Dutch fall out of love with windmills

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...7AF1JM20111116

When the Netherlands built its first sea-based wind turbines in 2006,
they were seen as symbols of a greener future.

Towering over the waves of the North Sea like an army of giants, blades
whipping through the wind, the turbines were the country's best hope to
curb carbon emissions and meet growing demand for electricity.

The 36 turbines -- each one the height of a 30-storey building --
produce enough electricity to meet the needs of more than 100,000
households each year.

But five years later the green future looks a long way off. Faced with
the need to cut its budget deficit, the Dutch government says offshore
wind power is too expensive and that it cannot afford to subsidize the
entire cost of 18 cents per kilowatt hour -- some 4.5 billion euros last
year.

The government now plans to transfer the financial burden to households
and industrial consumers in order to secure the funds for wind power and
try to attract private sector investment.

It will start billing consumers and companies in January 2013 and
simultaneously launch a system under which investors will be able to
apply to participate in renewable energy projects.

But the new billing system will reap only a third of what was previously
available to the industry in subsidies -- the government forecasts 1.5
billion euros every year -- while the pricing scale of the investment
plan makes it more likely that interested parties will choose less
expensive technologies than wind.

The outlook for Dutch wind projects seems bleak.

COUNTRY OF WINDMILLS

For centuries, the Netherlands has harnessed wind power, using windmills
to drain water from low-lying marsh and turn it into arable land.

Now however, one of the most densely populated countries in Europe --
with 489 people per square kilometer (0.6 miles) compared to 356 in
Belgium or 192 in Luxembourg -- is falling out of love with its iconic
technology.

Arguments over the high cost and maintenance of sea-based turbines, as
well as complaints from residents about unsightly land-based models,
have brought the Dutch to an impasse.

Offshore wind farms produce more electricity than onshore ones but it
costs twice as much as onshore wind power due to the higher cost of
materials, more expensive drilling methods, and more complex
maintenance.

Wind turbines in the sea need to be more robust to withstand strong
winds and salt water; their maintenance some miles away from the coast
requires special equipment and transportation.

Drilling the seabed is more expensive as it requires a specialized
workforce and equipment. Then there's the additional cost of connecting
the offshore farms to the grid.

Onshore, wind turbines face local resistance.

In 1994, a group of entrepreneurial farmers around the Dutch town of Urk
got together and decided to build the country's largest onshore wind
farm with 86 wind turbines nearby. Maxime Verhagen, then minister for
economy, innovation and agriculture, said this would be enough to supply
900,000 people.

The project has since been adapted to meet changes in legislation and 20
years after it was launched, construction may finally start this year
and be completed in 2014. The only thing holding up the project now is a
lawsuit filed by local residents. They say the 30-meter-high wind
turbines will spoil their views.

"If we have wind turbines here this old picture will be destroyed," said
the mayor, Jaap Kroon. "We are also concerned about the safety and
noise."

Ironically Urk itself used to be an island until windmills were used to
drain the surrounding land and connect it to the mainland. The Dutch
Wind Energy Association says about half the country's onshore wind
projects such as the one in Urk are disputed.

"People don't want big wind turbines in their backyards," said Kasper
Wallet, an energy consultant. "They think it will impact the value of
their property."

SHORT-TERM SAVINGS?

Renewable energy meets just four percent of the Netherlands' total
energy consumption. That makes the country's target for its share to
rise 14 percent by 2020 challenging enough.

"We have come to the conclusion that the most likely targets with the
current policy to be reached will be in the range of 8 to 12 percent,"
said Paul van den Oosterkamp, manager of the Energy Research Center of
the Netherlands (ECN), an independent institute for renewable energy.

Under the government's new system aimed at attracting private sector
involvement, known as SDE+, investors will be able to apply in four
phases to participate in renewable energy projects, with government
subsidies set between 9 and 15 cents per kilowatt hour of produced
electricity they produce.

A spokeswoman for the ministry of economic affairs, agriculture and
innovation said this would not cover the current subsidy cost of
offshore wind projects.

"Some technologies like offshore wind, tidal and wave energy and solar
are on average more expensive than the SDE+ maximum cost price," said
Esther Benschop in an email to Reuters.

Dutch power firms say wind remains key to meeting green energy targets
but is still too expensive for them to manage alone.

Dutch grid operator TenneT, which became a major player in German
electricity transmission after it bought E.ON's high-voltage grid, has
complained about the cost of connecting offshore wind farms to the
national grid because of the expensive materials, particularly cables,
involved.

It currently has nine projects in Germany involving wind farms where it
has run into financing difficulties and is seeking a stakeholder.

Nico Bolleman -- managing director of Netherlands-based Blue
Technologies, a company which develops platforms for offshore wind
turbines -- says fairer comparisons need to be made when calculating the
cost of wind power.

"Even if you take everything into account, wind energy is not expensive.
Take into account the hidden costs of fossil fuels. For example,
transport of coal generates more carbon dioxide emissions and no-one
calculates that into the electricity price."

Others insist the negative impact will be short-term.

"The new subsidy scheme is not supportive, (but) offshore wind is a
long-term game," said Greven Hein, spokesman for Dutch utilities firm
Eneco, recently given subsidies to build a 129 megawatt offshore wind
farm.

"In a couple of years it will be back on the agenda."

=================

When replying to this post, don't be a bone-head by quoting the entire
post. Quote responsibly.

On Nov 20, 9:56*am, Home Guy wrote:
Dutch fall out of love with windmills

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...-idUSTRE7AF1JM...


Good post. The Netherlands are often cited by proponents of
offshore wind power as a great example of it's success.

Yet here we find:


" investors will be able to apply in four
phases to participate in renewable energy projects, with government
subsidies set between 9 and 15 cents per kilowatt hour of produced
electricity they produce.

