Your Questions About Wind And Solar

February 10, 2012 by The Expert
Filed under Wind And Solar Q & A

Please look to see if this is easy to understand?

Does this make sense? Are there any errors or anything that is unclear?

The creation of an International Master and PhD in Renewable Energy and Sustainability is very important in furthering research in the areas of alternative energy and sustainable environments. These programs will empower researchers and teachers to contribute to the newly emerging field of renewable energy and sustainable environments. The benefits of the cutting-edge research in the renewable energy are stimulating the economy and creating job opportunities.

The Expert answers:

Are renewable energy and sustainable environments the same field of research? If not you might change field to fields in the second sentence. “newly emerging fields of renewable…” The last sentence might need some tweaking as well. Add “field” after renewable energy or remove the word “the.” I get the point you are trying to make, but the grammar seems slighly flawed. I clearly understand what you are saying though.

Robert asks…

Will impending inflation further destroy our workforce?

The massive shift to alternative & renewable energy will create an entire new industry of “green collar” for the working class to gain employment. However, the lowest tier of pay scale in current blue collar jobs will likely take a project 60% decrease in pay.

The most immediate hurdle we face after healing the markets is widely speculated to be massive inflation. What steps can be taken to curb the inflation and ensure that the backbone of our manufacturing and labor sector isn’t living below the poverty level as “working poor”?

Also, please don’t turn this into a bipartisan rant about bush or Obama. I think this is a significant economic issue and I’d like serious answers.
I agree, the Fed could absolutely raise interest rates and reduce the amount of money in the economy. Wouldn’t an increase in interest rates of that size hinder the ability of business, especially small business, to obtain operating capital? Are there any supplemental steps that the Fed or Government in general can take to make a more painless transition?

The Expert answers:

The surest way to reduce inflation is to raise interest rates (ie take money out of circulation).

Increased interest rates will cause a “leftward” shift in the money supply. This itself will increase the value of the money.

Then the international fisher effect will kick in and foreigners will increase their investment in the US markets denominated in USDs.

US government spending must be rolled back. Entitlement programs such as medicare, medicaid, and social security need to be eliminated. Wars need to be quickly exited. Expensive social manipulation programs such as No Child Left Behind and “mandated going green”, and planned universal health care need to be eliminated.

Do these things and the “working poor” will be less poor.

David asks…

Is Obama truly as stupid as his comments make him out to be?

Not only doesn’t he want us to NOT drill for more oil now he doesn’t rvrn want to fund the use of Alternatives.

Number: H.R. 6049 (Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008 )
Measure Title: A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide incentives for energy production and conservation, to extend certain expiring provisions, to provide individual income tax relief, and for other purposes.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00150

OBAMA=NOT

What is Obama-the-Morons problem?
Sammie what do you think aan Alternaive is? It is Solar and Wind ,etc. BTW a credit IS funding
Uhru:”…who’s the stupid one now?” You are or you would see where I posted his vote of NOT.

Obama missed the vote so he would not have to fund the alternatives. He has stated time and again that he WANTS gas prices to go even higher. That is why he is against Drilling agasint Solar and wind. And why he is for Ethanol.

Ethanol has achieved one thing -World Food Shortages.

Be sure to thank you friend Obama for the starvation.

The Expert answers:

He is actually stupider………..

Carol asks…

Should Big Oil get $18 Billion in subsidies when they’re making record profits?

