grew less (in terms of number of government employees) during Reagan's tenure than any other post-1939 president.

[Meatwasp]

I totally agree. He damn near tripled the national debt, put men in harms way in Grenada, weapons bans and on and on. He talked a great game though....



Actually yeah it was as simple as tearing down for no reason. Regan said that we are a great nation and we don't need to worry about our energy problems that we had no reason to sacrifice because we are a great nation.

For as bad of a president Carter was I can easily make the case the he was actually more conservative than any Republican since him.

He was more fiscally responsible than Nixon, Regan, Bush, or Bush (As shown in link 1) He also created more jobs in his one term as far as % than anyone since him and did so without killing the national debt (As shown in link 2).


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms

A big reason why many say his presidency failed was the Iran Islamic uprising but ya know something, that really had nothing to do with him. He refused to go in and bomb them like many wanted. That was just more blowback from previous administrations that he had to come fix. He passed deregulation laws on rail, phone, trucking, and airlines. Id say he was easily the more conservative than any Republican president since...
Yawn

[erowe1]

He tripled the size of government.


He did?

Tripled by what measure? Certainly not spending.

[Meatwasp]

Let's not forgot the escalation of the War on Drugs People.

Oh hum

[tjeffersonsghost]

He did?

Tripled by what measure? Certainly not spending.

Regan nearly tripled the national debt in office. Starting debt when Carter took office $706 and the debt when he left was $994 . The national debt when Regan took office was $994, when he left it was $2867 damn near tripled the national debt.

[Bruno]

Oh hum

I know, huh?

Millions imprisoned and billions of dollars spent to imprison people for choosing what to do with their bodies, creating a huge black market, rise in gang warfare, thousands murdered here and abroad, all the while turning us into a police state, isn't that important to enough Americans.

[Meatwasp]

I know, huh?

Millions imprisoned and billions of dollars spent to imprison people for choosing what to do with their bodies, creating a huge black market, rise in gang warfare, thousands murdered here and abroad, all the while turning us into a police state, isn't that important to enough Americans.
double yawn Heh

[erowe1]

Regan nearly tripled the national debt in office.

1) No he didn't. He doubled it.

2) How could anyone imagine that tripling the national debt is tripling the size of government?

[tjeffersonsghost]

1) No he didn't. He doubled it.

2) How could anyone imagine that tripling the national debt is tripling the size of government?

Quit using false facts, I laid them out right here and I backed up my claims


The national debt when Regan took office was $994, when he left it was $2867 damn near tripled the national debt. Starting debt when Carter took office $706 and the debt when he left was $994
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms


Yes I do consider tripling the debt tripling the size of government. The government spent the money somewhere didnt they? Most likely it was spent on big government in one form or another.

[erowe1]

Quit using false facts, I laid them out right here and I backed up my claims
I was looking at the adjusted for inflation column.





Yes I do consider tripling the debt tripling the size of government.

Then you're wrong. Because the two things are totally different.

Carter paid for his big government (which he grew more rapidly than Reagan) with more income taxes than Reagan did, whereas Reagan paid for his big government (which he grew more slowly than Carter did), with lower income taxes and more deficit spending. Income taxes and deficits are both about equally bad IMHO, but the size of government isn't from either one or the other, it's from both (together with all other taxes).

[HOLLYWOOD]

We were in yet another Recession... so, Reagan wanted to create jobs... good paying jobs, from dismantlers, to movers, to recyclers, to resellers.

Reagan created 100's of jobs just removing the solar panels!


Next on the latest BS of creating jobs by ALL these hacks in Washington DC: 50 Million NEW jobs, when government hands every unemployed American a SPOON to collectively build the new national transportation infrastructure.

[tjeffersonsghost]

Carter paid for his big government (which he grew more rapidly than Reagan) with more income taxes than Reagan did, whereas Reagan paid for his big government (which he grew more slowly than Carter did), with lower income taxes and more deficit spending. Income taxes and deficits are both about equally bad IMHO, but the size of government isn't from either one or the other, it's from both (together with all other taxes).

Once again you proved my point Carter is more fiscally conservative than any Republican since... He at least paid for his government. Fiscally conservative means not only spending less, but also adding as little as you can to the debt, you pay your bills.

The problem with America is they want shit for free. Regan lowered taxes which was very popular, but he didnt lower spending hence tripling the national debt. Carter did the unpopular thing and at least paid for it. We need to start paying for this big government, maybe then a Ron Paul might not look so bad. Until we start paying for all of this the people who promise a whole lot while not paying for it will continue to get elected.

