Obamas energy plan

[shockandawe08]

kcshocker11,

I'm really surprised you could provide that link. I was under the impression that that information had mysteriously disappeared. Of course, then I read that someone had cached (sp.?) it. Can NO ONE tell the truth? And people wonder why we're all skeptical.

[rayc]

From the link: ( Bold is mine)

“We in Alaska feel that crunch and are taking steps to address it right here at home,” Governor Palin said. “This is a tool that must be on the table to buy us time until our long-term energy plans can be put into place. We have already enjoyed the support of Alaska Senator Ted Stevens, and it is gratifying to see Senator Obama get on board.”

She seemes pleased that he (Obama) is adopting a portion of the energy plan she already has for Alaska. :lol:

It is interesting to note that what Gov. Palin considers her major ACCOMPLISHMENT, the natural gas pipeline from the north slope to the lower 48 states, is included as a major GOAL in Obama's energy plan. I guess that's one goal he planned on achieving.



WSJ article on Palin

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122002615833483595.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Profile of Alaska's Sarah Palin:
Governor, Reformer, Mother

After handily winning, her popularity in Alaska soared as she went on to sack political appointees with close ties to industry lobbyists and shelved pork projects. Gov. Palin has shown similar fearlessness in going after Big Oil, whose money has long dominated the state. She appears, for example, to have forced Alaska's dominant oil producers, ConocoPhillips and BP PLC, to finally get serious about a natural-gas pipeline -- without making any tax or royalty concessions

One of the governor's top priorities has been getting a natural-gas pipeline built from Alaska's vast North Slope oilfields. With Prudhoe Bay and other fields being steadily depleted, state officials have long pegged their economic future on a pipeline to transfer the huge amounts of natural gas on the North Slope to the rest of the U.S.
But she took the bidding process outside the state, rather than continue negotiating primarily with Alaska's existing oil producers as her predecessor had done. In a snub to the oil majors, she has proposed TransCanada Corp., a Calgary-based energy company, be given the primary contract to lead the $30 billion job along with $500 million in matching grants. She just signed a bill the legislature passed allowing that to happen.

And this link takes you to a video interview with Gov. Palin on energy - worth watching.

http://race42008.com/2008/08/30/palin-on-energy-anwr-and-biden

[shockandawe08]

rayc,

With all due respect, is that THE Ted Stevens (in Alaska), who is currently under indictment? Be very careful what you choose to quote, just in case some voters haven't made up their minds.
This is NOT helping me....

[rayc]

Of course it is, he is under indictment as a result of the investigation Gov. Palin started. Is that as far as you got?

Are only Republican's guilty by association in your eyes?

[kcshocker11]

From the link: ( Bold is mine)

“We in Alaska feel that crunch and are taking steps to address it right here at home,” Governor Palin said. “This is a tool that must be on the table to buy us time until our long-term energy plans can be put into place. We have already enjoyed the support of Alaska Senator Ted Stevens, and it is gratifying to see Senator Obama get on board.”

She seemes pleased that he (Obama) is adopting a portion of the energy plan she already has for Alaska. :lol:

It is interesting to note that what Gov. Palin considers her major ACCOMPLISHMENT, the natural gas pipeline from the north slope to the lower 48 states, is included as a major GOAL in Obama's energy plan. I guess that's one goal he planned on achieving.



WSJ article on Palin

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122002615833483595.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Profile of Alaska's Sarah Palin:
Governor, Reformer, Mother

After handily winning, her popularity in Alaska soared as she went on to sack political appointees with close ties to industry lobbyists and shelved pork projects. Gov. Palin has shown similar fearlessness in going after Big Oil, whose money has long dominated the state. She appears, for example, to have forced Alaska's dominant oil producers, ConocoPhillips and BP PLC, to finally get serious about a natural-gas pipeline -- without making any tax or royalty concessions

One of the governor's top priorities has been getting a natural-gas pipeline built from Alaska's vast North Slope oilfields. With Prudhoe Bay and other fields being steadily depleted, state officials have long pegged their economic future on a pipeline to transfer the huge amounts of natural gas on the North Slope to the rest of the U.S.
But she took the bidding process outside the state, rather than continue negotiating primarily with Alaska's existing oil producers as her predecessor had done. In a snub to the oil majors, she has proposed TransCanada Corp., a Calgary-based energy company, be given the primary contract to lead the $30 billion job along with $500 million in matching grants. She just signed a bill the legislature passed allowing that to happen.