Top oil executives said Tuesday that despite their industry’s record profits, Congress should continue granting them $18 billion in annual tax subsidies and expand drilling in areas that are now off-limits.
ExxonMobil Corp. Senior Vice President Stephen Simon told a House committee that “stable” tax policies “are essential to encouraging needed investments.” And Chevron Corp. Vice Chairman Peter Robertson said oil companies need “greater access to U.S. resources – onshore and offshore.”
Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., chairman of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, pushed back, criticizing the oil industry for charging consumers too much while investing too little in alternative energy sources.
Noting that the five biggest U.S. oil companies’ profits rose to $123 billion last year, Markey demanded, “What is the oil industry doing with all this profit?”
He said investments should be rising for technologies that would reduce U.S. dependency on oil, but “unfortunately, it goes as much to financial engineering as renewable engineering.”
Markey held the hearing in response to consumers’ growing anger over record-high gasoline prices, and his frustration with the lack of progress on alternatives to fossil fuels.
Since 2002 when a gallon cost $1.11, the price of gasoline has nearly tripled to $3.29. In West Palm Beach-Boca Raton, the average price Tuesday was $3.41.
“And as we approach the summer driving season, skyrocketing gas prices are likely far from over,” Markey said.
“I heard what you are hearing. Americans are very worried about the rising price of energy,” said John Hofmeister, president of Royal Dutch Shell.
But Exxon’s Simon argued that “our earnings, though high in absolute terms, need to be viewed in the context of the scale and cyclical, long-term nature of our industry as well as the huge investment requirements.”
House Democrats have twice passed legislation that would strip away the $18 billion in tax breaks oil companies now get for exploration and redirect it to development of renewable fuels and clean energy. Senate Republicans so far have blocked final passage.
With oil prices hovering at around $100 a barrel, Markey pointed to a statement made in 2005 by President Bush, who said, “With $55 (a barrel) oil, we don’t need incentives for oil and gas companies to explore.”
A number of Republicans on the committee raised concerns about harming oil companies by withdrawing current tax breaks, making note of the high-paying jobs the companies create.
The executives from ExxonMobil, Chevron and Shell were joined by top officials from ConocoPhillips and BP America.
Markey was particularly harsh toward ExxonMobil, saying the company should commit 10 percent of its profits to renewable energy. “Why is your company not investing in renewables?” Markey demanded.
Simon replied that his company has “studied all forms (of alternative energy), and the current technology just doesn’t have an impact” great enough to significantly reduce oil dependency. To make big investments worthwhile, “it’s going to take breakthroughs” in basic research being done at universities, he said.
He said Exxon has concluded that to meet its energy needs, the country will be dependent upon fossil fuels through at least 2030.
Markey wasn’t buying the argument, noting oil companies have made “windfall” profits. “With that great opportunity that you have been given, there is a responsibility” to show leadership on new fuel sources, he said.

The Expert answers:

Profits are short lived in the energy industry as it is extremely cyclic and is misleading. Much of the so called profits go into research on finding better ways to find energy sources, upgrading equipment that has been neglected for 20 years of low profits, and in actually finding new energy sources. Profits should not be a consideration in subsidies as they are a tool that insures a level playing field in the international market. Ideally, in a free market system, subsidies are not needed but as long as other countries do so, so must the USA.

Steven asks…

Is it really going to be the end of the world when the oil runs out?

I have no doubt that most of OECD economies have been built on oil.

While oil counts as a main source of energy for cars, planes and industry some material are actually built from oil.

Now there are a few issues to consider here

Firstly are the estimations reliable in regards with when the oil is going to run out. Realistically estimations could be wrong or we may not have discovered them all

Then there is the issue of oil fields that are there but are not economical to extract right now (There are plenty in Canada and Iran)

Also other sources of energy such as nuclear energy (This one perhaps the most powerful alternative), natural gas, coal, renewable sources of energy, hydrogen for hybrid cars etc

Are we capable of findind alternatives and reconstructing our industries before oil runs out?

Finally if the oil runs out will it turn into a disaster where economies crash, people lose their job, crime goes high and we start living like people who lived 200 years ago?

The Expert answers:

Western economies are already much less dependent on oil than what they used to be. After the 70′s oil crises, the economy as a whole became a lot more efficient. The market belched, and we went for a Rolaids.

Before oil does run out, we will have decades of oil price increases and the market will react by increasing use of alternative sources of energy.

Personally, I hope government and industry intervention will occur long before those days arrive, but regardless, solutions will be found because there will be profit to be made.

Peace

Ken asks…

What do you think about Obama’s Stances?

I read all the important issues on his website and came up with this:

Tax Cuts: I am all for cutting taxes for the poor, the middle (just like Obama has said). But I also believe in cutting taxes for the rich to create more opportunities for the middle and lower class. Obama said he will raise taxes for those making over 250,000. I say, no, because that will hurt both big and small businesses. I also believe we should simplify the tax code, but believe we should do so by introducing either the fair, or flat income tax.

