NationStates Jolt Archive

but how will they pay for them?

any ideas?

Well....stop spending so much money on Iraq might help...

And before any right winger brings up "Raise taxes zomg!!!111!!11!!", I dont recall anyone has said theyd raise taxes.

Well....stop spending so much money on Iraq might help...

And before any right winger brings up "Raise taxes zomg!!!111!!11!!", I dont recall anyone has said theyd raise taxes.

They didn't say they would raise taxes but let the GB tax cuts lapse. So technically they get away with not raising taxes but still raising taxes.

There was a time when people paid >70% tax on every penny over $3,000,000.00. I think that was after JFK brought the rate down from 90-some-odd%. I don't know for certain, but I think that Reagan brought that rate down. Estate taxes, ending the Iraq war, stop giving no-bid contracts to Haliburton, close corporate tax loopholes... there are plenty of sources of money.

Taxes aren't a bad thing; they allow the government to try to ensure equal footing for more Americans.

And before any right winger brings up "Raise taxes zomg!!!111!!11!!", I dont recall anyone has said theyd raise taxes.


indeed, and thats what I'm wondering about

running for Iraq might save us around, say maybe 60 billion a year, but where does the rest come from

DEMOCRATS ARE BACK IN CONTROL MATES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


there is hope for america after all............

Taxes aren't a bad thing; they allow the government to try to ensure equal footing for more Americans.

they also mean Americans have less money to spend, foreign companies don't want to come here becasue of higher taxes and American companies leave for countries with lowwer taxes

The Dems like the Repubs will say anything they think we want to hear. After they get elected it will be "POLITICS AS USUAL." :mad:

DEMOCRATS ARE BACK IN CONTROL MATES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


there is hope for america after all............

they've been in control for the last 2 years - what have they gotten done in that time?

The Dems like the Repubs will say anything they think we want to hear. After they get elected it will be "POLITICS AS USUAL." :mad:

Bingo.

Neither party can reasonably promise job creation, unless they're planning on expanding the bureaucracy (I suppose the Dems could be planning that). The economy doesn't just start and stop when politicians say so. It's speculation.

Schrandtopia;13460686']they've been in control for the last 2 years - what have they gotten done in that time?

no, they've had a slim majority in the past two years, not a controlling majority


there is a difference


(such as they cannot garner the 60 votes needed to supress republican dissent and push through resolutions and bills, nor do they have the votes necessary to override a presidential veto)

please read up on the policies and procedures of congress if you require further explanation

Schrandtopia;13460686']they've been in control for the last 2 years - what have they gotten done in that time?




Well, to their credit they have actually passed a lot of potentially groundbreaking legistlation through the Senate. Just that, you know, that ape in the White House we call Fearless Leader has been using the veto pen like crazy.

Schrandtopia;13460684']they also mean Americans have less money to spend, foreign companies don't want to come here becasue of higher taxes and American companies leave for countries with lowwer taxes

Americans will also have less expenses (education, healthcare, childcare, etc.) that are necessities for life, resulting in more money to be spent on purchasing.

If we enact real trade legislation, any company that moves to another country to dodge taxes (like they already do) will be faced with an embargo. We can start using our buying power to lift up other countries out of poverty, instead of enslaving them so we can get cheaply made shoes (that we still pay hundreds of dollars for.)

Higher taxes are not the end of the world. In the end, they help more people and only make the rich a little less rich. And if it reduces the number of millionaires while also reducing the number of people who live in poverty, isn't that a fair trade to make? I will happily pay higher taxes if they are going to social welfare programs. With all the ethical language that the right-wing throws around, I cannot for the life of me understand why they have such a problem with making sure that the poor and oppressed in society are cared for.

please read up on the policies and procedures of congress if you require further explanation

read up on the politics of cowardice, if they really wanted out of Iraq they would have passed a bill defunding the war rather that some sissy "non-binding resolution" and when push came to shove they would have shut-down the government like the republicans did in 95

the congressional democrats have no heart and nancy pelosi couldn't lead them out of a paper bag

The Dems like the Repubs will say anything they think we want to hear. After they get elected it will be "POLITICS AS USUAL." :mad:

QFT

Well, to their credit they have actually passed a lot of potentially groundbreaking legistlation through the Senate. Just that, you know, that ape in the White House we call Fearless Leader has been using the veto pen like crazy.

so fight back - threaten to shut down the government

By passing legislation that encourages green industry making it easier for companies that produce renewable and alternative fuels to grow and thus create more jobs?

how though? besides giving them tax money

Schrandtopia;13460660']but how will they pay for them?

any ideas?

By passing legislation that encourages green industry making it easier for companies that produce renewable and alternative fuels to grow and thus create more jobs?

Schrandtopia;13460686']they've been in control for the last 2 years - what have they gotten done in that time?

You need more than a slight majority to really get things done, and beyond that, anything really ground-breaking would be vetoed by Bush.

no, they've had a slim majority in the past two years, not a controlling majority

there is a difference

Excuses, excuses, excuses. They have been to busy trying to get themselves elected to do the work they were elected to do. And the Republicrats are not a damn bit better.

If you took time off your job to go around the country in an attempt to get elected as President of the U.S., would your employer continue to pay your salary? I doubt it. Then why the hell do we pay Senators who are aspiring to become President to run around the country instead of doing their jobs in Washington? Damn, if they want to run for President resign from the Senate (or House.) I'm tired of paying these self serving, blood sucking, bastards who are supposed to have our best interest in mind. END OF RANT

Schrandtopia;13460725']how though? besides giving them tax money

Tax CREDITS can create jobs. :rolleyes:

Schrandtopia;13460660']but how will they pay for them?

any ideas?

Our government has far more money than people realize. Despite the rhetoric of fiscal conservatives, we actually can afford a hell of a lot of social programs very easily without raising a single tax on anything. Universal Health Care, Social Security, a reformed welfare system, better education...all are easily paid for.

All we have to do is stop spending so much on our military. The last I checked--and someone please correct me if I'm wrong--we spend at least sixty percent of our annual tax income on our military. That is, in a word, ridiculous.

That's not to say the military isn't important, but we're vastly overspending on it. We need to stop spending so much on the military and start spending where it counts.

And furthermore, while we're at it, let's try to get some people to actually figure out what would be the best way to implement new funding in education and the like. That is, take away the chains of ideology and look at systems elsewhere that already work much better and then alter them so they fit the United States. It's not that hard. All we have to do is stop obeying our ideology like it's a freaking lawbook and look at it for what it is: a guideline.

