• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Wal-Mart: Our shoppers are 'running out of money'

Its not about the end of oil Barb, its about the end of cheap oil, so better get busy converting your car to natural gas, since it is another finite fossil fuel that we also are importing. Oh, and btw, it ain't going to be cheap either!

So far I've yet to see a viable alternative. So let's just stop seeking out fossil fuels and focus on these half-assed alternatives, right? An electric car that can only go 40 miles at 50MPH after an 8 hour charge. My, how efficient. And how exactly is that electricity being made, again? Wind is only 50% efficient, wave energy continues to struggle, solar ain't cuttin' it yet, either.
 
So far I've yet to see a viable alternative. So let's just stop seeking out fossil fuels and focus on these half-assed alternatives, right? An electric car that can only go 40 miles at 50MPH after an 8 hour charge. My, how efficient. And how exactly is that electricity being made, again? Wind is only 50% efficient, wave energy continues to struggle, solar ain't cuttin' it yet, either.

And those mileage estimates are under ideal conditions. Just wait until you get stuck in a snowstorm for 24-hours.

Wind is largely a government subsidized joke... all these alternatives require government handouts to get some production, and none can run industry. Oil, gas, coal and nukes can.

Perhaps one day Lithium batteries or something similar will assist and make solar useful with energy storage/capture, but the other stuff is a pipe dream. Good for keeping a fridge running perhaps, but little more.

.
 
We saved more oil in this administrations increase in CAFE standards that we could have gotten from ANWR, and we didn't have to damage one of the world's greatest National Wildlife Refuges.

As John McCain said, when he voted against drilling in ANWR in 2010 - “We ought not drill in the Everglades, we ought not drill in the Grand Canyon, we ought not drill in ANWR.” :sun

McCain's an idiot. Scroll down and check out the pictures and maps of ANWR. The ones that environmentalists show and where the actual drilling is are a sharp contrast.

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/a/anwar.htm
 
Wal Mart does exactly what Liberal government claims it will do. It is one reason they hate it so. They expose a giganormous chasm between reality and rhetoric.

.

And specifically what exactly is that which wal mart does that government will not do?
 
And those mileage estimates are under ideal conditions. Just wait until you get stuck in a snowstorm for 24-hours.

Wind is largely a government subsidized joke... all these alternatives require government handouts to get some production, and none can run industry. Oil, gas, coal and nukes can.

Perhaps one day Lithium batteries or something similar will assist and make solar useful with energy storage/capture, but the other stuff is a pipe dream. Good for keeping a fridge running perhaps, but little more.

.

You know oil and gas companies received billions of dollars a year in subsidies right? Both in the US and Canada? Why the hell do we do that when they're making billions a quarter in profits?

Arguing that renewables aren't efficient enough or that they'll ruin the economy is avoiding the fact that eventually oil and gas WILL be gone. If we don't prepare for that day we'll really be up a creek without a paddle when it happens. Then the economy will crash and we won't be able to go anywhere because of our short-sightedness and lack of planning. It's ridiculous.
 
You know oil and gas companies received billions of dollars a year in subsidies right? Both in the US and Canada? Why the hell do we do that when they're making billions a quarter in profits?

Arguing that renewables aren't efficient enough or that they'll ruin the economy is avoiding the fact that eventually oil and gas WILL be gone. If we don't prepare for that day we'll really be up a creek without a paddle when it happens. Then the economy will crash and we won't be able to go anywhere because of our short-sightedness and lack of planning. It's ridiculous.

Except that is 100's of years off, and there is no reason to believe we will be unprepared when it happens. Hyperbole much?
 
I actually think you're missing the point. I'm not saying we're running out at this time, I'm just saying that you won't be able to buy gas for the same price forever because it's not unlimited. Same deal with NG. Using something that exists in a limited supply and expect it to remain the same price forever is unrealistic. It's probably better for people to get used to the idea sooner rather than later, supplies are going to run out eventually and we'll have to do something to prepare before then. It doesn't matter if we pass the buck down the road, that's just leaving the problem for the next generations to deal with.

It's a lot easier for those of you who think climate change isn't real science to argue that there's no reason to move away from fossil fuel sources, but in reality there's nothing but good that can come from moving away from finite sources of energy to those that are renewable.

You're missing the point that there are more finds all the time. Not only that but there are places where we knew there was oil or natural gas but couldn't get to it. With new technologies we can and those technologies will improve as time goes by. To say we will run out any time soon and prices must continue to rise is ludicrous. I'm not saying prices won't rise but they don't have to. Some people want prices high to further their green agenda of electric cars, mass transit, etc. mass transit means more control over people's lives which is what those on the left want.
 
Some people want prices high to further their green agenda

and THAT's the point, right there

americans are ON to you, greenies

party on, progressives

represent

no reason to HIDE from who you are
 
I know this will result in a slew of insults for my ideological stand point, but....

those are the days the welfare/SSI checks are received/deposited/cashed. Also, the days food stamp cards are re-upped.

How racist!!! :lol:
 
And specifically what exactly is that which wal mart does that government will not do?

They make things affordable for people who could not afford them otherwise.
Government answer to that is, keep prices high with unions, buying American, etc. then take from those who can afford them and give to those who can't. Their goal is not to raise up the have nots, but bring down the haves.
Wal-mart doesn't hurt the haves, so therefore they must be bad.
 
You smell Jimmy because it's Obama, but you didn't smell him when it was Bush... :roll:

Jimmy tried to fix prices. Obama isn't planning on doing that.

