Obama Takes Heat for Opposing Gas Tax Holiday

Maybe this will prevent is from going to war in the middle east for oil anymore like McCain is on video admitting today..

www.abovetopsecret.com...#

Originally posted by plumranch
Voting down the ANWAR drilling (really by a fillabuster) was done by LIBERALS. Probably both parties were involved but it should not have been done especially in retrospect. ANWAR has huge reserves of both oil and gas and had it been brought online 10 years ago we would have that domestic supply to bring prices down.

It would be like using a Band-Aid to try and cover the stump of a missing limb. ANWAR at its peak production not only wouldn't put a dent in our foreign oil dependency--if we pumped out every drop it would last the U.S. approximately one year.
Truth about ANWAR

Makes me feel better already!

Example #2...Another example of stupid political action this time by Bill Clinton:
When the President (Clinton) signed the Executive Order designating 1.7 million acres of land in southwest Utah as the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument.
The coal is not only important for our nation's security. More importantly, it is low sulfer and low ash coal worth about a TRILLION dollars and only found in 2 other places in the world, Columbia and Indonesia.

Coal, again, is a finite resource that still creates pollution no matter how "clean" it is chemically and regardless of how you burn it. It is also dangerous to mine. And, the dollar value attached to that coal would barely pay 10% of the principal on our growing national debt.

Anyone living south of Seattle near Satsop, WA knows that there is a gigantic cooling tower east of town that has never been used. It is all that was built of a large nuclear power plant back in 1983. LIBERALS shut down the construction of the plant (and ALL other new nuclear facilities) by instilling fear into people saying that it will lead to nuclear disaster.

I feel the need to remind His "Conservativeness" that in 1983 the Three Mile Island disaster was still fresh in the minds of Americans and the world. Liberals didn't need to do squat to "instill fear" because there was already a prime example of just how wonderful and "safe" nuclear power is. And, as if that wasn't enough, a few short years later Chernobyl became the big reminder nobody needed or wanted.

Since then nuclear power in the US, England, France and many other countries has proven itself to be the cleanest source of power.

Yes, it's very clean, until something breaks, or you need to dispose of all that delightfully deadly nuclear waste.

That was very bad energy policy and Congress needs to get to work doing what is necessary to clear the way for new, safe nuclear generating facilities as England is now doing. The longer we wait the higher fuel prices will go!

Uh-huh. I feel I should also remind the supporters of nuclear power here that even a nuke plant needs fuel, and that fuel, uranium, is a finite resource. Sure, you can reprocess the spent rods, but that only lasts so long. Nuclear energy is another Band-Aid.

People who say there is nothing we can do, fuel prices are going up don't know what they are talking about.

Actually many of us know exactly what we're talking about.

You know the main reason fuel prices are going up?

Because all the primary fuel sources we use today are monopolies.

Oil: Monopoly. Coal: Monopoly. Nuclear: Monopoly. You want fuel, you go to these sources. They are tied up, there is no competition, there is no fair-trade market. The world demands, they have no one else to go to for supply.

But Wait!! What's that on the horizon? Solar power! Cleaner, more efficient and cost-effective than ever! And anyone can use it to power their homes! There's huge open tracts of empty, unaccessible desert in the Southwest that could be turned into solar farms! And Wind!! Amazing! And look there! Could it be? It is!!! Hydrogen to the rescue! Energy from electrolysis! Clean, safe power straight from water!! Electrolysis can be achieved through Solar and Wind power! Hydrogen, Solar and Wind are self-renewing, endless sources of power. Hydrogen's only waste product is.... Ta-DAAAAAHHHH.... CLEAN WATER!!! Solar and Wind have... NO waste products whatsoever!! Amazing!!!! And what's that? No reliance on volatile foreign countries? And what's even better is, all of these power sources can be decentralized and the average American could potentially have reliable, self-sufficient power right in their own homes.

That is, IF the Big Energy Monopolies could be defeated, their money kept out of Washington, and the offense budget slashed to pay for it.

Alternative Energy Solutions? I'm an alternative energy nut myself. I think they are great but it would take a huge research, money and labor invesment to even make a dent in our fossil fuel usage.

That's not what I've been hearing. I'm told these things are ready for market NOW, but we just need to put the right money in the right hands for maximum effect. That means, unfortunately, challenging the Elite who run this planet.

So those alternatives are nice to talk about and speculate about but they will never happen in any significant amount in our lifetime IMHO. But I hope I'm proven wrong! But then again, now is the time to get moving on these projects, not 10 or 20 years from now! For home owners installing one of these systems will require a 2nd mortgage expendature equal to 1/4 to 1/3 the value of the house. Are you ready?

