Skip to comments.Bret Baier’s Fox News Reporting Special – ‘Behind Obama’s Green Agenda’
Posted on 10/07/2012 6:46:58 PM PDT by kcvl
click here to read article
Obviously, I don’t know anything about your local telecom situation. However, I suspect that regulation — free enterprise’s other ugly stepsister — was involved. Until recent decades, government’s regulated the telecom industry to create monopolies. Not even the Mafia was as successful at eliminating competition.
Really? He had $1666 electric bills?
I call BS. The typical solar installation "breaks even" in about 45 years compared to fossil fuel power, long past the service life of the components. That is why it fails without tax funding to cover the costs.
Oh-Oh. math, not prepared for that.
His peak electric bills summer were in the neighborhood of $600 per month so maybe $4-5K a year which it now costs him nothing. Now I have to go back and ask him where he got the “I already made it back” line from.
Also if he generates enough to make a profit (net positive) beyond what he uses at night. I think he said even on cloudy days they generate electric.
A new AC could lower those bills too.
” We got little snow last year, I wonder how they will hold up in a heavy snowstorm. “
Would they be covered with snow ?
Where solar replaces existing coal/natgas power the payback on the investment is generally about twice the service life of the system from my experience.
Solar might be cost effective where no power exists.
He told me about this in passing and it sounding like he found free energy. He even said if he moves the panels go to his new house.
I know the government tax credits were the key part as it paid for most of it.
When I use to have a TV it had a DVR and I recorded off from it many things. It wasn’t difficult. You might try this link for directions.
OK, I saw the guy today and quizzed him about it and got a slightly different picture than I did a few days ago. So before I forget the numbers...
It was 59 panels at $1K per not 70.
His panels only supply 80% of his needs, he gets the rest off the grid. However he doesn't have to pay for it.
Democrat Maryland mandated the power company to generate some amount of electricity by solar. The power company isn't meeting it so the law forces them to pay the owner for generating electricity that they use themselves, he is not selling any. So the power company was forced to pay him ~ $3K this year just because he uses his solar himself. Where do they get this money?? From the rest of us in higher rates. This is Gov Martin O Malley’s doing.
In addition he said he got 30% of price in a federal tax credit, and other tax credits from state and county. He made it sound like that payed for more than half of the $59K. Of course those state tax credits indirectly come from the rest of us too because Maryland raised multiple taxes in the last few years, sales, income and alcohol. He said the past year or so those credits were reduced for new buyers as the prices came down, His thinks it will take 5 years to break even, not the one.
Getting detailed info from him is like pulling teeth. But it raised my curiosity after you pointed out my numbers were wrong.
So for his peak bill of $600 he save 80% or $480 per month. So, not counting tax money, it will take 125 months or 10 1/2 years to break even. Of course that is his peak bill so most months he saves less so it will be more like 15 - 18 years. If my math is good, that approaches the life cycle of the equipment.
Solar is a great option if you can force your neighbors and grand kids to fund it for you.
Maybe not grandkids, its not SS and Medicare, but neighbors and grown relatives pay for it.
What is sneaky is that this is a hidden tax that stupid Dem voters in Maryland are unaware of. Elected Dems raised many of our taxes under O malley, then they force utilities to bribe a few to buy these and the idiots who support Dems here think its the evil corporation rich guys spiking them by raising their rates.
Worse yet O Malley won in 2006 by running on “Electric Deregulation raised your rates and if I get in I will not allow it and will force them to lower them”
Once in office he announced higher rates were not the problem, it was dependence on fossil fuels.
Like Dems EVER lower prices of energy. But They believed it. Even RINOs here believed the basic deregulation story (2006) till I explained it.
” This is Gov Martin O Malleys doing.”
This guy is a one man wrecking crew.
Green is the new Red.....Rush said that over and over fifteen-20 years ago. Where you been?
Obama, Harry , Nancy and their cornies...Oh, geeees. That left a shiitestain on my brain. Thank you, I will forever curse you.
My understanding is that “Christian Charity” has long been a part of the Christian churches. The collectivists have long considered the religious to be one of their principle opponents. It is hard for them to force the people to worship The State if those people have a higher being that they choose to worship, thus the protracted and often violent attack on all religion, especially Christianity, which preaches, at its core, freedom from the enslaving affect of sin and godlessness, which translates to liberty in life.
