've lived here my whole life and I know just how corrupt the governemnt is and how it works. And don't you find it interesting? All that money he pushed into those solar companies and they all failed?
And just where do you learn your politics from? Hearsay, or actually spending an hour daily, going through the news and political sites?
And why are we bailing out the banks? We should do exactly what iceland did, or was it greenland? Sorry, can't remember which, memory gets fuzzy in the morning.
It is a
myth that Iceland didn't bail out its banks. It did bail out some smaller financial institutions to quite a cost but it didn't bail out its three big banks â" Kaupthing, Glitnir and Landsbanki â" in October 2008. From early 2008, the Government (a coalition of the Independence Party, conservative and the social democrats, who now lead the Government) and the Central Bank did try to get loans from all and sundry to prepare for this eventuality â" it did get a credit swap from the Scandinavian central banks of Euro 1.5bn â" but not enough to save the banks. That's why they did not bail the banks out.
The Icelandic Government has posted what amounts to 20-25% of GDP in bailing out â" or trying to bail out â" various other financial institutions and one insurance company. Virtually all nations have bailed their banks out when needed, to a certain extent. Iceland
never had an option to adopt the too-big-to-fail policy that led governments in the U.S. and Europe to prop up their banks. Assets held by Icelandâs three largest lenders had swelled to nine times the size of the economy, simply too large for the government to cope with, which led them to simply weather it out. After they defaulted on $85 billion in debt, the government seized control of them.
Anyhu, the Icelandic government did the opposite of what the Reps will ever do. The government provided means-tested
subsidies to reduce mortgage-interest expenses: Those with lower earnings, less home equity and children were granted the most generous support.
In addition to easing consumer debt, Iceland reduced government spending and increased revenue by raising taxes and cutting deductions that mainly benefited the well-off. Does it sound like something the Reps are going to do? No.
All that money he pushed into those solar companies and they all failed?
Another common
Romney attack, was that Obama spent 90 billion on solar energy. Well, Solar-panel manufacturer Solyndra and electric-battery maker Ener1, which got stimulus-backed help, qualified for less than $700 million in grants and loan guarantees, and didn't use it all.
Fisker and Tesla â" troubled electric-car companies that got loan guarantees funded with money appropriated under President George W.Bush â" had nothing at all to do with the $90 billion.
So, just what did make up the $90 billion?
The Council of Economic Advisers report cited by the Romney campaign breaks the spending into eight categories. Hereâs the majority of it:
-About a third of the money, $29 billion, was for energy efficiency, such as '$5 billion to pay for energy efficiency retrofits in low-income homes.' States and local governments directed a lot of the money. Grabellâs book on the stimulus says about 600,000 low-income homes were made more energy efficient â" with, say, new furnaces, thermostats, windows, insulation or repairs.
- About 20 percent of the money, $18 billion, was for traditional transit and high-speed rail. The money went to more than 30 states for infrastructure projects.
- More than 10 percent of it, $10 billion, was marked for modernization of the electrical grid. Utilities used the money to install digital meters to track energy usage in real time, and for things like sensors and substation devices.
Romney used the number '$90 billion' five times in the first presidential debate, claiming, "In one year, (Obama) provided $90 billion in breaks to the green energy world...into solar and wind, to Solyndra and Fisker and Tesla and Ener1.'
That is incorrect in several ways. That $90 billion, as described in a report provided by the Romney campaign, wasn't provided in one year, wasn't distributed primarily via tax breaks, wasn't primarily provided directly to companies, wasn't primarily spent on solar and wind, and wasn't spent at all on Fisker or Tesla.
In reality, more than 60 percent of it was directed to state and local governments and utility companies for energy efficiency, transportation and electrical infrastructure .
And why is it that we are allowing a private corperation to print our money and then FEE us for doing it when we can create our own?
Only the Treasury prints money, where did you hear such a farcical rumor again, almighty political master who knows much simply because he has lived there?
