NationStates Jolt Archive

...now let's hope a Democratic Congress will pass them. Many of these are resubmits by one of my favorite congressmen, Representative Roscoe bartlett, R-Maryland. The Republican congress wouldn't pass them because Bush was against them because he's so stupid.

--n Peak Oil Resolution -- Reintroduction of H. Res 507 that expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that the United States, in collaboration with other international allies, should establish an energy project with the magnitude, creativity, and sense of urgency that was incorporated in the "Man on the Moon" project address the inevitable challenges of "Peak Oil."

n Energy Farm Bill -- Reintroduction of H. R. 5925 to support federal research, development, demonstration, and commercial application activities to enable the development of farms that are net producers of both food and energy.

n Expanded Tax Credit for Hybrid Vehicles -- Introduced a new bill to increase from 60,000 to 250,000 the annual limit on vehicles, such as hybrids, eligible for the alternative motor vehicle tax credit.

n Enhanced and Modernized GI Benefits -- Reintroduction of H.R. 3625, the Bartlett Montgomery GI Bill, to encourage servicemembers to re-enlist, support military families and provide more realistic rates of educational costs for higher learning by permitting servicemembers to transfer unused GI education benefits to their spouses or children.

n Immigration Reform -- American Child Support Enforcement Immigration Act -- Reintroduction of H.R. 5977 to deny family classification petitions for new spouses or dependents filed by an individual who owes child support.

n Tax Reform -- Move Income Tax Filing Day -- Reintroduction of H.R. 442 to move the deadline for filing federal income-tax returns, from April 15 to the first Monday in November -- the day before Election Day to strengthen the link between the politicians we elect and the taxes we pay.

n Campaign Reform -- First Amendment Restoration Act -- Reintroduction of H. R. 689, to restore Americans' First Amendment rights by repealing a provision in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 which prohibits labor unions and corporations (including non-profits) from sponsoring non-PAC-funded broadcast advertisements that include any references to federal candidates during the 30 and 60 days before primary and general elections.--

n Political Convention Reform Act -- Reintroduction of H.R. 45 to prohibit the use of taxpayers' money for political party conventions.

Of course, he has some other bills I hate - an anti RU-486 bill and a gun lover's bill, but he's on the money when it comes to energy and taxes and political reform. Overall I really like this guy because, even though I disagree with him sometimes, I get the feeling he's an honest Joe. Too bad he's such an old fossil.

http://www.fredericknewspost.com/sections/news/display.htm?storyid=55446

I'd generally go along with that, if I were an American.

Some are good, but if we pass that Tax Reform bill, there's no way in hell anyone will ever raise taxes again. Pretty soon, we'll be looking at tax cut city, and with the deficit out of control and a national government that thinks it can do too much, that's a bad thing.

I like them all. The tax reform bill would grease the skids for John Linder's Fair Tax bill. A bill to repeal withholding should also be introduced.

Some are good, but if we pass that Tax Reform bill, there's no way in hell anyone will ever raise taxes again. Pretty soon, we'll be looking at tax cut city, and with the deficit out of control and a national government that thinks it can do too much, that's a bad thing.

Maybe it will just get the Fed out of our pockets and move the rsponsibility for local projects and infrastructure where it belongs... at the local level.

Looks yummy to me. If at first you don't succeed, try again when the other party gets elected.

Some are good, but if we pass that Tax Reform bill, there's no way in hell anyone will ever raise taxes again. Pretty soon, we'll be looking at tax cut city, and with the deficit out of control and a national government that thinks it can do too much, that's a bad thing.
More honest, though.

I like them all. The tax reform bill would grease the skids for John Linder's Fair Tax bill. A bill to repeal withholding should also be introduced.
I don't know enough about FairTax (bar the principle of it) to say one way or the other, but I'm sceptical as to whether it would ever get through the White House and Congress, without being tried first.

He needs to add the tax deduction for energy conservation the Reagan did away with in his "tax reform". Back then anything you bought that would save energy came right off the top of your taxes owed. If we would have kept that we wouldn't be in war right now.

Most of these I have and will continue to support.

Expanded Tax Credit for Hybrid Vehicles -- Introduced a new bill to increase from 60,000 to 250,000 the annual limit on vehicles, such as hybrids, eligible for the alternative motor vehicle tax credit.
I like this one, but Detroit will fight it, because they're only now starting to see some benefit from it. Prius sales are falling a bit because they've hit the 60K mark and the US automakers are starting to see some sales for frankly inferior product because of the price difference. They're not going to want to give that up just yet.

*snip* If we would have kept that we wouldn't be in war right now.

That may very well be the truth.

I like this one, but Detroit will fight it, because they're only now starting to see some benefit from it. Prius sales are falling a bit because they've hit the 60K mark and the US automakers are starting to see some sales for frankly inferior product because of the price difference. They're not going to want to give that up just yet.

You'd think they would have learned from the last time they tried to put quotas on competitors' products...that genius decision is what ruined them in the first place.

I like this one, but Detroit will fight it, because they're only now starting to see some benefit from it. Prius sales are falling a bit because they've hit the 60K mark and the US automakers are starting to see some sales for frankly inferior product because of the price difference. They're not going to want to give that up just yet.

True but we have a Democratic Congress now and they have not historically been that friendly to the auto industry. Getting it through the Oval Office may be a problem, though.

That may very well be the truth.

Hell, if we'd just forced car manufacturers to meet the CAFE standards Carter set out and not left the SUV loophole open, how much closer to energy independence would we be right now?

You'd think they would have learned from the last time they tried to put quotas on competitors' products...that genius decision is what ruined them in the first place.
These are US automakers here. When was the last time they made a good business decision?

