Energy

from JoeUser Forums

One of the most important issues is to reduce our dependence on foreign energy. I believe the most encouraging acknowledgement President Bush has made was about our dependence on foreign oil.

This issue is complex and impacts not only every American but permeates both our trade and foreign policies. To move our country toward a REAL solution will require a massive program that must be spear headed by the Federal Government. Past inaction has shown that the “Market Place" alone will not provide a solution. We need a program that consists of the more effective use of existing energy- foreign and domestic. We need a massive plan to put into place the production of energy using current technology. We need to advance the research and development of new technology to provide energy.

We must establish new and more stringent standards to increase the energy efficiency of our homes, appliances and the vehicles we drive. To implement this we should use our tax system to provide incentives to individuals and companies that meet or exceed the established standards and create tax penalties for those who fail to meet the new efficiency standards.

We should use our tax system to use existing technology to produce domestically controllable energy. There should be Tax credits and accelerated write off for the instillation of things like solar and wind farms. To convert oil and gas fired electric generation to clean burning coal. We need to increase the production and distribution of Bio Fuels. We need to allow the exploration of new gas wells off the coasts. New oil exploration should be limited to areas where danger to the environmental does not exist. We should develop oil sand and oil shale use rather then drilling in Alaska and off the Gulf Coast.

Finally we need to stimulate research into new ways to produce energy and new methods of propulsion. Since the pay back from this research is long term and may in some cases produce no tangible results, this element will need to be funded, for the most part, by Federal Taxes.

Nothing less then an aggressive energy program spearheaded by the Federal Government has any chance of producing results that will truly move us significantly toward real energy independence. We need a program on a scale of the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe or the Manhattan Project to develop the Atomic Bomb. What we are currently doing, or not doing, will not produce results that will come close to solving this problem! We should demand that the New Congress establish such a plan because it would truly benefit ALL Americans regardless of your political outlook or financial condition.
"
politics
6,478 views 21 replies
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
It's not that there's no disagreement. We're just trying to figure out "how" to answer this stupidity.
WindowBlinds - Free yourself of the default settings, customize your desktop.
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Col proposing the federal government create another massive government program.  How surprising.

Let's start with building new nuclear plants.  Let's also start with building newer, more cleaner and efficient refineries on U.S. soil.  Are you willing to take on the environmentalists and their polls col?
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
The cost and time it takes to build nuclear plants as well as the potential danger from terrorist attacks does not seem to be the best solution to me. Yes we will have to get our
Government to push this because the market place has shown for 30 years they do not intent to help make the U.S. energy independent. All they want is bigger profits today!

The only stupid thing is to continue doing NOTHING like we have for the past 30 years. We get further and further dependent of foreign oil and do NOTHING to deal with a growing problem as Bush has said.

We should start the funding of this project by rescinding the tax cuts to BIG OIL and imposing surtax on their profits when they become excessive as we have scene in the past several years.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
Of course.  I knew it wouldn't take long for you to bring up tax cuts.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
Glad to see there was no disagreement with this Blig!


LOL, since when is ignoring an acknowledgment of agreement? How come is it that Col seems to think that the solutions to all of our problems is for everyone to pay more taxes?

The cost and time it takes to build nuclear plants as well as the potential danger from terrorist attacks does not seem to be the best solution to me.


So you want a solution that can be done in a snap and that it's terrorist proof? Man what pot are you smoking? I want some, and I don't even do drugs.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
My suggestions are faster with less danger. Solar, Wind and Clean burning coal plus higher mileage for our cars is a solution that can be put into place NOW with REAL results. That will not happen without a BIG PUSH from the Fed and YEW the tax system is the way to make it happen. Rewards for cooperation and added taxes for lack of cooperation.

As for Big Oil, they have been receiving the BIG BUCKS and have done NOTHING to solve the problem. Time to END their gifts from the American Taxpayer. We are paying for all those tax cuts and the excess profits come about by over charging us at the pump!
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top

As for Big Oil, they have been receiving the BIG BUCKS and have done NOTHING to solve the problem. Time to END their gifts from the American Taxpayer. We are paying for all those tax cuts and the excess profits come about by over charging us at the pump!

