Obamas energy plan

[kcshocker11]

My point is that the amount of oil available in the off-shore areas currently prohibited and the ANWR aren't enough to drop the price we pay at the pump enough to warrant ripping up some of the last untouched areas on this planet, especially considering we're facing a not-so-distant future where oil cannot possibly be our main fuel if we want to maintain our present quality of life. If we're going to have to move on, might as well do it now.

Well put 8)

[SpanglerFan316]

Within reason, I agree with you. Off-shore drilling can be increased with minimal economic and environmental costs in certain cases. In other cases, such drilling is just dumb. Oil is a finite resource and will eventually be gone. We need to bite the bullet and develop new sources of energy in the near future.

Spangler, it sounds as if we aren't really that far off in our thinking. We MUST develop alternative energies/fuel/whatever and in a manor of which it is effective, efficient and not going to cost us tons of money to use. In the short term we need oil as it works and is cost effective. Wind has a place at some point, but right now isn't going to get it done and may never be a major player. That'll depend on technological advances.

Sub: If you agree with my stipulation "and environmental costs", then that's great. Any source of energy will involve some costs; wind power may kill birds, oil requires some type of drilling, etc.

[ABC]

My point is that the amount of oil available in the off-shore areas currently prohibited and the ANWR aren't enough to drop the price we pay at the pump enough to warrant ripping up some of the last untouched areas on this planet, especially considering we're facing a not-so-distant future where oil cannot possibly be our main fuel if we want to maintain our present quality of life. If we're going to have to move on, might as well do it now.

Well put 8)

When is the not-so-distant time? Fossil fuels will remain the most efficient way to produce energy for the forseeable future.

We have 300 - 400 years of coal for goodness sakes.

And if technology makes wind and solor more competitive (or any other alternative), so be it. Let the market dictate this.

Do you really think Obama or any other bureucrat has some all-encompassing knowledge to make the determinations? I'd love to hear an example of when government intervention was better than the market.

The current ethanol debacle is a good example of the opposite.

[kcshocker11]

My point is that the amount of oil available in the off-shore areas currently prohibited and the ANWR aren't enough to drop the price we pay at the pump enough to warrant ripping up some of the last untouched areas on this planet, especially considering we're facing a not-so-distant future where oil cannot possibly be our main fuel if we want to maintain our present quality of life. If we're going to have to move on, might as well do it now.

Well put 8)

When is the not-so-distant time? Fossil fuels will remain the most efficient way to produce energy for the forseeable future.

We have 300 - 400 years of coal for goodness sakes.

And if technology makes wind and solor more competitive (or any other alternative), so be it. Let the market dictate this.

Do you really think Obama or any other bureucrat has some all-encompassing knowledge to make the determinations? I'd love to hear an example of when government intervention was better than the market.

The current ethanol debacle is a good example of the opposite.

The great depression 8)

[SB Shock]

My point is that the amount of oil available in the off-shore areas currently prohibited and the ANWR aren't enough to drop the price we pay at the pump enough to warrant ripping up some of the last untouched areas on this planet, especially considering we're facing a not-so-distant future where oil cannot possibly be our main fuel if we want to maintain our present quality of life. If we're going to have to move on, might as well do it now.

Well put 8)

When is the not-so-distant time? Fossil fuels will remain the most efficient way to produce energy for the forseeable future.

We have 300 - 400 years of coal for goodness sakes.

And if technology makes wind and solor more competitive (or any other alternative), so be it. Let the market dictate this.

Do you really think Obama or any other bureucrat has some all-encompassing knowledge to make the determinations? I'd love to hear an example of when government intervention was better than the market.

The current ethanol debacle is a good example of the opposite.

The great depression 8)

I thought the depression ended when the Germans bombed Peal Harbor. :lol:

[ABC]

Oh, the Great Depression that was 80 years ago?

Actually there is a lot of scholarship that makes a compelling case that Roosevelt's big government solutions prolonged the Depression and made recover more difficult.

[kcshocker11]

Oh, the Great Depression that was 80 years ago?

Actually there is a lot of scholarship that makes a compelling case that Roosevelt's big government solutions prolonged the Depression and made recover more difficult.

I would suggest you talk to some people who are 85+, You will find it hard pressed to find anyone Rep or Dem who doesnt admire FDR. Also research projects in the Wichita area, that are still in use today that helped employ multitudes of men in time of need.

I have two parents in that range, both Republicans and have had the privilage of growing up around that generation. If you want your head torn off just bad mouth FDR or Trumans decision to drop the bomb.

I think history has already viewed FDR quite favorably, He was the right man at the right time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_United_States_Presidents

Three Presidents—George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin D. Roosevelt — are consistently ranked at the top of the lists. Usually ranked just below those three are Presidents Thomas Jefferson and Theodore Roosevelt. The remaining top 10 ranks are often rounded out by Harry S. Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Andrew Jackson, Woodrow Wilson, and John F. Kennedy.

Let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.
Franklin D. Roosevelt

It is an unfortunate human failing that a full pocketbook often groans more loudly than an empty stomach.
Franklin D. Roosevelt

We are trying to construct a more inclusive society. We are going to make a country in which no one is left out.
Franklin D. Roosevelt

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/f/franklin_d_roosevelt.html

8) :D :D 8)

[ABC]

Both of my parents grew up in rural Kansas during the Depression and with my dad in the Dust Bowl in Western Kansas.