And this link takes you to a video interview with Gov. Palin on energy - worth watching.

http://race42008.com/2008/08/30/pali...anwr-and-biden

I doubt it was the Gov that came up with the idea, more like several engineers. It shows that Obama has the ability to see a potential solution to a problem and incorporate possible good ideas into solving that problem.

The problems that face this nation are oftened portrayed in terms as us against them. This happens here on SN and both Rep and Dems are equally quilty.

What I have attempted to show in this thread is that Obama has specific ideas. I dont care if you agree or not with these ideas , but the general idea that the man represents generalities with no substnce is simple incorrect.

It is a shame that leagues of potential voters spew the mantra that Obama stands for nothing, when in fact they have never taken the time to even try to find out.

It is also equally shameful that other voters bash McCain without investigating his positions.

I suggest everyone goto Obamas and McCains websites and read their policies.


Oh, heres what someone thought of attributing creativity to one source, but what did he know!
:D 8)

The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."

--Albert Einstein

[wu_shizzle]

I suggest everyone goto Obamas and McCains websites and read their policies.

I would suggest finding un-biased sources for your research.

[kcshocker11]

I suggest everyone goto Obamas and McCains websites and read their policies.

I would suggest finding un-biased sources for your research.

There are no such things as unbiased sources. If you wish to supplement your readings with contrary views thats even better. Dont fool yourself that anything produced by humans is unbiased.

I always find the best way to learn about a mans opinion is to ask the man. 8)
There again it is the rare person who has the courage to challenge his or her preconcieved notions. 8) 8)

[ABC]

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

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.

There are many academics who are students of this period who believe that FDRs plans kept the recovery from happening sooner.

Your last point does point out how wrong FDR was about the Soviet Union and their lust for land and control. Why he was pressing the UK to start freeing its empire and didn't care about the Soviet Union is perplexing at best and in hindsight, wrong.

[rayc]

kcshocker11:
I doubt it was the Gov that came up with the idea, more like several engineers. It shows that Obama has the ability to see a potential solution to a problem and incorporate possible good ideas into solving that problem.

I assume you are referring to the natural gas pipeline. If so, then it was a known solution to a known problem that had defied all attempts at implementation for the preceding 30 years. The problem was the politically corrupt Alaskan “good ole boy” system and its ties to the oil industry in the State.

It wasn’t until Gov. Palin put that system on the run and pulled the “solution” away from the exclusive interests of the existing in State oil industry, that movement toward a solution was possible. The natural gas pipeline project is now essentially signed, sealed and delivered.

Including a completed major energy project as an Obama Energy Plan goal seemed a little strange.

The point I was making was that here is possibly another instance of Obama trying to grab credit for work he had nothing to do with. That would be consistent with the methodology of “authoring” legislation he is famous for.

[kcshocker11]

kcshocker11:
I doubt it was the Gov that came up with the idea, more like several engineers. It shows that Obama has the ability to see a potential solution to a problem and incorporate possible good ideas into solving that problem.

I assume you are referring to the natural gas pipeline. If so, then it was a known solution to a known problem that had defied all attempts at implementation for the preceding 30 years. The problem was the politically corrupt Alaskan “good ole boy” system and its ties to the oil industry in the State.

It wasn’t until Gov. Palin put that system on the run and pulled the “solution” away from the exclusive interests of the existing in State oil industry, that movement toward a solution was possible. The natural gas pipeline project is now essentially signed, sealed and delivered.

Including a completed major energy project as an Obama Energy Plan goal seemed a little strange.

The point I was making was that here is possibly another instance of Obama trying to grab credit for work he had nothing to do with. That would be consistent with the methodology of “authoring” legislation he is famous for.

Not sure but from what I can find its still not completed and Obama stated that it needs to be. Dont see how thats grabbing credit , just acknowledging work that needs to be done. Odd how you interpreted that especially seeing that his opponent agrees with him. Also what other instances are you referring to? Most of what I have seen are people claiming he promises change with no positions.(Which we all know now isnt true) 8)

[Ixiah]

There are many academics who are students of this period who believe that FDRs plans kept the recovery from happening sooner.

Just as many experts say he wasn't allowed to do enough. If you look at the statistics (GNP, unemployment, etc.) things did get gradually better under Roosevelt. They got progessively worse under Hoover. Its something that can be endlessly debated but you will never know.

Your last point does point out how wrong FDR was about the Soviet Union and their lust for land and control. Why he was pressing the UK to start freeing its empire and didn't care about the Soviet Union is perplexing at best and in hindsight, wrong.

True, but if you would have predicted the rise of the USSR you would have been the Nostradamus of the time. Why worry about a country when its own leader is so paranoid that he is annihilating his own army in political purges?! Many even believed, including Hitler, the country would actually collapse if war broke out.

[ABC]

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3357

"New Deal programs were financed by tripling federal taxes from $1.6 billion in 1933 to $5.3 billion in 1940. Excise taxes, personal income taxes, inheritance taxes, corporate income taxes, holding company taxes and so-called "excess profits" taxes all went up.

The most important source of New Deal revenue were excise taxes levied on alcoholic beverages, cigarettes, matches, candy, chewing gum, margarine, fruit juice, soft drinks, cars, tires (including tires on wheelchairs), telephone calls, movie tickets, playing cards, electricity, radios -- these and many other everyday things were subject to New Deal excise taxes, which meant that the New Deal was substantially financed by the middle class and poor people. Yes, to hear FDR's "Fireside Chats," one had to pay FDR excise taxes for a radio and electricity! A Treasury Department report acknowledged that excise taxes "often fell disproportionately on the less affluent."

Until 1937, New Deal revenue from excise taxes exceeded the combined revenue from both personal income taxes and corporate income taxes. It wasn't until 1942, in the midst of World War II, that income taxes exceeded excise taxes for the first time under FDR. Consumers had less money to spend, and employers had less money for growth and jobs."

RE: Roosevelt and the Soviet and British Empires

It wasn't that Roosevelt underestimated the Soviet strength.

I think Roosevelt simply didn't look upon the Soviet Union as a Russian Empire, which of course, it was.

Roosevelt wanted to dismantle Empires and create democracies among British and French lands, but never said anything about the Ukraine, Georgia, Belorus, etc.

[Ixiah]

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3357

"New Deal programs were financed by tripling federal taxes from $1.6 billion in 1933 to $5.3 billion in 1940. Excise taxes, personal income taxes, inheritance taxes, corporate income taxes, holding company taxes and so-called "excess profits" taxes all went up.

The most important source of New Deal revenue were excise taxes levied on alcoholic beverages, cigarettes, matches, candy, chewing gum, margarine, fruit juice, soft drinks, cars, tires (including tires on wheelchairs), telephone calls, movie tickets, playing cards, electricity, radios -- these and many other everyday things were subject to New Deal excise taxes, which meant that the New Deal was substantially financed by the middle class and poor people. Yes, to hear FDR's "Fireside Chats," one had to pay FDR excise taxes for a radio and electricity! A Treasury Department report acknowledged that excise taxes "often fell disproportionately on the less affluent."

Until 1937, New Deal revenue from excise taxes exceeded the combined revenue from both personal income taxes and corporate income taxes. It wasn't until 1942, in the midst of World War II, that income taxes exceeded excise taxes for the first time under FDR. Consumers had less money to spend, and employers had less money for growth and jobs."

RE: Roosevelt and the Soviet and British Empires

It wasn't that Roosevelt underestimated the Soviet strength.

I think Roosevelt simply didn't look upon the Soviet Union as a Russian Empire, which of course, it was.

Roosevelt wanted to dismantle Empires and create democracies among British and French lands, but never said anything about the Ukraine, Georgia, Belorus, etc.

That Cato article is based on a book by Jim Powell called FDR's Folly. The most notable academic mentioned is from the (conservative) Hoover institute. Gee - wonder why they would want to revise history . There are a number of reviews on it (both good and bad) that you can find on Amazon. I have not read the book so I will withhold comment on it specifically but I have taken numerous classes and studied the time period extensively. It would be VERY hard to prove that Roosevelt harmed the country (as a whole) with those programs. Especially when you look at the raw statistics which show that 'do nothing' under Hoover was becoming disasterous and under Roosevelt things improved significantly.

Here is what seemed a balanced review on the work and a quote from it:

http://www.libertyguide.com/Book_Reviews/id.2716/review_detail.asp

More troubling, is the author’s apparent refusal to include anything that might possibly reflect favorably on the thirty-second president. The reader, whose only knowledge of the New Deal came from FDR’s Folly, would likely emerge from it scratching his head, wondering how in the world this man managed to be elected to four consecutive terms, each time by a convincing margin. In fact, every one of the New Deal’s programs had both positive and negative effects, and in the eyes of most Americans the former generally outweighed the latter. To be sure, the Agricultural Adjustment Act was a disaster for black sharecroppers in the South (and incidentally, Powell is far from the first person to demonstrate this; T.H. Watkins deals with the subject far more eloquently in his generally pro-New Deal The Hungry Years). But is it not worth at least mentioning that it saved hundreds of thousands of family farms from extinction? There is no doubt FDR’s public works projects were often boondoggles, with money funneled to states with more of an eye toward political benefit than actual hardship. But are we to suppose this mattered one bit to the millions of Americans who were able to sustain themselves and their families thanks to these programs? Certainly, unemployment remained high throughout the 1930s, but does not simple fairness dictate the author admit that GDP grew annually at a more than respectable average of eight percent during this same period? An author might include such facts while still reaching negative conclusions about the New Deal, just as pro-Roosevelt historians have not shied away from offering the occasional criticism of the president’s programs. To ignore them altogether suggests the author is selecting only the facts that back up his thesis.

As for the USSR comment. We were a country that believed in isolationism at the time and just did not care about the Soviet Union. It was viewed very weak at the time.
1. Its air force was very antiquated.
2. Its tanks (at the time) were more useful for parades then combat.
3. It had a very outdated navy which was split into four fleets (Baltic, Black Sea, Pacific, and extreme north (Acrhangel). None of which could easily join the other.
4. It was in the process of killing off its best military men in relentless purges.

Would you really be concerned about such a country??

[ABC]

Ixiah, you are not listening very well.

FDR had this view point at the end of WWII, when he clearly knew the strength of the current and future Soviet Union.

American political and military leaders weren't underestimating the Soviet power. Patton wanted to continue WWII and have the defeated German army join with the US and take Moscow.

So you are more than a little off base.

He had a anti-British bias, espeically regarding their empire. It was FDR's bias that was the problem not a weak Soviet Union.

[Ixiah]

Ixiah, you are not listening very well.

FDR had this view point at the end of WWII, when he clearly knew the strength of the current and future Soviet Union.

FDR died before the end of WW2 so your statement is a bit impossible.

Okay, for sake of argument lets use his last day on earth as a point of evaluation of the Soviet Union. What strength are you referring to?

Its navy was literally at the bottom of the sea.

Air force was fair to weak. No jets or other goodies developed by other nations at the time. Its heavy bombers were of a 30's vintage. About the best plane it had was the stumovik attack plane but even it would be overwhelmed by our second line aircraft.

The Russians are notorius for building things that are showy but don't work in practice. Check out the T-35 tank, the Kalinin K-7, etc. They alse needed foreign assistance to build major construction (i.e. the battleship Sovietski Soyuz).

No atomic bomb - heck little planning if any to create one!

The USSR had taken immense casulties from the Germans. Think about it - that country had 13.71 percent of its population killed outright! Not to mention how many were wounded.

Stalin was still in charge and was notorious for killing off his best military men. Just as an example Zhukov, the great general of the patriotic war, was shipped off to a minor command. Only his popularity saved him from a gulag or worse.

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

The only thing that made the USSR dangerous was plenty of quality tanks. However we just destroyed the best tank maker in the world (Germany) so that probably was not too much of a concern.

We wanted to rule the waves - anything else was not dangerous is the traditional US military doctrine of the past. If war comes you build up an army to go fight. Thats how it was in Spanish American war, WW1. WW2, etc.

Generals are constantly trying to fighting the "last war". The French for example planned for trench warfare which is why the set up the defenses the way they did in WW2. Blitzkrieg was a serious surprise.

I would say that even if Roosevelt is 'wrong' the evidence is clear that his judgements were reasonable under the circumstances.