We had 25 million productive jobs under Carter and since leaving we have never seen that number so high since.

[tjeffersonsghost]

We were in yet another Recession... so, Reagan wanted to create jobs... good paying jobs, from dismantlers, to movers, to recyclers, to resellers.

Reagan created 100's of jobs just removing the solar panels!


Next on the latest BS of creating jobs by ALL these hacks in Washington DC: 50 Million NEW jobs, when government hands every unemployed American a SPOON to collectively build the new national transportation infrastructure.

I debunked the Regan created jobs crap already with this link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms

Yeah Regan created jobs, but he had to triple the national debt to do it. Carter created nearly as many jobs while going into debt less and spending less.

[erowe1]

Once again you proved my point Carter is more fiscally conservative than any Republican since... He at least paid for his government. Fiscally conservative means not only spending less, but also adding as little as you can to the debt, you pay your bills.


They both paid for it (no government spending is ever free or ever not paid for). They just paid for it in different ways. Carter depended more on income taxes, whereas Reagan depended more on deficit spending, which is really just another kind of tax. The relevant number isn't either one of those things on its own (they're both fiscally liberal things to have). The relevant number is spending. Carter's growth in spending was much worse than Reagan's.

[erowe1]

We had 25 million productive jobs under Carter and since leaving we have never seen that number so high since.

There was a point during his presidency that it was that high. But that was its peak, and it was during his tenure that it started going down again. When he took office there were 21 million goods-producing jobs, and at the end of the Carter recession in 1983 there were 21 million again.

But more importantly than that, at least as a test for fiscally liberal policy, is what he did to government jobs, which he increased by as many in 4 years what it took Reagan 8 years to do.

[Meatwasp]

They both paid for it (no government spending is ever free or ever not paid for). They just paid for it in different ways. Carter depended more on income taxes, whereas Reagan depended more on deficit spending, which is really just another kind of tax. The relevant number isn't either one of those things on its own (they're both fiscally liberal things to have). The relevant number is spending. Carter's growth in spending was much worse than Reagan's.

Under Carter we almost starved to death with his high inflation.We had so much money saved for food and every time we went to the Market every thing jumped sky high. I hated the man.

[tjeffersonsghost]

They both paid for it (no government spending is ever free or ever not paid for). They just paid for it in different ways. Carter depended more on income taxes, whereas Reagan depended more on deficit spending, which is really just another kind of tax. The relevant number isn't either one of those things on its own (they're both fiscally liberal things to have). The relevant number is spending. Carter's growth in spending was much worse than Reagan's.

IT WAS NOT!!!!! Quit lying dude. How many times do I have to debunk this. When you spend but put it on the credit car you still spent the money!!! DO the math http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms#cite_note-16


So Carter spent in his 4 years including what he added on to the debt a total of $2.52 trillion dollars.

Reagan spent in his first four years including debt $5.9 trillion dollars. Reagan more than DOUBLED the spending of Carter.

[tjeffersonsghost]

Under Carter we almost starved to death with his high inflation.We had so much money saved for food and every time we went to the Market every thing jumped sky high. I hated the man.

The inflation was from the Vietnam war and going off the gold standard, not Carter.

[erowe1]

When you spend but put it on the credit car you still spent the money!!!

Exactly. Whether it was paid for with with borrowed money or with income taxes (or anything else), you still spent the money.

The relevant number isn't whether a president depended more on income taxes or deficits, but how much they spent. Carter oversaw a much more rapid increase in spending than Reagan did.

[Meatwasp]

The inflation was from the Vietnam war and going off the gold standard, not Carter.

BS

[tjeffersonsghost]

Exactly. Whether it was paid for with with borrowed money or with income taxes (or anything else), you still spent the money.

The relevant number isn't whether a president depended more on income taxes or deficits, but how much they spent. Carter oversaw a much more rapid increase in spending than Reagan did.

I guess you think that if you just keep repeating it maybe it will come true. Ive showed you that Reagan spent more than Carter, Reagan added more on to the national debt than Carter, and Carter had the most productive jobs at over 25 million productive jobs (No other president since has had so many).

You keep repeating the same thing over and over no matter how many times I debunk it with facts to actually back up my rhetoric.

[tjeffersonsghost]

BS

BS? You have facts to back up your rhetoric? If it wasnt from the Vietnam War or going off the gold standard then show me some facts showing other reasons. Ive laid out all the numbers to back up my claims.