A spokeswoman for the ministry of economic affairs, agriculture and
innovation said this would not cover the current subsidy cost of
offshore wind projects. "


So, you have the govt subsidizing the cost of wind energy to
the tune of 9 and 15 cents and even that is not enough to make it
viable.
In much of the US, that is the entire charge to the consumer
for electricity, including a profit to the utility. So much for
offshore wind power.....

Andy comments:

We have a lot of wind power in Texas... It seems to be working
OK...but I
haven't looked into the gov subsidies....

My feeling is that unless private investors have the confidence in
a project
to make it work, the government should keep their "idealogy" out of
it.....
Simply buying votes from environmentalists using taxpayer money seems
to me to be unethical...

Eventually, alternate power will be the same price as fossil
fuels. At that
time, there will be no argument.... It isn't a "technology
improvement" function
as much as it is an "fossil fuel price" problem..... The technology is
there
now, and the fossil fuel price is moving up....
Some day, (after I'm dead), a sane approach will be considered...


Andy in Eureka, Texas

Eureka, where people have electric fences in their front yards
to keep the pigs out....

Home Guy wrote:
Dutch fall out of love with windmills

Not really the project is put into back burner due to current economic
condition. They are not giving it up. Look at Germany they were able to
shut down their nuke power plants.
Here in Calgary one house builder is set to start building NET ZERO
houses. Solar arrays, geo-thermal loop will produce energy needed for
the house. It will generate 8-10K Kwh electricity, Building cost won't
be much different. I'd rather have this kind of dwelling rather than
energy wasting big house. Energy audit business is booming out here
so people can take advantage of rebates from federal and provincial
government.

On 11/20/2011 9:56 AM, Home Guy wrote:
Dutch fall out of love with windmills

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...7AF1JM20111116


And when we burn the last drop of oil on the planet, those windmills are
going to look very attractive.

And how many hundred years of oil do we have? Whole lot. Our
oil shortage of the moment is environmentlists and people
with political agenda prohibiting drilling and refining.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Bernt Berger" wrote in message
...

And when we burn the last drop of oil on the planet, those
windmills are
going to look very attractive.

On Nov 20, 11:09*am, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
And how many hundred years of oil do we have? Whole lot. Our
oil shortage of the moment is environmentlists and people
with political agenda prohibiting drilling and refining.


By the time we run out of oil, those windmills will have long
ago been sent to the scrap heap. They don't last forever,
particularly ones deployed in the ocean in salt water.





--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
*www.lds.org
.

"Bernt Berger" wrote in message

...

And when we burn the last drop of oil on the planet, those
windmills are
going to look very attractive.

"I dinna know how long I can hold it, kaptan!" (Engineer
Montgomery Scott)

"I don't know how long the oil will hold out"
(Environmentalists)

Some how there is a parallel, but not sure what it is.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


wrote in message
...

Electricity is usually made by burning nat gas and coal, not
oil and
we have a century or more of that.

By then we may be using dilithium crystals for power.

On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 11:54:45 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 10:53:13 -0500, Bernt Berger
wrote:

On 11/20/2011 9:56 AM, Home Guy wrote:
Dutch fall out of love with windmills

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...7AF1JM20111116


And when we burn the last drop of oil on the planet, those windmills are
going to look very attractive.

Electricity is usually made by burning nat gas and coal, not oil and
we have a century or more of that.

Nukes. We have a couple of centuries of that just in nuke weapons that have
already been dismantled.

By then we may be using dilithium crystals for power.

Beam up the environmentalists first.

" writes:

On Nov 20, 11:09Â*am, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
And how many hundred years of oil do we have? Whole lot. Our
oil shortage of the moment is environmentlists and people
with political agenda prohibiting drilling and refining.

By the time we run out of oil, those windmills will have long
ago been sent to the scrap heap. They don't last forever,
particularly ones deployed in the ocean in salt water.

Are you including the Chinese, Indians, and Africans in that
"we"?

Cause if China ever starts consuming oil at the same per capita
rate that the US does, I think we're going to have some "issues".

But windmills at sea? I don't think I'm buying it.

--
Dan Espen

wrote:

Are you including the Chinese, Indians, and Africans in that
"we"?

Cause if China ever starts consuming oil at the same per capita
rate that the US does, I think we're going to have some "issues".

But windmills at sea? I don't think I'm buying it.

Been to Scandinavia? There are hundreds of them already on their coast.
We means human kind, all of us. We all live or die together on this
mother earth.

Per Stormin Mormon:
And how many hundred years of oil do we have? Whole lot. Our
oil shortage of the moment is environmentlists and people
with political agenda prohibiting drilling and refining.

I claim no expertise, but AFIK it is not a matter of running out
of oil: there will always be oil at a price.

The real issue is the crossover point between the cost curves of
fossil-based energy and renewable energy.

I have no clue what the slopes of those curves look like and
therefore not the faintest idea when they will cross... but that
*is* the issue, not "running out" of oil.
--
PeteCresswell

"(PeteCresswell)" wrote in
:

Per Stormin Mormon:
And how many hundred years of oil do we have? Whole lot. Our
oil shortage of the moment is environmentlists and people
with political agenda prohibiting drilling and refining.

I claim no expertise, but AFIK it is not a matter of running out
of oil: there will always be oil at a price.

The real issue is the crossover point between the cost curves of
fossil-based energy and renewable energy.

I have no clue what the slopes of those curves look like and
therefore not the faintest idea when they will cross... but that
*is* the issue, not "running out" of oil.

That is indeed the issue. And if there wasn't a tree in front of my house
I'd go for some kind of solar yesterday.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Nov 20, 6:53*pm, Tony Hwang wrote:
wrote:
Are you including the Chinese, Indians, and Africans in that
"we"?

Cause if China ever starts consuming oil at the same per capita
rate that the US does, I think we're going to have some "issues".

But windmills at sea? *I don't think I'm buying it.

Been to Scandinavia? There are hundreds of them already on their coast.
We means human kind, all of us. We all live or die together on this
mother earth.

Been to the post that started this thread? It's all about those
Scandinavian windmills and how they are not economically
viable ever with the govt subsidizing them at the rate of
9 to 18 cents/kwh.

On Nov 20, 1:30*pm, "
wrote:
On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 11:54:45 -0500, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 10:53:13 -0500, Bernt Berger
wrote:

On 11/20/2011 9:56 AM, Home Guy wrote:
Dutch fall out of love with windmills

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...-idUSTRE7AF1JM....

And when we burn the last drop of oil on the planet, those windmills are
going to look very attractive.

Electricity is usually made by burning nat gas and coal, not oil and
we have a century or more of that.

Nukes. *We have a couple of centuries of that just in nuke weapons that have
already been dismantled.

I just did a quick google, looking for the number of windmills
installed in Palm Springs, which is apparently one of the best
spots in the USA for them. I knew they had a lot of them there. Not
sure on the total number, but I came across a
number for at least a major portion of them. The interesting
thing is that the site has 3200 windmills, producing 800MW
of electricity. The Oyster Creek nuclear plant, 30 miles from
my house, produces about 650MW. That's the oldest operating nuke in
the USA and it produces energy in the
same ballpark as 3,000 windmills. That puts a perspective
on things, doesn't it? Also, the nuke obviously produces
that power 24/7 whether the wind blows or not.




By then we may be using dilithium crystals for power.

Beam up the environmentalists first.

Ahmen to that!

Per :
But windmills at sea? I don't think I'm buying it.

Neither was Ted Kennedy nor are the people on Cape Cod who are
worried about the effect on their ocean view. But the technology
seems tb there bco the big money that's trying to build them.
--
PeteCresswell

Per :
If the govt paid $100 to dig a hole and fill
it back in, you'd have companies in line to do that too.
Doesn't mean that it makes economic sense.

I am 100% in agreement with that.
--
PeteCresswell

(PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per :
But windmills at sea? I don't think I'm buying it.

Neither was Ted Kennedy nor are the people on Cape Cod who are
worried about the effect on their ocean view. But the technology
seems tb there bco the big money that's trying to build them.

The money is in BUILDING them, not USING them. We already have over 14,000
abandoned wind turbines in the U.S. When the government subsidies run out,
the things go bust.

http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/46519

wrote:
On Nov 21, 10:31 am, "(PeteCresswell)" wrote:
Per :

But windmills at sea? I don't think I'm buying it.

Neither was Ted Kennedy nor are the people on Cape Cod who are
worried about the effect on their ocean view. But the technology
seems tb there bco the big money that's trying to build them.
--
PeteCresswell

You have to look beyond the fact that some companies are
interested in doing it. Only by looking at the total picture,
which usually includes heavy govt subsidies, does the true
picture emerge. If the govt paid $100 to dig a hole and fill
it back in, you'd have companies in line to do that too.
Doesn't mean that it makes economic sense.

Sadly, government holes usually have no bottoms...

TimR wrote:
Population growth is part of it.

It is generally agreed the Earth can support 1.2 billion at the
standard of living of the US. (or 40 billion at that of Bangladesh)

We now have 7 billion and growing. Those 7 billion want the same
power the US has, along with all the other consumables. It doesn't
and won't exist.

No they don't. They want their next meal (tomorrow? the day after?) of gruel
and dirt. They cannot even imagine an American Thanksgiving dinner, let
alone want something like it.

On 11/21/2011 3:55 PM, HeyBub wrote:


The money is in BUILDING them, not USING them. We already have over 14,000
abandoned wind turbines in the U.S. When the government subsidies run out,
the things go bust.

http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/46519



Exactly!

And in 5 years we'll have hundreds of formerly gooberment subsidized
ethanol plants suffering the same fate.

In article ,
Bernt Berger wrote:



And in 5 years we'll have hundreds of formerly gooberment subsidized
ethanol plants suffering the same fate.

But at least with these you can probably repurpose them fairly easily to
make whiskey (g).

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

I can imagine there are probably a lot of
abandonned facilities of various type, in
the world. Each administration brings a
different emphasis. I miss Ronald Reagan,
and his emphasis on lower taxes.

Sadly, congress was deficit spending even
back then.

I wonder if Adam and Eve were deficit spending?
Eve was probably buying fruit baskets on credit
card.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
m...



And in 5 years we'll have hundreds of formerly
gooberment subsidized
ethanol plants suffering the same fate.

But at least with these you can probably repurpose them
fairly easily to
make whiskey (g).

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

On 21/11/2011 00:03, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
The real issue is the crossover point between the cost curves of
fossil-based energy and renewable energy.


Or nuclear energy. Then the cost of wind energy becomes irrelevant.

Another Dave

Per Stormin Mormon:
I miss Ronald Reagan,
and his emphasis on lower taxes.

Sadly, congress was deficit spending even
back then.

Could there be a connection.... -)



I wonder if Adam and Eve were deficit spending?
Eve was probably buying fruit baskets on credit
card.

Deficits by presidential term at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...idential_terms

Interesting to me is that, in recent times, the Republicans -
the self-professed guardians of fiscal responsibility - have been
the worst offenders while the Dems - characterized by the other
side as irresponsible - have been the ones that actually reduced
the deficit.
--
PeteCresswell

In article ,
"(PeteCresswell)" wrote:

Per Stormin Mormon:
I miss Ronald Reagan,
and his emphasis on lower taxes.

Sadly, congress was deficit spending even
back then.

Could there be a connection.... -)



I wonder if Adam and Eve were deficit spending?
Eve was probably buying fruit baskets on credit
card.

Deficits by presidential term at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...idential_terms

Interesting to me is that, in recent times, the Republicans -
the self-professed guardians of fiscal responsibility - have been
the worst offenders while the Dems - characterized by the other
side as irresponsible - have been the ones that actually reduced
the deficit.