I will say, however, that if GM makes the Volt as good as it looks right now, that will be a hell of a car.

Hell, if we'd just forced car manufacturers to meet the CAFE standards Carter set out and not left the SUV loophole open, how much closer to energy independence would we be right now?

A hell of a lot closer than we are now...for all the shit people give Carter, that man at least had the balls to tell us we had to conserve and invest tax money in alternatives to overcome our energy crisis.

True but we have a Democratic Congress now and they have not historically been that friendly to the auto industry. Getting it through the Oval Office may be a problem, though.

I never underestimate the power of the automakers lobby, especially when the industry is in financial trouble. Congress will get pressure from both the corporate end and the unions on this--saving jobs, etc.

A hell of a lot closer than we are now...for all the shit people give Carter, that man at least had the balls to tell us we had to conserve and invest tax money in alternatives to overcome our energy crisis.

And to put Volcker in charge of the Fed. The pain we had in the late 70s was inevitable given what LBJ and Nixon had done to the economy--Volcker got inflation under control and Reagan reaped the rewards of it, combined with lower oil prices from OPEC.

A hell of a lot closer than we are now...for all the shit people give Carter, that man at least had the balls to tell us we had to conserve and invest tax money in alternatives to overcome our energy crisis.

Having an oil crisis during that period of time helped in that regard.

And to put Volcker in charge of the Fed. The pain we had in the late 70s was inevitable given what LBJ and Nixon had done to the economy--Volcker got inflation under control and Reagan reaped the rewards of it, combined with lower oil prices from OPEC.

Carter's decisions are directly or partially responsible for both the low inflation of the mid 80's to the present and the start of the biggest stock market boom in history from 1982-2000. That's no small accomplishment, especially for a one-term president.

Having an oil crisis during that period of time helped in that regard.

One he had no control over...he got thrown a major curveball, and dealt with it.

To be fair, of course, Bush handled 9/11, the 2001 recession, and the corporate scandals quite well also, and I approve of his performance in those areas...he's another president who has had appallingly bad luck during his time in office.

Carter's decisions are directly or partially responsible for both the low inflation of the mid 80's to the present and the start of the biggest stock market boom in history from 1982-2000. That's no small accomplishment, especially for a one-term president.

Especially since he's maligned the way he is.

One he had no control over...he got thrown a major curveball, and dealt with it.

To be fair, of course, Bush handled 9/11, the 2001 recession, and the corporate scandals quite well also, and I approve of his performance in those areas...he's another president who has had appallingly bad luck during his time in office.I'll give him the corporate scandals, but 9/11? Are you kidding me? All the shit we're neck deep in springs from his ineptness in that fiasco.

One he had no control over...he got thrown a major curveball, and dealt with it.

I know but his argument carried more weight during that crisis is what I was pointing out and that is coming from someone who does not like carter. This though, I agree with.

To be fair, of course, Bush handled 9/11, the 2001 recession, and the corporate scandals quite well also, and I approve of his performance in those areas...he's another president who has had appallingly bad luck during his time in office.

So very true..

I'll give him the corporate scandals, but 9/11? Are you kidding me? All the shit we're neck deep in springs from his ineptness in that fiasco.

I think he handled it fine until he took the fork in the road. Of course, that's like saying you did a great job mending the patient's broken leg but you blew it when you amputated the rest of his appendeges.

*snip* he's another president who has had appallingly bad luck during his time in office.

Iraq, the issue that will define his place in history, is not a disaster because of bad luck. It is a disaster because of ineptitude and arrogance.

...now let's hope a Democratic Congress will pass them. Many of these are resubmits by one of my favorite congressmen, Representative Roscoe bartlett, R-Maryland. The Republican congress wouldn't pass them because Bush was against them because he's so stupid.



Of course, he has some other bills I hate - an anti RU-486 bill and a gun lover's bill, but he's on the money when it comes to energy and taxes and political reform. Overall I really like this guy because, even though I disagree with him sometimes, I get the feeling he's an honest Joe. Too bad he's such an old fossil.

http://www.fredericknewspost.com/sections/news/display.htm?storyid=55446
We need to scrap the peak oil and hybrid stuff until Bush is out of office. They're likely to be ineffective if they pass during his stay in office.

We need to scrap the peak oil and hybrid stuff until Bush is out of office. They're likely to be ineffective if they pass during his stay in office.

We may not have time. I'm with many of the pessimists on this issue - Peak Oil is here now. We need to get moving with this stuff and if Bush won't get moving then we need to shove him out of the way.

And to put Volcker in charge of the Fed. The pain we had in the late 70s was inevitable given what LBJ and Nixon had done to the economy--Volcker got inflation under control and Reagan reaped the rewards of it, combined with lower oil prices from OPEC.

Reagan didn’t just luck out with having Volcker in the Fed, it was Reagan who encouraged Volcker and gave him the support to do what needed to be done – which was an obscene hike in the interest rate.

I don’t know about LBJ, but what Nixon did to the economy was appalling because he knew better. When economists told him what he was doing was wrong, Nixon replied that he knew that, but eliminating price controls would be politically infeasible, so he was going to continue with policies he knew were making the problems worse because the American public wasn’t capable of understanding basic economics.

Reagan at least had the balls to push for the punishing interest rate hike.

One of the reasons why I dislike the American form of democracy is precisely because it encourages politicians to do what is politically popular rather than what is right.