Y'know what's interesting, in your rant against liberals, is that Carter actually put solar panels on the White House. He had an energy plan that if we had followed when he left office, would have eliminated over 30-40% of our current "conventional" fuel usage.

You wanna know who put the kibosh on that?

Survey says:

Ronald Effin' Reagan!!!!!

In terms of alternative energy right now we'd have the equivalent of putting a colony on the Moon. Instead, thanks to Ronnie-Boy, we're hoping those Wright boys can get off the ground. So for all your bluster about us damn liberals, you have a Conservative "hero" to blame for a big part of this mess, and you can take that to the bank.

[edit on 5/2/2008 by The Nighthawk]

reply to post by The Nighthawk

So let me recap what you said. Like a typical liberal you put the blame in a lot of places like oil companies, coal companies, monopolies, bad energy policy, nuclear is too dangerous, there is a huge potential in alternative energy sources and basically there isn't much we can do. You do illustrate my point.

I see you have little experience in alternatives, just what you read. I remember the solar systems that were available back in the Carter era, in fact I've worked with them. They were fun to play with but were so inefficient they were a joke compared to what we have today. So Carter was mostly blowing smoke. Even today the photo voltaic systems have huge disadvantages and can't come close to the cost of buying electricity from the power companies. They are fun to play with though! I have built two and am working on a 3rd.


The system that comes closest to being cost effective and efficient is the one I use and is also installed in Bush's Texas home, the ground source heat pump. It eliminates your need to buy fuels except for about $30 of electricity per month. But the land requirements for these systems are considerable (takes a big yard or a deep well). If we started today installing these systems in every home that would qualify it would take till 2025 to get them all hooked up!

So I think you need to do a little more homework! But hang in there, we need more people like you interested in the alternatives!

A few facts:

I used to work at a nuclear plant, one of the many that was never started. There were two main reasons for this: the workers were in no hurry to move on to another plant, so they kept re-designing and thereby delaying the construction, and the amount of regulatory oversight and the costs associated with it became to much to make operation feasible. But I do know something about the reactors themselves and the process, from having worked in the design section of a nuclear plant for 6 years.

The problem with nuclear power is two-fold. Firstly, there is still the possibility of human error which can lead to radioactive contamination of the surrounding area. Under normal conditions (including a properly-implemented emergency shutdown) there is no danger to the area, as the radioactive components of the system are kept safely inside 8-foot thick concrete walls. But should human error occur, whether through negligence or through instrument malfunctions (as in Three Mile Island), the radioactive primary cooling system is replenished from local water sources, allowing radioactive water/steam to escape. This scenario would only happen if there was a high danger of a melt-down, but it could happen.

Secondly, the exhausted uranium rods are still radioactive when they are removed - highly radioactive. Uranium is not like gasoline; it is not spent when burned. Rather, the uranium is enriched to a point where it decays at a high rate of speed, producing heat. It is 'spent' when it can no longer produce enough heat to make use of it commercially viable, not when it 'runs out' of radiation. The uranium is still concentrated and enriched and therefore will continue to produce radiation for a very very long time. What do we do with this hazardous waste?

As far as ANWAR is concerned, the local fauna around the present pumping stations in Alaska have already increased in population, apparently from the heat produced by the equipment. Drilling in ANWAR would require the disturbance of a tiny fraction of the area, and nothing else would be disturbed. That sounds like a tiny price to pay for cheap fuel, but it won't lead to cheap fuel.

Any oil produced will simply be added to the world's oil supply. Since we already have absolutely no shortage of oil, it would do little good. The problem is not a lack of oil, nor a lack of refineries, but a lack of common sense in how we handle the oil production/refinement in this country. So, in accordance with sublime620's wishes (which I agree with), I offer the following possible solutions:

Capitalism is not a perfect form of commerce. It must be controlled within certain boundaries. That's why we have had anti-trust laws. In this case, there is a good deal of collusion between the domestic oil companies to restrict the amount of cheap oil available within the US. Right now, oil wells are being drilled and then promptly capped in Montana, sealing off domestic oil production. I would suggest oil companies be taxed on unused assets such as these capped oil wells, as well as having a set amount per gallon of fuel produced that would be allowed as profit. Anything more would be subject to windfall profits taxation. No industry should be able to post record profits on smaller and smaller sales, while placing the economy of the entire company at risk.

Present tax breaks should be removed, or at least reduced to insignificant levels. Since record profits are being made, there is no need for this industry to be subsidized with tax money. Special tax incentives for such things as blending are being abused and should be immediately discontinued... unless...These same tax breaks could be used for good, if they were tied to how inexpensive fuel was being marketed inside the US from domestic oil.

Ethanol itself should be immediately discontinued, since it has been shown that ethanol uses more energy to produce than it delivers, it reduces the availability of the food supply, and the incentives placed on the blending process are being abused to produce E85 for foreign countries with US tax dollars.