[erowe1]

Reagan more than DOUBLED the spending of Carter.

No he didn't. Using your own link:

In Ford's last year, federal spending was $409 billion. In Carter's last year it was $678 billion. That's a 66% increase over Carter's 4 years, or an average of 13.5% per year.

In Carter's last year, federal spending was $678 billion. In Reagan's last year it was $1,144. That's a 68% increase over Reagan's 8 years, or an average of 6.7% per year.

So, measured in unadjusted dollars, federal spending grew at half the rate under Reagan that it did under Carter.


Measured in inflation-adjusted (FY2000) dollars, it's as follows:

In Ford's last year, federal spending was $1,040 billion. In Carter's last year it was $1,219 billion. That's a 17% increase over Carter's 4 years, or an average of 4% per year.

In Carter's last year, federal spending was $1,219 billion. In Reagan's last year it was $1,499. That's a 23% increase over Reagan's 8 years, or an average of 2.6% per year.

So, when adjusted for inflation, the difference is not quite as great, but it's still significant.

[erowe1]

Ive showed you that Reagan spent more than Carter.

Of course he did. Every president spent more than his predecessor. But spending grew much less rapidly under Reagan than it did under Carter. That's not debatable.

[MelissaWV]

To get to the other side.

[tjeffersonsghost]

No he didn't. Using your own link:

In Ford's last year, federal spending was $409 billion. In Carter's last year it was $678 billion. That's a 66% increase over Carter's 4 years, or an average of 13.5% per year.

In Carter's last year, federal spending was $678 billion. In Reagan's last year it was $1,144. That's a 68% increase over Reagan's 8 years, or an average of 6.7% per year.

So, measured in unadjusted dollars, federal spending grew at half the rate under Reagan that it did under Carter.


First off you cant use the "adjusted for inflation numbers" You use the numbers at the time.

$409 to $678 is a 40% increase over Carter's four years in office.

$678 to $994 is a 40% increase over Reagan's first four years.

If you go the full 8 years spending went from $678 to $1144 which is a 41% increase. But you cant go 8 years because Carter didnt go 8 years and you can never tell what Carter would have done with a second term no more than you could tell what Reagan would of done. You can only compare apples to apples and Reagan in his four years spent more than Carter and added much more on to the debt and on and on.

Edit to Add: Actually we are both wrong... The increase was about the same. The big difference was the debt.

[amy31416]

Nitpicking about who was better or worse with spending is almost irrelevant anymore, especially given the national debt--neither were perfect, but Reagan gave us the gift that kept on giving: The War on Drugs. The worst long-term decision that Carter made was to have Zbignew Brzezinski on his team--who, of course, has Obama's ear as well.

Not sure how to compare the damage that either one did, in a long-term way, but it's certainly easier to see the daily effects of the ongoing carnage of the war on drugs. Our foreign policy is so muddied, brutal and atrocious that I have no idea how to discern what was due to Carter/Brzezinski and what was/is due to neocons.

Almost seems like a horse apiece. Carter's legacy is partially foreign warfare, Reagan's is domestic. Both get Americans and foreigners killed, both waste shitloads of our money, and neither is ethical or supportive of liberty or the Constitution.

Robert Taft would possibly have been a fantastic president...too bad he was defeated by Eisenhower--but in this day and age, considering how atrocious our government is, even Eisenhower would look like a saint.

[Meatwasp]

BS? You have facts to back up your rhetoric? If it wasnt from the Vietnam War or going off the gold standard then show me some facts showing other reasons. Ive laid out all the numbers to back up my claims.

Well for one thing he started pushing all his socialist programs and his environmental crap that destroyed the logging in dusty.Taxes went sky high to pay for the schools which before logging paid for it.
All I know he was the president when inflation rocketed. I wasn't very political then until we were reduced to eating ground squirrels and digger pine nuts..

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Nitpicking about who was better or worse with spending is almost irrelevant anymore, especially given the national debt--neither were perfect, but Reagan gave us the gift that kept on giving: The War on Drugs. The worst long-term decision that Carter made was to have Zbignew Brzezinski on his team--who, of course, has Obama's ear as well.

Not sure how to compare the damage that either one did, in a long-term way, but it's certainly easier to see the daily effects of the ongoing carnage of the war on drugs. Our foreign policy is so muddied, brutal and atrocious that I have no idea how to discern what was due to Carter/Brzezinski and what was/is due to neocons.