All we have to do is stop spending so much on our military. The last I checked--and someone please correct me if I'm wrong--we spend at least sixty percent of our annual tax income on our military. That is, in a word, ridiculous.

its under half, but even without a military (which would be stupid) we wouldn't have enough money for everything else

socialised healthcare would cost somewhere around 2 trillion dollars a year, the current federal budget is around 3 trillion dollars a year

Tax CREDITS can create jobs. :rolleyes:

isn't that pretty much the same thing?

instead of raising taxes to give a company money we raise taxes in order to not tax a company

You don't have to give them tax money, grants wouldn't create enough jobs on their own. Breaks might, regulations that encourage renewable development, streamlined permitting and the like. The government didn't just fork over a bunch of cash to start internet commerce but they did clear the way.

to be fair its not like there was a communications system that already did everything the internet did and did it cheaper

there was a market demand for the internet, there is no market demand for alternative energy

Our government has far more money than people realize. Despite the rhetoric of fiscal conservatives, we actually can afford a hell of a lot of social programs very easily without raising a single tax on anything. Universal Health Care, Social Security, a reformed welfare system, better education...all are easily paid for.

All we have to do is stop spending so much on our military. The last I checked--and someone please correct me if I'm wrong--we spend at least sixty percent of our annual tax income on our military. That is, in a word, ridiculous.

That's not to say the military isn't important, but we're vastly overspending on it. We need to stop spending so much on the military and start spending where it counts.

And furthermore, while we're at it, let's try to get some people to actually figure out what would be the best way to implement new funding in education and the like. That is, take away the chains of ideology and look at systems elsewhere that already work much better and then alter them so they fit the United States. It's not that hard. All we have to do is stop obeying our ideology like it's a freaking lawbook and look at it for what it is: a guideline.

We already spend massive amounts on entitlements. 19.2% goes to the military, with a few percent for veterans benefits and hospitals. The largest chunk of the pie has been entitlement spending since the 60s, if not earlier.

Regardless, the government doesn't need more of our money. Alternative energy research is fine, but the private sector can be regulated into it more efficiently than the government can take it over (not that too many people are urging *that* that I know of). Energy is big money as it is.

Re: Socialized healthcare would cost 2 trillion per year...

Please, cite your source... I'd love to read that.

Thumbless Pete: I believe that you are mistaken. Over half of our tax dollars go to military spending, not "entitlements."

The government needs to spend money on "entitlement" programs because that is where the American middle class comes from. Unless you are upper-middle class or higher, you have a vested interest in a healthy tax rate whether you know it or not. What people don't seem to realize is that if properly monitored, government can ALWAYS be more efficient than business because there is no underlying motive to turn a profit. When you get rid of that overhead and the $2 million CEO salaries, you will find that the dollars stretch much further and that can usually translate into a net savings for the people of the country. I'm not proposing that government replace business, but it isn't a horrible thing when the government starts offering a new service.

Schrandtopia;13460725']how though? besides giving them tax money

You don't have to give them tax money, grants wouldn't create enough jobs on their own. Breaks might, regulations that encourage renewable development, streamlined permitting and the like. The government didn't just fork over a bunch of cash to start internet commerce but they did clear the way.

Schrandtopia;13460766']its under half, but even without a military (which would be stupid) we wouldn't have enough money for everything else

socialised healthcare would cost somewhere around 2 trillion dollars a year, the current federal budget is around 3 trillion dollars a year

Uh, what? Where are you getting that figure? Universal health care in the style of, say, the British NHS would only cost around forty two billion dollars per year. A lot of money, yes, but easily handled.

Of course our healthcare system wouldn't be exactly like the NHS. It would be worked to fit the U.S, but that's beside the point.

Uh, what? Where are you getting that figure? Universal health care in the style of, say, the British NHS would only cost around forty two billion dollars per year. A lot of money, yes, but easily handled.

total US health expendiatures for 2007 were around 2.5 trillion so I figured while part of it might already be covered by the government already under the Obama plan we'd be picking up the rest

where are you getting your figures from?

When politicians start throwing around the trillion dollar numbers, that usually means that they are talking about projected spending over a period of years. Here is a comparison of US healthcare spending compared to other industrialized nations. It is worth noting that we are the ONLY industrialized nation without socialized healthcare, and we are the nation that spends the most on healthcare.

http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/chcm010307oth.cfm

We already spend massive amounts on entitlements.

For those of us who may not understand, would someone please define "entitlements?" Are we taking about Social Security and Medicare which we have paid into, or military retirement which is earned, or are we talking about Medicade, welfare, etc. which are programs that people neither pay for or are earned? I'm really confused about what constitutes "entitlements."

Thumbless Pete: I believe that you are mistaken. Over half of our tax dollars go to military spending, not "entitlements."

The government needs to spend money on "entitlement" programs because that is where the American middle class comes from. Unless you are upper-middle class or higher, you have a vested interest in a healthy tax rate whether you know it or not. What people don't seem to realize is that if properly monitored, government can ALWAYS be more efficient than business because there is no underlying motive to turn a profit. When you get rid of that overhead and the $2 million CEO salaries, you will find that the dollars stretch much further and that can usually translate into a net savings for the people of the country. I'm not proposing that government replace business, but it isn't a horrible thing when the government starts offering a new service.

The pie chart here:

http://services.alphaworks.ibm.com/manyeyes/view/SpewYEsOtha6E2-0f91aE2-

if correct, puts military spending at about 25%. Add Iraq/Afghanistan supplementals and you might be up a few more points, but it looks like the charts I remember from my old textbooks.

As for government being more efficient due to not having a profit motive, well, that doesn't make any intuitive sense to me. Any incentive is better than none. As a bureaucrat, I can attest to that. :p

With the exception of the Iraq war, when people start talking about spending money in the trillions it usually is a figure that is projected over some period of time, say 5 or 10 years. The following link is to a comparison of the amount of money spent on healthcare in industrialized nations (maybe some others). It is worth noting that the US is the only industrialized nation that does not provide healthcare to its citizens / residents. We are also the country that pays the most for healthcare (government is more efficient, contrary to popular belief.)

http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/chcm010307oth.cfm

The government needs to spend money on "entitlement" programs because that is where the American middle class comes from.

I'm going to call bullshit on that

the middle class came along well before medaid

Schrandtopia;13460795']total US health expendiatures for 2007 were around 2.5 trillion so I figured while part of it might already be covered by the government already under the Obama plan we'd be picking up the rest

where are you getting your figures from?

My figures are from a calculation based on the British spending on the NHS system, ramped up to take into account the additional population. Admittedly my math might be wrong, but that's beside the point.

