obamas green stimulus: money flushed the down toilet

http://www.dividedstates.com/list-of-failed-obama-green-energy-solar-companies/

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/green-firms-fed-cash-give-execs-bonuses-fail/story?id=15851653#.UCOwCKOQOQ4

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-57463156-10391695/another-green-energy-firm-bites-the-dust/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-clean-energy-strategy-is-money-wasted/2012/06/18/gJQADIpLmV_story.html

Barack Obama june 2012 “My plan would end the government subsidies to oil companies that have rarely been more profitable — let’s double down on a clean-energy industry that has never been more promising.”

How about spending up to 10 times the amount of fossil fuels on bio fuels?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/toddwoody/2012/07/19/the-navys-great-green-fleet-strikes-back/

the writer for forbes does fail to mention

that for the aircraft on the carrier the goverment had a contract for under $3 a gallon and signed a bio fuel contract for $27 a gallon www.instituteforenergyresearch.org

Needless to say we dont have the money to do this ourselves so just borrow more from China

Bio fuels are the future, or would you rather be relying on OPEC for another 40 years?

Birdofthad wrote:

Bio fuels are the future, or would you rather be relying on OPEC for another 40 years?

I want to rely on ourself. Drill baby drill and start actually using natural gas.

Farmer1906 wrote:

Birdofthad wrote:

Bio fuels are the future, or would you rather be relying on OPEC for another 40 years?

I want to relay on ourself. Drill baby drill and start actually using natural gas.

Obama was in our great state a few months ago praising the fracking being done which he stopped oil/gas from doing in 08/09

Bird at what rate do you think its ok to invest in failing companies?

I buy from a solar company. I'm green.

Cu Bu wrote:

Farmer1906 wrote:

Birdofthad wrote:

Bio fuels are the future, or would you rather be relying on OPEC for another 40 years?

I want to relay on ourself. Drill baby drill and start actually using natural gas.

Obama was in our great state a few months ago praising the fracking being done which he stopped oil/gas from doing in 08/09

Bird at what rate do you think its ok to invest in failing companies?

birdman ??

sorry but i think Bio fuels are the future, we don't need to be relying on the middle east who control the oil, thats just a fact.

Birdofthad wrote:

sorry but i think Bio fuels are the future, we don't need to be relying on the middle east who control the oil, thats just a fact.

a fact? Come on man we are sitting on huge reserves

how much money is ok to loose ?

our reserves don't come close to what OPEC has, not even close, its stupid to remain dependent on OPEC when we can make bio fuels that actually help our planet as well.

Birdofthad wrote:

our reserves don't come close to what OPEC has, not even close, its stupid to remain dependent on OPEC when we can make bio fuels that actually help our planet as well.

It is stupid. So let's go get more oil in the ground. We could easily be 100% dependent on US oil if we just went after it all.

Cu Bu wrote:

Birdofthad wrote:

sorry but i think Bio fuels are the future, we don't need to be relying on the middle east who control the oil, thats just a fact.

a fact? Come on man we are sitting on huge reserves

how much money is ok to loose ?

for the love of Buddy christ why wont this guy just answer the question

Farmer1906 wrote:

Birdofthad wrote:

our reserves don't come close to what OPEC has, not even close, its stupid to remain dependent on OPEC when we can make bio fuels that actually help our planet as well.

It is stupid. So let's go get more oil in the ground. We could easily be 100% dependent on US oil if we just went after it all.

no we couldn't

"More than $16 billion have gone to companies like Solyndra that are linked to big Obama and Democrat donors," the ad says.

FactCheck: That's misleading. The $16 billion figure comes from a book by conservative writer Peter Schweizer, former advisor to Sarah Palin and a research fellow at the Hoover Institution. FactCheck.org found first Schweizer over stated the amount by $6 billion, adding that "one might expect that a healthy percentage of owners of green energy companies might lean Democratic" and that "some went to Republican donors."

"ECOtality received $126 million in taxpayer money lost $45 million and is currently under investigation," the ad says.