Almost seems like a horse apiece. Carter's legacy is partially foreign warfare, Reagan's is domestic. Both get Americans and foreigners killed, both waste shitloads of our money, and neither is ethical or supportive of liberty or the Constitution.

Robert Taft would possibly have been a fantastic president...too bad he was defeated by Eisenhower--but in this day and age, considering how atrocious our government is, even Eisenhower would look like a saint.

Eh, to be fair Carter gave us the Department of Education, Department of Energy, and price controls (thank Nixon too).

Also, Carter bailed out Chrysler. Good lord, how many fucking times do we have to bail out these parasites?

[LibertyVox]

Eh, to be fair Carter gave us the Department of Education and other atrocities.

lol:D
This one deserves a laugh.

[erowe1]

First off you cant use the "adjusted for inflation numbers" You use the numbers at the time.

$409 to $678 is a 40% increase over Carter's four years in office.

$678 to $994 is a 40% increase over Reagan's first four years.

If you go the full 8 years spending went from $678 to $1144 which is a 41% increase. But you cant go 8 years because Carter didnt go 8 years and you can never tell what Carter would have done with a second term no more than you could tell what Reagan would of done. You can only compare apples to apples and Reagan in his four years spent more than Carter and added much more on to the debt and on and on.

Edit to Add: Actually we are both wrong... The increase was about the same. The big difference was the debt.

Even if you only want to compare single terms, you're still wrong.

$409 to $678 is 66% increase for Carter.

Reagan's first term was $678 to $946, or a 40% increase. So that one term was much less severe of an increase than Carter's.

Reagan's second term was $946 to $1144, so only a 21% increase, which looks like about the smallest growth in government spending during any single term of any president on that whole table.

On the one hand, yes, you have to count Reagan's higher deficit spending against Reagan. But if you do that, then to be fair, you have to count Carter's higher income taxes against Carter just as much (or are income taxes not a problem to you?). What you're left with is still just comparing total spending increases to total spending increases. There's just no possible way for Carter to come out of this as more of a conservative, unless you try to give him a pass on his high income taxes while still counting Reagan's deficit spending against him.

[pcosmar]

Anyone got photos?
I know he was the outdoorsy type, but I just can't see him up on the White House roof with a crowbar.

You Tube ?
;)

[angelatc]

Lots of articles about solar returning to the WH since the Obama administration had a recent about-face, probably to try to schmooze the dimmer elements in their base.


One thing that is brought up frequently in these articles is how Reagan tore down Carter's solar water heating system...why the hell would he do that, except to be weirdly vindictive?

I'm sure the Heritage Foundation has a reasonable explanation somewhere....

Examples:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-05/solar-panels-on-white-house-roof-removed-by-reagan-to-return-under-obama.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harvey-wasserman/could-a-solar-green-white_b_751521.html

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0503-22.htm

Probably because solar isn't as efficient as gas and oil when you consider the costs of the panels, the cost of installations (when the roofs are replaced) and the cost of maintaining them.

Plus the costs of the batteries, the maintenance on the batteries, the disposal costs of the batteries....

Liberals suck at money. That's why they're poor.

[amy31416]

Eh, to be fair Carter gave us the Department of Education, Department of Energy, and price controls (thank Nixon too).

Also, Carter bailed out Chrysler. Good lord, how many fucking times do we have to bail out these parasites?

Ahh yes...can't forgive Carter for the monster that is the Dept of Education, which Bush expanded even more. Jesus Christ.

Still a slow bleed compared to the war on drugs, I suppose. I don't entirely understand why we'd waste our time defending one or the other, both were bad (by differing degrees) in so many ways.

Personally, I'm just curious about the allegedly "conservative" mindset that is often hostile toward alternative energy and innovations in that field--I know we've been burned by big gov't subsidies of ethanol and crap like that, but it doesn't make any sense to me that "conservatives" often take pleasure in being wasteful, just to spite liberals.

[angelatc]

Under Carter we almost starved to death with his high inflation.We had so much money saved for food and every time we went to the Market every thing jumped sky high. I hated the man.

Isn't it hysterical to see how many people are trying to rewrite history? Carter was probably a nice guy, and I've heard he had the highest IQ of any president ever elected. But he sucked at being president.

The 1980 election map says it all - people knew bulls**t when they saw it.

http://www.uspoliticsguide.com/images/Presidents-history/1980-electoral-map.gif

[amy31416]

Probably because solar isn't as efficient as gas and oil when you consider the costs of the panels, the cost of installations (when the roofs are replaced) and the cost of maintaining them.