I would like for you to source your figures. 2.5 trillion is ridiculous if you're trying to say that was the government spending on it. (I can accept that figure in total if it takes into account the various private spending, but government alone? I don't think so.)

The pie chart here:

http://services.alphaworks.ibm.com/manyeyes/view/SpewYEsOtha6E2-0f91aE2-


Social Security and Medicare wouldn't be so much of the "pie" if Congress hadn't been raiding it all these years. :mad:

I would like for you to source your figures. 2.5 trillion is ridiculous if you're trying to say that was the government spending on it. (I can accept that figure in total if it takes into account the various private spending, but government alone? I don't think so.)

http://www.kaiseredu.org/topics_im.asp?imID=1&parentID=61&id=358

could only find 2006 but it was over 2.1

where are these British stats coming from?

For those of us who may not understand, would someone please define "entitlements?" Are we taking about Social Security and Medicare which we have paid into, or military retirement which is earned, or are we talking about Medicade, welfare, etc. which are programs that people neither pay for or are earned? I'm really confused about what constitutes "entitlements."

You've got it about right. Just SS and Medicare made up half of all spending in '05:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10609044/

They exclude international aid in that number, which could be seen as entitlement spending, but isn't necessarily. Military benefits are entitlements in some charts, but not in others. Anti-military folks often quote VA money, GI bill money and other benefits in the figures they use, to overcount what we spend on defense.

Schrandtopia;13460716']read up on the politics of cowardice, if they really wanted out of Iraq they would have passed a bill defunding the war rather that some sissy "non-binding resolution" and when push came to shove they would have shut-down the government like the republicans did in 95

the congressional democrats have no heart and nancy pelosi couldn't lead them out of a paper bag

oh yes, what a brilliant idea, let's shut down the government so we can REALLY get things accomplished

do you listen to yourself when you speak? i mean honestly

that's the major difference between republicans and democrats, republicans rule, whereas democrats govern

republicans demand complete obedience to their political ideologies, and whenever they don't get their way, they throw temper tantrums and do everything in their power to paralyze the government so that NO ONE benefits. Because after all, if the republicans can't win, then nobody can

not so with democrats. Democrats are excellent in governing, because they honestly reach across the aisles of ideologies and try to find ways that everyone can benefit from legislation passed in congress. They compromise, not bulldoze their way to victory for all americans. they realize that they are a congress not just for the people that voted for them, but for ALL americans, and so they try and include all americans in everything that they do, especially in consideration of beneficiaries.


And most americans now see that, and that is why there are over 75% more democrats taking part in the primaries now than republicans, because more and more people are realizing that it is going to take a democrat in office to turn america around

the time of republicanism is over


thank god

do you listen to yourself when you speak? i mean honestly

yeah, and I use history, not laughable dreams to guide my actions

that's the major difference between republicans and democrats, republicans rule, whereas democrats govern

I would have said small government vs. big government but whatever

republicans demand complete obedience to their political ideologies, and whenever they don't get their way, they throw temper tantrums and do everything in their power to paralyze the government so that NO ONE benefits. Because after all, if the republicans can't win, then nobody can

or not, republicans are elected to get things done - is it not logical to try to do them?

not so with democrats. Democrats are excellent in governing, because they honestly reach across the aisles of ideologies and try to find ways that everyone can benefit from legislation passed in congress. They compromise, not bulldoze their way to victory for all americans. they realize that they are a congress not just for the people that voted for them, but for ALL americans, and so they try and include all americans in everything that they do, especially in consideration of beneficiaries.

if thats code for "can't acomplish anything" I believe it

And most americans now see that, and that is why there are over 75% more democrats taking part in the primaries now than republicans, because more and more people are realizing that it is going to take a democrat in office to turn america around

or because your primary is still a fight when ours ended 2 months ago

the time of the republicanism is over

thank god

say that after 8 years of an obama administration

...that's the major difference between republicans and democrats, republicans rule, whereas democrats govern

republicans demand complete obedience to their political ideologies,...Democrats are excellent in governing,......they realize that they are a congress not just for the people that voted for them, but for ALL americans,

the time of republicanism is over

This post is so full of http://www.nearlygood.com/smilies/horse.gifof I don't know where to start. :confused:

Schrandtopia;13460846']say that after 8 years of an obama administration

http://www.laughparty.com/funny-thumbs/1012.jpg

Dems and Pubbies will both work to bring the united States into socialism. I don't want that. The rhetoric differs, but the actions are mostly the same: More bureaucracy, more needless regulation, more infringements on liberty, less voice for the people. The Republic is on its death bed, and the parties are fighting over the estate. Little do they realize that the estate is worthless if the republic dies.

Ron Paul isn't perfect, but he's by far the best candidate if you want the Republic to be revived. The rest are all "same old, same old".

Republicans haven't been about small government for a LOOOOOONG time. When Reagan took office, we had a 1 trillion dollar debt. When he left, that number was three times bigger. All that so he could have a nuclear pissing contest with the USSR.

Bush II hasn't been one for small government, either. The Iraq war is kinda blowing our economy out of the water.

The way Republicans "get things done" is reprehensible. They attack issues with a sledge hammer with little regard for the real-world consequences of their actions. Take their primitive stance on abortion or intelligent design. Those issues are setting our country back decades.... action for the sake of action is worthless.

As to your calling bullshit, look into the distribution of wealth before and after the Roosevelt administration. You can even look back to before the stock market crash during the "roaring 20s." Liberal policies are what made America great, and we need to reclaim that identity for the sake of our nation.

Schrandtopia;13460846']yeah, and I use history, not laughable dreams to guide my actions



I would have said small government vs. big government but whatever



or not, republicans are elected to get things done - is it not logical to try to do them?



if thats code for "can't acomplish anything" I believe it



or because your primary is still a fight when ours ended 2 months ago



say that after 8 years of an obama administration



wow, i didn't understand a word you just said, mainly because none of it made sense. i'll just let you hang yourself with your own words, no need for me to really give you any serious point by point contention

your incoherent rants won't help your party now. face it, you're a dying breed, people are becoming much too progressive for the likes of the republican party

pretty soon, it won't really matter much as we'll be embracing a one world government

but in the meantime, i suppose i should entertain your narrow minded assumptions of the false significance of regional politics. it's kinda cute really, in a sort of nostalgiac, antiquated sense


enjoy your vote for mccain, SOMEONE'S got to vote republican in the next election i suppose

Republicans haven't been about small government for a LOOOOOONG time. When Reagan took office, we had a 1 trillion dollar debt. When he left, that number was three times bigger. All that so he could have a nuclear pissing contest with the USSR.

give him some credit, that pissing contest had some pretty important geopolitical consequences

Bush II hasn't been one for small government, either. The Iraq war is kinda blowing our economy out of the water.

while W has been spending a bit the colapse of the tech, the housing boubles and world-wide instability have a lot more to do with our economy's downturn than Iraq war spending ever could

The way Republicans "get things done" is reprehensible. They attack issues with a sledge hammer with little regard for the real-world consequences of their actions. Take their primitive stance on abortion

whoa, primitive stance on abortion - we're not the ones putting scalples into the backs of babies heads

As to your calling bullshit, look into the distribution of wealth before and after the Roosevelt administration.

thinking the middle class pre-dates FDR

Liberal policies are what made America great, and we need to reclaim that identity for the sake of our nation.

really? I'd argue its a smaller government and individual freedoms that make America great

pretty soon, it won't really matter much as we'll be embracing a one world government


jajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajaja

have you ever been to the UN?