It's not their responsibility to solve the so-called energy crisis you are complaining about.  The fact is oil is a big part of our society, like it or not.  Raising taxes on "big oil" as you leftists proclaim will do nothing but bring higher prices at the pump, ultimately hurting the "poor" people you act like an activist for.

We could lessen our dependence by building cleaner and more efficient refinieries in the United States, and by drilling for oil on our own land while looking for alternative sources.  However, thats very hard to do considering the enviro-terrorists we have in this country who opposed anything that has to do with oil. 

Nuclear power is another option to go with, and your reasons opposing it are ridiculous.  We should have never stopped buildling them in the first place.

Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
Island Dog

It may not decrease prices at the pump but by taxing excess profits and investing it into solutions for increased energy we move closer to a solution.

We could also reduce our dependence of foreign oil by forcing HIGHER mileage for cars
sold in the U.S. Bush has refused to take that step!
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top

It may not decrease prices at the pump but by taxing excess profits and investing it into solutions for increased energy we move closer to a solution.

Do you seriously have any understanding of reality?  If you raise taxes on "big oil" they will pass it on through the pumps.  You fail to acknowledge anything but somehow blaming "big oil" and Bush.

We could also reduce our dependence of foreign oil by forcing HIGHER mileage for cars
sold in the U.S. Bush has refused to take that step!

I don't believe higher mileage for cars will have any significant reduction in our dependence for foreign oil.  It's a bigger problem than making cares go a few miles longer on a tank of gas. 

It's really pointless to argue because all you do is find some way to blame Bush for a problem that has been going on for decades.  Do you understand people might take your posts seriously if you stop blaming Bush for everything?

Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
IslandDog

If Oil companies understand that if profits increase beyond reason, they will not increase the price at the pump if that profit is taxed away. One mile more per gallon is more oil saved that all the oil they have estimated could be recovered from the area in Alaska that Bush wanted to access. Almost 1/2 of ALL the oil we use is consumed in cars and trucks. Higher gas mileage will do a lot to reduce the amount of oil we consume and thus lower our dependence of imported oil.

Again all you want to do is live in a state of denial just like Bush!
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top

Again all you want to do is live in a state of denial just like Bush!

Do you seriously have to bring up Bush in every single post you make.  It's really pointless to debate someone with an obsession with Bush.

Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
Island Dog

Let me restate-- All you do is live is a state of DENIAL!
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
Let me restate-- All you do is live is a state of DENIAL!


And YOU live in a constant state of stupidity!
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
drmiler

What a sad excuse for a human being you are!


I believe you "must" be looking in a mirror!
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
No I was talking about you. Norman Mark thought so much of my book and the interview, I will have a 2nd interview on 16 Jan. Below is a book review:

George W. Bush Robin Hood For The Rich
Reviewer's Bookwatch, Oct, 2006 by John Burrough


George W. Bush Robin Hood For The Rich

Gene P. Abel

AuthorHouse

1663 Liberty Drive Suite 200, Bloomington, IN 47403

1425929427 $13.99 www.authorhouse.com 1-800-839-8640

George W. Bush Robin Hood For The Rich by Gene P. Abel, Colonel, USAR Ret. (over 30 years of service as a commissioned officer, and two-time recipient of the Meritorious Service Medal) severely questions the immediate and long-term effects to America that the Bush administration is responsible for. Sharply critical, George W. Bush Robin Hood For The Rich decries the administration's narrow-minded attempts to partially privatize Social Security without providing any transition fund for the interim monies that would be lost; the administration's alienation of its foreign allies in the years after the September 11 attacks due its blind press for war in Iraq; and the administration's utter failure to balance the budget or prevent an explosion of the national deficit. At the same time, George W. Bush Robin Hood For The Rich is not universally negative; it notes the wise actions that President Bush has taken, but laments that the harmful actions may well outweigh the good in the president's legacy for the 21st century. Drawing information from more than 40 renowned sources, and including humorous blogs to convey points with a twist, George W. Bush Robin Hood For The Rich not only identifies potential current and future problems stemming from the Bush administration but also offers recommendations for alternatives to cope with their personal impact on individual lives. Highly recommended.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
No I was talking about you. Norman Mark thought so much of my book and the interview, I will have a 2nd interview on 16 Jan. Below is a book review:


No, you were talking about yourself. And I've read your stupid book. I wasn't impressed. You seem to forget one important fact. A book review is just one persons "OPINION"! Nothing more.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
drmiler

That is where you are wrong.

My book uses the most accurate sources to document the impact of the Bush/GOP policies. Agencies such as CBO, GAO, OMB, Treasury, Census, Labor dept. That is NOT opinion but cold hard facts.

Another group of sources are some of the most knowledgeable people in our country. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, David Walker (Comptroller General), Generals MaCaffery, Powell, Shinseki, Clark, Riggs. Professors Tsurumi, Record,Krugman,Lewis,. Alan Greenspan, Paul O’Neil. The Presidential commission on Social Security, The Trustees of the Social Security System Brookings Institute and the Hoover Institute. Authors such as Michael Scheuer, Bob Woodward and Ron Suskind. The Army war College, Journal of Foreign Affairs, U.S. Conference of Mayors.

My book is far more then MY OPINION. IT is the collective information of all the above and documents what the Bush policies have done and provides specific alternatives as to alternate policies. The first section tracts the RESULTS. From that data it is clear that we are not heading is a direction that will solve the many important issues that face us as a nation and that the policies we have been following ignore the low income Americans, put pressure on most of the middle income Americans and line the pockets of the wealthy.

I suggest you read my book again and pay attention to the recourses used to write my book. It is not flattering toward Bush because the results of his presidency are not positive.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
drmiler

That is where you are wrong.

My book uses the most accurate sources to document the impact of the Bush/GOP policies. Agencies such as CBO, GAO, OMB, Treasury, Census, Labor dept. That is NOT opinion but cold hard facts.


You "really" are an asshat! NOWHERE did I say your "book" was an opinion! What I said is a "review" of ANY book is merely someones opinion.

Although "any" book like that is a compilation of information the way the author sees it. You can compile any facts you want, in any fashion you want..the conclusions you draw are still your "OPINION"! And just an fyi....I wouldn't waste my time reading your book again. Besides which, I threw it away like the trash it was.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
The book review is an opinion and you are correct. However it was done by people who are engaged in that profession.

The facts are just that - Facts. When I show what the Treasury reported about the Annual Budget Deficit year by year that is fact and when that shows the increase year after year it is not my opinion. When Commerce reports the trade deficit and shows that in every year during the Clinton Administration the deficit became larger and when I list the trade deficit during the Bush Administration that shows the very same increase, that is not opinion.

Where I did sight opinion I used multiple opinions and they were all from the most knowledgeable individuals or organizations in the country. Thus to dismiss the opinion of multiple experts shows a lack of objectivity. As I have said, when ever facts or knowledgeable opinion shows that the policies we have been following are not solving the problem you and some others on this Blog site either dismiss the information or attack the credibility of the data or opinion. If it were one or even a few opinions that were questioned, it might be reasonable. But when you attempt to dismiss the number and quality of the sources I have used, you simply show your ignorance and bias.

Others who have read my book have stated that it clearly shows the results of the Bush Policies. They have had very positive comments as to the clarity of the book and the amount of information contained between the covers. I did not select the title until after I HAD COMPLETED THE RESEARCH FOR SECTION ONE. When I had documented the results of the Bush/GOP policies that have been put into place over the past 6 years, the results of that research and the facts brought me to the bottom line of the Bush/GOP policies was just like the story of Robin Hood except Bush and the GOP took from the Poor and gave to the Rich.