Plus the costs of the batteries, the maintenance on the batteries, the disposal costs of the batteries....

Liberals suck at money. That's why they're poor.

This was different than regular old solar panels, that we're familiar with today. It was a solar water heating system. Quite different than the delicate, battery-dependent solar panels that lots of alt-energy zombies promote.

That said, I agree on the inefficiencies of solar panels--I've looked into them, and still entertain it on occasion, only because I don't want to be dependent on public utilities. Especially after losing power for a week last winter--not fun in this neck of the woods. Wind would be better, but that's not possible here either.

Hell, I'll just get one of those bike-powered thingies. :p

[pcosmar]

Ahh yes...can't forgive Carter for the monster that is the Dept of Education, which Bush expanded even more. Jesus Christ.

Still a slow bleed compared to the war on drugs, I suppose. I don't entirely understand why we'd waste our time defending one or the other, both were bad (by differing degrees) in so many ways.

Personally, I'm just curious about the allegedly "conservative" mindset that is often hostile toward alternative energy and innovations in that field--I know we've been burned by big gov't subsidies of ethanol and crap like that, but it doesn't make any sense to me that "conservatives" often take pleasure in being wasteful, just to spite liberals.

Don't Know. And I have no idea what kind of system Carter bought into. Solar Water heating panels are great in some areas and when they work right.
Perhaps it was just a shitty system, or didn't work well in that location.
Not enough information to go on.

Where I live it would be a waste of money and effort for any minimal use I might get.

[angelatc]

Personally, I'm just curious about the allegedly "conservative" mindset that is often hostile toward alternative energy and innovations in that field--I know we've been burned by big gov't subsidies of ethanol and crap like that, but it doesn't make any sense to me that "conservatives" often take pleasure in being wasteful, just to spite liberals.

In my mind, there is absolutely no good argument for developing those technologies on a large scale. Wind and sun aren't all that innovative. They, along with the force of moving water, were the original forms of energy. The market abandoned them for a reason. They're not efficient. Therefore, they're expensive.

Let the market work. If we start to run out of oil, then the price of oil will rise and alternative energies will develop in response. But getting the government to pick and choose favorites is just a recipe for another disaster.

[Fredom101]

He did?

Tripled by what measure? Certainly not spending.

Look at the national debt numbers when he took office and when he left.

[Fredom101]

I debunked the Regan created jobs crap already with this link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms

Yeah Regan created jobs, but he had to triple the national debt to do it. Carter created nearly as many jobs while going into debt less and spending less.

He did not "create jobs". No president or politician can do that. Jobs are created by entrepreneurs in the private sector.

[Fredom101]

Isn't it hysterical to see how many people are trying to rewrite history? Carter was probably a nice guy, and I've heard he had the highest IQ of any president ever elected. But he sucked at being president.

The 1980 election map says it all - people knew bulls**t when they saw it.

http://www.uspoliticsguide.com/images/Presidents-history/1980-electoral-map.gif

So the majority is correct?
I guess we all should bow down to Obama and see him as good then since he carried most states. :confused:

[erowe1]

Look at the national debt numbers when he took office and when he left.

See the discussion above. Growth of national debt and growth of government are two totally different things.

[angelatc]

President GW Bush put solar panels back in the White House: http://govpro.com/issue_20030101/gov_imp_29106/

which (for the HuffPo crowd) should quash the liberals v conservative position.

[akforme]

the problem is that it's government promoting an industry. Now Reagan took them down to probably promote another industry but either way it's using government force to promote.

If Carter had paid for them himself and gave them to the whitehouse then Reagan was a dick, if not, it just means they're both the same.

[amy31416]

Don't Know. And I have no idea what kind of system Carter bought into. Solar Water heating panels are great in some areas and when they work right.
Perhaps it was just a shitty system, or didn't work well in that location.
Not enough information to go on.

Where I live it would be a waste of money and effort for any minimal use I might get.

Solar would also be almost a total waste for me as well, except to tinker with. Wind might be a different story if I buy some land in the boonies.

But yeah, we don't know much, given the articles I posted, but the way it was posed was total demonization of Reagan for taking them down, so I was curious if it was an asshole political move or if the solar system was just some BS liberal tree-hugging stuff.


In my mind, there is absolutely no good argument for developing those technologies on a large scale. Wind and sun aren't all that innovative. They, along with the force of moving water, were the original forms of energy. The market abandoned them for a reason. They're not efficient. Therefore, they're expensive.

