Group items tagged

Romney's energy views

This is an incredibly drastic change between two Romneys which I agree makes me a feel a bit uneasy. That being said, as a generalization, I take the standpoint that having him changes his views some to be more likely to win the election is not necessarily a bad thing. Assuming he continues to do this if elected, it means that he will be acting to serve the more, or at least what he believes to be, the more popular vote on select issues. I do wonder if he hadn't changed his views on this matter where we would be in the election right now. Would he lose voters because they don't agree with his energy policy or gain democratic voters who are looking for a strong stance on clean energy? Would the republican voters be upset enough about his energy policy to truly not vote for him or would his other republican positions outweigh it and not make him sacrifice many votes at all?

I can't blame Romney for changing his opinion on investing in green energy, just look at how terrible government investment in green energy has come. He does still believe that green energy is good, but wants the government to stay out of it for obvious reasons. Yes, he is shifty, but so is every politician that has ever existed ever. For instance, Obama promised not to raise taxes on the middle class, but he extended the bush era tax cuts and not to mention set up ACA to require about 1 trillion in tax revenue when he only increased taxes by 550 billion. Obama says lots of things that he also has no intention of following too, this 550 billion increase isn't going to come at no cost to the middle class. What all politicians say and do are very different things.

Yet another failed company under the Obama Administration. I think what frustrates me the most about these investments isn't that Obama has picked some winners and some losers, but that he has picked only losers, wasting 340,000,000$ so far. Do you guys think that the government should have this big of a role in investing in society, or should it just let green energy succeed or fail on its own? While Green energy is better for the environment, I feel that if the government is only capable of making bad investments or not making investments, then it shouldn't be wasting taxpayer dollars on companies that do nothing but fail. 

Hmm. I'm conflicted about this as well. I think that it's great that the government is supporting green energy, but gambling with taxpayer's money does not sound like a good idea. Interestingly, this is a kind of similar idea to privatizing Social Security, which Obama is very strongly opposed to but Republicans (including Romney) have supported in the past.

In my opinion, this becomes an issue of rights vs. economy. Is green energy a right or an economic luxury? Is it the government's job to ensure energy rights or to let it become an issue of the market? From a broader perspective, do we need regulation to prevent the long-term issue of the destruction of our earth? Sometimes when we think "business, business, business", we forget about ethics/morals. It also becomes an issue of whether or not we want to lead the world in a clean-energy revolution. At the same time, our economic issues present moral issues as well. It is a hard thing to think about because our priorities get all jumbled up. I guess it depends on what the individual thinks is important.

Romney criticizes Obama for not speaking out against the attacks on the US Ambassador in Libya. The article uses this to make Romney seem hasty, because Obama did condem the attack eventually. This just seems like another attempt of Romney's to gain the upper hand by nitpicking everything about the Obama administration. Numerous senators are also quoted in the article saying that this isn't a time for political division and Romney needs to be more careful before he says something stupid and insensitive. 

The first thing that stands out to me in this article is that the attack is described as a test of crisis skills rather than an actual thing that happened. I think that Obama is right in saying that "Governor Romney seems to have a tendency to shoot first and aim later", especially with his comments. He's trying so hard to appeal to people that he doesn't always think about the effects of what he says. I don't think that Romney understands that sometimes apology is the best way to handle things.

I think this is a time where criticizing the other party is not effective and should not be the main concern. I agree with you Sabrina, that sometimes an apology, or even acknowledgment, is the best way to handle things. But Obama has been criticized for less harsh action on foreign affairs so I'm surprised he didn't condem the attacks first. I guess he won't waver on how he feels he should approach these acts of terror.