Energy Plan: I believe Obamas plan for energy I very immature. He doesn’t speak of drilling anywhere in the US, but says the best way to stop the dependence on foreign oil we must use alternative and renewable sources of energy. Trust me, I am all for using environmentally friendly sources of energy, but right now we don’t have an effective method of harnessing the energy to mass produce it. It will take a while before this technology comes. His idea of giving relief at the pump is to put a windfall tax on gas companies, and give that money to the people for relief. Well, wouldn’t that make Gascompanies raise the gas prices? A much more suitable way to create lower gas prices and give relief until alternative energy is better developed we must give a gas tax holiday, and drill in the US. Lastly, let the market take care of alternative energy not the government

Basically, Obama wants ever US citizen to be insured through the government. Unfortunately this will hurt our medical field as it will be less desirable to become a doctor. Longer waiting lines for sometimes severe and life threatening diseases will occur. The US has a great medical field right now, but the cost is the problem not the state of our medical field. In order to drive down prices for those not insured by Medicare, and Medicaid I believe in Opening the peoples ability to buy insurance across statelines which will open up competition and competition creates lower prices.

Immigration:
I agree with Obama that we need to strengthen our borders. I disagree in allowing illegal immigrants to pay a fine and learn English to become American citizens. Everyone broke the law by coming into our country “Illegally “, by not setting down the line for these Illegal immigrants more will just come. This is like saying hey you can come to the US illegally instead of waiting in line to get a visa and gain citizenship, and all you have to do is pay a small fine and learn english. Right now we approximately have 13 million illegal immigrants, if we grant citizenship to them another 13 million will come along hoping to get the same thing. Secure the border deploy them all through a national database of all immigrants, and creating a business program where businesses are forced to check ones status through the government. You end the possibility of them to get a job they will stop coming.

Iraq: Barack believes in in moving the troops from Iraq into Pakistan and Afghanistan. I don’t believe that is right. We made the desicion to confront the terrorists and insurgencies to a centralized region in the Middle East, and it has worker. The terrorists are coming to us. Overthrowing the Sadaam Hussein was a huge step against terrorism, now we need to finish the job. We took our stance in IRaq, and they came to us. THat is what we wanted and we must stay for now. But we should call upon the Iraqi stance to step up power. We helped them out now they need to help us out. Plus I’d much rather be fighting terrorists over there rather than have them attack us over in the US.

That is my opinion in what I believe are the most important issues.

What are your opinions of Barack Obamas stance and how do they compare to mine?

The Expert answers:

1) Tax Cuts: For right now, raising taxes is necessary. The reason our economy is in a mess is because the dollar’s value dropped so precipitously. That is directly related to the National Debt; which got that high because of how Bush borrowed money to fund the Iraq War when he was unwilling to raise taxes.

Since later you say that you want to stay in Iraq (there are logical reasons for doing so), we either have to raise the money to pay for it or we will continue to deal with a failing economy (and eventual depression).

If you want lower taxes, we have to cut spending. And the honest fact is where most of our money is going is to this war in Iraq. The Iraq War is costing us more money than every entitlement program the Democrats push combined. So if you want lower taxes AND a good economy, the war will have to go. That, or we raise taxes to maintain the economy above depression. Or we combine both (get out of the war and raise taxes), and we pay off the National Debt and actually fix the economy entirely.

After we have paid off the National Debt, we then lower taxes on everyone and keep spending down. I believe in Conservative fiscal ideas, but they are not what is called for right now.

We have to raise taxes to fix what Bush did in spending; then cut them later to keep it fixed.

2) I partially agree with you on the Energy Plan. But what history has taught me is that if you allow the oil companies to get more to drill (they actually have 68 million acres in the continental US already and aren’t drilling any of it), they will do so. But then they will fight every attempt to move on to a new energy source (since it costs them money), and they have the money to convince our politicians to stop any attempt to move to other energy sources.

In essence, if we give them the ability to drill in ANWR and further in the Gulf of Mexico, they will take it and then prevent any move to break off of oil. We won’t do anything about the problem for at least 7-10 years; and then we will get the same problem again in less than 30 years (closer to 20 years).

We suck it up now or we suck it up in 20 years. Up to you which one you want; but if we suck it up now the sooner we can get off of oil and stop providing money to terrorists.

3) Universal Health Care. I really don’t see how your point works out where its less profitable to become a doctor. Perhaps explaining that further (and I am completely serious on that, not making fun); its possible, but I don’t see how.

What I do see is why the cost of health care is so high. The truth is that there are two major problems. One, there are poor who can’t afford health insurance, but the law still requires they be taken care of. This drives up the cost when they don’t pay.

The other cause of the high rise is health insurance companies themselves. They are a business; they don’t make money if they always have to pay out money. Because of this, they fight paying every chance they get. This is especially true on big ticket items like heart attacks, strokes, and longterm care for cancer sufferers or the aging.