Let the market work. If we start to run out of oil, then the price of oil will rise and alternative energies will develop in response. But getting the government to pick and choose favorites is just a recipe for another disaster.

Well, I'll disagree with you--I think there is a lot of good reason to develop alt-energy technologies. It certainly would eliminate the "need" for us to keep bombing the hell out of oil-producing countries, or just making shady deals with them. Not to mention that I think it'd be a very good idea to start working on this problem prior to it becoming a crisis where everyone loses their shit and you have people freezing to death, etc. That happens in 1-2 week long power outages... imagine longer ones.

Of course, I include nuclear as a good form of alt-energy, probably the best for large-scale non-"fossil" fuel energy production. Our common energy sources, whether oil, natural gas or coal has too much collusion with government (as does solar and wind from time to time.) They involve taxes, fees, deals, corporatism, etc.

I'd like "no-bullshit" energy sources--pipe dream, I know. :p

But I do recommend looking into Russian Fireplaces for anyone in cold areas--it's old-school, but very efficient and you only pay a skilled mason--no other weird crap to deal with except a source of wood (and much less than a standard fireplace.)

[angelatc]

So the majority is correct?
I guess we all should bow down to Obama and see him as good then since he carried most states. :confused:

Not just a majority. A sweeping majority - the most decisive that the country has ever seen.

His economic policies had no effect on fighting inflation at the time. The dollar tanked on his watch. The military was in rough shape - there was a genuine concern that the Soviets were getting stronger than us. He and his good-ol'-boy White House cronies were too weak to get anything significant through Congress. Crime sky-rocketed during his term.

I don't hate everything he did, but we did better under Reagan than we would have ever done under Carter.

[amy31416]

President GW Bush put solar panels back in the White House: http://govpro.com/issue_20030101/gov_imp_29106/

which (for the HuffPo crowd) should quash the liberals v conservative position.

Haha. :)

[angelatc]

Well, I'll disagree with you--I think there is a lot of good reason to develop alt-energy technologies.

Of course there is. There's just no good reason for the government to subsidize the development. That's the root of the vitriol.



It certainly would eliminate the "need" for us to keep bombing the hell out of oil-producing countries, or just making shady deals with them.

I think all of our oil should come from deals, not from bombing. That's how markets work. If we want oil, we should buy oil. Or - God forbid - allow drilling and refineries to be built here.



Not to mention that I think it'd be a very good idea to start working on this problem prior to it becoming a crisis where everyone loses their shit and you have people freezing to death, etc. That happens in 1-2 week long power outages... imagine longer ones.

Well then, you go right ahead and start working on it. I'll continue to believe in the free market. I don't believe that we'll run out of oil overnight. As supply decreases, prices will increase. As the prices increase, other technologies will obviously become more economically efficient in comparison. But letting the federal government decide which technologies are going to be the winners entirely distorts and weakens the market. I absolutely believe that the markets would already have more efficient alternatives available if the FedGov hadn't insisted in running electric wires to every remote corner of the country, thus virtually eliminating the market for competition to develop.

Alaska is never going to function on wind, solar or hydroelectric. Not. Gonna. Happen.



Of course, I include nuclear as a good form of alt-energy, probably the best for large-scale non-"fossil" fuel energy production. Our common energy sources, whether oil, natural gas or coal has too much collusion with government (as does solar and wind from time to time.) They involve taxes, fees, deals, corporatism, etc.

I'd like "no-bullshit" energy sources--pipe dream, I know. :p

What do you do with the waste - hand it off to the grandkids?


But I do recommend looking into Russian Fireplaces for anyone in cold areas--it's old-school, but very efficient and you only pay a skilled mason--no other weird crap to deal with except a source of wood (and much less than a standard fireplace.) Not sure what that is, but I do have plans here for some European style wood heating oven thing. It burns a very hot fire in the morning, and keeps the house warm all day. Sounds like it might be similar.

[dannno]

I don't see anything wrong with the government buying solar panels for the White House, I don't really see that as subsidizing an industry per se..

It's when they start giving particular solar companies money or start buying solar panels for individuals or private companies that it is really subsidizing.

[amy31416]

Of course there is. There's just no good reason for the government to subsidize the development. That's the root of the vitriol.

Couldn't agree more.



I think all of our oil should come from deals, not from bombing. That's how markets work. If we want oil, we should buy oil. Or - God forbid - allow drilling and refineries to be built here.