Republicans haven't been about small government for a LOOOOOONG time. When Reagan took office, we had a 1 trillion dollar debt. When he left, that number was three times bigger. All that so he could have a nuclear pissing contest with the USSR.

Bush II hasn't been one for small government, either. The Iraq war is kinda blowing our economy out of the water.

The way Republicans "get things done" is reprehensible. They attack issues with a sledge hammer with little regard for the real-world consequences of their actions. Take their primitive stance on abortion or intelligent design. Those issues are setting our country back decades.... action for the sake of action is worthless.

As to your calling bullshit, look into the distribution of wealth before and after the Roosevelt administration. You can even look back to before the stock market crash during the "roaring 20s." Liberal policies are what made America great, and we need to reclaim that identity for the sake of our nation.


i couldn't agree with you more

amen brother

: )

you have no idea


enlighten me

This post is so full of http://www.nearlygood.com/smilies/horse.gifof I don't know where to start. :confused:

yeah, idiocy has a way of taking our words away from us and substituting them with cute little animated icons

no worries mate, it can happen to the best of us


but for future reference, perhaps the best place to start would be to say "well i personally think...." and then just let your mind do the talking after that

which, i guess we got a glimpse of what your mind is capable of with your prior post, didn't we?

Schrandtopia;13460876']jajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajaja

have you ever been to the UN?

you have no idea

Schrandtopia;13460891']enlighten me

quite frankly, that would be a much larger task to take on than i am currently willing to undergo

please see your telegrams, as i have responded to your question via personal email-----nm, it seems i can't do that for some reason

The Dems like the Repubs will say anything they think we want to hear. After they get elected it will be "POLITICS AS USUAL." :mad:

Meaning, pretty straightforwardly, that the "usual" politics you're inferring are ALREADY WELL IN PLAY :mad:
Cope. You certainly aren't giving the impression that you want it to be any different.

Are you bitching about cowardice on the part of the left while ignoring the cowardice on the right that brought us to this thread? Just askin'.


I am by no means satisfied with the republican party I was trying to say that democrats already have power in washington and have failed to get anything real done, giving them more power probably won't change anything

quite frankly, that would be a much larger task to take on than i am currently willing to undergo

please see your telegrams, as i have responded to your question via personal email-----nm, it seems i can't do that for some reason

well, thank you for trying

Schrandtopia;13460716']read up on the politics of cowardice, if they really wanted out of Iraq they would have passed a bill defunding the war rather that some sissy "non-binding resolution" and when push came to shove they would have shut-down the government like the republicans did in 95

the congressional democrats have no heart and nancy pelosi couldn't lead them out of a paper bag

Are you bitching about cowardice on the part of the left while ignoring the cowardice on the right that brought us to this thread? Just askin'.

Also, the end for republican dominance is WAY overdue.


it ended in the '06 elections dawg

Is it selective of you then to ignore the parts brought up in nearly every one of these kinds of threads about Bush's VETO pen AND SIGNING STATEMENTS?

again, they have the power in congress so fight back like the republicans did in 95

the veto pen is only the end of the argument if congress allows it to be

Schrandtopia;13460876']jajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajaja

have you ever been to the UN?

The only institution in the world that can solve all the problems in the world. :rolleyes: Or create more graft than any single nation on earth. :mad:

This post is so full of http://www.nearlygood.com/smilies/horse.gifof I don't know where to start. :confused:

The part about republican allegiance is true. You're welcome to prove otherwise.
Also, the end for republican dominance is WAY overdue.

aight, and I'll say it one more time:

they're in the same spot republicans were in after the 94 elections and the republicans got shit done

Schrandtopia;13460916']democrats already have power in washington and have failed to get anything real doneIs it selective of you then to ignore the parts brought up in nearly every one of these kinds of threads about Bush's VETO pen AND SIGNING STATEMENTS?

Schrandtopia;13460928']it ended in the '06 elections dawg
Should've been much sooner than that. Before Reagan, even.

Schrandtopia;13460916']I am by no means satisfied with the republican party I was trying to say that democrats already have power in washington and have failed to get anything real done, giving them more power probably won't change anything

dude, seriously, pay attention this time

cause i'm getting fairly tired and am probably gonna log off soon, so i can't keep trying to get you to understand forever you know


so lemme spell it out very succinctly to you:

THE DEMS DON'T HAVE A CONTROLLING MAJORITY, ONLY A VERY SLIM MAJORITY

WHICH MEANS THEY CANNOT GET THINGS PASSED WITHOUT THE MUTUAL APPROVAL OF THE REPUBLICANS (who you praise for shutting down the government and having the keen ability to keep anything from getting done that even remotely contradicts what they want)

THAT'S WHY NOT AN INCREDIBLE AMOUNT OF CHANGE HAS TAKEN PLACE, ALSO BECAUSE WHAT PROGRESSIVE CHANGE THEY'VE BROUGHT FORWARD AND PASSED IN CONGRESS HAS BEEN VETOED BY THE GREAT PRESIDENT BUSH

sigh, this is getting exhausting

Meaning, pretty straightforwardly, that the "usual" politics you're inferring are ALREADY WELL IN PLAY :mad:
Cope. You certainly aren't giving the impression that you want it to be any different.

Not so! We need a viable third party in the US. Give us a real alternative to politics as usual. If everyone here who says, "No third party candidate can get elected," voted for the third party he/she could be elected.

Is it selective of you then to ignore the parts brought up in nearly every one of these kinds of threads about Bush's VETO pen AND SIGNING STATEMENTS?

yes, yes it is

yes, yes it isAlas, my fears are realized. :(

Schrandtopia;13460919']well, thank you for trying

i'd be more than happy to discuss (limited, mind you) with you my connection with the united nations, but i'm not allowed to divulge information about my professional life on this international forum, and especially not on a forum thread like this

sorry

Not so! We need a viable third party in the US. Give us a real alternative to politics as usual. If everyone here who says, "No third party candidate can get elected," voted for the third party he/she could be elected.

