Townhall Finance
You Just Lost the Presidency: What are you Going to Do?
by John Ransom 

Editor’s Note: I typically ignore columns like this, but this time the title got my attention. Try to find the relevance in the following to the title… I couldn’t. Regardless, this turned out to be fascinating reading, offered for your enjoyment. Be sure to click on the link for the video and other interesting comments. BR 

Doug3370 wrote: There are natural processes that will, ever so slowly, remove CO2 from the atmosphere. The sooner and the faster we reduce our emissions, the smaller the peak CO2 level will be and the sooner the atmospheric CO2 concentration will return to levels that make for a climate friendly to humanity. We can debate the cost, but it's just a fact that wind turbines don't generate CO2 but coal fired plants do. 

Dear Comrade No. 3370, 

There are processes that will “ever so slowly” remove CO2, and we have to remove CO2 “sooner and faster?” 

Never heard a liberal make so eloquent an argument that they have no idea what they are talking about. As you say, wind power and other renewable energy sources won’t do the magic that your global warming religion demands- because according to you guys, the global apocalypse is so close already- and the wind power remedy won't solve it  "sooner and faster." 

So why even do it? Because a futile and expensive liberal attempt at doing, something-- anything-- is better than nothing? 

Doing “something” in this case is far more destructive than doing nothing. 

Why? Because it delays the day when other energy sources can compete on a cost basis with fossil fuels. When that day comes, the problems associated with fossil fuels will be over. 

Going back to my original premise, the Renewable Energy Standard is not expected to have any impact whatsoever on global warming, even if you accept the so-called science as “settled,” which I do not. The reason why is that the renewable energy is expected to make up only a very small fraction of energy production by 2040. 

The issue is not how much the United States consumes. The issue is how much China, India and the rest of the developing nations will consume. Energy consumption will increase by about 40 percent by 2040, with the US energy demand remaining essentially flat. 

If you assume that today renewable energy contributes about zero to energy production and assume by 2040 renewable energy will contribute an optimistic 20 percent of all energy production, you still get fossil fuel use of about 112 percent of today’s figure.    

And don’t expect developing countries to adopt more costly forms of energy production than coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear offer. 

What the Renewable Energy Standard does do is ask American consumers to subsidize the development and use of cheaper fuels in developing nations. 

There is only one word to describe such a policy: Stupid. 

Doctor Roy wrote:  I already posted that article Matt and noted that those fools were in the Bush Administration. I notice you didn't. 

Dear Comrade Roy, 

You might notice that in the article I do not mention either Bush or Obama. I also mention that I’m disappointed in politicians from the left and the right. Most of us on the right are pretty consistent about our disappointment with the GOP on spending issues. Are you saying that over-spending by Republicans is wrong and over-spending by Democrats is okay? 

That’s the usual liberal, moral quicksand. It has trapped us in place so that our country in place is ni over its head.

 Because here’s the thing: You rightly object to the foolish spending in this program. But I can assure you that there are more, equally foolish programs under the Obama administration. 

And to those you remain silent.  

Good job comrade. 

Jerome41 wrote: No, I am not interested in the hundreds of billions of dollars in inflated defense spending fuled by defense contractor contributions, which nobody is talking about. 

Dear Comrade No. 41, 

Yes, we know that you are not interested in the one of the indisputable constitutional duties that the federal government is required to provide: the common defense. We understand that you think freedom just “happens.” We know that you would gladly strip our entire defense spending, if you could divert the money into a program that is unquestionably unconstitutional, like forcing people to by government-approved products for “our own good.” 

We know too that you are OK with Obama neglecting foreign policy and defense issues because he wants to make a name for himself for doing BIG things, like Hoover did. 

Congrats. You will get your wish.      

Morphine wrote: This Worst Congress Ever (Republican) has done nothing but show that the United States can be a nonfunctioning democracy when it wants to, like Italy but with all-you-can-eat buffets. In a single demi-term, it shut down the government, fouled a fledgling economic recovery with a pointless fight over the debt ceiling, and then threatened to withhold spending money for 160 million working Americans by raising the payroll tax. Brinkmanship is its only game. 