They know how long it takes to get court action on lawsuits, so they are willing to take a chance on getting sued. They know most people cannot wait it out because they need money now. So they refuse to pay. Well, the hospital already did the work and the lab tests and treatments and so on; and they need to be paid, so they go to the patient when the health insurance company bails.

Well, the patient thought they were covered, so they don’t have the money to cover things like heart attacks or cancer. So they also skip out on the bill; and the hospital is stuck. They have to try to make it up somewhere, so they do so by sticking it to other patients in the form of higher costs on labs and treatments and so on.

So both those who are too poor to be insured and those who thought they were covered are screwed under our current system. Both problems are fixed under a Universal Health Care System.

4) I more or less agree with you on immigration. I disagree that if you get rid of the “jobs for illegals,” that they’ll stop coming. What will happen is that they will try to find new ways to get past it; and they have been rather successful so far in doing so.

I have a different plan for ending illegal immigration. But so far every attempt I’ve made to get it out and see how people like it shows that almost no one supports it. It will work, but apprarently people don’t want to deal with the situation anymore and won’t wait for how long it will take to work.

Every plan (including yours) will never end the problem altogether. Your plan has the best chance of limiting it, but it won’t end the problem. My plan has a very good chance of ending the problem, but it will take at least 10 years and probably 20 years before it does.

I realize that no one would support my plan anyway, so I’ve decided to abandon trying to spread the idea. But know that your plan will not end the problem as you believe it will; nor will McCain’s or Obama’s. Your’s has the most effectiveness of the three, though. So I’d agree with yours if those three were my choices.

5) Iraq: For the record, there were no terrorists in Iraq before we went in. Saddam Hussein kept them out. Not because he was a good guy; it was more jealousy.

Hussein relished his reputation as the man who had stood up to the US. Of course, that rep starts to pale when compared to those who not only stood up to the US, but actually attacked back. Basically, Hussein didn’t want to be outshone by Osama bin Laden; so he kept them out.

He also did not have weapons of mass destruction. And that idea that he took them into Syria is bunk. Saddam Hussein was Sunni, Syria is mostly Shiite. They would not help him in the least. Saddam Hussein didn’t have any, and we know because he had no where to send them (unless he sent them to Saudi Arabia–who would have told us if only to get further on our good sides and make more money off of us).

However, that is the past. And while they weren’t there before, al Qaeda is in Iraq now. So there is logic to staying and kicking them back out. But as I said in the opening subject (taxes), if you believe we should stay in Iraq, we must raise the taxes to pay for it.

That, or we will have to deal with a weak economy (and possible depression).

And one must point out that Obama doesn’t want to stop fighting the terrorists entirely. He just wants out of Iraq, he wants to stay in Afghanistan (where Osama bin Laden is). There is a pretty good chance we still won’t have to fight them here; because we will be fighting them in Afghanistan. We’ll just have better luck finding Osama bin Laden if we are in the same country he’s in…

That’s up to you to decide if the Iraq War is worth higher taxes OR a weak economy. But we will have to suffer one or the other if we stick with the Iraq war.

Nancy asks…

WHAT IS THE SUBJECT MATTER IN DANIEL’S DREAM?

I have noticed that most repliers in my Q & A respond at the spur of the moment without researching as to what really is the decoding the mystery or the world’s 3rd interpretation of Daniel’s 4-beast vision in the Old Testament , authored by Winston Kayanan from the Philippines. For your information, some were already recorded in yahoo since 2009, copied by google & bing while others were deleted being political & subversive since the articles attack existing characters in this present times. The continuing education & dissemination had always been stopped because some forces wanted these to be scrapped. To avoid further deletion, some were entered in blogs in LinkedIn (see winstondaniel.wordpress.com).

However, people still need to be informed & taught part by part or step by step in order to understand entirely these prophetic words that were ordered by God to be kept secret in the time of Daniel. Now our Lord Jesus Christ said in Rev. 22: 10, “Do not keep secret the prophetic words of this book because the time is near.” Since the Word of God has now been unraveled, I have shorter time left as my job to inform & notify the world because, if we follow God’s number 7, this Philippine interpretation will lapse in June 2011 with given grace period from the time it was decoded on June 28, 2004 (in just 2 minutes) within a span of 5 days (June 25-29,2004). I expect the second coming of Jesus Christ will be this year.