The collectivists constructed a very stealthy means of bringing the religious into their fold, and what they did was subvert the idea of Christian Charity in several ways. One of those ways was to blend it in to class warfare, pitting ‘the poor’ against ‘the rich’ and subverting Christ’s teachings to make the argument that if you have money, you are not a Christian or are guilty of not living a Christ-like life, that you must give your ‘wealth’ to the poor in order to be saved, or, at a minimum, you must support that type of government that is focused on doing so. This became known as “economic justice.”
The “social justice” side of that subversion was to take the concept of “judge not that ye be not judged” and to alter the original intent of Biblical forgiveness to support all types of ungodly and un-Biblical behavior. Thus, criminals became the “victim” because of economic disparities, and the perverse became a victim group that needs to be celebrated (according to their twisted sociology). This is the “social justice” aspect of the collectivist subversion of scripture. It is very clever, because it ties in with the “support the poor” subversion and uses it as evidence that if we don’t abide by these mandates, the result will be social unrest due to the economic disparities (caused by the free-est economic system of Capitalism, which is one of their primary targets).
As a Christian, I believe we do have a duty to take care of those who need help and that we should do what we can to provide the basics and ease the suffering of the less fortunate. That is a far cry from where we are today, though. The Bible teaches us that our primary relationship should be with God and Jesus, and that this relationship will then lead us to voluntarily live a life that helps others, seeks peace, etc. It teaches us Christian Charity, which is to provide a safety net for those who fall on hard times or are incapable of helping themselves. But the other side of that “Christian Charity” is that as soon as people are able to care for themselves, it is our duty to stop supporting them. Why? First, because it is not good for their spiritual health to be enslaved to the handouts of others. Second, it drains the ability of those who can help so that they are less able to help others who may fall on hard times. As we have seen with the rise of the welfare state, if this counterpart to Christian Charity is not maintained, it creates a class of people who believe they are entitled to handouts, who turns them hostile and violent toward those they feel are maintaining their existence, and it slowly sours the spirit of those who are providing as they constantly see the fruit of their labors confiscated and “redistributed.”
As I said, I believe in Christian Charity, but this socialist state we live in is so far from the origins of those Biblical teachings, that I think we can fairly say that those Biblical precepts have been successfully subverted and have turned many churches into propaganda arms of the State.
I understand what you’re saying, but I think there is an in-between.
I think there are those who know what they are doing, who are simply using religion to push their leftist political agenda.
However, I don’t think that all Catholics (or all Christians, for that matter) are willingly going along with the plan. I believe the propagandists in the pulpit are very clever at using emotionally based lectures and the warm-fuzzies of socialism to turn their churches into supporters of Statism, that they are expert in using the religious blueprint that many in their congregation have in their spirits for their worldly ulterior motives.
Incidentally, that is how I interpret Jesus’ wrath when he took whips to the money changers. That is what they were doing, they took that religious impulse that God gave to his people to form a close relationship with Him and they used that for their own worldly, fiscal profit. This enraged Jesus, that the religious impulse that He gave to his people would be used for worldly gain. And I believe that should be our reaction as well.
See my 118, as well.
See my 117 and 118.
Very well written analysis, GPM
Thanks. It was written BC (before coffee), so please forgive the typos and the grammatical mistakes.
I couldn’t agree more with your take on these insidious and successful antics of the, what I call “highjacking”, of the dogmatic terms and aims of Christianity, all for nefarious use by the enemies of the Church.
Social Justice, as the term itself, I first heard from the Left using it and secular media using it. When I converted into the Church was when I realized that the term was solidly engrained in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), a document which has been around for ions. Universally the Church has an understanding of the term around the globe, so the Left wanted it, naturally, and have succeeded in subverting it.
This has lead to non-Catholics and conservatives to cast a suspicious eye toward the Catholic Church, as if the subverted version of the term came from them.
This is just my take on it, however. When you posited that it came first from the Left, I was interested in the who, what, when and where of the origin of that term, “social justice” that could have preceded the long established CCC.
This is interesting for me. Thanks.
In a like vein, I see the “its for the children” elevation of children to the sinless nature of Christ to be a similar perversion and substitution.
Where all was for Christ, now all is for an idealistic vision of “the child” in his place.
I agree completely.
The “turn the other cheek” and call to live a peaceful life has been subverted into suicidal pacifism.