In short, we have for too long been using American taxes to subsidize the world's fuel. We have also been using the ideal of a clean planet to stifle new energy reserve usage. I am all for a clean planet, but that does not mean ceasing to exist. And US resources must be used primarily for US interests. Finally, we have to spend our research dollars wisely. It does not always take a large corporation to come up with a new idea, sometimes it takes a janitor watching something from the side. Average people with ideas sufficiently developed to be deemed feasible should get in on the huge sums of research grant cash.

We do not need empty promises from politicians looking for votes. At least Obama is not trying to do so... yet.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck


Star for you buddy good post. Really nothing I can add to that,

reply to post by mybigunit


I will say what I said in another thread about the false surplus under the Clinton administration. The budget was balanced on paper only. And that was only done by stealing from the Social Security, retroactively over-taxing Americans and destroying the Military and Intelligence budgets to such a degree that eventually brought about the worst attack ever, on US soil. Do not get me started on the Clinton administration, he was by far worse than the current Bush admin.

Originally posted by West Coast
reply to post by mybigunit

 

I will say what I said in another thread about the false surplus under the Clinton administration. The budget was balanced on paper only. And that was only done by stealing from the Social Security, retroactively over-taxing Americans and destroying the Military and Intelligence budgets to such a degree that eventually brought about the worst attack ever, on US soil. Do not get me started on the Clinton administration, he was by far worse than the current Bush admin.

Budget cuts and all.... we still knew about bin laden...lack of funding wasnt the problem it was lack of action under Clinton and as far as the high taxes if government is going to spend all the money policing the world running a welfare state, and running a police state then it needs to be paid for lets face it if we all had to pay for this Iraq war with high a$$ taxes there would be quite a few people NOT in favor of it but no he passes the tab to my kids and my kids kids...Now I dont want to be in a position to defend Clinton my point was under Clinton gas was cheaper and you know what if you have to make cuts to stay within a budget then you need to something has to give either quit spending or raise taxes...it used to be the repubs would lower taxes and lower spending now the spend like a drunk sailor and lower taxes for future generations to pay for.

I also want to make it known im not for high taxes Im for no income taxes and abolishment of the IRS and Federal Reserve but it will never happen and as long as we are on the monetary system we are on there will always be taxes that is why the IRS was created the same time as the federal reserve.



[edit on 2-5-2008 by mybigunit]

reply to post by mybigunit


It was a lack of proper intel. Under the Clinton admin, he was more concerned about grooming China than he was the well being of America.

Originally posted by West Coast
reply to post by mybigunit

 

It was a lack of proper intel. Under the Clinton admin, he was more concerned about grooming China than he was the well being of America.

Umm thats my point...we had the intel it was Clintons Dumba$$ who didnt act on it there is a difference...we knew who he was and had a chance to kill but Clinton was umm occupied.

reply to post by West Coast and post by mybigunit

You're both right... and both wrong. The difference between the Clinton administration and the Bush administration was simply their priority. Clinton's priority was establishing relations with other countries and the UN (establishing = bribing with tax dollars and infrastructure), and the Bush administration's priority was to allow businesses to run wild over consumers. In either case, we the people wound up on the short end of the stick.

The Democrats and the Republicans are a two-headed snake. The only way for we the people to not lose our shirts is to stop thinking donkey vs. elephant and start thinking about the integrity and policies of those we elect... and to hold those elected officials to their promises.

Why do I suddenly get the feeling I am writing a futuristic fiction novel?

TheRedneck

The problem with nuclear power is two-fold. Firstly, there is still the possibility of human error which can lead to radioactive contamination of the surrounding area. Under normal conditions (including a properly-implemented emergency shutdown) there is no danger to the area, as the radioactive components of the system are kept safely inside 8-foot thick concrete walls

reply to post by TheRedneck


Very good Redneck!

Given your background do you think present day technology (and I know it is not the US but probably the French who are the experienced builders and up to speed) in nuclear plants will bring risks down to acceptable levels? I guess the key there is "acceptable levels" as risks can never be brought to zero!

reply to post by plumranch

From what i have seen (and remember this was back in the 80s), the design of nuclear reactors has not changed, but the control systems have. There is really no way to make the reactors safer, since they are already designed to be as safe as possible. The control systems have improved, mainly due to the various near-disasters that have occurred. For example, the reactors in the plant I worked at are identical to those used in Three Mile Island, but the control systems that allowed the human errors there have been vastly improved. That's a two-edged sword, though, because those newer and more expensive control systems are part of the reason the plant was abandoned.

So I do believe the plants can be made safe. I can see the lights from the cooling towers from my house, and I have never worried about it. On the other hand, I have seen no real improvements in getting rid of the waste afterwards... so unless we shoot it into the sun, I don't hold out much hope for solving that problem any time soon.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by West Coast and post by mybigunit

 

You're both right... and both wrong. The difference between the Clinton administration and the Bush administration was simply their priority. Clinton's priority was establishing relations with other countries and the UN (establishing = bribing with tax dollars and infrastructure), and the Bush administration's priority was to allow businesses to run wild over consumers. In either case, we the people wound up on the short end of the stick.

The Democrats and the Republicans are a two-headed snake. The only way for we the people to not lose our shirts is to stop thinking donkey vs. elephant and start thinking about the integrity and policies of those we elect... and to hold those elected officials to their promises.

Why do I suddenly get the feeling I am writing a futuristic fiction novel?

TheRedneck

Umm your right about the fact that I am right but your wrong about the fact Im wrong... if you read my previous posts in this thread Ive already said what you just said..they are all scum and they want us fighting eachother and not them so they can do their own agendas. Divide and Conqueror as Napolean says.

Wait, was I right about you being right, or right about you being wrong and wrong about you being... oh, nevermind!

I was simply pointing out that the debate seemed to be turning into the tired old donkey/elephant debate. No intention to offend.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Wait, was I right about you being right, or right about you being wrong and wrong about you being... oh, nevermind!

I was simply pointing out that the debate seemed to be turning into the tired old donkey/elephant debate. No intention to offend.

TheRedneck

Oh no offense here i thought it was funny hence the smiley face. Cmon didnt you know that Im always right

reply to post by mybigunit

But I thought I was right about you being right... but if you're always right, what about when you're left... oh, great, now I'm confused... thanks a lot!

My contention about Obama and Clinton is that they can't wait to raise your taxes. Both candidates promise to end the unfair tax cuts of Bush as soon as they get into office. So I was looking at the Federal Tax records to see how unfair they actually were: (all you hear is that they favored the rich)

Before Bush tax cuts (under Clinton) Single making 30K tax= $8,400 after Bush = $4,500.

Before Married making 60K tax = $16,800 and after Bush = $9,000

Before Married making 125K tax= $38,750 after Bush = $32,250

So the rich couple's tax dropped $4500 or 11% and poor person's dropped
$3900 or 46%. Sounds more like a tax cut for the poor to me!

So I'll bet you just can't wait to get a democrat back in the White House so you can pay thousands more a year to the government!

I have seen no real improvements in getting rid of the waste afterwards... so unless we shoot it into the sun, I don't hold out much hope for solving that problem any time soon.

reply to post by TheRedneck


Interesting!

Personally I'd rather the waste be stored at the facility rather that be transported. Put into stabilized reinforced vaults. No matter what you will have people complaining I suppose. I imagine it will be quite a while before we have spacecraft that are safe enough to transport nuc waste!

I have heard of ways to treat nuclear material to speed the decay. And I've lost the link.

I recommend you check out this thread in regards to taxes
www.abovetopsecret.com...'

It gives you a little more insite on bushys tax cuts. As youll see fiscal discipline in conjunction with tax cuts is good for America but if you print all sorts of money and spend like a drunk sailor you can cut all the taxes you want we the people are still losing money via inflation. Check out the thread.

[edit on 3-5-2008 by mybigunit]

reply to post by mybigunit


Ok so I read the thread past where you posted. The info the OP used comes from the Fed Tax records and is correct. 2nd poster Sri Oracle uses some assumptions that unfortunately are wrong about the money supply and based on that all the rest of his assumptions are wrong. The next poster gets it right, the CPI or consumer price index is the bottom line and that hasn't only gone up 22% or so and wages have gone up accordingly so the net effect balances out. Yes the Canadian dollar has gone up but that is due to Katrina and the following real estate slump and the fact that the fed had to lower interest rates to prevent a recession (which apparently worked BTW). Also gas prices a year ago were $2.25, now they are $3.50 and the only thing that has changed is that Pelosi and her party have taken over congress. Congress makes the laws, not the president. Pelosi and company promised to solve the problems with energy back then mostly blaming the oil companies and has done nothing. and that is my whole point.

Increase in the debt is bothersome and should be stopped but really doesn't affect the man on the street much. Noone is "printing money", that term is false and bring up images of pre Natzi Germany. The money supply is increased in other ways. Increase in money supply is not necessarily a bad thing.

Bottom line is if the libs get in and end the tax cuts that we have gotten accustomed to we all will be in a world of hurt. Look at it your way, if things have gotten so much worse as you think, why would you want to compound the problem by basically raising the taxes on the little guy who now is hurting because of high gas and comodity prices? I don't get, I really don't!

My wife the college level economics teacher advises me on the economic stuff. I do the yard work.

Hope this helps!