--n Peak Oil Resolution -- Reintroduction of H. Res 507 that expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that the United States, in collaboration with other international allies, should establish an energy project with the magnitude, creativity, and sense of urgency that was incorporated in the "Man on the Moon" project address the inevitable challenges of "Peak Oil."

Oh, great, his solution to helping the energy market function properly is not to get rid of all of the oil lobbying of the government, but rather to bring in ANOTHER industry and group of special interests to further screw it up. Great.

n Energy Farm Bill -- Reintroduction of H. R. 5925 to support federal research, development, demonstration, and commercial application activities to enable the development of farms that are net producers of both food and energy.

This most certainly doesn't sound like a veiled handout to the farm sector. Not at all.

n Expanded Tax Credit for Hybrid Vehicles -- Introduced a new bill to increase from 60,000 to 250,000 the annual limit on vehicles, such as hybrids, eligible for the alternative motor vehicle tax credit.

I've got a better idea instead of this wimpy little tax credit deal; get rid of taxes, so if people see the need to switch to hybrid vehicles, they can, and if they don't, they can pay their gas bill.

n Enhanced and Modernized GI Benefits -- Reintroduction of H.R. 3625, the Bartlett Montgomery GI Bill, to encourage servicemembers to re-enlist, support military families and provide more realistic rates of educational costs for higher learning by permitting servicemembers to transfer unused GI education benefits to their spouses or children.

The education system wouldn't be so bad if the government wasn't screwing it up making it into their Prussian-style propaganda wing. After all, Massachusetts, before the beginning of public schools, had more than a 90% literacy rate, and complex books such as "Last of the Mohicans" sold fantastically to a largely well-educated populace.

n Immigration Reform -- American Child Support Enforcement Immigration Act -- Reintroduction of H.R. 5977 to deny family classification petitions for new spouses or dependents filed by an individual who owes child support.

Fine, but it would be easier to do this in a common-law setting, like what was used before in areas such as merchant law and admiralty, as opposed to this legislative law whoring.

n Tax Reform -- Move Income Tax Filing Day -- Reintroduction of H.R. 442 to move the deadline for filing federal income-tax returns, from April 15 to the first Monday in November -- the day before Election Day to strengthen the link between the politicians we elect and the taxes we pay.

Might be a good idea, but better just to not have taxes, or politicians for that matter.

n Campaign Reform -- First Amendment Restoration Act -- Reintroduction of H. R. 689, to restore Americans' First Amendment rights by repealing a provision in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 which prohibits labor unions and corporations (including non-profits) from sponsoring non-PAC-funded broadcast advertisements that include any references to federal candidates during the 30 and 60 days before primary and general elections.--

Fine, but since this is all focused on political whoring, we should get rid of government so that we don't have to have this kind of discussion.

n Political Convention Reform Act -- Reintroduction of H.R. 45 to prohibit the use of taxpayers' money for political party conventions.

I'd rephrase that to "prohibit the use of taxpayers' money for anything at all. Or even taxing people in the first place, for that matter." Against, a whole slew of problems solved, since without taxation we won't have to debate what to do with taxes.

We may not have time. I'm with many of the pessimists on this issue - Peak Oil is here now. We need to get moving with this stuff and if Bush won't get moving then we need to shove him out of the way.That's a problem. We can wait two years for a chance at a solution or we can let Bush screw us again and prevent a solution for the next twenty to thirty years. I know which one I'd pick.

So what you are basically saying Greill is that all taxes should be 0. If that is the case then how are we going to fund the government?

So what you are basically saying Greill is that all taxes should be 0. If that is the case then how are we going to fund the government?
http://bogard.isu.ru/donations/treemoney.gif

So what you are basically saying Greill is that all taxes should be 0. If that is the case then how are we going to fund the government?

Don't bother. He's a corpratist who doesn't think we need a government. I like to keep things on this Earth where we acknowledge the government we have and will probably continue to have and talk about solutions that can actually happen.

...now let's hope a Democratic Congress will pass them. Many of these are resubmits by one of my favorite congressmen, Representative Roscoe bartlett, R-Maryland. The Republican congress wouldn't pass them because Bush was against them because he's so stupid.



Of course, he has some other bills I hate - an anti RU-486 bill and a gun lover's bill, but he's on the money when it comes to energy and taxes and political reform. Overall I really like this guy because, even though I disagree with him sometimes, I get the feeling he's an honest Joe. Too bad he's such an old fossil.

http://www.fredericknewspost.com/sections/news/display.htm?storyid=55446


This guy is from MARYLAND? Holy smokes. I like him.

So what you are basically saying Greill is that all taxes should be 0. If that is the case then how are we going to fund the government?


Actually, we could completely get rid of income tax and have an excellent government.

The only two departments would be 'smite' and 'wrath'. Smite for internal security, and 'wrath' for dealing with international threats.

So what you are basically saying Greill is that all taxes should be 0. If that is the case then how are we going to fund the government?

I said we'd still have a government? :O

I like to keep things on this Earth where we acknowledge the government we have and will probably continue to have and talk about solutions that can actually happen.

And that's just the way the government- er, the people like it, all nice and complacent and status quo-ey. Anything outside the norm is dangerous.

So what you are basically saying Greill is that all taxes should be 0. If that is the case then how are we going to fund the government?

Bake sales.

Am I the only person here who noticed that everything quoted in the OP is terribly vague? Sound to anyone else like a bunch of hot air, all looks and no substance? Where are the specifics?

How exactly is peak oil going to be solved? Having a law that just says we need to have a sense of urgency about it and should start coming up with a plan is kind of pointless. That's like saying we need to pass a law to remind us to pass a law.