You mentioned someone earlier that disillusioned you - were you working under the assumption that they would really have been a viale option out of this two-party polarity bullshit?
The people that i choose always have the same types of characteristics, and are almost certainly downed fairly early in the "race".

Alas, my fears are realized. :(

not to worry, he does appear to be only a mere minority of the american population

it seems that democrats have the next upcoming election nailed down


it will be a great relief for america to regain its credibility and once more recommence in its partnership and cooperation with the international community

its lack of participation is sorely missed

not to worry, he does appear to be only a mere minority of the american population

it seems that democrats have the next upcoming election nailed down

we'll see

it will be a great relief for america to regain its credibility and once more recommence in its partnership and cooperation with the international community

its lack of participation is sorely missed

not as sorely as the lack of something worthy of participation is missed

i'd be more than happy to discuss (limited, mind you) with you my connection with the united nations, but i'm not allowed to divulge information about my professional life on this international forum, and especially not on a forum thread like this

try sending a message to my nationstates inbox?

No one is out there championing Nuclear Fission or radioactive waste reclaimation. With just 400 new plants we could supply pretty much the entire nation's electricity needs and turn the coal not being burned into gas and diesel. Another bad idea that needs to be done away with, leaving actinides in nuclear waste. By removing the Uranium and Plutonium from waste you can put it to good use in a reactor again as fuel and you shorten the radioactive lifetime of the waste. There, energy independance for, what, the next century at the least?

At least. If we finally start using our geothermal resources efficiently, it would be even more considerable; until the planet's core starts to cool, we'll be able to generate huge amounts of geothermal energy for heating and electricity, far more than enough to cover any gaps in nuclear power.

DEMOCRATS ARE BACK IN CONTROL MATES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


there is hope for america after all............
How do you figure?

Let's look at the most popular alternative energy source, shall we? The one that everyone has recently begun to cling to like a pair of Tiberian bats is wind. When windspeed drops by half wind energy drops by 1/2*1/2*1/2 or about 88%. Factor in the fact that wind doesn't blow constantly everywhere, that extraordinarily high windspeeds can damage windmills, that not even the proponents seem to want to have to actually look at the eyesores, that it wouldn't be capable of providing even 1/4 of the current US base load, that you'd need to make a gigantic investment in energy and materials to get enough up for even 10% national, and that the jobs created by errecting these things would disapear when the job is done and suddenly wind power doesn't look that great. And who would pay for it? This wouldn't be free, it wouldn't even be cheap. The government'd practically have to tax the shirt off your enslaved back to pay for such a project.

No one is out there championing Nuclear Fission or radioactive waste reclaimation. With just 400 new plants we could supply pretty much the entire nation's electricity needs and turn the coal not being burned into gas and diesel. Another bad idea that needs to be done away with, leaving actinides in nuclear waste. By removing the Uranium and Plutonium from waste you can put it to good use in a reactor again as fuel and you shorten the radioactive lifetime of the waste. There, energy independance for, what, the next century at the least?

You mentioned someone earlier that disillusioned you - were you working under the assumption that they would really have been a viale option out of this two-party polarity bullshit?
The people that i choose always have the same types of characteristics, and are almost certainly downed fairly early in the "race".

Coburn won. :(

Coburn won. :(
Do you mean, "Tom"?
For starters, if that's whom you mean, they read as "republican", which is indicative in itself of a serious problem of trustworthiness.

Try north of $100 billiion.


how do you figure?

Schrandtopia;13460681']indeed, and thats what I'm wondering about

running for Iraq might save us around, say maybe 60 billion a year, but where does the rest come from

Try north of $100 billiion.

Schrandtopia;13460660']but how will they pay for them?

any ideas?

Private industries that actually make those jobs. The Dems are asying they'll stop the status quo of oil companies controlling all and allow altfuels to be better researched and utilized. This isn't public works. At most, it'll be grants, loans, tax breaks, etc...

There was a time when people paid >70% tax on every penny over $3,000,000.00. I think that was after JFK brought the rate down from 90-some-odd%. I don't know for certain, but I think that Reagan brought that rate down. Estate taxes, ending the Iraq war, stop giving no-bid contracts to Haliburton, close corporate tax loopholes... there are plenty of sources of money.

Taxes aren't a bad thing; they allow the government to try to ensure equal footing for more Americans.

Or just create nightmare inflation, as we pump out all the investment capital from these greedy rich peoples bank accounts to finance ever greater hieghts of overspending, be it government or public, while ever greater corporate taxes are shoved on to the consumer in the form of prices increased still further then the law of Capital and Demand would dictate.

Oh they'll have dollar bills alright, and they won't be worth the paper they're printed on. The only way to create more opportunity is to create more production, because if you try to distribute it you'll destroy it, and you'll destroy it because you'll take away both the incentive and the means to either keep an old machine running or build something new. Companies need investment - it's not cheap running a society as lucrative as America, or even one half as lucrative, or for that matter, any society that's not in total decay- and if you take away money from the businesses and the bank accounts, you're pulling the plug on our very ability to keep this going, especially at this important moment in history when we'll be in need of a lot of innovation and a lot of investment in a very short period of time (fossil fuels going away).

Now as for creating "millions of jobs," that really depends upon how they try to do it, and I have a terrible feeling that if we elect those people, they're going to do it the exact wrong way, with idiot technologies like corn ethanol that cost enough to drain away 10 jobs for every one created. (Keep in mind that that particular technology was actually Bush's idea; this said, I've seen some ideas from the loyal opposition that are equally loopy, like solar collection centers.) If they only used nuclear power and EV's...

Private industries that actually make those jobs. The Dems are asying they'll stop the status quo of oil companies controlling all and allow altfuels to be better researched and utilized. This isn't public works. At most, it'll be grants, loans, tax breaks, etc...

I'm pretty sure oil compainies can't stop you from researching things

Try north of $100 billiion.

how do you figure?

Schrandtopia;13461173']I'm pretty sure oil compainies can't stop you from researching things

Don't go there. Walk away before you get schooled behind the ol' woodshed on this one.

Don't go there. Walk away before you get schooled behind the ol' woodshed on this one.


no, I walk in here willingly - tell me how the evil oil corperations have conspired to stop science

I'll give a few minutes more for the people you've addressed, first. Then, if needed, i'll help.
I'll toss this out at you now, and if you need some excerpts, i don't really mind that either, since i own the book.
http://www.motherjones.com/news/qa/2005/09/chris_mooney.html

I don't care about what the government funds - if you or your corperation can make the car that can run on water how is a oil company going to stop you and the free market?