Of course the debt by Presidential terms is an entirely useless metric
(no matter who is in office) since it is the Congress that spends the
money and the President has realtively little directly to do with it
since RMN was told by the Supremes that he couldn't sequester money on
his own.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

GHWB with Dem congress and Senate debt went up $1.4 tril
WJC with Rep congress and Rep senatee, debt went up $0.40
tril.

Congress writes the spending, senate ratifies it. Pres. only
signs or vetos.
You know, some how I can't see what you are trying to
establish. Since the R congress spent less than the D
congress. And about 1/3 the deficit.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"(PeteCresswell)" wrote in message
...

Deficits by presidential term at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...idential_terms

Interesting to me is that, in recent times, the
Republicans -
the self-professed guardians of fiscal responsibility - have
been
the worst offenders while the Dems - characterized by the
other
side as irresponsible - have been the ones that actually
reduced
the deficit.
--
PeteCresswell

During the Reagan years, he had two Democrat congress.

I just can't see what you're implying. Which years did the
Dems reduce the deficit? Point it out to me, please.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"(PeteCresswell)" wrote in message
...
Per Stormin Mormon:
I miss Ronald Reagan,
and his emphasis on lower taxes.

Sadly, congress was deficit spending even
back then.

Could there be a connection.... -)

Interesting to me is that, in recent times, the
Republicans -
the self-professed guardians of fiscal responsibility - have
been
the worst offenders while the Dems - characterized by the
other
side as irresponsible - have been the ones that actually
reduced
the deficit.
--
PeteCresswell

Per Stormin Mormon:
I just can't see what you're implying. Which years did the
Dems reduce the deficit? Point it out to me, please.

Debt as a percent of GDP.

Carter: 3.3%, Dem house & Dem senate.

Clinton: 10.6%, Republican house & Republican senate.

I have to agree with the observation that the prez doesn't do it,
but congress does - but would think that the prez has the ability
to set direction.

Note that Bush II managed to increase the debt by almost 30% with
a largely Republican congress. That's definitely setting a
direction.

I would also recall that, after O'Neil got sacked in (2002?) for
opining that a half-trillion dollar deficit might not be in the
best interests of the country, vice-president Cheyney stated
"Reagan proved deficits don't matter." (http://tinyurl.com/96mdl)
Cheyney's statement and Bush II's presidency pretty much tore
away the Republican's claimed mantle of fiscal responsibility for
me. Where were all these guys who, today, are posturing and
profiling about the deficit when Bush II and a Republican
congress were running it up?

The ultimate direction, of course, is set by the voters. If the
population is so uneducated as to, for instance, cheer when a
presidential hopeful promises two-dollar-per-gallon gas if she is
elected, that says something.

Frankly, I think Cheyney was factually correct. Deficits don't
matter - *to the voters*. This isn't Germany - where a woman
physicist who isn't all that great looking can get elected head
of state and there's a national memory of the hyperinflation of
1918 - and the German kids I've known are better educated after
8th grade than the kids here are when they graduate from high
school.

On the contrary, this is a place where the average credit card
holder maintains a balance on their account. This is a place
where a close family member of mine just spent six weeks
interviewing college-degreed job applicants before he found
somebody who understood compound interest.

I'm no fan of either party. Both are pandering to the fantasy
that we can get out of this mess without experiencing some
significant pain in the form of reduced spending on entitlements
and higher taxes.

Every source that I've heard - which didn't have an obvious
political agenda - has said that we need to raise taxes and cut
entitlements - and that one or the other cannot raise enough
money to do the job.

David Brook's recently-expressed opinion that we're hard on the
tail of Greece rings true to me. David Brooks strikes me as
being a very smart/knowledgeable person and strongly
conservative. If he doesn't have hope, I have to take that
seriously.

If the Republicans prevail, we will follow Greece down the toilet
with lower taxes and, probably, reduced spending. If the Dems
prevail, we will head to the same end with higher taxes and the
same or higher spending.

--
PeteCresswell

In article ,
"(PeteCresswell)" wrote:

I have to agree with the observation that the prez doesn't do it,
but congress does - but would think that the prez has the ability
to set direction.

I also have problems with this one. The major real influence on
revenues isn't the Congress, either it is the general economy. I
generally look at year-over-increases in spending as the real metric for
spending. In that case, neither side has exactly covered themselves in
glory.
The only time that spending increases actually abated was in the
first five years after the GOP took over the Congress. Compared to the
previous five years, the next five saw an average increase in spending
y-o-y that was 1% lower than the five years before. Toward the end of
that five year, and then accelerating in the next five (and going into
Katy Bar The Door mode after around 2003 or so) the GOP found how much
fun it is to spend money (something the Dems had long known being the
majority for more than 40 years) and joined their counterparts across
the aisle in shoveling money out the door hand over fist.
A few years the GOP reformed, and like all reformed addicts, have
compensated too much to the other side.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

Stormin Mormon wrote:
GHWB with Dem congress and Senate debt went up $1.4 tril
WJC with Rep congress and Rep senatee, debt went up $0.40
tril.

Congress writes the spending, senate ratifies it. Pres. only
signs or vetos.
You know, some how I can't see what you are trying to
establish. Since the R congress spent less than the D
congress. And about 1/3 the deficit.


Slight correction: All TAX measures must originate in the House. SPENDING
bill may be introduced in either body.

"(PeteCresswell)" wrote in message

Where were all these guys who, today, are posturing and
profiling about the deficit when Bush II and a Republican
congress were running it up?

They were "in power" at the time. The party in power does what it pleases.

David Brook's recently-expressed opinion that we're hard on the
tail of Greece rings true to me. David Brooks strikes me as
being a very smart/knowledgeable person and strongly
conservative. If he doesn't have hope, I have to take that
seriously.

I was watching Brooks give an interview and I would elect him President in a
heartbeat. He seems to have an uncanny grasp on what's wrong: "Americans
want services from their government they're not willing to pay for."
Whether it's money for wars or welfare, we expect too much out of too little
revenue. He gives me hope that the Republican party can return to some
semblance of sanity and leadership because he cuts through partisan BS with
sharp knife (and wit).

I especially liked his comments about Newt. He asked if we want the man who
couldn't run the House worth a damn to now run the entire country. He
expressed serious disaffection with Obama's lack of leadership but tempered
that with the acknowledgment that people who tell the truth to the American
electorate don't stand much chance of getting elected or re-elected.

We've "had it all" for many years after WWII and we want that to continue,
despite the massive changes that have taken place in the world and the fact
that we were basically the only game in town after the war - European and
Asian manufacturing dropped to the lowest levels ever because their
factories were destroyed, leaving us with a gigantic playing field that's
been shrinking ever since.

If the Republicans prevail, we will follow Greece down the toilet
with lower taxes and, probably, reduced spending. If the Dems
prevail, we will head to the same end with higher taxes and the
same or higher spending.

Nice choice, isn't it? The Devil or the Deep Blue Sea.

It could also be that the Chinese demand better wages, the job losses
reverse and revenues rise enough to cover the deficit because business is
"good" once again. What burns me is the number of people who insist the
deficit is all Obama's doing, even for things that were appropriated long
before anyone knew his name like continuing benefits for all the soldiers of
WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Bosnia, GW1, Somalia, etc.

President Bush inherited a budget surplus (the first in decades). Then, hit
with a recession, he was forced into deficit, just like Obama. Then he cut
taxes, growing the deficit to $400 billion a year. Then, the economy boomed
between 2005 and 2008, reducing the deficit to $200 billion a year. Then,
the financial crisis hit, and the Bush deficit ballooned to $400 billion
again.

When Obama took over in 2009 during the worst recession since the Great
Depression he signed an $800 billion spending increase at the same time that
GDP and tax collections tanked. The combination of these two factors--growth
in spending and a drop in revenue--exploded the deficit to $1.4 trillion. In
2010, the economy and tax collections improved modestly, and the deficit
shrank to $1.3 trillion annualized.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/...cit_chart.html

Republicans insist that President Obama has exploded the size of federal
government spending in his tenure as President, and it is true that he has
increased it. But President Bush actually increased federal spending by more
than 2X as much as Obama has.

Federal government spending has risen under President Obama, mostly because
of the $800 billion stimulus designed to offset the massive recession he
inherited from President Bush. But the increase in federal spending under
Obama is dwarfed by the colossal increase under President Bush . . . From
2000 to 2008, under President Bush, Federal spending rose by $1.3 trillion,
from $1.9 trillion a year to $3.2 trillion a year.

From 2009 to 2011, meanwhile, under President Obama, federal spending has
risen by $600 billion, from $3.2 trillion a year to $3.8 trillion a year.
It has also now begun to decline. In other words, federal government
spending under President Bush increased 2X as much as it has under President
Obama.

What really troubles me, aside from the hypocrisy of those wanting to blame
Obama for spending increases properly credited to Bush, is that the increase
in government spending isn't the only factor that has caused the deficit.
What some pols conveniently (deliberately?) forget is the precipitous
fall-off in government revenue from taxes.

Sadly, Obama's stimulus hasn't had as big an impact on the economy or tax
collections as he and his advisors like Tax Cheatin' Timmy G. promised it
would. The sheer enormity of the mess Obama inherited suggests it's
possible that nothing would have fixed our stalled economy by now.
Approaching the next election even rabid Obama supporters are unhappy with
his over-promising along with many of the decisions he has made. But who's
*really* to blame?

There are two reasons for the collapse. The Bush tax cuts, which reduced
revenue, and the weak economy, which has reduced the incomes and capital
gains upon which most federal taxes are based.
President Bush cut taxes in 2001 and 2003. These tax cuts hit federal
revenue, while federal spending growth continued. This combination
ballooned the deficit in the early years of the Bush presidency.

By the middle years of the Bush presidency, however, on the strength of the
housing boom and strong economic growth (much of it, unfortunately, was
illusory: built on borrowed money with too much leveraging and too little
real collateral) federal revenues began to grow rapidly. By 2007, in fact,
the gap had almost closed. But that huge surge wasn't sustainable. When
the housing bubble burst the economy plunged into deep recession. And then
President Bush handed President Obama the worst recession in more than 70
years, leaving Obama to both take the blame and clean up the mess.

The recession eviscerated federal revenues, which still have not regained
their 2007 bubble highs. President Obama's stimulus, meanwhile, helped add
about $600 billion to federal spending. The combination of these two factors
ballooned the deficit from $400 billion when President Bush left office to
nearly $1.3 trillion now.

Even those who believe the "Bush Boom" was real and not just debt-fueled
"book cooking" will eventually have to admit the recession and financial
crisis began on his watch, and the deficit was already exploding when
President Obama took office. It's very hard to escape the conclusion that
President Bush bears a lot of the responsibility for our current quagmire.
A quick look at:

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/...icit_brief.php

There are several unmistakable bulges in the deficit that correspond to the
Revolutionary War, the Civil War, WWII and the AfRaq wars. Wars cost money
and to cut taxes in the middle of a war projected to cost more than 3
trillion dollars was almost certain to increase the deficit. But voters on
the right appear to believe that Great War Fairy will magically appear and
cover those debts. Voters on the left also appear to believe the Medicare
and Social Security Fairies will magically cover the shortfalls that will
soon plague those programs. These fairytales will eventually come to a very
unhappy ending as long as spending overtakes revenues.

In apportioning blame, it's important to note that Congress approved all of
the decisions by both Presidents regarding the economy. Both sides have
contributed mightily to the mess that is our current economy.

Voters were deliriously happy as Congress cut taxes and increased spending -
we had, so we thought, our cake and got to eat it, too. Some are cheering
now as Republicans promise us that by cutting taxes and spending we'll find
our way out of the deep, dark woods. In the real world, Greece and the UK
have shown that enacting austerity in the midst of a fragile recovery
doesn't work. Less spending results in even less growth and less tax
revenues. It's a bitter, vicious cycle that in the past has often led to
war when economics caved in on themselves and entire countries entered
economic death spirals.

In short, we all want our free lunch. We expect the Great War Fairy to pick
up the tab for wars that have gone on twice as long as WWII and with victory
just as elusive as it was on day one. Politicians know how much we like our
wars and our welfare, and promise more each election even though the numbers
tell us that at some point in the future the waiter is going to bring us a
check for all those lunches and we'll end up having to wash dishes to pay
for it. Lots and lots of dishes. Very dirty dishes.

What troubles me the most is that former and current SecDefs from both
parties agree that this is exactly the wrong time to force across the board
cuts on the Pentagon. I'm not sure we'll ever learn the lesson of staying
away from wars of choice, as SecDef Gates (R) said, because wars of
necessity come along often enough. With tensions rising both with China and
Iran, will we have both the stomach and resources to deal effectively with
those situations? Those former SecDefs say no, and I tend to agree with
them.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/wit...-defense-cuts/

The arguments against defense cuts haven't just come from the right,
though. Secretary of Defense Panetta has been arguing against them since
August and, most recently, just yesterday: Automatic spending cuts that
could result from a special congressional committee's failure to reach a
deficit-reduction agreement could "tear a seam" in defense, Defense
Secretary Leon Panetta said on Monday.

Reading some of the China news agencies comments reminds me of what the
Japanese were saying about our interfering in their oil supply chain:

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english201..._131259724.htm

First, it is an unwise move if it insists on playing a meddling hand in
the South China Sea disputes. Some analysts take it risky that Washington
would stake its prestige on a remote and strategically third-rate ally when
it provokes a clash with a neighboring far stronger nation, whom the U.S.
has been increasingly counting on to recover its dislocated economy, combat
terrorism and shared challenges, and deal with a host of global problems.
A couple of months ago, Prof. Lyle Goldstein painted a doleful picture in
the Foreign Policy magazine. He said if U.S. leaders heed his advice, they
should shed most commitments in Southeast Asia, which he portrays as a
region of trivial importance situated adjacent to an increasingly powerful
China. He maintained that "Southeast Asia matters not a whit in the global
balance of power."

When tense maritime stand-offs occur in the heated region, it is wise for
the U.S. to avoid getting embroiled in the intricate disputes poisoning
regional politics, in lieu of what it is currently doing: sowing discord or
acting as an agitator in the flare-up. Otherwise, Washington risks a new
diplomatic setback for the so-called unconceivable "gains."

We're already on the glidepath to a confrontation. It could even come to a
head right before the 2012 election. All that has to happen is that someone
in either government does something truly stupid. I mean how likely is
that? (-"

--
Bobby G.

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:




President Bush inherited a budget surplus (the first in decades).
Jeez Louise, how many times I gotta tell ya. The Surplus was gone
before Bush's first budget hit the stands. According to the CBO, the
U.S. last had a surplus during fiscal year (FY) 2001. This was the one
that started in October of 2000, a full month before the election.





What really troubles me, aside from the hypocrisy of those wanting to blame
Obama for spending increases properly credited to Bush, is that the increase
in government spending isn't the only factor that has caused the deficit.
What some pols conveniently (deliberately?) forget is the precipitous
fall-off in government revenue from taxes.
Largely related to the biz cycle since 2006 or so. The fall in taxes
largely follows the fall in income.



There are two reasons for the collapse. The Bush tax cuts, which reduced
revenue, and the weak economy, which has reduced the incomes and capital
gains upon which most federal taxes are based.
But they did not. Look at the pre-recession and you'll see rev went
up. Every year. In fact if you look at the scoring of the Joint
Committee on Taxation, you will note that the fall off the first wasn't
as bad as they said it would and it turned back positive the second year
with the JCT saying it would fall for the entire 10 years.

President Bush cut taxes in 2001 and 2003. These tax cuts hit federal
revenue, while federal spending growth continued. This combination
ballooned the deficit in the early years of the Bush presidency.
It did not until the biz cycle kicked in.


By the middle years of the Bush presidency, however, on the strength of the
housing boom and strong economic growth (much of it, unfortunately, was
illusory: built on borrowed money with too much leveraging and too little
real collateral) federal revenues began to grow rapidly.
Fueled by a bubble like the Clinton year's dot com surplus.

By 2007, in fact,
the gap had almost closed. But that huge surge wasn't sustainable. When
the housing bubble burst the economy plunged into deep recession. And then
President Bush handed President Obama the worst recession in more than 70
years, leaving Obama to both take the blame and clean up the mess.

Heavy lies the head that wears the crown.


In apportioning blame, it's important to note that Congress approved all of
the decisions by both Presidents regarding the economy. Both sides have
contributed mightily to the mess that is our current economy.
And for the most part in a decidedly bipartisan manner. I saw a study a
year or so indicated that most of the really bad happening involving the
federal government took place when the vote was heavily bipartisan. Be
carefule what you wish for (g).

..

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

On Nov 24, 6:06*pm, "Robert Green" wrote:
I especially liked his comments about Newt. *He asked if we want the man who
couldn't run the House worth a damn to now run the entire country.

Newt ran the House just fine, thank you. His contract with America
even
resulted in Clinton signing legislation that "ended welfare as we know
it".




He
expressed serious disaffection with Obama's lack of leadership but tempered
that with the acknowledgment that people who tell the truth to the American
electorate don't stand much chance of getting elected or re-elected.

What does telling the truth have to do with Obama?



We've "had it all" for many years after WWII and we want that to continue,
despite the massive changes that have taken place in the world and the fact
that we were basically the only game in town after the war - European and
Asian manufacturing dropped to the lowest levels ever because their
factories were destroyed, leaving us with a gigantic playing field that's
been shrinking ever since.

