- Joined
- Oct 12, 2009
- Messages
- 23,909
- Reaction score
- 11,003
- Location
- New Jersey
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Good example of what I was saying. Who cares if it was a republican or democrat who passed lousy legislation. And to say that your politician is a bigger knucklehead than mine seems childish.
Originally posted by Ptif - I see make us use ethanol that lowers MPG and then expect the auto industry to still find ways to increase mileage. Shows how stupid these GW environmentalists are
Not those people who are still saving, but retirees. There are lots of them with good retirement incomes and substantial savings as well. But even those who are nearing retirement could benefit. My wife's IRA, almost $200K, is in a fixed account, earning a whopping 1%.....that money would be better spent making our AZ home more energy efficient, or buying a new home that is wheelchair compatible. I am not there now, but will be. Parkinson's has no cure.
My IRA funds are almost gone, used to build a house in Utah. We have about $120K in retirement income, the bulk of which is periodically adjusted for cost of living. We are well protected in our medical care needs. We don't NEED so much savings. There are a lot of people in that category. Like I said, trillions....
There are worse things than Parkinson's, but thanks....Damn Bill, I am sorry.
I can't see those on fixed incomes putting their savings in unproven tech. Just not realistic.
j-mac
I'm sure you prove it all the time in your own mind. But like everywhere else, the lines get long, the quality drops.I suppose you can't address those facts? I am sorry that I prove time and time again that socialized medicine works out to be cheaper.
No argument there - however I'd either cut defense last, or I'd cut across the board including welfare / social programs at a flat rate, say 20%.We cut non military discretionary spending every time we need cuts. There isn't much room left. In fact, non military discretionary spending is easily the most streamlined budgetary item. If more cuts can be made without affecting the integrity of our most important programs, then fine, cut them. However, there is certainly some pork available in defense spending as well.
After cutting enough a tax increase wouldn't be needed.Then, of course, we can raise taxes back up to their already low rate before Bush took office, and gain even more money. We can slowly bring our troops home from over seas, and we can use that money to invest in our own infrastructure! That's sounds great to me.
Prior to FDR, we did live there... the EPA was only created under Carter post 1976. The Dept of Ed didn't exist until 1980 and children were arguably BETTER educated than they are now. THe FCC - 1930's. And people used radio's and telephones prior to that too. People lived, worked, loved and died all just fine without them, and can again.Man oh man. I wish I could live in another country as you and just let you do all that. I wish.
We do like they did in the old days when the water was polluted - boil the water and make beer. Public school issues belong at the state level. Progressive energy policy? Well - we can't cut down the power lines so the Energy Commission has to stay I guess but should be gutted and the power left to the states.Then you could get screwed over by every business since all your government regulations just went out the window, you can forget about clean drinking water, lower pollution levels, progressive energy policy, and equal public schools.
So most people want your way, which is more government control, less money in their pocket and more bureacracy? I don't think so.I wish I could give that to you, but unfortunately, most people in this country don't agree with you.
Some regulation is certainly needed --- about 25%-30% of what we have now.Most of us like our roads, we like our clean drinking water, we like our regulations that prevent unethical business practices, we like our education, and some of us would even like health care added onto that package.
I'm holding out for Montana or Wyoming - I'm not a hot weather person.Maybe you can move to Texas and secede. I think you'd have the best chance there.
I'm sure you prove it all the time in your own mind. But like everywhere else, the lines get long, the quality drops.
No argument there - however I'd either cut defense last, or I'd cut across the board including welfare / social programs at a flat rate, say 20%.
After cutting enough a tax increase wouldn't be needed.
Prior to FDR, we did live there... the EPA was only created under Carter post 1976. The Dept of Ed didn't exist until 1980 and children were arguably BETTER educated than they are now. THe FCC - 1930's. And people used radio's and telephones prior to that too. People lived, worked, loved and died all just fine without them, and can again.
