Thursday, May 24, 2012

The Horror of Democrats

All well and good to think of Democrats as somehow thinking about "the little guy."

After three and a half years of an Obama Presidency, the casual observer would note how much the friends of Obama have profitted.

Unions, environmentalists, crony capitalists, not just billions, but trillions of dollars have been given and committed to Obama's pals. There are estimates, just coming out, that the unfunded commitments of our nation's governments--national, state and local--are approaching 45-trillion dollars. This is a big number. End of the road kind of number.

Still, it seems that much of the public debate as we enter another Presidential election season is centered around whether or not the policies of our governments are fair. Fairness is the central point of argument. Is this fair? Is that fair? If anyone is harmed, potentially harmed, theoretically harmed, then what ever it is that is causing this real, potential or theoretical harm is bad. And anyone who wants to stop the wasteful spending that is spent avoiding these harms, potential or theoretical harms, is evil. A is harmful. We should spend money avoiding A. B may be potentially harmful. We should spend money avoiding B. C is theoretically harmful. We should spend money avoiding C.

Kids, life is harmful.

The killing machine that is life is the problem, so, why don't we spend more money ending life? I know that Planned Parenthood is doing its part, but what are you and I doing on a daily basis to end life?

In California, I'm told, they had a hearing on black carbon today. A gas. Maybe if you do a search of black carbon gas California, you'll get a hit. I've never, until I heard this, ever thought of carbon as a gas. In California, they do things differently. Why is this important? Because this black carbon gas is harmful.

According to the guys in California fighting for air quality. Because, air quality can save lives. And lives are important. And whether the lives saved are real, potential or theoretical is unimportant, since the penumbra of safety overshadows all other concerns. The penumbra and emanations that are discovered in the political viewpoints of those who would continue spending in the face of a financial cliff are at least interesting. An example is the frenzy to spend money for Green Techology.

I'm not going to review stupid things like Solyndra, you know they're stupid. Governments taking the role of venture capitalist is stupid. Governments don't innovate. They smother.

"Since 2008, taxpayers have spent or provided loan guarantees of $6.5 billion for electric vehicles. That includes $2.4 billion for battery and electric drive component manufacturing, $3.1 billion in loan guarantees for electric vehicle projects, and $1 billion in tax credits for the vehicles. The price that American taxpayers pay for commercializing electric vehicles is painfully evident in the billions spent on green projects that are driven by politics rather than performance.

"Using taxpayer dollars to favor one automotive technology over another is contrary to the free-market principles that undergird our economy. Simply put, subsidizing electric vehicles doesn't make economic sense.

"The surest way to guarantee a product's failure is to subsidize it. Over time, cars that succeeded in the marketplace have been those that were developed and commercialized without government involvement. If a technology isn't capable of succeeding on its own economic merits, there's no amount of taxpayer support that will ever make it a commercial success."

But, if we don't have governments spending money to create these new technologies, we're going to be condemned to continue relying upon old technologies! Why?

Why do Really Smart Guys think that we need massive subsidies for Green Technology? Because...

Come on. You can do it.

Why do Really Smart Guys think that we need massive subsidies for Green Technology?

Why do we need massive subsidies for light-rail? Why do we need massive subsidies for electric cars? Why do we need massive subsidies for wind power? Why do we need massive subsidies for solar power? Why?

No matter how excercised you can get over real harm, potential harm or theoretical harm, the answer is, all this "new" technology is simply shite. It isn't worth the money used to produce it. Recently, Kathleen Hartnett White published a paper on air pollution. You've probably never heard of it, let alone read it. You can read it here. (.pdf)

What Ms. White has discovered is, that the EPA isn't really about the science, but about the harm, potential harm or theoretical harm that pollution can cause. What Ms White has discovered is, that the EPA is now using its "this might be an unprovable harm" to suggest the need for regulation. And we are all supposed to nod our heads, since the role of government is to protect us from harm, suggested harm, potential harm, ephemeral harm, improbable harm, theoretical harm, and lousy theory harm. This is a penumbra, indeed.

Thankfully, we have Really Smart Guys to take us by the hand. Even though at the same time, we're all Thelma and Louise financially.

Democrats. Gotta love 'em. All they want is to spend the money! We Jaspers wouldn't do it if left to our own devices! Democrats!

By golly. Saving us from foolishly being responsible for ourselves.


T. D. said...

Well said, TMI!

g said...

It's all good man.

Limewire is going to pony up more money than exists in the world.

We'll be fine.