One of the few things you've posted that is true. So, why the class
warfare that blames all the USA's problems on the wealthier,
successful
Americans? For example, you constantly complain that the loss of
maufacturing jobs is due to evil corporations. Yet here you
acknowledge that there
are powerful world economic forces directly involved.




What burns me is the number of people who insist the
deficit is all Obama's doing, even for things that were appropriated long
before anyone knew his name like continuing benefits for all the soldiers of
WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Bosnia, GW1, Somalia, etc.

Welcome to the club. It burns me when you claim the current
recession and collapse in housing prices is all Wall Street's fault.
I and others here have given you our list and it's long and includes
everyone from Wall Street, to govt, to those that bought houses
they could not afford because they believed housing only went up.

I also don't recall blaming all of the deficit on Obama. Nor have
I seen anyone else here, ie Kurt, KRW, etc either. What we
have said is that under Obama the rate of adding to the deficit
has increased greatly due to SPENDING. Spending has increased
40% in just the past 4 years. $4tril in new debt has been added
under Obama, bringing the total to $15tril $4tril of the $15tril
in just 3 years. Was there excessive spending under Bush
and the Republican Congress? Yes. But his deficits averaged
$250bil a year. The current deficit is $1.6 tril. See the
difference?

We also take exception when someone tries to point to the
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as being major contributors to
the $15tril deficit because it's simply not true.




President Bush inherited a budget surplus (the first in decades). Then, hit
with a recession, he was forced into deficit, just like Obama. *Then he cut
taxes, growing the deficit to $400 billion a year. Then, the economy boomed
between 2005 and 2008, reducing the deficit to $200 billion a year.

Which shows why the tax cuts were needed and how well they worked.
Thank you. And unless one had a crystal ball and could see the
subrpime
collapse coming, it was reasonable to assume the deficit would
continue
to decline. All that would have been needed was to control spending.
Or even better, under Bush, they could have controlled spending then,
in
which case the deficit would have been either smaller or non-existent.


Then,
the financial crisis hit, and the Bush deficit ballooned to $400 billion
again.

When Obama took over in 2009 during the worst recession since the Great
Depression he signed an $800 billion spending increase at the same time that
GDP and tax collections tanked. The combination of these two factors--growth
in spending and a drop in revenue--exploded the deficit to $1.4 trillion.

Cool. Sounds good. A one time thing blew the deficit out to
$1.4tril.
So, tell us then, why is it that now, 3 years later, we have a deficit
of $1.6tril?
And why Obama's last budget shows deficits of $1tril a YEAR FOR THE
NEXT
DECADE? And that's under the assumption that the economy has
recovered soon and has a healthy growth rate.

Republicans insist that President Obama has exploded the size of federal
government spending in his tenure as President, and it is true that he has
increased it. But President Bush actually increased federal spending by more
than 2X as much as Obama has.

True, but it took 8 years under Bush. Obama has managed it in just 3
years.





Federal government spending has risen under President Obama, mostly because
of the $800 billion stimulus designed to offset the massive recession he
inherited from President Bush.

If that's true, then spending should have gone up one year, in 2009.
Yet, here we are in 2011 and spending is $3.8 tril. In 2008, it was
$3.0 tril.
There goes that argument.




But the increase in federal spending under
Obama is dwarfed by the colossal increase under President Bush . . . From
2000 to 2008, under President Bush, Federal spending rose by $1.3 trillion,
from $1.9 trillion a year to $3.2 trillion a year.

It's actually a bit less, from $1.8 tril to $3.0, but close enough.
You think
maybe 911 and all the money that had to be spent on homeland security,
taking out the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, etc had something to do with it?
Granted, they should have cut spending elsewhere, but of course
you libs would have none of that, would you?

And again, that is over 8 years of Bush compared with 3 years of
Obama.



From 2009 to 2011, meanwhile, under President Obama, federal spending has
risen by $600 billion, from $3.2 trillion a year to $3.8 trillion a year.

It's actually $3tril to $3.8.

It has also now begun to decline. In other words, federal government
spending under President Bush increased 2X as much as it has under President
Obama.

It hasn't declined one bit. Right now the FORECAST is for it to
decline
from $3.8tril to $3.7 tril. That's a tiny decrease and only a
FORECAST.
Meanwhile, your pal Obama is running around screaming "Pass it now!"
for his new $500bil spending bill. Do what he wants and the budget
just
went up another .5tril in one shot. See the problem here?



What really troubles me, aside from the hypocrisy of those wanting to blame
Obama for spending increases properly credited to Bush, is that the increase
in government spending isn't the only factor that has caused the deficit.
What some pols conveniently (deliberately?) forget is the precipitous
fall-off in government revenue from taxes.

Sure, no one is denying that is a factor too. But why is it that
Obama's own
budget shows deficits of $1tril a year for the next decade? A budget
that includes the forecast that the economy will have recovered?
See the problem?





Sadly, Obama's stimulus hasn't had as big an impact on the economy or tax
collections as he and his advisors like Tax Cheatin' Timmy G. promised it
would.

It did have about the effect than many predicted it would though.


The sheer enormity of the mess Obama inherited suggests it's
possible that nothing would have fixed our stalled economy by now.
Approaching the next election even rabid Obama supporters are unhappy with
his over-promising along with many of the decisions he has made. *But who's
*really* to blame?

Nothing can satisfy the rabid loons that Obama has chosen to align
himself with. Some hate him for keeping Gitmo open. Some for
accelerating
the war in Afghanistan. Some for changing his mind on trying
terrorists
in NYC. Some for bombing Libya. Some for not spending even more.
Many for not creating some ultimate socialist utopia.

And ironically those same loons fail to give him credit for even
Obamacare.
Must be tough being Obama.




There are two reasons for the collapse. *The Bush tax cuts, which reduced
revenue, and the weak economy, which has reduced the incomes and capital
gains upon which most federal taxes are based.