Schrandtopia;13461238']no, I walk in here willingly - tell me how the evil oil corperations have conspired to stop science

I'll give a few minutes more for the people you've addressed, first. Then, if needed, i'll help.
I'll toss this out at you now, and if you need some excerpts, i don't really mind that either, since i own the book.
http://www.motherjones.com/news/qa/2005/09/chris_mooney.html

http://www.cspinet.org/integrity/2003/2003_conflicted_science_conference.pdf
http://www.allbusiness.com/specialty-businesses/673967-1.html

Schrandtopia;13461266']I don't care about what the government funds - if you or your corperation can make the car that can run on water how is a oil company going to stop you and the free market?
Did you bother reading any of that?
And when you say "free market", just what exactly do you mean?
Also, there's already been an engine that can run on water. There was one created for an airplane back in '48, and one for a car that was run in Carter's inaugural parade.

And specifically for the issue of oil companies stomping science and research, there are multitudes of information regarding that in past efforts. Use the Forum Search tools and use my name. You're gonna find it.

Schrandtopia;13461266']I don't care about what the government funds - if you or your corperation can make the car that can run on water how is a oil company going to stop you and the free market?

Oh no! Not another free market will solve all problems person!

It's called money and those companies that have more of it will squash perceived threats.

HP once "borrowed" a glass microprocessor from a small biotech company. They didn't have the money to handle a prolonged lawsuit.

The oil company will do what it takes to preserve it's place. Even it means squashing science.

You do understand it's impossible to have a completely free market?

Finally, an engine running on water is a horrible idea. Water has a limited production and is becoming a problem.....

Oh no! Not another free market will solve all problems person!

It's called money and those companies that have more of it will squash perceived threats.

HP once "borrowed" a glass microprocessor from a small biotech company. They didn't have the money to handle a prolonged lawsuit.

The oil company will do what it takes to preserve it's place. Even it means squashing science.

You do understand it's impossible to have a completely free market?

Finally, an engine running on water is a horrible idea. Water has a limited production and is becoming a problem.....

The problem with your assumption Black Forrest is you are assuming that oil companies are the only people who have money. There are lots of nuclear energy, electric, research, computer, mining, transportation, construction and mining equipment, and (yes) even automotive companies that would LOVE to see the oil industry die and would match every one of their dollars to do so. There are even some oil companies that would love to see the oil industry die, so they can take up whatever replaces it. I can assure you that the folks at Georgia Power, Ford Motors (benefits from new markets with less regulation and a potential leg up over Japan), Southern Company, Caterpillar (benefits from Mining sales) and the Uranium Mining and Refining corporations have lots of cash and know what to do with it.

Also, the Biotech company is likely a rare exception because usually what you do in that case is call up a law firm and instead of offering your own payment, offer a large portion of the money from the law suit if they win. Several lawyers, including I've heard former presidential hopeful John Edwards, have made fortunes running court challenges for small companies and underpaying individuals, then collecting a large share of the suit money instead of unconditional legal fees. Strange things happen sometimes though, and who knows, maybe the people who ran that company made a bookkeeping error that made it difficult for them to prove their case. Maybe they lost the original design blueprints or the scientists didn't keep a proper lab journal. Maybe HP knew that they had. All sorts of senseless nonsense can happen. That's part of the reason scientists keep such detailed procedures and documentations of everything they do, but sometimes it's just not detailed enough.

Schrandtopia;13460660']but how will they pay for them?

any ideas?
Massive tax benefits for people driving green cars and industries, so people start investing in renewable energies, creating millions of jobs in, ooh, 20 odd years when such things become genuinely practical to produce on a large scale without just causing massive problems ecologically, as has happened in South America.

Did you bother reading any of that?
And when you say "free market", just what exactly do you mean?
Also, there's already been an engine that can run on water. There was one created for an airplane back in '48, and one for a car that was run in Carter's inaugural parade.

And specifically for the issue of oil companies stomping science and research, there are multitudes of information regarding that in past efforts. Use the Forum Search tools and use my name. You're gonna find it.
Don't be an idiot.
This is not the same concept as a steam engine. A steam engine uses water to transmit energy from the fire or other heat source to the pistons or turbine that do the work of turning the engine.
To fuel a hydrogen car from water, energy from a power plant is used to generate hydrogen from electrolysis, which is then either burned in the car's engine or merged with oxygen to create water via a fuel cell. Both methods produce energy used to create motion. The car ultimately receives its energy from the power plant, with the hydrogen acting as an energy carrier.
The burning of conventional fuels such as petrol (gasoline), wood and coal releases energy, which converts the fuel into substances with less energy. In the case of most fossil fuels, one of the waste products is water. This is because water is at a lower energy state than the original fuel (see enthalpy of formation).

Companies are concerned with profit. You do not suppress useful technology, you exploit it. If you were going to argue that Big Oil or automakers were trying to steal this technology and introduce it themselves for great profit then you might have something but the argument is always one of suppression which makes no sense.
It is a frequent claim of inventors of water fuelled engines that the technology has existed for a long time and is being suppressed by conventional fuel suppliers such as oil companies. This is unlikely because once any useful invention becomes technically possible it is likely to be invented independently several times. This makes the suppression of a useful invention for any length of time impossible in practice. Patenting an invention does not suppress it because the contents of all patents are publicly available for inspection.

There is no such thing as energy technology suppression.

Massive tax benefits for people driving green cars and industries, so people start investing in renewable energies, creating millions of jobs in, ooh, 20 odd years when such things become genuinely practical to produce on a large scale without just causing massive problems ecologically, as has happened in South America.
What gets the tax breaks? Hybrids can't touch Diesels for milage and hybrids come with that hugeass toxic battery pack that you'll have to landfill when it dies for the last time. Wind and Solar have their own problems. Hydro only works where there is running water and ruins river ecosystems.

You can put a price on nature, it's called a cost-benefit analysis.

What gets the tax breaks? Hybrids can't touch Diesels for milage and hybrids come with that hugeass toxic battery pack that you'll have to landfill when it dies for the last time. Wind and Solar have their own problems. Hydro only works where there is running water and ruins river ecosystems.

You can put a price on nature, it's called a cost-benefit analysis.

This is one of the reasons why government should not be trying to come up with a solution and force it on everyone. The free market is the best means of providing solutions to problems.