How do you produce more matter and energy than you take in? That's basically what the farm bill calls for, that farms become net producers of energy and food. How exactly will this happen? What's the plan? I'd like some specifics, maybe some technical manuals to mull over in my free time.

Why have an expanded tax credit for hybrid vehicles when not all hybrids are fuel efficient? There are good hybrids and bad ones. Fuel efficient conventional cars are often better than hybrid SUV's--just look at how many mpg the vehicle gets. The Lexus 400H, a hybrid SUV only gets 21 mpg, not particularly brilliant, efficiency-wise--hybrid or not. The car that started it all, the Toyota Pious, is lauded for squeezing 40 or more miles out of a gallon of gas, and it really can. But only when it's being driven around town, where its electric motor does its best and most active work. On a cross-country excursion in a Pious, the staff of Automobile Magazine discovered, milage plummeted on the Interstate. In fact, the cars' computer, which controls the engine and the motor, allowing them to run together or seperatly, was programmed to direct the Pious to spend most of its highway time running on gasoline because at highway speeds the batteries quikcly get exhausted. Indeed, the gasoline engine worked so hard that they calculated that they might have used less fuel on their trip if they had been driving Toyota's cenvtionally powered, similarly sized Corolla--which costs thousands less.

Why move tax day from a few months after the start of the year to the second to last month of the year? That just seems unecessary.

You can't just demand engineers and technicians come up with a magic solution because you want one. When you want a real (technical) solution to real problems, for the wrath of Foamy, don't go whining to a politician. Go to and ask an engineer what can be done, figure out which option is best with cost benefit analyses, and then pony up what's needed for it to get done. The chronically squeaky wheel does not get the greese, it gets replaced because you're often blowing more money by re-greesing it than you would by replacing it.

Am I the only person here who noticed that everything quoted in the OP is terribly vague? Sound to anyone else like a bunch of hot air, all looks and no substance? Where are the specifics?These are what are called "extracts." The body of the bills will be much more specific.

How exactly is peak oil going to be solved? Having a law that just says we need to have a sense of urgency about it and should start coming up with a plan is kind of pointless. That's like saying we need to pass a law to remind us to pass a law.Not if it has the capacity to force action. The Federal Highway Bill was just as vague but when it was inacted into law and agencies were created to implement it the specifics came. We have no resolution to Peak Oil so we cannot pass a bill that says we must do A, B and C because we don't know what A, B and C are. This bill could force our government to start putting the significant might of the Fed behind figuring out what A, B and C are.

How do you produce more matter and energy than you take in? That's basically what the farm bill calls for, that farms become net producers of energy and food. How exactly will this happen? What's the plan? I'd like some specifics, maybe some technical manuals to mull over in my free time.The input is from the Sun. As for the rest, see above.

Why have an expanded tax credit for hybrid vehicles when not all hybrids are fuel efficient? There are good hybrids and bad ones. Fuel efficient conventional cars are often better than hybrid SUV's--just look at how many mpg the vehicle gets. The Lexus 400H, a hybrid SUV only gets 21 mpg, not particularly brilliant, efficiency-wise--hybrid or not. The car that started it all, the Toyota Pious, is lauded for squeezing 40 or more miles out of a gallon of gas, and it really can. But only when it's being driven around town, where its electric motor does its best and most active work. On a cross-country excursion in a Pious, the staff of Automobile Magazine discovered, milage plummeted on the Interstate. In fact, the cars' computer, which controls the engine and the motor, allowing them to run together or seperatly, was programmed to direct the Pious to spend most of its highway time running on gasoline because at highway speeds the batteries quikcly get exhausted. Indeed, the gasoline engine worked so hard that they calculated that they might have used less fuel on their trip if they had been driving Toyota's cenvtionally powered, similarly sized Corolla--which costs thousands less.I'll agree with you in a sense here. My motorcycle will get better gas mileage all around than a hybrid, but I like the affect the law will have on the market as long as oi lprices stay this high - that being that there will continue to be an incentive for hybrid production. I'd like to see the tax credit based on the mileage potential of the gasoline engine in a hybrid rather than it's overall mileage, though.

Why move tax day from a few months after the start of the year to the second to last month of the year? That just seems unecessary.As the bill says, it links taxes and spending with elections.

You can't just demand engineers and technicians come up with a magic solution because you want one. When you want a real (technical) solution to real problems, for the wrath of Foamy, don't go whining to a politician. Go to and ask an engineer what can be done, figure out which option is best with cost benefit analyses, and then pony up what's needed for it to get done. The chronically squeaky wheel does not get the greese, it gets replaced because you're often blowing more money by re-greesing it than you would by replacing it.

I'm aware of that, but I believe that axiom that the market makes a wonderful slave but a horrible master. It was the federal government that launched teh Apllo program, the rebuilding of the Pacific Fleet and the Federal Highway Program. It was Federal spending that got us out of the Great Depression. I think market viability needs to be the guiding principle, but I also think that government can and should play a role with incentives.

You can't just demand engineers and technicians come up with a magic solution because you want one. When you want a real (technical) solution to real problems, for the wrath of Foamy, don't go whining to a politician. Go to and ask an engineer what can be done, figure out which option is best with cost benefit analyses, and then pony up what's needed for it to get done. The chronically squeaky wheel does not get the greese, it gets replaced because you're often blowing more money by re-greesing it than you would by replacing it.

Whoever heard of asking techies what they can do before demanding they do it.


These are what are called "extracts." The body of the bills will be much more specific.
You should read more bills.

*snip*


You should read more bills.

The bill is several pages long. What was posted here is a paragraph.