FactCheck: Again, that's misleading. San Francisco-based ECOtality has received $42 million of an ongoing $126 million contract to build electric car charging stations. It lost $45 million in the past two years, but the first quarter of this year it turned a profit of $1.2 million. The ad is correct in stating ECOtality is under investigation. The SEC is investigating alleged insider trading.

"SunPower, more than $1 billion in loan guarantees, lost half a billion last year, laying off workers," the ad says.

FactCheck: That's partially accurate; the San Jose-based SunPower did report an operating loss of $534 million, as we reported last year, but the ad ignored the rest of the story, which is the company's new majority stockholder total is a French company that ranks among the top oil and energy companies in the world and the layoffs, a net reduction of 41 jobs, were mostly in Italy.

FactCheck.org found the Romney campaign did a lot of selective picking. The same strategy the president uses when he criticizes Romney's years at Bain Capital.

Birdofthad wrote:

Farmer1906 wrote:

Birdofthad wrote:

our reserves don't come close to what OPEC has, not even close, its stupid to remain dependent on OPEC when we can make bio fuels that actually help our planet as well.

It is stupid. So let's go get more oil in the ground. We could easily be 100% dependent on US oil if we just went after it all.

no we couldn't

People stimate the US has 2.3 trillion barrels of untapped oil. Say they're wrong and there is only 1 trillion. At 20 billion a year that's enough for 50 years of not depending on the rest of the world. That does factor in improved engines and natural gas.

Farmer1906 wrote:

Birdofthad wrote:

Farmer1906 wrote:

Birdofthad wrote:

our reserves don't come close to what OPEC has, not even close, its stupid to remain dependent on OPEC when we can make bio fuels that actually help our planet as well.

It is stupid. So let's go get more oil in the ground. We could easily be 100% dependent on US oil if we just went after it all.

no we couldn't

People stimate the US has 2.3 trillion barrels of untapped oil. Say they're wrong and there is only 1 trillion. At 20 billion a year that's enough for 50 years of not depending on the rest of the world. That does factor in improved engines and natural gas.

We use 20 percent of the world's production, but only have 2 percent of its reserves. Then this past week, the president got pushback from Republicans, who are citing a new government study to allege we have closer to 26 percent of the world's supply.

Who's right? Neither, really. Obama is talking about oil we know is there. Republicans are talking about oil we think is there.

Exactly. We only produce 2% because we don't go get it all. Just look if estimates are off by over 50% were still good for 50+ years. Why not go after it and depend on ourselves?

That would not only stabilize the oil industry but give millions and millions of jobs to the USA.

remember the Shell and BP oil spills, not exactly good things for our country. Im for bio fuels that are good for the environment sorry.

So The risk of oil spills is your reasoning to not save the economy and become energy independent?

thats one of the reason.

THe other reason is that we have 2%, everything else is pure guessing and estimation, whereas we know that we have bio fuels sitting here that are safe for the earth and are cheaper to abstract than oil.

Birdofthad wrote:

thats one of the reason.

THe other reason is that we have 2%, everything else is pure guessing and estimation, whereas we know that we have bio fuels sitting here that are safe for the earth and are cheaper to abstract than oil.

I'm sure it's just guessing and there is no science behind it. Why does it have to be one or the other.

well, we know for a fact we have 2% of the worlds oil wells

Some people SPECULATE we have as high as 26%, I don't think the damage to the environment is worth finding out if we do or not, when adding in the companies tied to the oil trade, mind as well go after clean, renewable, bio fuel.

Birdofthad wrote:

well, we know for a fact we have 2% of the worlds oil wells

Some people SPECULATE we have as high as 26%, I don't think the damage to the environment is worth finding out if we do or not, when adding in the companies tied to the oil trade, mind as well go after clean, renewable, bio fuel.

You keep saying biofuel, biofuel, biofuel, but there is absolutely no way to create enough biofuel to become energy independent. There is enough oil & natural gas though.