Yep--but that ain't the way our gov't works, hasn't for a long time.



Well then, you go right ahead and start working on it. I'll continue to believe in the free market. I don't believe that we'll run out of oil overnight. As supply decreases, prices will increase. As the prices increase, other technologies will obviously become more economically efficient in comparison. But letting the federal government decide which technologies are going to be the winners entirely distorts and weakens the market. I absolutely believe that the markets would already have more efficient alternatives available if the FedGov hadn't insisted in running electric wires to every remote corner of the country, thus virtually eliminating the market for competition to develop.


Wouldn't me, or someone else, working on it and producing alternatives, unhindered by BS regulations BE a part of the free market?

I never said we'd run out of oil overnight, nor did I ever say that I wanted the gov't to have a say whatsoever in what wins/fails--in fact, I'm completely opposed to that. It isn't efficient to run electricity to a house out in the boonies, same with water--hence the prevalence of wells out in the sticks.



Alaska is never going to function on wind, solar or hydroelectric. Not. Gonna. Happen.


Maybe. But you're not Nostradamus either. Wind/solar/hydroelectric are not the only possibilities.



What do you do with the waste - hand it off to the grandkids?


Yes. Just like we hand pollution, depleted uranium and far fewer reserves to the grandkids, it's inevitable. If we only go with "fossil" fuels, we'll hand them the byproducts of that, plus a hell of a lot less energy to work with and no body of progress on other sources to work from.



Not sure what that is, but I do have plans here for some European style wood heating oven thing. It burns a very hot fire in the morning, and keeps the house warm all day. Sounds like it might be similar.

Sounds like the same thing. Quite efficient, beautiful and fantastic for very cold climates. Just have to make sure you have a VERY sturdy floor. :eek: Initial investment is high, but it pays off over time with lower heating bills, maintenance and would likely increase the resale value of the home. You can even use pine in them--which is a death sentence for my traditional brick fireplace with an insert.

[amy31416]

I don't see anything wrong with the government buying solar panels for the White House, I don't really see that as subsidizing an industry per se..

It's when they start giving particular solar companies money or start buying solar panels for individuals or private companies that it is really subsidizing.

I think the White House should have to do a cost analysis, just like I had to do whenever I wanted some new piece of equipment for a manufacturing area I was responsible for.

I had to show that the initial investment would pay off, and how much time it would take to pay off--otherwise, no new toys using company money. Why shouldn't the gov't have to do something similar?

[Meatwasp]

Not just a majority. A sweeping majority - the most decisive that the country has ever seen.

His economic policies had no effect on fighting inflation at the time. The dollar tanked on his watch. The military was in rough shape - there was a genuine concern that the Soviets were getting stronger than us. He and his good-ol'-boy White House cronies were too weak to get anything significant through Congress. Crime sky-rocketed during his term.

I don't hate everything he did, but we did better under Reagan than we would have ever done under Carter.

Ditto Kiddo.
Talking about eating digger pine nuts, let me tell you about them. The branches are so brittle and they crack easily and the guys fell on their butts getting them. Then the cone itself is pitchy and has fierce stickers. When you finally get an ax and chop them open they contained little hard shells that you had to either hit with a hammer or squeeze with a pair of pliers. Finally the little white nuts come out.
The digger pine Indians went extinct trying to live on them.

[pcosmar]

I am not a hard core "greenie" but I do like alternatives. What works in one area will not necessarily be good in another.
I have been burning wood for heat, but I would like an affordable oil for my oil furnace
Burning wood is a lot of work and requires constant care. 24/7.

We have Hydro-Electric, and I just signed a contract to get a wind farm up in the area, but trying to get a private wind generator is next to impossible due to regulations.

Solar is not viable due to the low angle if the Sun.

There are wishes, and there are realities. I am caught between them.

[amy31416]

I am not a hard core "greenie" but I do like alternatives. What works in one area will not necessarily be good in another.
I have been burning wood for heat, but I would like an affordable oil for my oil furnace
Burning wood is a lot of work and requires constant care. 24/7.

We have Hydro-Electric, and I just signed a contract to get a wind farm up in the area, but trying to get a private wind generator is next to impossible due to regulations.

Solar is not viable due to the low angle if the Sun.

There are wishes, and there are realities. I am caught between them.

I'm in the same boat.

