Where is the US economy headed?

In a 75-minute meeting Sunday night, President Obama once again demanded that more than $1 trillion in tax increases be part of any deficit reduction package attached to a vote on the debt ceiling. In the session, Obama rejected a Republican proposal to seek $2.5 trillion in spending cuts and reforms, and insisted on higher taxes on businesses and wealthy individuals

In August 2009, on a visit to Elkhart, Indiana to tout his stimulus plan, Obama sat down for an interview with NBC’s Chuck Todd, and was conveyed a simple request from Elkhart resident Scott Ferguson: “Explain how raising taxes on anyone during a deep recession is going to help with the economy.”

Obama agreed with Ferguson’s premise – raising taxes in a recession is a bad idea. “First of all, he’s right. Normally, you don’t raise taxes in a recession, which is why we haven’t and why we’ve instead cut taxes. So I guess what I’d say to Scott is – his economics are right. You don’t raise taxes in a recession. We haven’t raised taxes in a recession.”

Todd reminded Obama that he had promised to raise taxes on “some of the wealthiest” Americans.
Obama responded by reiterating his opposition to tax hikes during a recession and making an argument about timing. “We have not proposed a tax hike for the wealthy that would take effect in the middle of a recession. Even the proposals that have come out of Congress – which by the way were different from the proposals I put forward – still wouldn’t kick in until after the recession was over. So he’s absolutely right, the last thing you want to do is raise taxes in the middle of a recession because that would just suck up – take more demand out of the economy and put business further in a hole

So, do we raise taxes in a recession, or dont we.
It seems Obama cant make up his mind, or cant remember what he said.

It wasnt meant as a "gotcha" moment, so you didnt bust any moment.

So, if the admin calls the current malaise a recession, you will also say that they are wrong and dont know what they are talking about, right.

Cyclo rationalizes economically harmful government restrictions on the development of new energy infrastructure (petroleum production, pipelines, etc., by saying money isn't everything - and then goes on to advocate government financed investment in other vaguely defined "infrastructure" projects - all without saying where the energy to operate them will come from.

I didn't say where the energy to operate any new projects would come from, because it doesn't currently need to be said. We have no shortage of available electricity at this time in America.

The rest of your post is muttering about Europe and whatnot, not very interesting. I guess it's worth pointing out that Europe is experiencing huge problems not because of their socialist government, but (mostly) because of bad bets made by their banks in the real estate markets... just like here in America.

Increasing domestic oil production wouldn't meaningfully drop
the price of gasoline here, anytime soon, and you know it.

Increasing domestic oil production wouldn't meaningfully drop the price of gasoline here, anytime soon, and you know it.

Re: Solar, I guess you haven't noticed that it's dropping in price like a stone. By 2013, solar panels are projected to cost half of what they did in 2009; and that's just going to keep falling as production ramps up. Within a decade, commercial solar installations will likely be cheaper than traditional energy sources, without subsidy. You won't be able to keep making your case for dirty, old-school energy generation for much longer, so enjoy it while you can.

large scale solar power generation is very far from commercial viability even with the modest reductions in panel costs you describe.

The energy density (land area required per gigawat) is still very low; the capacity factor still dependent on time of day and cloud cover, and the cost per Mw hr delivered still much more than double conventional sources.

The average one-off installation cost of solar photovoltaic (PV) panels has already dropped from more than $2 (£1.23) per unit of generating capacity in 2009 to about $1.50 in 2011. Based on broker reports and industry analysis, the report forecasts that those rates of decline will continue, with prices falling close to the $1 mark in 2013.

At present, solar PV is economically viable in the UK for homeowners, businesses and investors only because of government subsidies given out via feed-in tariffs (Fits). But the new analysis suggests that falling PV panel prices and rising fossil fuel prices could together make large-scale solar installations cost-competitive without government support within a decade – sooner than is usually assumed.

...

To compare the relative cost of solar – usually described in terms of the dollar price of each watt of peak capacity – and other energy sources, analysts consider factors such as upfront expenditure, fuel prices, maintenance and discount rates to calculate the "levelised" cost of each unit of energy. The report predicts that, with continued support in the short term, the levellised cost of large-scale solar will be no higher than retail energy prices by 2016-19. This suggests that within 10 years companies with large electricity demands will find it cheaper to install unsubsidised solar than to buy energy via the grid in the traditional way.