What collapse is that? What we have is a SPENDING problem.



President Bush cut taxes in 2001 and 2003. These tax cuts hit federal
revenue, while federal spending growth continued. *This combination
ballooned the deficit in the early years of the Bush presidency.

Yes, but as you acknowledge, the deficit was declining and down to
just $161bil
by 2007. Here's a new question. Are you for or against a balanced
budget
ammendment?



By the middle years of the Bush presidency, however, on the strength of the
housing boom and strong economic growth (much of it, unfortunately, was
illusory: built on borrowed money with too much leveraging and too little
real collateral) federal revenues began to grow rapidly. *By 2007, in fact,
the gap had almost closed. *But that huge surge wasn't sustainable.

What huge surge, Mr. Monday morning quaterback? The ecomomy was
doing OK, but it wasn't spectacular. There was no particular reason
to
think that housing was going to collapse suddenly.



*When
the housing bubble burst the economy plunged into deep recession. And then
President Bush handed President Obama the worst recession in more than 70
years, leaving Obama to both take the blame and clean up the mess.


No denying that. But it's what Obama has done that in response that
is the
problem. For example, the economy was already in a severe crisis.
Was that
the time to ram through Obamacare, which polls showed then and
continue
to show now, the public did not want? Was it a good idea to burden
businesses
with that cost and uncertainty? Was it a good idea to halt all new
drilling in
the Gulf because of one oil well? Was it a good idea to vilify much of
business,
from drug companies and healthcare companies to Wall Street? Is it a
good idea to engage in classwarfare on those making $200,000 a year,
many of whom are small business owners, where most new jobs are
created?
Is it a good idea to have the NLRB suing
Boeing to prevent a new factory in SC that will emply 2000 from
opening?
Is it smart to be screwing around with Boeing and the 787 with $100bil
in
orders and tens of thousands of jobs depending on it?



The recession eviscerated federal revenues, which still have not regained
their 2007 bubble highs. President Obama's stimulus, meanwhile, helped add
about $600 billion to federal spending. The combination of these two factors
ballooned the deficit from $400 billion when President Bush left office to
nearly $1.3 trillion now.

$600bil? Where did that come from? Just the one stimulus bill was
$850bil. And if it was $600bil over 3 years, why is spending this
year at
$3.8 tril and why is it forecast at about that level for next year?
Must
be a magical $600bil.



Even those who believe the "Bush Boom" was real and not just debt-fueled
"book cooking" will eventually have to admit the recession and financial
crisis began on his watch, and the deficit was already exploding when
President Obama took office. *It's very hard to escape the conclusion that
President Bush bears a lot of the responsibility for our current quagmire..

If it was debt fueled book cooking under Bush, what the hell is it
under Obama? Does Obama or you support a balanced budget
ammendment?



A quick look at:

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/...icit_brief.php

There are several unmistakable bulges in the deficit that correspond to the
Revolutionary War, the Civil War, WWII and the AfRaq wars. *Wars cost money
and to cut taxes in the middle of a war projected to cost more than 3
trillion dollars was almost certain to increase the deficit. *But voters on
the right appear to believe that Great War Fairy will magically appear and
cover those debts.

No war fairies. Per your own statements above, the deficits under
Bush were declining and were down to $161bil in 2007. With some
spending restraint and had not the subprime recession occured, the
deficit could have been taken to zero.




*Voters on the left also appear to believe the Medicare
and Social Security Fairies will magically cover the shortfalls that will
soon plague those programs. *These fairytales will eventually come to a very
unhappy ending as long as spending overtakes revenues.

In apportioning blame, it's important to note that Congress approved all of
the decisions by both Presidents regarding the economy. *Both sides have
contributed mightily to the mess that is our current economy.

That's true. But which side now is willing to address them? Who
is in favor of a balanced budget ammendment? Who has put forth
a plan to tackle entitlement spending? From the whitehouse all
we hear is class warfare and crickets...



Voters were deliriously happy as Congress cut taxes and increased spending -
we had, so we thought, our cake and got to eat it, too. *Some are cheering
now as Republicans promise us that by cutting taxes and spending we'll find
our way out of the deep, dark woods. *In the real world, Greece and the UK
have shown that enacting austerity in the midst of a fragile recovery
doesn't work.

Funny, I thought what they showed was were socialism, big govt, and
reckless spending will get you.



Less spending results in even less growth and less tax
revenues. *It's a bitter, vicious cycle that in the past has often led to
war when economics caved in on themselves and entire countries entered
economic death spirals.

Look where more govt spending has gotten us. Solyndra done
anything for you lately?




In short, we all want our free lunch. *We expect the Great War Fairy to pick
up the tab for wars that have gone on twice as long as WWII and with victory
just as elusive as it was on day one. *Politicians know how much we like our
wars and our welfare, and promise more each election even though the numbers
tell us that at some point in the future the waiter is going to bring us a
check for all those lunches and we'll end up having to wash dishes to pay
for it. *Lots and lots of dishes. *Very dirty dishes.

What troubles me the most is that former and current SecDefs from both
parties agree that this is exactly the wrong time to force across the board
cuts on the Pentagon. *I'm not sure we'll ever learn the lesson of staying
away from wars of choice, as SecDef Gates (R) said, because wars of
necessity come along often enough. *With tensions rising both with China and
Iran, will we have both the stomach and resources to deal effectively with
those situations? *Those former SecDefs say no, and I tend to agree with
them.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/wit...ead-showdown-l...

The arguments against defense cuts haven't just come from the right,
though. Secretary of Defense Panetta has been arguing against them since
August and, most recently, just yesterday: *Automatic spending cuts that
could result from a special congressional committee's failure to reach a
deficit-reduction agreement could "tear a seam" in ...

read more »

My, my. I would think you'd be in favor of military spending cuts.
You
don't like it when we use the military, so why not make cuts. Don't
you just want to send Al-Qaeda a cake?