We do like they did in the old days when the water was polluted - boil the water and make beer. Public school issues belong at the state level. Progressive energy policy? Well - we can't cut down the power lines so the Energy Commission has to stay I guess but should be gutted and the power left to the states.
So most people want your way, which is more government control, less money in their pocket and more bureacracy? I don't think so.
Some regulation is certainly needed --- about 25%-30% of what we have now.
I'm holding out for Montana or Wyoming - I'm not a hot weather person.
Do you mean the increased ethanol in gas requirement passed by the Republican controlled Congress and signed into law by President Bush?
"The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Pub.L. 109-58) is a bill passed by the United States Congress on July 29, 2005, and signed into law by President George W. Bush on August 8, 2005, at Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico."
"the Act increases the amount of biofuel (usually ethanol) that must be mixed with gasoline sold in the United States to 4 billion gallons by 2006, 6.1 billion gallons by 2009 and 7.5 billion gallons by 2012"
Energy Policy Act of 2005 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Because technically it will still be cheaper. Electricity is currently cheaper than oil. Also, that is why I was discussing moving our energy production more efficient and renewable as well.
I don't see where anyone said trucks would become electric.
PTif does!
Evidently you have not been around for the countless times Ptif has said that ethanol was forced on us by the GW crowd. That is who the facts were in response to.
Which Obama wants to increase to 15%. Ethanol is a failed program yet Obama increases it
EPA approves more ethanol in fuel for cars
I'm cool the with increased gas prices that would result from less corn based ethanol! :sun
Last Week I paid $4.19 for Ethanol free
I'm happy for you! Go Ptif! :sun
Because technically it will still be cheaper. Electricity is currently cheaper than oil. Also, that is why I was discussing moving our energy production more efficient and renewable as well.
I don't see where anyone said trucks would become electric.
The rise in oil prices is going to have a huge effect on electricity rates, so if I were you, I would lock myself into a contract.
.
Much of electricity is generated by coal, the dirtiest of the fossil fuels. It just blows my mind that Obama has this dogma that liberals are intent in following even if it makes zero sense. Also have you thought about where the extra electric generation will come from if we suddenly had 100 million electric cars. Would this administration and the EPA allow for hundreds more polluting electric generatin plants. The administration to my knowledge has not allowed any nuclear plants to be built in their two plus years in office.
he told the sf chron (a dead outfit, by the way) he was gonna try to bankrupt coal and electricity, remember
meanwhile, yesterday: GM sells just 281 Chevy Volts in February, Autoblog Green
Talk on his part....pandering to the liberals
Not likely...we have very few power plants using oil.
Electric rates are very stable compared to what we pay for natural gas to heat our homes. Here is a good read....
Clean Energy Insight - Moving Energy Forward » Blog Archive » Info: The Cost of Energy
Much of electricity is generated by coal, the dirtiest of the fossil fuels. It just blows my mind that Obama has this dogma that liberals are intent in following even if it makes zero sense. Also have you thought about where the extra electric generation will come from if we suddenly had 100 million electric cars. Would this administration and the EPA allow for hundreds more polluting electric generatin plants. The administration to my knowledge has not allowed any nuclear plants to be built in their two plus years in office.
Much of electricity is generated by coal, the dirtiest of the fossil fuels. It just blows my mind that Obama has this dogma that liberals are intent in following even if it makes zero sense. Also have you thought about where the extra electric generation will come from if we suddenly had 100 million electric cars. Would this administration and the EPA allow for hundreds more polluting electric generatin plants. The administration to my knowledge has not allowed any nuclear plants to be built in their two plus years in office.
We aren't stopping anything......more coal plants are being built, likewise more combined cycle gas turbine plants.Well bully for him. Problem is that although he picks Engineers to head up the dept, the Engineer he picked is on board with his stated energy policy of prices "necessarily skyrocketing".... We should continue to invest in research and perfection of green tech, but while that is being developed, it makes NO sense to just stop the current energy sources, and put our own gathering of those sources off limits. That is a recipe for disaster.
j-mac
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?