Beforehand, I have shown to you the invalidity of the first & second interpretations by Catholic Church and USA’s 1999 version (dubbed as prophecies of the past) in my earlier Q & A and now, the third (Philippine version) which pertains to current events & the future, perfectly qualifies as valid, i.e., prophecy of the future.
To answer the above question, let us first read the first sentence of Daniel’s dream in the first paragraph, to wit:

“I saw the following in my vision: the four winds of heaven stirred up the great sea, and four great beasts, each one different from the other, came out of the sea.”

Many Christians, Bible scholars & experts and others whom I dealt with said that there is nothing to decode. The words are literally simple. Some think it is a myth & some, a nightmare. Others don’t want to know probably because I am just a neophyte, not a Bible reader, a theologian or evangelist. Yes these were their thoughts because they think they are the authority who cannot be questioned or argued.

In truth, the subject matter is earth, specifically the environment on global warming & climate change. If one does not recall his science education in high school, it is hard to follow because you cannot participate in full discussion as to what has been happening on earth since the time climate change began in June 2003, the effect of global warming. To explain in brief, we are running short of oxygen (O2) because burnt carbon has taken much of O2 to form carbon dioxide (CO2) and hence, with excess CO2, it disrupted our gases in the atmosphere particularly the leverage or ratio of CO2 to O2. With holes in our depleted ozone layer, CO2 gas absorbs intense heat from the sun (solar radiation) and thus, it is very active & very mobile. It becomes wild for it can bombard anything. It can move water by sinking or escaping (like taller waves, tsunamis, etc.) and earth (like soil cracks, deep holes, landslides/mudslides/avalanche, quakes, etc.). In this vein, God saw this thing will happen and hence, He made it a dream of Daniel to be written in advance & kept through the years until the time will come.

What the world is doing right now (like alternative or renewable energy, emission reduction, controlling plastics, etc.) is only micro-environment function but God wanted earth to be repaired & rehabilitated and this is what I call macro-environment. God had answered in advance (2001) with a powerful technology to solve our global warming but authorities who gave no such (environmental & economical) importance, ignored it since there is an existing (political) treaty. The real solution to global warming & climate change is not carbon emission reduction (man-made theory) but photosynthesis via rehabilitation of soil (following God’s laws on nature).

Follow thru the continuation of the author Winston’s interpretation daily until we complete. This is free, not for sale.

The Expert answers:

What was sealed in Daniel was revealed in Revelation; hence the name. In order to interpret with proper exegesis, we must interpret Scripture w/ Scripture as someone said here, which means being familiar with the Old Testament and the Jewish literary style. The New Testament was written in the language of the Jews, which included their metaphors and figurative language. We must not try to interpret them through our 21st century filters.

We must also apply ‘audience relevance’ to the text, which means, understand how the direct recipients of New Testament letters would have understood them… And then see if there is further application for us living today, 2 millennia later. This means understanding that even the adverbs pertained to the direct audience, not to us. If Daniel was told to seal his letter because the time was far off, but John was told NOT to seal the letter, because the time was at hand, we must pay attention to that! God knows how to tell time, and “at hand” is not 2 millennia!

Finally, we must compare history of that time period to what was written. (Roman Jewish War, destruction of Jerusalem, Neronic persecutions, etc.) Only then will we begin to grasp what God means to say, not what we mean for Him to say. The Bible was written FOR us, but not TO us directly.

Daniel’s vision concerned the 70 weeks, and the appointed time of the end (notice it wasn’t the ‘end of time.) When the Messiah would be cut off, the pouring out of God’s spirit in the last days (of the age, not the planet) and the time of sealing up vision and prophecy. Though Daniel did not understand much of it, John did, as the Spirit progressively revealed more, as knowledge increased. The vision referenced the days of the Roman Empire and Israel’s role during the transition between the Old and New Covenant. (30-70AD). See time line for a quick glance of Daniel’s 70 Weeks.

Betty asks…

What engineering job will make the most difference?

I’m an engineering major and an officer in a sustainable energy technology club and I want to know what job will make the most difference. For example, I’ve heard fuel cell vehicle technology would be a great alternative to gasoline vehicles, but due to the weak infrastructure for hydrogen fueling stations and FC vehicles, we’d be looking at high cost cars that won’t be mainstream for at least another 30 years. I’m also a big fan of renewable energy sources (i.e. wind, solar, hydro, geo thermal, bio fuels), but the simple fact is that we’re still going to be running off oil for quite a while. Not that I have anything against oil, it’s a great energy dense resource that has been able to provide most of our modern day conveniences, but even oil companies are eventually going to have to resort toward using alternative sources of energy. Point is, I want to be in the field that will make the most difference in helping develop a more sustainable future. So would that be work in perhaps research, renewable energies, sustainable transportation, infrastructure, proper public advertising, politics, or what?

