TC
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,539
|
Post by TC on Mar 23, 2012 14:21:44 GMT -5
The commercial solar market as a whole was being subsidized by tax credits, bonus depreciation, etc. It is one thing for the government to incentivize commercial buildings to install solar and then let the private market meet the demand. It is another ill-advised thing for the government to directly subsidize one company or a few companies. The government almost always gets played in those situations and ends up eating some bad loans. I get that, the part I disagreed about in your post was the idea that solar installation growth was tightly coupled with new housing and new commercial building growth. |
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 7,405
|
Post by TBird41 on Mar 28, 2012 15:50:39 GMT -5
Since I'm just going to assume that everyone that checks the B&G political threads checks all of them, I'm going to put this here:
For conservatives (heck, liberals can play this game too)--would you rather the SC threw out all of Obamacare, BUT Obama was reelected, or have the SC uphold the constitutionality of Obamacare and have Obama lose (assume Romney wins in this scenario)?
The question stems from the idea that some people are advancing that removing Obamacare would remove the albatross from Obama's neck, allowing him to win reelection. Would establishing a limit on the Commerce Clause be more important than whatever Obama might do with his increased flexibility? Or is it better to get Romney in there, hope they can overturn Obamacare but with the knowledge that the Federal Government now has the same plenary powers as the states? (Liberals can come up with their own pro/cons for the two scenarios)
|
|
GUJook97
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,164
|
Post by GUJook97 on Mar 28, 2012 16:08:14 GMT -5
I think that is a great academic question, but to editorialize, I cant possibly believe that 99.9% of conservatives oppose Obamacare because of the expansive plenary power under the Commerce Clause it would grant to the federal government.
|
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Mar 28, 2012 16:17:57 GMT -5
I would prefer the latter option. One on one, I don't think there is much to distinguish Romney and Obama on policy grounds (including on the mandate), so I would be happy to take the constitutionality of HCR.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Social Assassin
Posts: 7,919
|
Post by kchoya on Mar 28, 2012 16:25:03 GMT -5
Would establishing a limit on the Commerce Clause be more important than whatever Obama might do with his increased flexibility? Yes. Imagine the crap liberals would try to pass if they had confirmation of their belief that the federal goverment can and should attempt to cure all ills.  |
|
GUJook97
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,164
|
Post by GUJook97 on Mar 28, 2012 16:27:01 GMT -5
Would establishing a limit on the Commerce Clause be more important than whatever Obama might do with his increased flexibility? Yes. Imagine the crap liberals would try to pass if they had confirmation of their belief that the federal goverment can and should attempt to cure all ills. But, if your State did it, that would be okay? |
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Social Assassin
Posts: 7,919
|
Post by kchoya on Mar 28, 2012 16:31:48 GMT -5
Yes. Imagine the crap liberals would try to pass if they had confirmation of their belief that the federal goverment can and should attempt to cure all ills. But, if your State did it, that would be okay? Depends on what the issue is. Generally speaking, I think the principle of subsidiarity is a good approach for governmental entities to take. |
|
GUJook97
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,164
|
Post by GUJook97 on Mar 28, 2012 16:33:05 GMT -5
That's fair.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,346
|
Post by EasyEd on Mar 28, 2012 18:44:14 GMT -5
I think TBird's question is like would you prefer to drown your oldest child or your youngest? I believe that dismantling the current Obamacare is the first step in dismantling Obama.
|
|
|
|
Post by hooahhoya on Mar 29, 2012 5:29:19 GMT -5
The question stems from the idea that some people are advancing that removing Obamacare would remove the albatross from Obama's neck, allowing him to win reelection. Would establishing a limit on the Commerce Clause be more important than whatever Obama might do with his increased flexibility? Or is it better to get Romney in there, hope they can overturn Obamacare but with the knowledge that the Federal Government now has the same plenary powers as the states? (Liberals can come up with their own pro/cons for the two scenarios) I think the other side of this theory is the idea that whichever side loses at SCOTUS is going to be more motivated to get out the vote on election day... |
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Social Assassin
Posts: 7,919
|
Post by kchoya on Mar 29, 2012 8:55:29 GMT -5
The question stems from the idea that some people are advancing that removing Obamacare would remove the albatross from Obama's neck, allowing him to win reelection. Would establishing a limit on the Commerce Clause be more important than whatever Obama might do with his increased flexibility? Or is it better to get Romney in there, hope they can overturn Obamacare but with the knowledge that the Federal Government now has the same plenary powers as the states? (Liberals can come up with their own pro/cons for the two scenarios) I think the other side of this theory is the idea that whichever side loses at SCOTUS is going to be more motivated to get out the vote on election day... Do you really think so? I think the turnout will be what it will be regardless of the Court's opinion. |
|
Cam
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Forever
Posts: 2,554
|
Post by Cam on Mar 30, 2012 12:46:27 GMT -5
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Screw you, Syracuse!! Screw you sideways!
Posts: 10,001
|
Post by Boz on Mar 30, 2012 13:17:35 GMT -5
I'm not a Republican, but I'll still be all over him for it. Hey, use it if you need it. It's your show. But the fact that you DO need it? Sorry. Pretty flippin' weak there, Boss. You too, Paul McCartney. On the other hand, they're gettin' up there. Memories probably aren't what they used to be. |
|
Elvado
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,108
|
Post by Elvado on Mar 30, 2012 13:21:44 GMT -5
You would think that a guy charging close to a hundred dollars a ticket could at least remember his own words.
Full disclosure--I have attended over 50 Bruce shows over the years but am opting out of this tour in its entirety. I can no longer stomach a man with close to $500MM in the bank bitching about hard times and the plight of the common man.
He has not been in touch with anything remotely like real life since the summer of 1984.
|
|
hoya9797
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 511
|
Post by hoya9797 on Mar 30, 2012 14:25:32 GMT -5
Springsteen is terrible. I absolutely do not understand the appeal. I was told that I had to see him live to really get it. So, I did and it was one of the worst shows I've ever seen. I'm not surprised that hack is using a prompter.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Social Assassin
Posts: 7,919
|
Post by kchoya on Mar 30, 2012 14:26:23 GMT -5
Based on Bruce's political beliefs, I think and TOTUS have the same scripts loaded in their teleprompters. |
|
guru
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,152
|
Post by guru on Mar 30, 2012 15:00:16 GMT -5
Springsteen is terrible. I absolutely do not understand the appeal. I was told that I had to see him live to really get it. So, I did and it was one of the worst shows I've ever seen. I'm not surprised that hack is using a prompter. Yeah, but he still poops bigger 'n you |
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Apr 5, 2012 15:33:13 GMT -5
|
|
hoyainspirit
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 4,164
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Apr 5, 2012 16:25:17 GMT -5
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Screw you, Syracuse!! Screw you sideways!
Posts: 10,001
|
Post by Boz on Apr 6, 2012 10:09:43 GMT -5
Yes, nice find indeed.
Umm, except that the story neglects to mention that Gillespie left the firm in 2007 to work for George Bush right after CAHR was formed and it appears that he himself never lobbied for an individual mandate.
Ah, well. Details. They's a pain.
Say, anyone interested in the interesting backgrounds of some of Obama's close advisors?
Pfft. Naaah.
|
|