The Prius had massive backorders with people waiting over a year to get their car - that is absolutely not a 'lack of demand' which needs to be subsidized. In fact, its doubly ineffective as it both costs a lot of tax dollars (which are distortionary themselves) and distorts peoples demand toward a less than optimal purchase. When you look at the lifecycle of the car, hybrids are horrible.

Biofuels is another example - a lot of recent studies are now showing that biofuels are actually more harmful to the environment than just burning gasoline. They result in higher CO2 emissions while consuming a lot of resources while depleting groundwater and destroying land to bring it under cultivation. Yet the government spends billions of dollars to further something that is just a total drain on both the economy and environment. Oh yeah, government is the best :rolleyes:

Government picking winners is never a good idea. The chances they will get it right are tiny, so they waste a lot of resources and harm better solutions. Let the market work - people are keen on efficient vehicles and environmentally conscious consumers will go for better options. The only credible reason to impinge on the market is if the vast majority of consumers are blatantly making harmful choices, in which case having elected representatives of these very same individuals force that choice on the minority of consumers who would make good decisions is counter-productive.

Don't be an idiot.I'll be what i want to do!
And, don't flame. You have a less than stellar quote record which could happily be refreshed and splashed across this thread to remind what you so easily forget.
Wiki isn't the best source, for one, especially exclusively. For two, you responded to something i didn't say, because you simply don't understand. Keep your arrogance in check. At *no* point did i say that water engines were being exclusively repressed. I simply pointed out that they had been used.

There is no such thing as energy technology suppression.And this is where, in you also not being an idiot, are going to provide a legitimate argument using solely wikipedia.

I'll be what i want to do!
And, don't flame. You have a less than stellar quote record which could happily be refreshed and splashed across this thread to remind what you so easily forget.
Wiki isn't the best source, for one, especially exclusively. For two, you responded to something i didn't say, because you simply don't understand. Keep your arrogance in check. At *no* point did i say that water engines were being exclusively repressed. I simply pointed out that they had been used.
I was lazy, sue me. Mother Jones isn't exactly an objective source. I wouldn't characterize the opinion piece that you linked to as smart or fearless or even an accurate representation of the facts. It was just a couple of lefty authors circle jerking their hatred of the right. And that's fine, America is a free country and if they want to waste their time like that then they should have every right to.

As for the water-powered vehicles, they're not really running off the water, they're running off their batteries. Power is needed to split the water and then the hydrogen is burned for power. That's a power loss and you'd have a more efficient vehicle by going straight electric. Water-powered cars have been used for years to swindle the ignorant, they never live up to their inventors' claims and don't really run on water. They barely function in theory and usually don't even work in practice.

And this is where, in you also not being an idiot, are going to provide a legitimate argument using solely wikipedia.
As I said, I was lazy. The fact is that there is some basic logic behind the idea that you cannot suppress useful tech, especially when you have a lot to gain by simply claiming it as your own and marketing it. If the original inventor came along you could keep that inventor in court until they could no longer afford it but you'd still be using the technology for profit. That's what companies are in it for, the money. Why would you suppress something that would make you money if making money is your primary objective? It doesn't make sense and it doesn't happen.

There are plenty of incidents where useful technology is stolen to turn a profit or when damaging information is suppressed but none where a useful technology is suppressed. You can't believe every urban legend about gas pills and secret super-milage parts just because you don't like oil companies. At some point you have to step back and ask if something makes any sense.

And that's fine, America is a free country and if they want to waste their time like that then they should have every right to.Heh, that's true, else we NSG'rs wouldn't be typing this up in the first place? :p

As for the water-powered vehicles, they're not really running off the water, they're running off their batteries. Power is needed to split the water and then the hydrogen is burned for power. That's a power loss and you'd have a more efficient vehicle by going straight electric. Water-powered cars have been used for years to swindle the ignorant, they never live up to their inventors' claims and don't really run on water. They barely function in theory and usually don't even work in practice.I think i'm getting your drift about the persuasion of energy yield, which in its own isn't something i'm going to argue about, since it wasn't the point i was making, but i'm also not saying that to be diminishing of your point. I simply was looking at a different facet. I'll make an example of the multitude of threads regarding "global warming" where, of course, Greece is happily making the news right now with what would easily be called something relatively oppositional to "warming", and then further elucidation needs to ensue so people are sure they're actually both discussing the same topic.


As I said, I was lazy. The fact is that there is some basic logic behind the idea that you cannot suppress useful tech, especially when you have a lot to gain by simply claiming it as your own and marketing it.Agreed, unless you wish to exhaust the sources and utilization of your previous inventions after making enough difference in the market with it/them.
If the original inventor came along you could keep that inventor in court until they could no longer afford it but you'd still be using the technology for profit. That's what companies are in it for, the money. Why would you suppress something that would make you money if making money is your primary objective?At a basic level, this is fairly sensible. It is more about management and strategy that allots a sincere investment than immediate profit.
There are plenty of incidents where useful technology is stolen to turn a profit or when damaging information is suppressed but none where a useful technology is suppressed. You can't believe every urban legend about gas pills and secret super-milage parts just because you don't like oil companies. At some point you have to step back and ask if something makes any sense.I don't. I simply point out that it is in the best financial interests of the oil companies to utilize sympathetic government facilitators to help suppress, distract, malign and even cover-up anything that would be detrimental to their bottom line, which is the actual case, and in some instances that would mean a more readily available energy source.
Tell me more about synthetics, DuPont, pharmaceutical companies and cannabis, for example. It isn't something that doesn't make sense, it's something that needs to be considered in certain circumstance.

This is one of the reasons why government should not be trying to come up with a solution and force it on everyone. The free market is the best means of providing solutions to problems.

Get back to me on that the Greenland glacier melts into the sea, the world climate goes haywire, and we run out of oil.

Biofuels is another example - a lot of recent studies are now showing that biofuels are actually more harmful to the environment than just burning gasoline. They result in higher CO2 emissions while consuming a lot of resources while depleting groundwater and destroying land to bring it under cultivation. Yet the government spends billions of dollars to further something that is just a total drain on both the economy and environment. Oh yeah, government is the best :rolleyes:

Then by all means, cite them. There are dozens of ways of making biofuels, and some of them could potentially revolutionize the entire economy. I highly doubt that all methods of biofuel production have the same problems. Still, I must ask you, what are we to do when there is no more oil? The free market is not providing solutions.

Government picking winners is never a good idea. The chances they will get it right are tiny, so they waste a lot of resources and harm better solutions. Let the market work - people are keen on efficient vehicles and environmentally conscious consumers will go for better options. The only credible reason to impinge on the market is if the vast majority of consumers are blatantly making harmful choices, in which case having elected representatives of these very same individuals force that choice on the minority of consumers who would make good decisions is counter-productive.