Dear Morphine, 

Your handle reminds me of the quote from the Woody Allen movie Annie Hall: “I used to be a heroin addict. Now I'm a methadone addict.” 

Sometimes you just have to go through withdrawal to kick the habit. And you know what? 

That’s how our government was designed. It was designed so that voters could periodically trim back the effects of government gone wild.  That’s what we saw in 2010 and what we’ll see in 2012. 

This year Obama is going to get the butt-kicking he imposed on his party in 2010. And the Democrats are going to continue to lose seats in both the House and the Senate. 

Diesel wrote: Wrong; you mus-interpreted this quote, read it again (are you really that stupid, or just manipulative?): From the AP: "And the spokesman said one large state accounted for much of the decline. The spokesman did not name the state." 

Dear Comrade Diesel, 

From the Wall Street Journal: 

The Labor Department factors this trend into its seasonally adjusted figures. But last week, a Labor economist said one "large" state didn't report additional quarterly figures as expected, accounting for a substantial part of the decrease. The official wouldn't disclose which state, but said it would be released with next week's report as usual. 

"One omission by one state--you wouldn't think it would be a big deal, but in this case it drove the number down by 10%," said analyst Stephen Stanley with Pierpont Securities. 

Economists are speculating the state could be California, the most populous state in the nation. 

"It was likely a state with a large population and we suspect that it was California based on the occasional massive swings that have occurred in its claims data in the past," said Daniel Silver, an economist with J.P. Morgan, in a note. 

"In short, this reading is worthless in terms of informing on the general economy," Mr. Stanley wrote in a research note. 

It would be waaaay to easy to slam you as “stupid or just manipulative.” So I’m not going to do that. 

I’ll just rest satisfied that you handled that all by yourself. 

M1946W wrote: The number doesn't really matter. It used to be an indication that the economy was on the mend; that people were going back to work. Now it's just another tool to be used by a corrupt regime and their lapdog media in an attempt to retain power and control. The American people are not likely to be fooled a second time. 

Dear M, 

That’s right. We have entered a time when the tools that we used to use to measure our life are being manipulated in order to try to trick people into thinking things are different than they really are. 

That didn’t save the Soviet Union, and it won’t save liberals either. 

I’m a Lincolnian believer in our Republic. 

Can’t fool most of the people all of the time. 

Greg 161 wrote: How could the FED have been so wrong about jobs? 

Dear Greg, 

I know. The job situation is improving so much that the Fed was so worried about it that they unleashed another round of quantitative easing because the job market was doing so well. 

Hey, wait; that sounds like an Obama debate sound bite. 

“Vote Obama: Things are getting worse or they are getting better. And Obama is responsible for all the good stuff-- if things are getting better-- and all the bad stuff is happening-- if things are getting worse-- because of a mythical gremlin that we’ll just call Bush. Bush bad, Obama good, hope, change.” 

Michael 160 wrote: Oh, so now the polls are accurate. No problem with only 9% being sampled. No guesswork on who is likely to vote? Good to finally see Republicans embracing statistics. 

Dear Comrade No. 160, 

The polls are more accurate because there isn’t a Magic Kingdom bias in the polls that have Democrat turnout at +7-11 points higher than Republicans. 

If you wish upon a star and then add 20 percent to the Democrat turnout, George Bush could get elected if he ran as a Democrat. The previous Pew poll had a +7 Democrat bias. 

As we get closer to the election, the bias in polling is disappearing, because even Democrats think Obama blows. This has ominous implications for Obama and his liberal friends.   

2008 was +7-8 for Democrats depending on the exit poll. And still Obama won by only 8 million votes out of 132 million cast. 

I believe in polls when polls adequately model reality. 

Same thing for labor statistics. 

Right now don’t plan on Democrats riding Obama’s coattails anywhere. 

Instead, plan on Obama-- and the Democrats-- getting pantsed.     

Read the rest of this article with the links and see a cell phone video at Townhall Finance