Do I smell Free Market Exercise, and Capitalism is good, Socialism is bad in the air?? And why should Obama be involved in regulating corporations? I thought demand regulated price under Capitalism, especially when people run out of money. Maybe WallyMart should lower their prices and quit sniveling at the good fortune of Big Oil.
 
I know this will result in a slew of insults for my ideological stand point, but....

those are the days the welfare/SSI checks are received/deposited/cashed. Also, the days food stamp cards are re-upped.

My SS check does not come on either of those days.....don't get the others so I can't say about them...
 
Except that is 100's of years off, and there is no reason to believe we will be unprepared when it happens. Hyperbole much?

Article | Running Out of Oil? History, Technology and Abundance
Almost since the first discoveries of oil in the U.S. in 1859, people have been saying we're running out. In 1874, the state geologist of the nation's leading oil producer, Pennsylvania, warned the U.S. had enough oil to last just four years. In 1914, the federal government said we had a ten-year supply. The government announced in 1940 that reserves would be depleted within a decade and a half. The Club of Rome made similar claims in the 1970s. President Carter famously predicted in 1977 that unless we made drastic cuts in our oil consumption, "Within ten years we would not be able to import enough oil — from any country, at any acceptable price." And so it goes today, where a slew of books and Web sites make fantastic claims about dwindling supplies of crude.
The chief problem with those who say the world is running out is that they have always looked at the issue the wrong way. Questions about energy supply shouldn't be thought of in terms of how much is available, but in terms of how good mankind is at finding and extracting it.
In the years after Col. Drake discovered oil at Titusville, Pennsylvania, on the eve of the Civil War, wildcatters could only drill down several hundred feet. If we were confined to relying solely upon the technology available in the 19th century — or, for that matter, the tools available just three decades ago — then yes, quite possibly we could be looking at the end of oil.
 
today:

Pessimism over the nation’s economy is hampering President Obama’s efforts to build momentum for his reelection campaign.

The Commerce Department on Thursday reported the economy grew at a sluggish 1.8 percent in the first three months of 2011, the same day a poll found voter confidence in the president’s stewardship of the economy hitting a new low.

The Marist-McClatchy poll found that only 40 percent of registered voters approve of Obama’s handling of the economy, with a considerably higher number of Democrats and independents raising doubts.

Since January, the number of Democrats who disapprove of Obama’s handling of the economy has nearly doubled, growing 12 percentage points to 27 percent, while the percentage of independents casting doubt has grown from 50 percent in January to 63 percent, the poll found.

Both numbers will be troubling to a White House that needs to turn out its base in 2012 and win a significant number of independent voters. The state of the economy is almost always a decisive factor for presidents seeking reelection.

The dropping poll numbers coincide with rising gas prices, worries about inflation and a series of debates on the federal debt that paint a gloomy picture of the nation’s finances.

Economy puts crimp on Obama - TheHill.com

party on, progressives, be proud
 
The problem is Peak Oilists always like to cite the U.S. peak in production, but there is a much simpler answer for that. Can anyone tell me something else in the U.S. that started at the beginning of the 1970's?
 
Last edited:
You know oil and gas companies received billions of dollars a year in subsidies right? Both in the US and Canada? Why the hell do we do that when they're making billions a quarter in profits?

Arguing that renewables aren't efficient enough or that they'll ruin the economy is avoiding the fact that eventually oil and gas WILL be gone. If we don't prepare for that day we'll really be up a creek without a paddle when it happens. Then the economy will crash and we won't be able to go anywhere because of our short-sightedness and lack of planning. It's ridiculous.

It is nuts they are getting subsidies... and oil and gas will be around long, long, long after we are gone, and by then we'll have moved onto something else.

What is ridiculous is not using oil, gas and coal now. Buffet & Munger have invested in a Chinese company they expect will help solve that problem, and if they don't someone else will.

.
 
cpwill said:
buses, trains, and the like are only viable options for select, heavily urbanized areas. for the vast majority of the nation they are simply impractical.

You're conflicting land mass with population mass.

Mass transit is not a cure all and not for everyone, but a supplementary assist.

The U.S. is a very urbanized population, with 82% residing in cities and suburbs as of 2008 (the worldwide urban rate is 50.5%).

Demographics of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Henrin said:
Except that is 100's of years off, and there is no reason to believe we will be unprepared when it happens. Hyperbole much?
When do you suggest that we start?

No one is expecting alternatives to be completely viable and able to replace oil tomorrow. If we don't begin to be prepared for the future at some point, we will be unprepared when it happens.

The hyperbole is that since a magic cure wasn't found today, there's no reason to continue with preparation.
 
You're conflicting land mass with population mass.

Mass transit is not a cure all and not for everyone, but a supplementary assist.

your source says "cities and suburbs", but mass-transit is only really plausible in cities, and between large cities that sees regular commuter traffic. internal to large cities yes. parts of the heavily urbanized north east yes. the suburbs, no. the notion that mass transit is somehow the "ticket to winning the future"? it would be laughable if only it's idiot adherents were'nt so serious.
 
When do you suggest that we start?

we don't suggest that we do. we suggest that we fully utilize our own energy resources, and let the market come up with alternatives as the demand arises.
 
Liberal answer is always, it won't help because we won't see a drop of oil for 10 yrs.They've been saying that crap for more than 10 yrs.

We can give Brazil 2 billion dollars to drill in the gulf and tell them we'll be their best customer, but we won't open up ANWR. Makes no sense to me.

Who is the WE that gave Brazil 2 billion dollars?
 
A resignation form.

"RESIGN" yourself to this, Obama has a very good chance of winning. So far, all the GOP has offered up is tweedle dee, tweedle dum, and tweedle dumber...
 
Back
Top Bottom