By all means, let the market work. Let it work until every last corner of the biosphere has been pillaged by the hand of man, and every last square inch has been "developed", and every extraneous factor has been purged to make way for the might free market. Let it work until there are no more fish in the ocean. Let it work until the plains become parched deserts. Let it work until entire countries are erased by climate change induced flooding. Let it work until every last stream is poisoned by toxic chemicals. :rolleyes:

I don't. I simply point out that it is in the best financial interests of the oil companies to utilize sympathetic government facilitators to help suppress, distract, malign and even cover-up anything that would be detrimental to their bottom line, which is the actual case, and in some instances that would mean a more readily available energy source.
Wouldn't it make more sense to buy or steal said new miracle energy source and use it for profit? Do you remember the villains from Captain Planet? How they'd steal and oil tanker and ram it into a beach or reef to teach all the seals and fish a lesson in complacency? Do you remember wondering why they didn't just sell the oil at a huge profit and avoid getting beaten up by a gay blue man in short red pants? Suppressing a useful technology is like stealing a tanker just to wreck it on a beach and pollute the oceans. Stealing and exploiting your newfound wealth does make sense, the other...not so much.

Tell me more about synthetics, DuPont, pharmaceutical companies and cannabis, for example. It isn't something that doesn't make sense, it's something that needs to be considered in certain circumstance.
What about synthetics? Synthetics are good for you, good for the environment, and taste great! It's those evil, nasty, dangerous organic things that are the problem.

Trying to cover up a fatal side-effect in a drug is different than trying to suppress useful technology. The drug company is trying to hide a mistake. They can't profit from what they're covering up, they profit because of the cover-up.

As for pot, I think that moralists believed that they were/are protecting society from addiction and everything that comes with it. Profit isn't really a part of the equation with pot because the war on drugs costs so much. And I do know about the benefits of pot for people on chemo, it helps them eat and keep it down. But there are ways to get those chemicals out of the pot and into a pill or inhaler and others which have similar effects.

Still, I must ask you, what are we to do when there is no more oil? The free market is not providing solutions.
As I have stated before, if there were more nuclear power plants you wouldn't need to burn coal for electicity, you could liquify it for all of our petro-chemical needs. Granted that wouldn't last forever but it would give scientists time to figure out a perminant solution to the problems we face and develop them beyond pipedreams in their infancy.

By all means, let the market work. Let it work until every last corner of the biosphere has been pillaged by the hand of man, and every last square inch has been "developed", and every extraneous factor has been purged to make way for the might free market. Let it work until there are no more fish in the ocean. Let it work until the plains become parched deserts. Let it work until entire countries are erased by climate change induced flooding. Let it work until every last stream is poisoned by toxic chemicals. :rolleyes:
I like you, you're silly.

Wouldn't it make more sense to buy or steal said new miracle energy source and use it for profit? Do you remember the villains from Captain Planet? How they'd steal and oil tanker and ram it into a beach or reef to teach all the seals and fish a lesson in complacency? Do you remember wondering why they didn't just sell the oil at a huge profit and avoid getting beaten up by a gay blue man in short red pants? Suppressing a useful technology is like stealing a tanker just to wreck it on a beach and pollute the oceans. Stealing and exploiting your newfound wealth does make sense, the other...not so much.


What about synthetics? Synthetics are good for you, good for the environment, and taste great! It's those evil, nasty, dangerous organic things that are the problem.

Trying to cover up a fatal side-effect in a drug is different than trying to suppress useful technology. The drug company is trying to hide a mistake. They can't profit from what they're covering up, they profit because of the cover-up.

As for pot, I think that moralists believed that they were/are protecting society from addiction and everything that comes with it. Profit isn't really a part of the equation with pot because the war on drugs costs so much. And I do know about the benefits of pot for people on chemo, it helps them eat and keep it down. But there are ways to get those chemicals out of the pot and into a pill or inhaler and others which have similar effects.

Not much i could add to this post. :p

This is one of the reasons why government should not be trying to come up with a solution and force it on everyone. The free market is the best means of providing solutions to problems.
This argument always ignores that it was the free market that created the problem in the first place.

The Prius had massive backorders with people waiting over a year to get their car - that is absolutely not a 'lack of demand' which needs to be subsidized. In fact, its doubly ineffective as it both costs a lot of tax dollars (which are distortionary themselves) and distorts peoples demand toward a less than optimal purchase. When you look at the lifecycle of the car, hybrids are horrible.
As the hybrid car gets older these predictions get sillier. When the Insight came out people kept saying "In three years you have to buy another expensive battery." That was in 2000. After three years it was "In five years..." now the hybrid car is 8 years old and it's "In ten years..." We're starting to get to the component life of any car.

Biofuels is another example - a lot of recent studies are now showing that biofuels are actually more harmful to the environment than just burning gasoline. They result in higher CO2 emissions while consuming a lot of resources while depleting groundwater and destroying land to bring it under cultivation. Yet the government spends billions of dollars to further something that is just a total drain on both the economy and environment. Oh yeah, government is the best :rolleyes:
You're being selective. Corn and sugar based biofuels produced a separate green house gas in the fertilization of them. This was not true for all biofuels, just in the use of corn and sugar. There are other ways that utilize biodiverse sources (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/314/5805/1598) and in some case are actually carbon negative. Not to mention that biofuel from waste products such as used cooking oil, grass, and wood do not have the problems that soy, sugar, and corn share.

Government picking winners is never a good idea. The chances they will get it right are tiny, so they waste a lot of resources and harm better solutions. Let the market work - people are keen on efficient vehicles and environmentally conscious consumers will go for better options. The only credible reason to impinge on the market is if the vast majority of consumers are blatantly making harmful choices, in which case having elected representatives of these very same individuals force that choice on the minority of consumers who would make good decisions is counter-productive.
This is back to assuming the market has magic powers and ignoring that the market decisions are what got us here. Not to mention that things ranging from radio to railroads benefited from government incentives.

wow, i didn't understand a word you just said, mainly because none of it made sense. i'll just let you hang yourself with your own words, no need for me to really give you any serious point by point contention

your incoherent rants won't help your party now. face it, you're a dying breed, people are becoming much too progressive for the likes of the republican party

pretty soon, it won't really matter much as we'll be embracing a one world government

but in the meantime, i suppose i should entertain your narrow minded assumptions of the false significance of regional politics. it's kinda cute really, in a sort of nostalgiac, antiquated sense


enjoy your vote for mccain, SOMEONE'S got to vote republican in the next election i suppose

LMFAO!

Are you serious?!

You have got to be joking...