Just to get you intrigued though, check out the design on Russian fireplaces (also called masonry fireplaces.)

http://www.grannysstore.com/Do-It-Yourself/diyimages/masonrystove.d.jpg

http://www.grannysstore.com/Do-It-Yourself/masonry_stoves.htm

It's entitled "do it yourself" but I don't buy that for a second, you need a skilled mason who knows his materials to build this puppy. Might be nifty to try to build one outdoors, if you're so motivated and have the land to do so.

(I've read that most ordinary brick can't hold up with this design, just as an FYI.)

[pcosmar]

I'm in the same boat.

Just to get you intrigued though, check out the design on Russian fireplaces (also called masonry fireplaces.)


Good design, basically a heat sink.
my home, (built 1921) was built around wood heat though a furnace was added later, as well as a more modern wood furnace.
Furnace is in the basement (Heat rises) and the chimney is in the center of the house. the brick acts as a heat sink. Reasonably efficient, but could be improved.

Draw back being, someone has to tend the fire constantly. Can't leave for the day and expect a warm house.

[tjeffersonsghost]

Im into the whole solar, wing, geothermal fad I admit although it probably isnt for the same reason as the greenies. I like the idea of self sufficiency, not being apart of the "system". If you produce your own energy and have an electric car you can tell the government and their corporate energy partners to go fuck themselves. The idea we are helping to preserve resources is a plus too :)

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Im into the whole solar, wing, geothermal fad I admit although it probably isnt for the same reason as the greenies. I like the idea of self sufficiency, not being apart of the "system". If you produce your own energy and have an electric car you can tell the government and their corporate energy partners to go fuck themselves. The idea we are helping to preserve resources is a plus too :)

I don't understand this...matter cannot be created nor destroyed. We simply convert resources into different resources. Electricity is not an energy source, it is a conductor of energy. Why do people confuse this?

I have nothing against Wind, Solar, Geo-thermal, but the fact is these things are acutely prone to nature. Most areas these aren't even possible or realistic. Locally it may be of some use in areas which get a lot of sun activity, or are near hot-springs and the like, but the market-share that would account for this is acutely small. There really is only two energy options -- Nuclear (Either Fission or Fusion) & Fossil Fuels. The Government does everything it can to keep both of those from reaching the market, and when they do it is heavily regulated and privileged and whoever is politically connected get to reap the benefits (E.g. Fascist). Having to rely on the wind or the sun, you are going to find yourself with a drastically reduced standard of living.

[tjeffersonsghost]

Having to rely on the wind or the sun, you are going to find yourself with a drastically reduced standard of living.

For the masses who don't want the standard of living decrease you can still use their other sources but I think we need to subsidize as much of our coal, nat gas, oil use as possible with renewable sources.

Me, I dont care. I can have my power supplied by wind and solar and Ill be glad to cut back. I just need enough electric for my computer, fridge, stove, and heat/cool. I dont watch TV and I dont have a ton of electrics or "things" that I need to power up. Maybe my electric car that I will be buying also. If I can tell the government and their corporate partners to go screw themselves then Ill be glad to. (BTW I am putting my money where my mouth is, Ive been shopping for a system and will be buying soon)

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

For the masses who don't want the standard of living decrease you can still use their other sources but I think we need to subsidize as much of our coal, nat gas, oil use as possible with renewable sources.

Me, I dont care. I can have my power supplied by wind and solar and Ill be glad to cut back. I just need enough electric for my computer, fridge, stove, and heat/cool. I dont watch TV and I dont have a ton of electrics or "things" that I need to power up. Maybe my electric car that I will be buying also. If I can tell the government and their corporate partners to go screw themselves then Ill be glad to. (BTW I am putting my money where my mouth is, Ive been shopping for a system and will be buying soon)

Seems an odd statement considering you just endorsed massive corporate welfare and theft from the people. You do realize what a subsidy is right, and who benefits?

[tjeffersonsghost]

Seems an odd statement considering you just endorsed massive corporate welfare and theft from the people. You do realize what a subsidy is right, and who benefits?

Where did I endorse massive corporate welfare? Also here is my wet dreams system (bunkers also)
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1175177/pg1
$200k though

[erowe1]

Seems an odd statement considering you just endorsed massive corporate welfare and theft from the people. You do realize what a subsidy is right, and who benefits?

I think he meant to say "supplement," not "subsidize."

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I think he meant to say "supplement," not "subsidize."

This seems logical. :p

[angelatc]

Couldn't agree more.

Well, I think we actually agree on everything, dammit. It's no fun playing the cynical angrie.woman in this thread any more. (insert exaggerated pout here)