I am not concerned with anecdotes, quotes, rankings and stories. Let me repeat that there are a lot of smart folks that think what Roosevelt did made the recovery longer.

In case you didn't know, government spends the taxpayers money. So every dollar the government spent was a dollar the private sector didn't have to do something productive with. Now I love the big shelter belts that you see through Kansas, especially on US 54 west of Wichita, but I don't know that that was such a great thing for the economy long term.

My grand dad, a farmer is rural Kansas, said the only good thing the "damn Democrats" did was rural electrificaiton. So there are others who lived through it who disagree.

I think FDR did a good job as a war President, but I never understood why he was so opposed to Great Britain's empire but didn't care about the Soviet Union/Russian Empire which is still manifest today as we can see in South Ossetia and Georgia.

[WuDrWu]

In order from least amount of truths to absolute truth:


Anything spewed at the DNC

1/2 Truths

100% Truth

99% of what ABC says


That is all.

[Ixiah]

Both of my parents grew up in rural Kansas during the Depression and with my dad in the Dust Bowl in Western Kansas.

Something in common - both my parents grew up in small towns in Oklahoma during the great depression.

I am not concerned with anecdotes, quotes, rankings and stories. Let me repeat that there are a lot of smart folks that think what Roosevelt did made the recovery longer.

That of course is pure speculation. Hoover and the republican controlled congress left FDR a truly monumental mess:

GNP is falling at double digits
Capital investment dropped from 16.2 billion in 1929 to 333 million in 1932
Unemployment is at the unimaginable level of 23.6 percent.

Your argument is that he could have gotten us out quicker if he had taken a 'hands off approach'. Possible but that was done by Hoover in 1931 along with some quaint volunteer programs that were completely ineffective and things got progressively worse.

In case you didn't know, government spends the taxpayers money. So every dollar the government spent was a dollar the private sector didn't have to do something productive with. Now I love the big shelter belts that you see through Kansas, especially on US 54 west of Wichita, but I don't know that that was such a great thing for the economy long term.

ABC - is this the improved long term economy without shelter belts your referring to? ;-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Dust_Bowl_-_Dallas,_South_Dakota_1936.jpg

All joking aside though the shelter belts were an absolute necessity. We had a discussion earlier on these forums where someone else's property (not cutting grass, junk, etc.) could harm yours. This was the case at the time. Peoples crops were being ruined by poor farming methods used elsewhere. Also these storms were flat out scary!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2a/Wea01422.jpg

My grand dad, a farmer is rural Kansas, said the only good thing the "damn Democrats" did was rural electrificaiton. So there are others who lived through it who disagree.

To each their own. I personally think each party has its good and bad points.

I think FDR did a good job as a war President, but I never understood why he was so opposed to Great Britain's empire but didn't care about the Soviet Union/Russian Empire which is still manifest today as we can see in South Ossetia and Georgia.

Easy answer to that one. The USA kept a tiny standing army during periods inter war years (to give some perspective - the Netherlands was larger). With two great oceans between us and anyone else it made only those with a large fleet dangerous. In the 30's that meant Great Britain and Japan. The Soviet Union had only a collection of ancient battleships, a few modern smaller ships, and no carriers. Most of even that pathetic force was wiped out rather quickly by the Germans.

[rjl]

When is the not-so-distant time? Fossil fuels will remain the most efficient way to produce energy for the forseeable future.

We have 300 - 400 years of coal for goodness sakes.

And if technology makes wind and solor more competitive (or any other alternative), so be it. Let the market dictate this.

Do you really think Obama or any other bureucrat has some all-encompassing knowledge to make the determinations? I'd love to hear an example of when government intervention was better than the market.

The current ethanol debacle is a good example of the opposite.

Not sure how old you are, but the only coal fueled vehicles I've ever seen are at museums.

And just because there's an abundant supply of it, doesn't mean that coal should fuel our primary sources of electricity. There are an overabundance of rocks, but we stopped making weapons with them eons ago. Coal is dirty; it's time to move on.

Do I think Obama has an all-encompassing knowledge to make a determination? No. But I do think he's at least basing his plan and views on the actual studies and not a talking point lobbed into the political debate to shill some more votes from the ill-informed.

[rjl]

In order from least amount of truths to absolute truth:


Anything spewed at the DNC

1/2 Truths

100% Truth

99% of what ABC says


That is all.

I am currently of the "put up or shut up" frame of mind when it comes to these political threads on the off-topic forum, so do you care to supply any evidence that what the Democrats have said regarding the energy debate is anything but true?

I've made this offer to others, but all I've gotten back is more Republican rhetoric and anti-Liberal mumbo jumbo.

If these threads are to contain anything substantial at all, let it be truth, less you look foolish.

[kcshocker11]

http://gov.state.ak.us/print_news-53432.html

Seems the Gov of Alaska like Obamas energy plan too :yes: 8)

[SB Shock]

http://gov.state.ak.us/print_news-53432.html

Seems the Gov of Alaska like Obamas energy plan too :yes: 8)

Bet she does. More drilling/exploration in Alaska means bigger tax cuts and revenue checks for the population of Alaska.

[kcshocker11]

http://gov.state.ak.us/print_news-53432.html

Seems the Gov of Alaska like Obamas energy plan too :yes: 8)

Bet she does. More drilling/exploration in Alaska means bigger tax cuts and revenue checks for the population of Alaska.

yep! 8)