I said we'd still have a government? :O



And that's just the way the government- er, the people like it, all nice and complacent and status quo-ey. Anything outside the norm is dangerous.
You trust corporations to look out for you? You're either a kid or a plus-sized chump.

You trust corporations to look out for you? You're either a kid or a plus-sized chump.

Or both :D

You trust corporations to look out for you? You're either a kid or a plus-sized chump.

Why thank you for that fabulously well thought-out argument, complete with an obligatory "CORPORATION!" boogeyman and ad hominem attacks. And no, it's not so much that I trust evil corporations over the altruistic state as that I'd rather choose how to spend my own money, instead of being compelled by the government to give it up so that they can waste it on the large-scale moral equivalent of booze and whores.

Why thank you for that fabulously well thought-out argument, complete with an obligatory "CORPORATION!" boogeyman and ad hominem attacks. And no, it's not so much that I trust evil corporations over the altruistic state as that I'd rather choose how to spend my own money, instead of being compelled by the government to give it up so that they can waste it on the large-scale moral equivalent of booze and whores.

You don't want a state--what does that leave? Anarchy? Spare me--that's even more ludicrous than a corporate state, which we're painfully close to as it is.

By the way, I never said the government was altruistic--that's your construction, and if thinking I believe that helps you sleep at night, good for you. But here's the simple fact of human existence--you're going to give it up to someone. Everyone is someone else's bitch. So the question is, how best to keep the anal-rape to a minimum? And if you think corporations are going to fuck you less than anyone else, then you are either, as I said, a kid or a plus-sized chump.

...now let's hope a Democratic Congress will pass them. Many of these are resubmits by one of my favorite congressmen, Representative Roscoe bartlett, R-Maryland. The Republican congress wouldn't pass them because Bush was against them because he's so stupid.



Of course, he has some other bills I hate - an anti RU-486 bill and a gun lover's bill, but he's on the money when it comes to energy and taxes and political reform. Overall I really like this guy because, even though I disagree with him sometimes, I get the feeling he's an honest Joe. Too bad he's such an old fossil.

http://www.fredericknewspost.com/sections/news/display.htm?storyid=55446

Overall, not a bad mix. While I agree with your dismay on the Ru-486, I do agree with his gun bill.

Whoever heard of asking techies what they can do before demanding they do it.
No amount of skill or determination will ever make the impossible happen.

I understand that the bills are much longer but I still think that too many bills are way to vague. I think that it is often intentional so that if it backfires the politicians can say that their wording wasn't interpreted correctly and can attempt to dodge blame.

The input is from the Sun.
That's great for the plants themselves but it takes equipment to harvest them. Right now none of that equipment runs on solar panels. What's proposed would require the replacement of millions of pieces of equipment at a cost that would be astronomical. It takes about 6 ping pong tables worth of solar cells to power a standard car and provide the same performance it would have with a gas engine. How many cells do you think would be needed to power all that equipment, most of which is much, much larger than a stanard automobile. How then will it be powered without releasing any of that horrible, deadly, icky, smelly pollution so many people are always complaining about? You know, the trace gases that have been in the atmosphere for about the last billion years or more but we're suddenly terrified about.

Nuclear power (I mean fission here because the technology for self-sustaining fusion does not exist, do not argue with me on this) might work but you'd need to convince the ignorant boobs who somehow make a living as career protesters that's it's safe (which it is) and then you'd have to build a lot of them. More than enough to power all of our homes because you'd suddenly need to power all that farm equipment and all the cars because I ain't gonna schedule my life around a bus schedule and I'm not alone in that.

Windmills are in fact very energy-inefficient and a terrible idea for a primary power source. It has been estimated that if you wanted to replace all of the UK's energy for wind, you'd have to build a vast, kilometers wide park of windmills that literally surrounds the island!

More technically, the problem is that the power a wind mill generates is proportionate to the third power of the wind speed. That's quite a mouthful, but simply put, it means that when the wind speed halves (say, from 6 Beaufort to 3 Beaufort), the power goes down not by 1/2, but by 1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2. That's an amazing 88 percent less power! And you can't simply build a better wind mill. The 'power curve' is a physical property of wind. It is just how wind works.

Hydrogen is the stupidest idea ever because you have to use energy to make the fuel that you then extract energy from and you will always be in a debt because you can't get more energy out of something than you put into it. But you might say, "What about using solar or wind to make thehydrogen?" Well if you have that energy then why bother screwing around with a conversion where you will most certainly lose energy when you could just run what you have directly to where you need it?

It was the federal government that launched teh Apllo program, the rebuilding of the Pacific Fleet and the Federal Highway Program. It was Federal spending that got us out of the Great Depression.
The US was in a competition with the Soviets for Apollo so it was just like two companies going at it over a contract. The Pacific fleet was part of the military which is part of the federal government so of course it would have been the one to rebuild it. Still, who do you think did the work? This is and was a capitalist country so the government likely signed contracts for parts and supplies. And I think the war had a hand in getting us out of the depression, a war that the government got us into so I guess in that sense yes it did.

No amount of skill or determination will ever make the impossible happen.

I understand that the bills are much longer but I still think that too many bills are way to vague. I think that it is often intentional so that if it backfires the politicians can say that their wording wasn't interpreted correctly and can attempt to dodge blame.I think if you check his site you'll find that Bartlett is very realistic about the challenges Peak Oil represent.


That's great for the plants themselves but it takes equipment to harvest them. Right now none of that equipment runs on solar panels. What's proposed would require the replacement of millions of pieces of equipment at a cost that would be astronomical. It takes about 6 ping pong tables worth of solar cells to power a standard car and provide the same performance it would have with a gas engine. How many cells do you think would be needed to power all that equipment, most of which is much, much larger than a stanard automobile. How then will it be powered without releasing any of that horrible, deadly, icky, smelly pollution so many people are always complaining about? You know, the trace gases that have been in the atmosphere for about the last billion years or more but we're suddenly terrified about.

Nuclear power (I mean fission here because the technology for self-sustaining fusion does not exist, do not argue with me on this) might work but you'd need to convince the ignorant boobs who somehow make a living as career protesters that's it's safe (which it is) and then you'd have to build a lot of them. More than enough to power all of our homes because you'd suddenly need to power all that farm equipment and all the cars because I ain't gonna schedule my life around a bus schedule and I'm not alone in that.

Windmills are in fact very energy-inefficient and a terrible idea for a primary power source. It has been estimated that if you wanted to replace all of the UK's energy for wind, you'd have to build a vast, kilometers wide park of windmills that literally surrounds the island!

More technically, the problem is that the power a wind mill generates is proportionate to the third power of the wind speed. That's quite a mouthful, but simply put, it means that when the wind speed halves (say, from 6 Beaufort to 3 Beaufort), the power goes down not by 1/2, but by 1/2 * 1/2 * 1/2. That's an amazing 88 percent less power! And you can't simply build a better wind mill. The 'power curve' is a physical property of wind. It is just how wind works.

Hydrogen is the stupidest idea ever because you have to use energy to make the fuel that you then extract energy from and you will always be in a debt because you can't get more energy out of something than you put into it. But you might say, "What about using solar or wind to make thehydrogen?" Well if you have that energy then why bother screwing around with a conversion where you will most certainly lose energy when you could just run what you have directly to where you need it?I study energy all day every day. I have applied to universities from Vancouver to Texas to Australia to get a second degree that will allow me to get into the energy industry. You're not saying anything here that I don't know. Solar will never power a car because a car needs to be too heavy. Wind and solar are both too intermittant. Hydrogen takes more energy to create than you get from the hydrogen and is most often made from nat gas which is already in short supply in North America. I've read it all a billion times. Matt Savinar, Matt Simmons, Kunstler, I follow the DOE weekly reports and read the Oil Drum and Energy Bulletin regularily - the source of this article, in fact. No matter how you slice it we need a national response and that has to start, as any alcoholic will tell you, with an admission that you have a problem. There was farming before the industrial revolution there will be farming afterwards. It is a reasonable goal to push for a national reformation in how we do it so that we can move our farms back to where we live around our cities and towns. It is reasonable to have a national program to push farmers towards more sustainable farming practices. While I recognize that most forms of ethanol take more energy to create than you get from them, it is also reasonable to push for technological innovations with regards to ethanol generated from agricultural waste.

Trust me, I'm very realistic about this problem. Anyone here who has seen me post on this issue will tell you that. I recognize that any bargain we are going to make with the Earth regarding our energy problems will almost certainly not include 50 mile a day commutes to work and the Big Box and McDonald's lifestyles we in the West have become acustimed to.


The US was in a competition with the Soviets for Apollo so it was just like two companies going at it over a contract. The Pacific fleet was part of the military which is part of the federal government so of course it would have been the one to rebuild it. Still, who do you think did the work? This is and was a capitalist country so the government likely signed contracts for parts and supplies. And I think the war had a hand in getting us out of the depression, a war that the government got us into so I guess in that sense yes it did.

Whatever the motivations were the fact is that the government was still the driving force behind all of these things and, as far as private enterprise is concerned, I fully expect that the innovations we need will come from them. The problem is that private companies sometimes need incentives to take risks. Building railroads, for example. They take a long time to build and are slow to return profits. If the government lays the rail, however, we can then open up operation of those rails to private companies to put their trains on. That's just a thought from the top of my head, but there are many examples in the past of governments using taxes and other incentives to drive private industry to innovate - in fact, it's what the military does all the time. Maybe that's how we do it. Military contracts for energy efficient innovations. Works in aviation.

You don't want a state--what does that leave? Anarchy? Spare me--that's even more ludicrous than a corporate state, which we're painfully close to as it is.

And that is so because you say it is so. Kind of like the Old Testament God saying "Let there be light", but if he were really pissed off for some reason.

By the way, I never said the government was altruistic--that's your construction, and if thinking I believe that helps you sleep at night, good for you. But here's the simple fact of human existence--you're going to give it up to someone. Everyone is someone else's bitch. So the question is, how best to keep the anal-rape to a minimum? And if you think corporations are going to fuck you less than anyone else, then you are either, as I said, a kid or a plus-sized chump.

You may wish to consign yourself to being someone's "bitch", but I'm not particularly interested in this "anal-rape" which your philosophy/political theory revolves around. Rather, I'd prefer to see a way to circumvent and end this self-perpetuating system of "bitchy anal-rape" that we find ourselves in; hence why I believe in what I believe. I am not giving fealty to boogeyman "CORPORATION!"s as you give fealty to your slightly-less-than-altruistic-but-better-than-CORPORATIONS! government, but rather deciding that man can provide for himself through voluntary transaction without being bludgeoned into doing what the government tells him he should do. Thus, the elimination of your "everyone's a bitch" dilemma.

...now let's hope a Democratic Congress will pass them. Many of these are resubmits by one of my favorite congressmen, Representative Roscoe bartlett, R-Maryland. The Republican congress wouldn't pass them because Bush was against them because he's so stupid.



Of course, he has some other bills I hate - an anti RU-486 bill and a gun lover's bill, but he's on the money when it comes to energy and taxes and political reform. Overall I really like this guy because, even though I disagree with him sometimes, I get the feeling he's an honest Joe. Too bad he's such an old fossil.

http://www.fredericknewspost.com/sections/news/display.htm?storyid=55446


Of course, the EVIL administration will cut it down. Then I wouldnt be surprised if he thrust his middle finger in your face and yell "F*ck you liberal!" With Michael Moore as an eyewitness of course. ;)

No matter how you slice it we need a national response and that has to start, as any alcoholic will tell you, with an admission that you have a problem.
Yeah...but I keep it under control...

There was farming before the industrial revolution there will be farming afterwards.
You mean like back in the dark ages? With back-breaking labor. Or during the colonization of the Americas? With back-breaking slave labor.

It is a reasonable goal to push for a national reformation in how we do it so that we can move our farms back to where we live around our cities and towns. It is reasonable to have a national program to push farmers towards more sustainable farming practices.
Hooray! Hey everyone! Guess what! We all get to be serfs! Well you all get to be. But not me, no I'm the privilaged genius who thought up this brilliant solution.

While I recognize that most forms of ethanol take more energy to create than you get from them, it is also reasonable to push for technological innovations with regards to ethanol generated from agricultural waste.
That's just it. Most forms of ethanol generation require more power to make then you can get out of them.

Trust me, I'm very realistic about this problem. Anyone here who has seen me post on this issue will tell you that. I recognize that any bargain we are going to make with the Earth regarding our energy problems will almost certainly not include 50 mile a day commutes to work and the Big Box and McDonald's lifestyles we in the West have become acustimed to.
The problem is that you cannot bargain with an inanimate object. While I admit that the Earth isn't a static thing it is far from sentient and certainly not alive and so cannot be bargained with. Also, do you honestly believe that a 50 mile commute is common? I live near where I work, within 2 miles, and nearly everything else I visit on a regular basis is within 5. I go to the big-box stores because they have nearly everything I need in one place, saving me the trouble of having to drive to multiple locations and thereby reducing my contribution to any environmental damage I may be causing. I eat at fast-food places on occasion because I'm in a hury and they provide me with a quick meal at a reasonable price. I fail to see the problems these present. Just because a corporation is large does not make it evil.

Whatever the motivations were the fact is that the government was still the driving force behind all of these things and, as far as private enterprise is concerned, I fully expect that the innovations we need will come from them. The problem is that private companies sometimes need incentives to take risks. Building railroads, for example. They take a long time to build and are slow to return profits. If the government lays the rail, however, we can then open up operation of those rails to private companies to put their trains on. That's just a thought from the top of my head, but there are many examples in the past of governments using taxes and other incentives to drive private industry to innovate - in fact, it's what the military does all the time. Maybe that's how we do it. Military contracts for energy efficient innovations. Works in aviation.
When was the last time AmTrack turned a profit?

Adversity breeds inovation. If you want technology and you want it now then start a war. The incentive will be your life.

And that is so because you say it is so. Kind of like the Old Testament God saying "Let there be light", but if he were really pissed off for some reason.Nope--because ten thousand years of human civilization says it's so.



You may wish to consign yourself to being someone's "bitch", but I'm not particularly interested in this "anal-rape" which your philosophy/political theory revolves around. Rather, I'd prefer to see a way to circumvent and end this self-perpetuating system of "bitchy anal-rape" that we find ourselves in; hence why I believe in what I believe. I am not giving fealty to boogeyman "CORPORATION!"s as you give fealty to your slightly-less-than-altruistic-but-better-than-CORPORATIONS! government, but rather deciding that man can provide for himself through voluntary transaction without being bludgeoned into doing what the government tells him he should do. Thus, the elimination of your "everyone's a bitch" dilemma.

Not what I wish--what is and always has been. But go ahead and wank away in your libertarian/objectivist/I am an island wish-fulfillment fantasies. We're both paying taxes--I'm at least trying to get something out of mine instead of mouthing inanities like "taxation is theft."

Not what I wish--what is and always has been. But go ahead and wank away in your libertarian/objectivist/I am an island wish-fulfillment fantasies. We're both paying taxes--I'm at least trying to get something out of mine instead of mouthing inanities like "taxation is theft."
Then you are willing to accept the status-quo rather than fight it?

Taxation is theft, theft by government. And people don't need government to survive. People need breathable air, consumable food and water, and usually some form of shelter. Government--like art, philosophy and technology--is a creation of people. It is not something we need to survive, it is something that provides a sense of security and stability but that sense is not always accurate.

Then you are willing to accept the status-quo rather than fight it?

Taxation is theft, theft by government. And people don't need government to survive. People need breathable air, consumable food and water, and usually some form of shelter. Government--like art, philosophy and technology--is a creation of people. It is not something we need to survive, it is something that provides a sense of security and stability but that sense is not always accurate.

If the status quo is that we need some form of government in order to have stable societies within which to flower as creative beings, then you're damn right I accept the status quo. I'll fight against particular forms of government, but the idea of government as a whole has been proven to be a solid one over the last 10,000 years, and is more necessary the more complex our societies get.

You say people need breathable air, consumable food and water and some form of shelter. You think we're going to get that without a government regulating the powerful and forcing them to keep from polluting the environment and requiring them to pay living wages so we can afford adequate shelter? Name a place where that's worked--just one.

Taxation is not theft--it's the dues we pay in order to have stability within which to grow socially and technologically. It's no coincidence that most third-world countries have small governments, and that the most advanced ones have sizable social infrastructures and expenditures.

If the status quo is that we need some form of government in order to have stable societies within which to flower as creative beings, then you're damn right I accept the status quo. I'll fight against particular forms of government, but the idea of government as a whole has been proven to be a solid one over the last 10,000 years, and is more necessary the more complex our societies get.
Rapid growth can result from instability. That's why technology advances so quickly in war; the instability, the lack of time for precautions allows for rapid advancement. It also means that there are a lot of failures and a lot of people getting hurt but it gets the job done faster than in peace time.

You say people need breathable air, consumable food and water and some form of shelter. You think we're going to get that without a government regulating the powerful and forcing them to keep from polluting the environment and requiring them to pay living wages so we can afford adequate shelter?
The strong would survive and the weak would perish. Humanity would grow stronger with each generation. If you were willing and able to work for your survival then you would be able to.

Do you honestly think that the rich would purposely destroy the environment in which they must live? Do you really think that all the large corporations of the world are secretly plotting the demise of their source of revenue? They gain their wealth and power from the environment and their waste must go somewhere. Energy has to move for work to be done.

You brought up living wages. Do you think that everyone should be paid a living wage? What about the 16 year old bag boys at the local grocery store? Do you really think they should be able to make a career out of that?

If you wish to advance you must be willing to make sacrifices.

Do you honestly think that the rich would purposely destroy the environment in which they must live?They have in the past. Fuck man, have you read the stories about the rivers in the US before the Clean Water Act? Do you remember the days in L.A. when they'd shut down the city due to the smog because people were dying? Do you think we'd have stopped using CFCs no matter what they were doing to the ozone layer had government not stepped in and forced the issue? What fucking planet do you live on?

Do you really think that all the large corporations of the world are secretly plotting the demise of their source of revenue?
Nope--I think corporations are by design short-sighted entities. Their primary concern--by law--is the next quarter's profits, the next year's profits. Anything else, anything that gets in the way of that is by virtue of the corporate design of secondary importance. Now, the heads of some corporations decide to fight against that and calculate their profits differently, giving credit to issues like sustainability, but that's the work of the CEOs. The charters of corporations put profits above all else. The smart CEOs look down the road, but not all of them are smart.

--n Peak Oil Resolution -- Reintroduction of H. Res 507 that expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that the United States, in collaboration with other international allies, should establish an energy project with the magnitude, creativity, and sense of urgency that was incorporated in the "Man on the Moon" project address the inevitable challenges of "Peak Oil."

I strongly support this. We need to realize that beating our oil addiction is a matter of national security.

n Energy Farm Bill -- Reintroduction of H. R. 5925 to support federal research, development, demonstration, and commercial application activities to enable the development of farms that are net producers of both food and energy.

Ambivalent. I'd want to see more info before I made a descision.

n Expanded Tax Credit for Hybrid Vehicles -- Introduced a new bill to increase from 60,000 to 250,000 the annual limit on vehicles, such as hybrids, eligible for the alternative motor vehicle tax credit.

Support.

n Enhanced and Modernized GI Benefits -- Reintroduction of H.R. 3625, the Bartlett Montgomery GI Bill, to encourage servicemembers to re-enlist, support military families and provide more realistic rates of educational costs for higher learning by permitting servicemembers to transfer unused GI education benefits to their spouses or children.

What does this mean? Other than that, I think it's okay.

n Immigration Reform -- American Child Support Enforcement Immigration Act -- Reintroduction of H.R. 5977 to deny family classification petitions for new spouses or dependents filed by an individual who owes child support.

Oppose until paper abortions become available.

n Tax Reform -- Move Income Tax Filing Day -- Reintroduction of H.R. 442 to move the deadline for filing federal income-tax returns, from April 15 to the first Monday in November -- the day before Election Day to strengthen the link between the politicians we elect and the taxes we pay.

Strongly oppose. Part of the way this country was designed was to prevent populist nonsense. Monkeying with the taxes in the pre-election season is populist nonsense at it's worse. Keep things slow and in control.

n Campaign Reform -- First Amendment Restoration Act -- Reintroduction of H. R. 689, to restore Americans' First Amendment rights by repealing a provision in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 which prohibits labor unions and corporations (including non-profits) from sponsoring non-PAC-funded broadcast advertisements that include any references to federal candidates during the 30 and 60 days before primary and general elections.--

Eh... Gonna have to go with oppose. I understand that unions et. al. need a voice, but I don't want big money interests having any larger an influence on American politics. We need to fight corruption, not support it.

n Political Convention Reform Act -- Reintroduction of H.R. 45 to prohibit the use of taxpayers' money for political party conventions.

Support.

Taxation is not theft--it's the dues we pay in order to have stability within which to grow socially and technologically. It's no coincidence that most third-world countries have small governments, and that the most advanced ones have sizable social infrastructures and expenditures.

Can I respectfully disagree? Not with the taxation part, but with the "third world countries have small governments" part. Granted you said "most" and not "all".
Advanced Western countries have sizeable social infrastructures and expenditures, advanced Asian ones do not (Japan and South Korea spend and tax less as a percentage of GDP than the USA - source http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/634788846751).

Third-world countries may appear to have smaller governments (when measured using taxation as a percentage of GDP) due to more frequent tax evasion, lower incomes (hence less revenue to raise), higher unemployment, and less value added activity to tax.

The US federal government needs to be starved.

It would be a good way for it to stop using the federal army to wage wars.

The US federal government needs to be starved.

It would be a good way for it to stop using the federal army to wage wars.

Or defend the US and pay the federal employees.

Or defend the US and pay the federal employees.
They can get real jobs and the army can have bake sales.:p

They can get real jobs and the army can have bake sales.:p

:rolleyes: