• 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!

Oil rises above $90 amid US crude supply drop

He does know what he's doing... raising energy costs will provide fertile ground to extend and spend for alternatives. It makes the conversation with the American people a no brainer --- either use gas at $6.75 a gallon, or buy a battery powered car and don't buy gas at all OR, use the new high speed rail system instead of driving - and then the government uses tax money to subsidize the alternative energy and rail sector to get the prices low. The man and his advisors have a plan - just like DOMA. He didn't do that for nothing.... what do you think will happen when / if the Healthcare bill is found unconstitutional? He's setting precedent with one bill so if he needs it again on something so important like Healthcare... he does it again and it's not such a shock. Then he says at the Governors meeting how he's going to be flexible... flexible to let the States do what they want as long as it rolls up into a program the Fed can control.
 
Good example of what I was saying. Who cares if it was a republican or democrat who passed lousy legislation. And to say that your politician is a bigger knucklehead than mine seems childish.

PTif does!

Originally posted by Ptif - I see make us use ethanol that lowers MPG and then expect the auto industry to still find ways to increase mileage. Shows how stupid these GW environmentalists are

Evidently you have not been around for the countless times Ptif has said that ethanol was forced on us by the GW crowd. That is who the facts were in response to.
 
Last edited:
Not those people who are still saving, but retirees. There are lots of them with good retirement incomes and substantial savings as well. But even those who are nearing retirement could benefit. My wife's IRA, almost $200K, is in a fixed account, earning a whopping 1%.....that money would be better spent making our AZ home more energy efficient, or buying a new home that is wheelchair compatible. I am not there now, but will be. Parkinson's has no cure.


Damn Bill, I am sorry.

My IRA funds are almost gone, used to build a house in Utah. We have about $120K in retirement income, the bulk of which is periodically adjusted for cost of living. We are well protected in our medical care needs. We don't NEED so much savings. There are a lot of people in that category. Like I said, trillions....


I can't see those on fixed incomes putting their savings in unproven tech. Just not realistic.


j-mac
 
Damn Bill, I am sorry.




I can't see those on fixed incomes putting their savings in unproven tech. Just not realistic.


j-mac
There are worse things than Parkinson's, but thanks....
Fixed income? No such thing. Even SS has COLA, but the bigger part of FIXED income like ours is the fact that we are making as much retirement as we did working. Fixed and LOW, yeah, that is a problem, but there are a lot of us who are fixed "high".....
 
I suppose you can't address those facts? I am sorry that I prove time and time again that socialized medicine works out to be cheaper.
I'm sure you prove it all the time in your own mind. But like everywhere else, the lines get long, the quality drops.

We cut non military discretionary spending every time we need cuts. There isn't much room left. In fact, non military discretionary spending is easily the most streamlined budgetary item. If more cuts can be made without affecting the integrity of our most important programs, then fine, cut them. However, there is certainly some pork available in defense spending as well.
No argument there - however I'd either cut defense last, or I'd cut across the board including welfare / social programs at a flat rate, say 20%.

Then, of course, we can raise taxes back up to their already low rate before Bush took office, and gain even more money. We can slowly bring our troops home from over seas, and we can use that money to invest in our own infrastructure! That's sounds great to me.
After cutting enough a tax increase wouldn't be needed.

Man oh man. I wish I could live in another country as you and just let you do all that. I wish.
Prior to FDR, we did live there... the EPA was only created under Carter post 1976. The Dept of Ed didn't exist until 1980 and children were arguably BETTER educated than they are now. THe FCC - 1930's. And people used radio's and telephones prior to that too. People lived, worked, loved and died all just fine without them, and can again.

Then you could get screwed over by every business since all your government regulations just went out the window, you can forget about clean drinking water, lower pollution levels, progressive energy policy, and equal public schools.
We do like they did in the old days when the water was polluted - boil the water and make beer. Public school issues belong at the state level. Progressive energy policy? Well - we can't cut down the power lines so the Energy Commission has to stay I guess but should be gutted and the power left to the states.

I wish I could give that to you, but unfortunately, most people in this country don't agree with you.
So most people want your way, which is more government control, less money in their pocket and more bureacracy? I don't think so.

Most of us like our roads, we like our clean drinking water, we like our regulations that prevent unethical business practices, we like our education, and some of us would even like health care added onto that package.
Some regulation is certainly needed --- about 25%-30% of what we have now.

Maybe you can move to Texas and secede. I think you'd have the best chance there.
I'm holding out for Montana or Wyoming - I'm not a hot weather person.
 
I'm sure you prove it all the time in your own mind. But like everywhere else, the lines get long, the quality drops.

No argument there - however I'd either cut defense last, or I'd cut across the board including welfare / social programs at a flat rate, say 20%.

After cutting enough a tax increase wouldn't be needed.

Prior to FDR, we did live there... the EPA was only created under Carter post 1976. The Dept of Ed didn't exist until 1980 and children were arguably BETTER educated than they are now. THe FCC - 1930's. And people used radio's and telephones prior to that too. People lived, worked, loved and died all just fine without them, and can again.

We do like they did in the old days when the water was polluted - boil the water and make beer. Public school issues belong at the state level. Progressive energy policy? Well - we can't cut down the power lines so the Energy Commission has to stay I guess but should be gutted and the power left to the states.

So most people want your way, which is more government control, less money in their pocket and more bureacracy? I don't think so.

Some regulation is certainly needed --- about 25%-30% of what we have now.

I'm holding out for Montana or Wyoming - I'm not a hot weather person.

Boil the water and make beer? No, boil the polluters and make dog food.....;)
 
Do you mean the increased ethanol in gas requirement passed by the Republican controlled Congress and signed into law by President Bush?

"The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Pub.L. 109-58) is a bill passed by the United States Congress on July 29, 2005, and signed into law by President George W. Bush on August 8, 2005, at Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico."

"the Act increases the amount of biofuel (usually ethanol) that must be mixed with gasoline sold in the United States to 4 billion gallons by 2006, 6.1 billion gallons by 2009 and 7.5 billion gallons by 2012"

Energy Policy Act of 2005 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which Obama wants to increase to 15%. Ethanol is a failed program yet Obama increases it


EPA approves more ethanol in fuel for cars
 
Because technically it will still be cheaper. Electricity is currently cheaper than oil. Also, that is why I was discussing moving our energy production more efficient and renewable as well.

I don't see where anyone said trucks would become electric.

That could change if Obama gts cap and trade
 
The rise in oil prices is going to have a huge effect on electricity rates, so if I were you, I would lock myself into a contract.

Since I am not a hypocrite that says do as I say and not as I do, I am following my own advise. I just locked myself into 8 cents per kwh for 2 years with my provider. I was paying 12.9, so this is going to save me a boatload of money. :)
 
PTif does!



Evidently you have not been around for the countless times Ptif has said that ethanol was forced on us by the GW crowd. That is who the facts were in response to.

I did not say a political party. You are the one that wants to push what party did it. You forget to mention Harkins influence in all this
 
Because technically it will still be cheaper. Electricity is currently cheaper than oil. Also, that is why I was discussing moving our energy production more efficient and renewable as well.

I don't see where anyone said trucks would become electric.

Much of electricity is generated by coal, the dirtiest of the fossil fuels. It just blows my mind that Obama has this dogma that liberals are intent in following even if it makes zero sense. Also have you thought about where the extra electric generation will come from if we suddenly had 100 million electric cars. Would this administration and the EPA allow for hundreds more polluting electric generatin plants. The administration to my knowledge has not allowed any nuclear plants to be built in their two plus years in office.
 
Last edited:
Much of electricity is generated by coal, the dirtiest of the fossil fuels. It just blows my mind that Obama has this dogma that liberals are intent in following even if it makes zero sense. Also have you thought about where the extra electric generation will come from if we suddenly had 100 million electric cars. Would this administration and the EPA allow for hundreds more polluting electric generatin plants. The administration to my knowledge has not allowed any nuclear plants to be built in their two plus years in office.

Nuclear is in the mix, and there are permits being issued. It takes a LONG time to build one, 2 years is not long enough...for sure.
OTOH, there are a lot of new coal plants being builtl...
 
Talk on his part....pandering to the liberals

oh, no, an extremist green approach to energy and the environment is deep in the president's makeup, he'd push it as far as he could if he could

his party actually passed cap and trade thru the lower house BEFORE obamacare, you'll recall, a huge political error

it was killed, cap and trade, by the likes of bobby byrd and jay rockefeller

downstairs, the ranking dem on ag this week co-sponsored a strip-epa measure, rockefeller has been demanding one for 2 years

no, the only reason we haven't already gone further down the road obama pointed when he was talking to the chron is cuz he got his butt kicked politically on the issue by the reallists in his own party

people like sherrod brown (who this week likened anti-unionists to hitler) and blanche lincoln who's no long there

but joe manchin is

stay up
 
Much of electricity is generated by coal, the dirtiest of the fossil fuels. It just blows my mind that Obama has this dogma that liberals are intent in following even if it makes zero sense. Also have you thought about where the extra electric generation will come from if we suddenly had 100 million electric cars. Would this administration and the EPA allow for hundreds more polluting electric generatin plants. The administration to my knowledge has not allowed any nuclear plants to be built in their two plus years in office.

This administration has provided more funding for nuclear power generation than any in history - $8 billion dollars.

"President Obama on Tuesday pledged $8 billion in loan guarantees needed to build the first U.S. nuclear reactors in nearly three decades."
Obama Nuclear Power Plants - Obama pledges $8 billion for new nuclear reactors - Los Angeles Times
 
Much of electricity is generated by coal, the dirtiest of the fossil fuels. It just blows my mind that Obama has this dogma that liberals are intent in following even if it makes zero sense. Also have you thought about where the extra electric generation will come from if we suddenly had 100 million electric cars. Would this administration and the EPA allow for hundreds more polluting electric generatin plants. The administration to my knowledge has not allowed any nuclear plants to be built in their two plus years in office.

wrong, even the Sierra Club has come around in favor of nuclear....Obama has an engineer for an energy secretary. While Obama may know nothing about engineering and energy, he at least knows to pick someone who does.
 
Well bully for him. Problem is that although he picks Engineers to head up the dept, the Engineer he picked is on board with his stated energy policy of prices "necessarily skyrocketing".... We should continue to invest in research and perfection of green tech, but while that is being developed, it makes NO sense to just stop the current energy sources, and put our own gathering of those sources off limits. That is a recipe for disaster.


j-mac
 
Well bully for him. Problem is that although he picks Engineers to head up the dept, the Engineer he picked is on board with his stated energy policy of prices "necessarily skyrocketing".... We should continue to invest in research and perfection of green tech, but while that is being developed, it makes NO sense to just stop the current energy sources, and put our own gathering of those sources off limits. That is a recipe for disaster.


j-mac
We aren't stopping anything......more coal plants are being built, likewise more combined cycle gas turbine plants.

http://www.netl.doe.gov/coal/refshelf/ncp.pdf

Coal and Nuclear are base load plants, gas turbines are typically used for peak load demands.

each has its plusses and minuses....coal is dirtiest, gas is cleaner, nuclear is non-polluting. Coal and gas tend to get shut down in very cold weather, as Texas found out this last winter. Gas mains pressure dropped due to home owners having to burn more gas to heat their homes, and the gas turbines couldn't get enough fuel. Coal plants also shut down, altho I haven't heard exactly why, but it had to do with the Texas coal plants not being designed for cold weather. Texas isn't supposed to get that cold.
They had rolling outages, thanks to unanticipated weather extremes.

Nuclear kept going like the energizer bunny.
Green tech is still too far away to be more than a fair weather SUPPLEMENT to our energy needs. It is like burning a few candles to add more light to a room that is already illuminated by a 100W bulb.
Again, Obama was posturing and pandering. Even if he meant what he said, he surely got corrected by those in the know.
There are NO EASY ENERGY ANSWERS, except in the dreams of ignorant people. A little education wouldn't hurt them one bit. Like I said, even the Sierra club is now pro-nuclear. Took them decades to realize it, but Nuclear is the best large source of electricity we have available to us. Wind and solar are nice supplemental sources, but cannot be depended upon in the dark and/or when the wind don't blow.


But the thread is about oil, and so far, the only viable "supplement" is natural gas, and it isn't available everywhere. No way the average citizen will be allowed to fill his own tank, either. Pickens says we should convert all commercial trucks to gas, which would help replace a lot of diesel, but not much gasoline. That would be a very good start.....but so far, the truckers aren't on board.
I wonder why...
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom