The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[innerSpaceman]

Originally Posted by wendybeth

Reagan was very proud of himself for basically outlasting the Soviet martial spending spree, and here we are doing it to ourselves.

To which I might add ... there's still a trillion dollars left out there of default and dead investments heading the way of U.S. Banks. The two billion that hit them so far, and for which they received a bailout from the Federal Reserve, is a drop in the bucket. The Federal Reserve, as I understand it, has only 400 billion dollars left. Not enough to cover 1 trillion in pending bank losses.

Yet we spend a trillion a year on wars overseas. Either that stops or, yes, our own military spending puts us into complete financial ruin.

[scaeagles]

I continue to be amused at what is either ignorance or (more likely) preying on the ignorance of the electorate by Obama and Clinton when it comes to oil.

Clinton's attacks on oil prices as artificially inflated, Enron-style, keep escalating, and today she appeared to threaten to break up the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries.

"We’re going to go right at OPEC," she said. "They can no longer be a cartel, a monopoly that get together once every couple of months in some conference room in some plush place in the world, they decide how much oil they’re going to produce and what price they’re going to put it at," she told a crowd at a firehouse in Merrillville, IN.

"That’s not a market. That’s a monopoly," she said, saying she'd use anti-trust law and the World Trade Organization to take on OPEC.

What exactly is that going to accomplish? SQUAT! Our laws and the WTO have absolutely no jurisdiction.

Not to be outdone....

The Obama campaign points out that Clinton has not signed on to cosponsor a bill that aspires "to make oil-producing and exporting cartels illegal."

Again, we can pass a law that makes OPEC illegal? What a dork.

There are two solutions to our oil issue. One, use less. However, it isn't going to happen easily. Our economy runs on oil. The other is to increase domestic production, and sadly (to me anyway) the environmental lobby will wrap any such thing up in court for years. We need a President who will not address the symptoms of the problem, but eliminate it, and none of the three have the guts or will to do it. The only way to weaken OPEC is to take away their market, which we can do.

One argument Bill Clinton made in 95 against drilling in ANWR was that we wouldn't see any oil from it for 10 years. Well, here we are 13 years later and our situation is worse. Politicians suck because it is all about what benefits them in the short term with rarely any vision beyond the next election.

REVOLUCION!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Moonliner]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I continue to be amused at what is either ignorance or (more likely) preying on the ignorance of the electorate by Obama and Clinton when it comes to oil.



What exactly is that going to accomplish? SQUAT! Our laws and the WTO have absolutely no jurisdiction.

Not to be outdone....


Again, we can pass a law that makes OPEC illegal? What a dork.

There are two solutions to our oil issue. One, use less. However, it isn't going to happen easily. Our economy runs on oil. The other is to increase domestic production, and sadly (to me anyway) the environmental lobby will wrap any such thing up in court for years. We need a President who will not address the symptoms of the problem, but eliminate it, and none of the three have the guts or will to do it. The only way to weaken OPEC is to take away their market, which we can do.

One argument Bill Clinton made in 95 against drilling in ANWR was that we wouldn't see any oil from it for 10 years. Well, here we are 13 years later and our situation is worse. Politicians suck because it is all about what benefits them in the short term with rarely any vision beyond the next election.

REVOLUCION!!!!!!!!!!!!

Every time the price of gas goes up there are a few more Americans that start thinking "Hey, maybe this oil economy is not a good thing. What else is there?". I hope gas goes to $5 a gallon or more. What we need in this country is a good hard slap in the face to get us seriously on the road to energy independence. Solar, nuclear, fusion, hydrogen, wind, geothermal, wave power.... Develop all of them, Use all of them. When the people start to demand it the market will respond.

[scaeagles]

Moonliner, I couldn't agree more. I think those things - particularly nuclear and solar - are what we need to do in terms of electrical power. If electric cars can be made that meet the needs of users (we all know the drawbacks), then I say go for it (but the expense to the consumer of purchasing those is immense and not likely to happen quickly), and the same goes for hydrogen (though that presents additional problems, such as refueling infrastructure). These things, I believe from what I've read, are decades away from making any impact in the oil economy.

By the way, I read something really cool about a company called nanosolar. They basically were able to take solar cells and put them in a wall paper type application. Cool.

[Moonliner]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Moonliner, I couldn't agree more. I think those things - particularly nuclear and solar - are what we need to do in terms of electrical power. If electric cars can be made that meet the needs of users (we all know the drawbacks), then I say go for it (but the expense to the consumer of purchasing those is immense and not likely to happen quickly), and the same goes for hydrogen (though that presents additional problems, such as refueling infrastructure). These things, I believe from what I've read, are decades away from making any impact in the oil economy.

By the way, I read something really cool about a company called nanosolar. They basically were able to take solar cells and put them in a wall paper type application. Cool.

I cry Bull****. "Decades away" is propaganda for "Let's make all we can from oil before we move on". In less than ten years this country went from toy rockets to a man on the moon. We need an Apollo level program aimed at energy independence. We need a leader that will make energy independence a priority.



(Yeah, yeah, we were a bit beyond "toy rockets" when Kennedy made the call to put a man on the moon but you get my point..)

[scaeagles]

In terms of solar and nuclear power, what if we decided that, yes indeed, starting today we are going to go all out to, as France does, get 70% of our power from nuke plants. How long would that take? I really don't know. I'm guessing 20 years?

Let's say in 2 years someone has developed an electric car that can go 400 miles at 75mph on one charge. How long until even 50% of the cars on the road are that? Maybe 5-10 years.

Let's say in 2 years an affordable hydrogen cell automobile is available. How long until the infrastructure is there to support that? Even with all out effort, 15 years? I think that's optimistic, really.

So, yeah.....I do think it's decades away. This doesn't mean we shouldn't be pushing toward those goals. It isn't the difficulty of the projects that I find to be daunting, it is the sheer mass of the change over.

[BDBopper]

It's primary day in Indiana and North Carolina. What's going to happen? I think for the Dems it will be very close in both states (with Clinton and Obama splitting the two states and the delegates). Meanwhile I think McCain's problems will continue as about 30% of the GOP electorate refuses to vote for him even though he will be their nominee (I don't blame them...I don't like him either). I think that in one state (of the two) McCain won't garner 70% (if I had to guess where I'd say North Carolina).

[Moonliner]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

In terms of solar and nuclear power, what if we decided that, yes indeed, starting today we are going to go all out to, as France does, get 70% of our power from nuke plants. How long would that take? I really don't know. I'm guessing 20 years?

Let's say in 2 years someone has developed an electric car that can go 400 miles at 75mph on one charge. How long until even 50% of the cars on the road are that? Maybe 5-10 years.

Let's say in 2 years an affordable hydrogen cell automobile is available. How long until the infrastructure is there to support that? Even with all out effort, 15 years? I think that's optimistic, really.

So, yeah.....I do think it's decades away. This doesn't mean we shouldn't be pushing toward those goals. It isn't the difficulty of the projects that I find to be daunting, it is the sheer mass of the change over.

That's all I'm talking about.

Delelope an Electric/hydrogen/warp/whatever car that can go 300 (hell even 100) miles at highway speeds and costs no more than a civic.

Create solar panels and efficient appliances so that I generate 80% of the power I need off my roof.

Use other green energy (wind/solar, etc..) to generate that other 20%.

Get that done in the next decade and you can take as long as you want to revamp the infrastructure. Once the technology is market ready in terms of price vs benefit the change over will take care of itself.

Oh and yes, I am not waiting for "them" to do all this. I am already investing in green mutual funds (note that link is not an endorsement, it's just an example) and I'm looking at the feasibility of leaving the moonie-minivan in the garage during the day and switching to a hybrid bike.

[sleepyjeff]

I am still waiting for my flying car but in the meantime a peoplemover that converts to a personal car all powered by sunshine would suffice:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=rtrB82YObXw

[3894]

A Man may make a Remark —
In itself — a quiet thing
That may furnish the Fuse unto a Spark
In dormant nature — lain —

Let us deport — with skill —
Let us discourse — with care —
Powder exists in Charcoal —
Before it exists in Fire.
-Emily Dickinson

Sen. Clinton needs to tread carefully now. If she is negative, those remarks may smolder over the summer and ignite in October.