The Expert answers:

I think a breakthrough in either battery energy density, or battery recharging rates would make the biggest environmental difference in the short term. It’s these two things which make fully electric vehicles undesirable to consumers, which is the only reason they aren’t abundant. So, chemical engineering is a good choice.

Going into politics could also have important short-term effects.

If you want to plan for the long-term, bio-engineering and aerospace are where it’s at. Humanity will eventually control its own evolution, and become a space-faring civilization.

George asks…

Do Americans want to cut our Education and Social programs or would they prefer shared sacrifice?

Shared sacrifice was how we pulled ourselves together during WWII. Business was profitable with specific tax cuts and incentives. During this period of War and Economic Depression FDR was not cutting a single Social Program that provides for the common welfare but meeting and hiring CEO’s and former business leaders to help write the tax codes and come up with incentives. He in fact increased Social spending because it was not only the economically and moral thing to do but it in fact was what also was driving us out of depression and he turned this country to the most powerful economic force on earth. All by helping business and the worst off at the same time. All this while building what most today take for granted, the vast majority of our roads, highways, Dams, levy’s etc.. Now if you think this was due to Business “patriotism” you are partially correct but it was mostly the economic bottom line and the patriotism of the American people after Pearl Harbor that did it. Americans were not told to buy buy buy when we were at war. They took austerity measures and helped with the war effort from everything from gas rationing, food rationing and even things like gathering tin and using less rubber and Fabrics. The Bikini was a direct result of these austerities and rationing of fabric so they weren’t all bad were they?

Now a much weaker country economically, much of this due to our dependency on oil. Could Obama use the powers of our Business savvy CEO’s put them into key posts as FDR did, pass Tax breaks that help our business keep hiring here instead of tax laws that make it easier to send jobs overseas, or across the board tax breaks for the Rich, since they have proven not to work. Since the most cost to this nation’s budget and security is oil, a Man on the Moon approach to renewable and carbon free energy could maintain our #1 Nation Status. All while maintaining our Social and physical infrastructure and building our new Alternative energy USA?

Being no longer dependent on oil is one of the keys to keeping us a competitor in 21st century. The best people to help assist in this, would in fact be energy companies most of them oil or carbon dependent, we would in fact need them to do this and assist them in this conversion the most. They have the existing energy infrastruture right now. Big Oil doesn’t trust any President but I am certain if the correct tax incentives were laid out millions of jobs would be created without losing Big Oil. we can just rename it Big Green in future.

Same goes for our other failing infrastructure, we just cannot keep “duct taping” things and wasting money at the same time. It does not work, nor does neglecting it as in the past 15yrs. USA will need business tax breaks for a massive and costly overhaul. All without a penny borrowed from China. Once there are enough Americans working and we are not reliant on oil as much, and with the improved or in some cases new infrastructures we will be able to stay # 1. Am American plan should be made for our long term gain without hurting the most vulnerable.

I cannot in good conscience vote for cuts in most social programs. Maybe 5% are not working but the other 95% are and could be even better if properly funded. I cant’ sacrifice education as that is just a “loop” to bring us back to economic problems. We need the best and brightest to keep us the best nation.

Across the boards tax cuts to the Richest 2% was a waste and will do little to create jobs as “targeted” business tax cuts would have done. You just have to look at the recent tax cuts Bush created and Republicans held America hostage with this past month. 8 years it created no jobs the richest got richer, and more joined the ranks of the poor, while the middle class shrank the most. Only targeted tax cuts for business will create the jobs that keep us a 21st century competitor should be passed not these wasteful cuts for the wealthiest to buy new Yachts and Rolls Royces and helping China’s jobless.

As an independent leaning Democrat I think most Tea Party Republicans want America to be what it was but just need the education on what that entitles. The old School Republicans and some Democrats I am afraid are just not ethically up to the job perhaps the Tea Party Republicans will in time come around to see that if they really want to make America stay #1 we must change. Is it shared sacrifice not a war against rich or poor or Right or Left that is best for America?

Would you rather take that approach or what we’ve done the last 10 years? There would be less focus on the defecit as the more jobs we get the more it goes down, a proven economic theory not Voodoo trickle down economics.

So does anyone think this new Right led Republicans are up to this challenge or will it be more of the same as we seen the last 30 years(except for the Clinton years).The Rich getti