Obama calls moving a way from reliance on oil a “national mission” ! Support! (712)
Hot_Single_Dude: part two...
All Stupid dictaorships all over Middle east for example are absolutely Ectreem right wingers and capitalism with no regulations almost and any thing is runned by the power of money and bribe... a REAL Republican kind of "paradise" where Unions are busted and massacred and thinking means anti partiorism and being against "God" and the smallest talking a bout countries having wellfare means being an anti God Communist and can cost one life in prison or being killed on the street and family killed as well, and demanding better payments for ones work or demanding more vacation or better safty equipment means being anti country and anti relegion and anti God and anti this and that and being a West lover and enemy of Islam and senless Shi* like that all in order to make sure the 110 procent Capitalism system of the country and making sure the wealth is shared amoung as small group as possible like the GOP BS idea of course ... '
If America Really wants to go that way then America will of course but I am deifnate America knows better and always stopping forces of darkness before too late. And now some folks from here will blah blah blah a bout November 2010... BUT! As a matter of FACT ... America actually stopped right wingers horrible and anti american BS before it was too late and made sure Senate was safe at least mean while showing power holders they are worry a bout unemployment and the weak economical stiation still and demanding them working harder.
All Stupid dictaorships all over Middle east for example are absolutely Ectreem right wingers and capitalism with no regulations almost and any thing is runned by the power of money and bribe... a REAL Republican kind of "paradise" where Unions are busted and massacred and thinking means anti partiorism and being against "God" and the smallest talking a bout countries having wellfare means being an anti God Communist and can cost one life in prison or being killed on the street and family killed as well, and demanding better payments for ones work or demanding more vacation or better safty equipment means being anti country and anti relegion and anti God and anti this and that and being a West lover and enemy of Islam and senless Shi* like that all in order to make sure the 110 procent Capitalism system of the country and making sure the wealth is shared amoung as small group as possible like the GOP BS idea of course ... '
If America Really wants to go that way then America will of course but I am deifnate America knows better and always stopping forces of darkness before too late. And now some folks from here will blah blah blah a bout November 2010... BUT! As a matter of FACT ... America actually stopped right wingers horrible and anti american BS before it was too late and made sure Senate was safe at least mean while showing power holders they are worry a bout unemployment and the weak economical stiation still and demanding them working harder.
Dude, I promise to answer all your questions if you can answer just one. How much is enough? i.e. how much money does the government have to collect/tax from the rich for it to be enough?
Sparky55: Dude, I promise to answer all your questions if you can answer just one. How much is enough? i.e. how much money does the government have to collect/tax from the rich for it to be enough?
bush kept cutting their taxes for eight years, one reason we are near broke!!!!!!!!!
raphael118: bush kept cutting their taxes for eight years, one reason we are near broke!!!!!!!!!
That's not an answer. Do you even know the rate of income taxes people in the US? Here it is:
Tax Rate/2011
Married Couples Filing Jointly Most Single Filers
10% Not over $17,050 Not over $8,525
15% $17,050 - $69,300 $8,525 - $34,650
25% $69,300 - $139,850 $34,650 - $83,900
28% $139,850 - $235,550 $83,900 - $194,150
36% $235,550 - $380,500 $194,150 - $380,500
39.6% Over $380,500 Over $380,500
Then there's this:
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- For most Americans, Wednesday is the day they have to make sure they're square with the tax man.
The highest earners pay the lion's share of the dollars Uncle Sam collects.
The top fifth of households made 56% of pre-tax income in 2006 but paid 86% of all individual income tax revenue collected, according to the most recent data available from the Congressional Budget Office.
Narrowing in further: The top 1% of households, which made 19% of pre-tax income, paid 39% of all individual income taxes.
The trend is similar if you count income taxes, social insurance taxes, excise taxes and corporate income taxes (such as capital gains) combined. The top fifth of households paid 69% of all federal taxes. The top 1% paid 28%.
You can read the rest at:
So again I ask, how much is enough?
raphael118: bush kept cutting their taxes for eight years, one reason we are near broke!!!!!!!!!
Do you actually re-read what you post?
Hot_Single_Dude: Still in troubled with Getting It Repubheads?
Cruddingtonpssst has really warped you!
Hot_Single_Dude: Not really... just teasing Freddy and pointing out a real stincky fact regarding Bulldogs as well. Bulldogs history is truely sad and should never been allowed ... the poor designed animal got several serious health issues and suffering from several disfunctions all life...
Holy Fruit,Batman!This Thread has really gone to the Dogs!
Hot_Single_Dude: Not really... just teasing Freddy and pointing out a real stincky fact regarding Bulldogs as well. Bulldogs history is truely sad and should never been allowed ... the poor designed animal got several serious health issues and suffering from several disfunctions all life...
raphael118: bush kept cutting their taxes for eight years, one reason we are near broke!!!!!!!!!
That was the objective.
During his second term, Bush's role was to play dumb, scuttle the economy, and drive people right into the socialist trap. Bush and Obama are on the same team.
We, the people, are the opposition.
RayfromUSA:
That film (Bedtime for Bonzo) was the high point of Reagan's life.
After that it was all downhill.
That film (Bedtime for Bonzo) was the high point of Reagan's life.
After that it was all downhill.
And little did the public know that both Reagan and Bonzo would one day become president.
RayfromUSA: And little did the public know that both Reagan and Bonzo would one day become president.
That's not very clear Ray, any number of them could have been Bonzo.
Anyways...lets us talk about the new Obama doctrine some. You know that doctrine that makes the United States the policeman of the world.
His Libyan intervention now in a stalemate with the rebell forming a "crisis team".....as Qdaffi forces use heavier weapons to pound down their defenses in a key oil cities.
It really is a mismoner....to use American forces for UN police keeping action. If Libya was a policing intervention, why is not the entire UN there? Why does this fall to the US and a few others?
Korea was a UN policing action as well. Near to 40 countries participated in it. Since then fewer and fewer countries get involved in UN policing actions. Except for the good old United States.
Russia and China both abstained in the security council vote. Washing their hands of the affair. But leaving them free to comment. The Arab League dominated UN General Body sends all of 2 countries to aid in the Libyan intervention. Everyone else stays home as Qdaffi kills his people. Or they simply don't think that it is their business to get involved with.
So Obama really does not even have UN support for this. He is a cowboy out to make himself a name in town packing a TomCat and with a trigger finger on a cruise missile. What he has is limited EU and NATO support.
But in the end the Muslim world will not 'like' the United States any more because of this policing action. The Muslim world can go bonkers when a Quran is burned. Not a kind or respectful thing to do. But nor is rioting at a UN ....yes note a UN facility that is taking lives. All Obama has done is mix the identity the US with the UN on the Muslim street. Now the US
gets blamed for what ever wrong the UN does.
So the Obama doctrine is really again the US Policing the world policy. For humantarn purposes mind you....if at the end of a cruise missile strike one can see humane thing being done. But then just maybe worse things would be done, if the cruise missile was not fired.
It is the big "what if"....what if we don't fire the missile....what if we do fire the missile. No country and no military will consistently make that decision correctly. Already you had a friendly fire incident in Libya that killed 13 rebells.
So Obama's doctrine is more a police action with with only a few of the town's people supporting him. What is worse now for the Libyan rebells, the sheriff decided to leave town. As Obama pulls ships and aircraft from now the NATO commanded operation.
Why get into the thing in the first place, if you were not going to see it thru? Qdaffi is still in power. Is still going to seek out and kill the civilians that supported the rebells. And is playing hide and seek with the special ops teams that have gone into the country.
All it shows is that the US will back away from its allies when things get tough. Our support is conditional to the events and the political winds of the world. As now the Joint Chiefs comes out with a report that says the Libyan rebells are for democracy.
It is mind blogging. Instead of supporting a democratic movement....that is rebelling against dictator....Obama has now turned his back on them. And was going to arm the oppressing dictator prior to the rebellion.
Anyone need a stiff drink as we watch Washington do hari kari over the Libyan intervention?
Am not sure hugs
are going to help the Administration staff that is going."What now Mr. President? How else can we screw things up in the world?"
But I know to Dude and the millions of European liberals, the Obama doctrine makes perfect sense. You were trying to save Libyan civilians from the hands of a bloody Qdaffi. It just s that......he is there in the country doing what he is doing....and the no fly zone resolution keeps you from going into the country to stop it. With the no boots in the ground clause.
I have hit this dead horse one to many times. And no pulse is felt. So it must be a one dead horse.
His Libyan intervention now in a stalemate with the rebell forming a "crisis team".....as Qdaffi forces use heavier weapons to pound down their defenses in a key oil cities.
It really is a mismoner....to use American forces for UN police keeping action. If Libya was a policing intervention, why is not the entire UN there? Why does this fall to the US and a few others?
Korea was a UN policing action as well. Near to 40 countries participated in it. Since then fewer and fewer countries get involved in UN policing actions. Except for the good old United States.
Russia and China both abstained in the security council vote. Washing their hands of the affair. But leaving them free to comment. The Arab League dominated UN General Body sends all of 2 countries to aid in the Libyan intervention. Everyone else stays home as Qdaffi kills his people. Or they simply don't think that it is their business to get involved with.
So Obama really does not even have UN support for this. He is a cowboy out to make himself a name in town packing a TomCat and with a trigger finger on a cruise missile. What he has is limited EU and NATO support.
But in the end the Muslim world will not 'like' the United States any more because of this policing action. The Muslim world can go bonkers when a Quran is burned. Not a kind or respectful thing to do. But nor is rioting at a UN ....yes note a UN facility that is taking lives. All Obama has done is mix the identity the US with the UN on the Muslim street. Now the US
gets blamed for what ever wrong the UN does.
So the Obama doctrine is really again the US Policing the world policy. For humantarn purposes mind you....if at the end of a cruise missile strike one can see humane thing being done. But then just maybe worse things would be done, if the cruise missile was not fired.
It is the big "what if"....what if we don't fire the missile....what if we do fire the missile. No country and no military will consistently make that decision correctly. Already you had a friendly fire incident in Libya that killed 13 rebells.
So Obama's doctrine is more a police action with with only a few of the town's people supporting him. What is worse now for the Libyan rebells, the sheriff decided to leave town. As Obama pulls ships and aircraft from now the NATO commanded operation.
Why get into the thing in the first place, if you were not going to see it thru? Qdaffi is still in power. Is still going to seek out and kill the civilians that supported the rebells. And is playing hide and seek with the special ops teams that have gone into the country.
All it shows is that the US will back away from its allies when things get tough. Our support is conditional to the events and the political winds of the world. As now the Joint Chiefs comes out with a report that says the Libyan rebells are for democracy.
It is mind blogging. Instead of supporting a democratic movement....that is rebelling against dictator....Obama has now turned his back on them. And was going to arm the oppressing dictator prior to the rebellion.
Anyone need a stiff drink as we watch Washington do hari kari over the Libyan intervention?
Am not sure hugs are going to help the Administration staff that is going."What now Mr. President? How else can we screw things up in the world?"But I know to Dude and the millions of European liberals, the Obama doctrine makes perfect sense. You were trying to save Libyan civilians from the hands of a bloody Qdaffi. It just s that......he is there in the country doing what he is doing....and the no fly zone resolution keeps you from going into the country to stop it. With the no boots in the ground clause.
I have hit this dead horse one to many times. And no pulse is felt. So it must be a one dead horse.
Sparky55: That's not an answer. Do you even know the rate of income taxes people in the US? Here it is:http://www.moneybluebook.com/2011-federal-income-tax-brackets-irs-tax-rates/
Tax Rate/2011
Married Couples Filing Jointly Most Single Filers
10% Not over $17,050 Not over $8,525
15% $17,050 - $69,300 $8,525 - $34,650
25% $69,300 - $139,850 $34,650 - $83,900
28% $139,850 - $235,550 $83,900 - $194,150
36% $235,550 - $380,500 $194,150 - $380,500
39.6% Over $380,500 Over $380,500
Then there's this:
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- For most Americans, Wednesday is the day they have to make sure they're square with the tax man.
The highest earners pay the lion's share of the dollars Uncle Sam collects.
The top fifth of households made 56% of pre-tax income in 2006 but paid 86% of all individual income tax revenue collected, according to the most recent data available from the Congressional Budget Office.
Narrowing in further: The top 1% of households, which made 19% of pre-tax income, paid 39% of all individual income taxes.
The trend is similar if you count income taxes, social insurance taxes, excise taxes and corporate income taxes (such as capital gains) combined. The top fifth of households paid 69% of all federal taxes. The top 1% paid 28%.
You can read the rest at:
So again I ask, how much is enough?
Tax Rate/2011
Married Couples Filing Jointly Most Single Filers
10% Not over $17,050 Not over $8,525
15% $17,050 - $69,300 $8,525 - $34,650
25% $69,300 - $139,850 $34,650 - $83,900
28% $139,850 - $235,550 $83,900 - $194,150
36% $235,550 - $380,500 $194,150 - $380,500
39.6% Over $380,500 Over $380,500
Then there's this:
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- For most Americans, Wednesday is the day they have to make sure they're square with the tax man.
The highest earners pay the lion's share of the dollars Uncle Sam collects.
The top fifth of households made 56% of pre-tax income in 2006 but paid 86% of all individual income tax revenue collected, according to the most recent data available from the Congressional Budget Office.
Narrowing in further: The top 1% of households, which made 19% of pre-tax income, paid 39% of all individual income taxes.
The trend is similar if you count income taxes, social insurance taxes, excise taxes and corporate income taxes (such as capital gains) combined. The top fifth of households paid 69% of all federal taxes. The top 1% paid 28%.
You can read the rest at:
So again I ask, how much is enough?
I'll never have to pay the 28% tax bracket, but I pitty the poor soul who does.
Sparky55: Dude, I promise to answer all your questions if you can answer just one. How much is enough? i.e. how much money does the government have to collect/tax from the rich for it to be enough?
Was listening to Boortz a few nights ago. He discussed the "filthy rich" and how much they'd have to pay in taxes to balance the budget. One example he threw out: a person making 1 million dollars would have to pay $6 million in taxes to balance the budget. Mull that one.
In essence, there aren't enough millionaires...
Divide a Cake,so it can become BIGGER!
RayfromUSA: But there are plenty of poor people, (and more every day).
The secret is to tax the poor.
They put up less of a fight anyway.
Taxing the poor is the secret path to national prosperity according to Obama's trickle-up theory of economics.
The secret is to tax the poor.
They put up less of a fight anyway.
Taxing the poor is the secret path to national prosperity according to Obama's trickle-up theory of economics.
I got taxed pretty damn good about an hour ago. Paid $3.85 for gas. Obama's reaching his goal of high priced gas! This will surely help the poor!
Conrad73:
Didn't the Anointed One promise to make everyone a Millionaire?
Or was that the Previous Anointed One?FDR?
Didn't the Anointed One promise to make everyone a Millionaire?
Or was that the Previous Anointed One?FDR?
Don't worry Conrad, if Obama gets re-elected, before the end of his next term he will make everybody in the US a millionaire.
Of course, by that time, a million dollars won't buy a loaf of bread.
You're replying to post made by: Hot_Single_Dude
Do you really call articles brought by that anti american militant site you copy and paste from, proofs Faith?
Dude, where do you get your information that I post from anti-american militant sites? Show me the proof, the facts instead of just spouting the first thing that comes to your mind.
Do you really call articles brought by that anti american militant site you copy and paste from, proofs Faith?
Dude, where do you get your information that I post from anti-american militant sites? Show me the proof, the facts instead of just spouting the first thing that comes to your mind.
You're replying to post made by: Hot_Single_Dude
Posted: 04/03/11
Education Spending Won't Create Jobs
by Phyllis Schlafly
Contrary to Obama's political rhetoric, more taxpayer spending to send more students to college will not reduce unemployment or improve the economy. It's just Obama's way of finagling the unemployment statistics by listing young people as students instead of as unemployed.
A report by the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland confirmed that when it comes to long-term unemployment, the length of unemployment is unrelated to education level. Although employment is higher for people with more years of education, the duration of unemployment is the same for all education levels.
A new phrase is now commonly included in job ads for all kinds of positions: "must be currently employed." Charts from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show remarkably parallel lines for the duration of unemployment of Americans age 25 and older who have less than a high school diploma, only a high school diploma, some college, or a college degree.
The Obama Administration continues to propagate the falsehood that solving the unemployment problem requires "more investments in education." Investment is a favorite liberal code word for more spending and higher taxes.
As globalization spread and was touted by the elites as the wave of the future, conventional wisdom was that only blue-collar manufacturing jobs would be sent overseas while college grads were safe. That assumption is now obsolete, as computers and telecommunications have made it possible to offshore the jobs of college-educated employees.
I thought it was a tossup as to which was the greatest education scandal: the $2 trillion taxpayers poured into public schools that failed the twin goals of improving student achievement and closing the gap between higher-income and lower-income students, OR the colossal debt students accumulate to pay exorbitant college tuition prices. But the Chronicle of Higher Education reported a third scandal under the headline "The Great College-Degree Scam."
The Center for College Affordability and Productivity (CCAP) found that approximately 60% of the increase in the number of college graduates from 1992 to 2008 now work in relatively low-skilled jobs that need only a high school diploma or less. The actual count is 17.4 million college grads working in occupations that the Bureau of Labor Statistics classifies as not requiring college, such as cashier, waiter, waitress, or bartender.
Facts do not deter the Obama Administration from playing the false tune that more federal education spending is the key to more jobs. White House Domestic Policy Adviser Melody Barnes reprised this myth with a stream of buzzwords: education is the "key to winning the future," we need to "improve educational outcomes" so we can "win in the global marketplace," we must "out-educate the world" and put "greater emphasis on critical thinking and collaborative problem solving," and grab "our generation's 'Sputnik moment.'"
Distributed by
Posted: 04/03/11
Education Spending Won't Create Jobs
by Phyllis Schlafly
Contrary to Obama's political rhetoric, more taxpayer spending to send more students to college will not reduce unemployment or improve the economy. It's just Obama's way of finagling the unemployment statistics by listing young people as students instead of as unemployed.
A report by the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland confirmed that when it comes to long-term unemployment, the length of unemployment is unrelated to education level. Although employment is higher for people with more years of education, the duration of unemployment is the same for all education levels.
A new phrase is now commonly included in job ads for all kinds of positions: "must be currently employed." Charts from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show remarkably parallel lines for the duration of unemployment of Americans age 25 and older who have less than a high school diploma, only a high school diploma, some college, or a college degree.
The Obama Administration continues to propagate the falsehood that solving the unemployment problem requires "more investments in education." Investment is a favorite liberal code word for more spending and higher taxes.
As globalization spread and was touted by the elites as the wave of the future, conventional wisdom was that only blue-collar manufacturing jobs would be sent overseas while college grads were safe. That assumption is now obsolete, as computers and telecommunications have made it possible to offshore the jobs of college-educated employees.
I thought it was a tossup as to which was the greatest education scandal: the $2 trillion taxpayers poured into public schools that failed the twin goals of improving student achievement and closing the gap between higher-income and lower-income students, OR the colossal debt students accumulate to pay exorbitant college tuition prices. But the Chronicle of Higher Education reported a third scandal under the headline "The Great College-Degree Scam."
The Center for College Affordability and Productivity (CCAP) found that approximately 60% of the increase in the number of college graduates from 1992 to 2008 now work in relatively low-skilled jobs that need only a high school diploma or less. The actual count is 17.4 million college grads working in occupations that the Bureau of Labor Statistics classifies as not requiring college, such as cashier, waiter, waitress, or bartender.
Facts do not deter the Obama Administration from playing the false tune that more federal education spending is the key to more jobs. White House Domestic Policy Adviser Melody Barnes reprised this myth with a stream of buzzwords: education is the "key to winning the future," we need to "improve educational outcomes" so we can "win in the global marketplace," we must "out-educate the world" and put "greater emphasis on critical thinking and collaborative problem solving," and grab "our generation's 'Sputnik moment.'"
Distributed by
RayfromUSA: Don't worry Conrad, if Obama gets re-elected, before the end of his next term he will make everybody in the US a millionaire.
Of course, by that time, a million dollars won't buy a loaf of bread.
Money like the Wiemar republic never saw!Of course, by that time, a million dollars won't buy a loaf of bread.
Part 2
Vice President Joe Biden joined in this campaign by launching his "College Completion Tool Kit," a bunch of expensive suggestions to increase the number of college graduates by 50 percent. He wants to shift the focus from high school completion to college completion and, of course, do more to subsidize the latter.
Biden was the lead speaker at "The First Annual Building a Grad Nation Summit" held in Washington in March, to be followed by a similar summit held by each governor. The plan sets forth vague goals such as developing an action plan, using data to drive decision making, accelerating learning, and relabeling "remedial" courses in college as "developmental."
Of course, Biden's plan calls for extravagant taxpayer handouts such as the First in the World initiative to support "innovative practices," and College Completion Incentive Grants to reward states for undertaking "reforms." That's on top of money already committed by the Obama Administration, such as $40 billion more in Pell grants, a 90 percent increase in tax incentives through the American Opportunity Tax credit, making it easier for students to get grants and loans, and forgiving the college debt of students who promise ten years of public service.
Why should taxpayers be forced to continue unaffordable deficit spending to send more kids to college when the evidence shows that our economy is not offering enough jobs for college graduates now?
The biggest issue today is the need to rebuild an economy that offers the three-fourths of Americans without a college degree jobs which pay enough to buy a home and support a wife raising their own children. Somehow we lost that kind of a society through a combination of feminism, unilateral divorce, illegal and legal immigration, and the steady drumbeat of free-trade elitists telling us that globalism makes it our duty to compete with foreigners willing to work for as little as 30 cents an hour with no benefits.
The party that has the best solution to the jobs issue will win in 2012. More years of taxpayer-funded schooling are not the answer.
Distributed by
Vice President Joe Biden joined in this campaign by launching his "College Completion Tool Kit," a bunch of expensive suggestions to increase the number of college graduates by 50 percent. He wants to shift the focus from high school completion to college completion and, of course, do more to subsidize the latter.
Biden was the lead speaker at "The First Annual Building a Grad Nation Summit" held in Washington in March, to be followed by a similar summit held by each governor. The plan sets forth vague goals such as developing an action plan, using data to drive decision making, accelerating learning, and relabeling "remedial" courses in college as "developmental."
Of course, Biden's plan calls for extravagant taxpayer handouts such as the First in the World initiative to support "innovative practices," and College Completion Incentive Grants to reward states for undertaking "reforms." That's on top of money already committed by the Obama Administration, such as $40 billion more in Pell grants, a 90 percent increase in tax incentives through the American Opportunity Tax credit, making it easier for students to get grants and loans, and forgiving the college debt of students who promise ten years of public service.
Why should taxpayers be forced to continue unaffordable deficit spending to send more kids to college when the evidence shows that our economy is not offering enough jobs for college graduates now?
The biggest issue today is the need to rebuild an economy that offers the three-fourths of Americans without a college degree jobs which pay enough to buy a home and support a wife raising their own children. Somehow we lost that kind of a society through a combination of feminism, unilateral divorce, illegal and legal immigration, and the steady drumbeat of free-trade elitists telling us that globalism makes it our duty to compete with foreigners willing to work for as little as 30 cents an hour with no benefits.
The party that has the best solution to the jobs issue will win in 2012. More years of taxpayer-funded schooling are not the answer.
Distributed by
Conrad73: Money like the Wiemar republic never saw!
actually WEIMAR.Poll Question: Obama calls moving a way from reliance on oil a “national mission” ! Support!
Poller: Hot_Single_Dude
* End America,s dependent on oil See a better world
I would imagine that any and all reliance on "foreign oil" by the US would stop totally the moment the US has taken over any and all presently foreign countries that produce oil, making them US property 'for reasons of National Security' or made States as part of the US....again, for all those secret, never mentioned reasons of and for 'national security'!
Poller: Hot_Single_Dude
* End America,s dependent on oil See a better world
I would imagine that any and all reliance on "foreign oil" by the US would stop totally the moment the US has taken over any and all presently foreign countries that produce oil, making them US property 'for reasons of National Security' or made States as part of the US....again, for all those secret, never mentioned reasons of and for 'national security'!
Political Correctness Won't Run Your Car
January 25, 2008
By Tom DeWeese
When Congress passed the Energy Bill in December it did everything necessary to please a horde of special interests and very little to actually help Americans with their energy problems. Truth is, America still has no energy policy – just a lot of pork for those feeding at the tax-paid trough.
Political correctness comes from special interest groups who lay down the law with politicians (read: we won't give you any more money unless you say and do things our way). In such an atmosphere there is little room for reasoned thought on the consequences of the legislation Congress enforces on the rest of us. The Energy Bill is the prime example of law by sound bite.
The new law mandates that automakers must boost mileage by 40 percent – to 35 miles per gallon – by 2020. The reason given by the politicians is that this move will help make America less dependent on foreign oil. Funny, though, there isn't a word in the bill about drilling for American oil in Alaska or increasing drilling off shore. Both areas have proven to have near unlimited reserves that could easily free the nation from the Middle East oil czars. Why? Drilling American oil simply isn't politically correct.
The main reason for the mandate is to satisfy the massive environmental lobby that nearly rules Capitol Hill. They have big bucks and a lot of power. Their ultimate goal is to get people completely out of their cars and onto public transportation. That's why you see little in the way of road improvement in transportation bills, but lots of money being thrown at public transportation. Public buses, subways and trains are politically correct. The problem is they just don't necessarily go where the average traveler needs to go – at the time they need to go there.
Of course, mandating higher mileage will force automakers to charge more for the cars because the technology to do it will cost more. And that works perfectly to the anti-car agenda of the environmentalists. The mandate will also force the automakers to produce smaller cars – something the American people have made perfectly clear they do not want and won't buy. Alternative? Fewer cars. That's why public transportation is politically correct.
Another major provision of the energy bill is the production of Ethanol – again, a measure promoted as a way to get us off the foreign oil fix. The trouble is, American farmers can't raise enough corn to supply what is needed for the mandated Ethanol production, let alone supply enough to feed us. And the cost of corn products is already through the roof. As a result, to meet the congressional mandate, the U.S. now has to import corn to produce Ethanol. The main source is Communist China. So, perhaps the Ethanol mandate will help reduce our foreign oil dependency … but, it seems we are just going to shift the pain to an even worse source – Red China. Ain't globalism and free trade grand? And it's politically correct.
Of course, the wise men in the Congress foresaw this problem so the bill mandates a large portion of ethanol to come from the conversion of other cellulose materials. The problem is, that technology has not yet been developed. So Congress passed a law for something not yet invented. And that helps our energy needs…how?
In a bold move, Congress managed to ban the incandescent light bulb. Senate majority Leader Harry Reid said such action was "proper congressional action." Instead, Congress is mandating the politically correct compact fluorescent bulbs that use as little as a fourth the power of the conventional bulbs.
Distributed by
January 25, 2008
By Tom DeWeese
When Congress passed the Energy Bill in December it did everything necessary to please a horde of special interests and very little to actually help Americans with their energy problems. Truth is, America still has no energy policy – just a lot of pork for those feeding at the tax-paid trough.
Political correctness comes from special interest groups who lay down the law with politicians (read: we won't give you any more money unless you say and do things our way). In such an atmosphere there is little room for reasoned thought on the consequences of the legislation Congress enforces on the rest of us. The Energy Bill is the prime example of law by sound bite.
The new law mandates that automakers must boost mileage by 40 percent – to 35 miles per gallon – by 2020. The reason given by the politicians is that this move will help make America less dependent on foreign oil. Funny, though, there isn't a word in the bill about drilling for American oil in Alaska or increasing drilling off shore. Both areas have proven to have near unlimited reserves that could easily free the nation from the Middle East oil czars. Why? Drilling American oil simply isn't politically correct.
The main reason for the mandate is to satisfy the massive environmental lobby that nearly rules Capitol Hill. They have big bucks and a lot of power. Their ultimate goal is to get people completely out of their cars and onto public transportation. That's why you see little in the way of road improvement in transportation bills, but lots of money being thrown at public transportation. Public buses, subways and trains are politically correct. The problem is they just don't necessarily go where the average traveler needs to go – at the time they need to go there.
Of course, mandating higher mileage will force automakers to charge more for the cars because the technology to do it will cost more. And that works perfectly to the anti-car agenda of the environmentalists. The mandate will also force the automakers to produce smaller cars – something the American people have made perfectly clear they do not want and won't buy. Alternative? Fewer cars. That's why public transportation is politically correct.
Another major provision of the energy bill is the production of Ethanol – again, a measure promoted as a way to get us off the foreign oil fix. The trouble is, American farmers can't raise enough corn to supply what is needed for the mandated Ethanol production, let alone supply enough to feed us. And the cost of corn products is already through the roof. As a result, to meet the congressional mandate, the U.S. now has to import corn to produce Ethanol. The main source is Communist China. So, perhaps the Ethanol mandate will help reduce our foreign oil dependency … but, it seems we are just going to shift the pain to an even worse source – Red China. Ain't globalism and free trade grand? And it's politically correct.
Of course, the wise men in the Congress foresaw this problem so the bill mandates a large portion of ethanol to come from the conversion of other cellulose materials. The problem is, that technology has not yet been developed. So Congress passed a law for something not yet invented. And that helps our energy needs…how?
In a bold move, Congress managed to ban the incandescent light bulb. Senate majority Leader Harry Reid said such action was "proper congressional action." Instead, Congress is mandating the politically correct compact fluorescent bulbs that use as little as a fourth the power of the conventional bulbs.
Distributed by
Part 2
It's interesting to note that the major manufacturers of incandescent bulbs are not upset by the new legislation, in fact they helped write it. Why? Well, could it be that the standard incandescent bulb costs about 50 cents each and the new ones cost as much as $3.00? Of course, they tell us they last longer, so the cost is only upfront – and so are the manufacturers' profits. Certainly they will be able to help write legislation to ban something else to increase their market share before the full mandatory transition to the new bulbs in 2012.
One more note on the new lights, reports are now coming out that they cause migraine headaches in many people because they work like standard fluorescent tubes, which subtly flicker constantly. Epileptics are especially affected. Moreover, they make a very harsh, cold white light. Gone will be the warm, cheery mood lighting of the incandescent bulbs. Again, Congress bans a product with only the information fed to them from global corporations who stand to gain. But, more importantly, the new lights are politically correct.
The compromise energy bill did resist the demands of environmentalists to eliminate tax breaks for oil companies (money they wanted used for the development of green energy sources). The greens wanted to mandate that power companies produce certain amounts of energy by renewable means such as solar and wind. However, while that bullet was dodged this time, alternative energy is still wildly popular and most definitely politically correct. So it is important that all Americans understand the worthlessness of alternative energy in solving America's current crisis.
Here are some facts concerning energy production. Producing 50 megawatts of electricity using a gas-fired generating plant, as is in use today, requires 2 to 5 acres of land. Getting the same amount from photovoltaics means covering a minimum of 1,000 acres with solar panels. Of course there also has to be access for trucks to clean the panels. Using the sun to meet California's energy needs would mean paving over hundreds of thousands of acres of desert habitat – along with their resident plant and animal life. And if the sun doesn't shine for, say six months, as in Alaska, well, we freeze in the dark.
A 50-megawatt wind facility requires even more land: at least 4,000 acres. The 100-200 feet tall wind turbines ruin habitat and scenic vistas and represent "an imminent threat" to millions of birds and bats. Today, just in Northern California's Altamont Pass, wind turbines kill thousands of birds every year, including eagles, hawks, owls and other birds of prey. Some call the wind turbines "Cuisinarts in the air." In addition, wind energy is unreliable. If the wind doesn't blow, no energy.
If produced by wind, the 7,000 to 10,000 megawatts of additional electricity California needs immediately would require sacrificing over 400,000 acres to wind turbines, foundations and road access. If solar power were used, more than 100,000 acres would have to be blanketed with panels.
Distributed by
It's interesting to note that the major manufacturers of incandescent bulbs are not upset by the new legislation, in fact they helped write it. Why? Well, could it be that the standard incandescent bulb costs about 50 cents each and the new ones cost as much as $3.00? Of course, they tell us they last longer, so the cost is only upfront – and so are the manufacturers' profits. Certainly they will be able to help write legislation to ban something else to increase their market share before the full mandatory transition to the new bulbs in 2012.
One more note on the new lights, reports are now coming out that they cause migraine headaches in many people because they work like standard fluorescent tubes, which subtly flicker constantly. Epileptics are especially affected. Moreover, they make a very harsh, cold white light. Gone will be the warm, cheery mood lighting of the incandescent bulbs. Again, Congress bans a product with only the information fed to them from global corporations who stand to gain. But, more importantly, the new lights are politically correct.
The compromise energy bill did resist the demands of environmentalists to eliminate tax breaks for oil companies (money they wanted used for the development of green energy sources). The greens wanted to mandate that power companies produce certain amounts of energy by renewable means such as solar and wind. However, while that bullet was dodged this time, alternative energy is still wildly popular and most definitely politically correct. So it is important that all Americans understand the worthlessness of alternative energy in solving America's current crisis.
Here are some facts concerning energy production. Producing 50 megawatts of electricity using a gas-fired generating plant, as is in use today, requires 2 to 5 acres of land. Getting the same amount from photovoltaics means covering a minimum of 1,000 acres with solar panels. Of course there also has to be access for trucks to clean the panels. Using the sun to meet California's energy needs would mean paving over hundreds of thousands of acres of desert habitat – along with their resident plant and animal life. And if the sun doesn't shine for, say six months, as in Alaska, well, we freeze in the dark.
A 50-megawatt wind facility requires even more land: at least 4,000 acres. The 100-200 feet tall wind turbines ruin habitat and scenic vistas and represent "an imminent threat" to millions of birds and bats. Today, just in Northern California's Altamont Pass, wind turbines kill thousands of birds every year, including eagles, hawks, owls and other birds of prey. Some call the wind turbines "Cuisinarts in the air." In addition, wind energy is unreliable. If the wind doesn't blow, no energy.
If produced by wind, the 7,000 to 10,000 megawatts of additional electricity California needs immediately would require sacrificing over 400,000 acres to wind turbines, foundations and road access. If solar power were used, more than 100,000 acres would have to be blanketed with panels.
Distributed by
Part 3
On a national scale, the environmental impacts of wind and solar alternative energy become truly staggering. Former Deputy Energy Secretary Ken Davis has calculated that, to produce the 218 gigawatts of "additional" electricity America will need by 2010, using only wind or solar power, we would have to blanket 9,400,000 acres with wind mills or solar panels. That's almost 10 percent of California. It's an area equal to Connecticut, Delaware and Massachusetts combined. Moreover, to get all of this electricity into urban areas, miles and miles of wind turbines and solar panes must be linked to miles and miles of high tension power lines – the same kind all other energy sources need. There is no gain from solar or wind power – only loss of energy.
A true energy policy would see government getting out of the energy business and standing aside as the real experts fix the problem in a free market where consumers could pick their power of choice. A few acres for nuclear power plants would solve much of the nation's energy needs. Drilling for oil off shore and in Alaska will give us complete independence from foreign sources and will also keep America out of a lot of foreign turmoil.
Above all, American energy policy must allow for the building of new oil refineries. There hasn't been a new one built since the 1970's and several have been shut down – 10 in California alone. Every time one shuts down simply for repairs gas prices spike.
Yet these ideas are rejected for the politically correct alternatives. Such ideas are the current "wisdom" of our day. The source of such bad policy is special interest groups lining the pockets of mindless politicians to get their own agenda locked into federal mandate – but it doesn't solve America's energy problems. In fact it adds to them. As we fool around with such silly, unworkable dreams of a "carbonless footprint," Americans are paying $3.00 at the pump and potential power blackouts threaten our cities. This is no way to run a country.
Distributed by
On a national scale, the environmental impacts of wind and solar alternative energy become truly staggering. Former Deputy Energy Secretary Ken Davis has calculated that, to produce the 218 gigawatts of "additional" electricity America will need by 2010, using only wind or solar power, we would have to blanket 9,400,000 acres with wind mills or solar panels. That's almost 10 percent of California. It's an area equal to Connecticut, Delaware and Massachusetts combined. Moreover, to get all of this electricity into urban areas, miles and miles of wind turbines and solar panes must be linked to miles and miles of high tension power lines – the same kind all other energy sources need. There is no gain from solar or wind power – only loss of energy.
A true energy policy would see government getting out of the energy business and standing aside as the real experts fix the problem in a free market where consumers could pick their power of choice. A few acres for nuclear power plants would solve much of the nation's energy needs. Drilling for oil off shore and in Alaska will give us complete independence from foreign sources and will also keep America out of a lot of foreign turmoil.
Above all, American energy policy must allow for the building of new oil refineries. There hasn't been a new one built since the 1970's and several have been shut down – 10 in California alone. Every time one shuts down simply for repairs gas prices spike.
Yet these ideas are rejected for the politically correct alternatives. Such ideas are the current "wisdom" of our day. The source of such bad policy is special interest groups lining the pockets of mindless politicians to get their own agenda locked into federal mandate – but it doesn't solve America's energy problems. In fact it adds to them. As we fool around with such silly, unworkable dreams of a "carbonless footprint," Americans are paying $3.00 at the pump and potential power blackouts threaten our cities. This is no way to run a country.
Distributed by
The media is beginning to ask the question.....why is the Obama Administration treating Libya and Syria differently?
Qdaffi gets bombed and Assad gets ignored.
Qdaffi gets bombed and Assad gets ignored.
katt1017: Would you feel the same about a disabled child? How about a member of another "less favored" race?
Many pure bread dogs have been ruined by puppy mills. Bull dogs were bread for a specific purpose. You and I might not agree with it but that is the past.
The few of the dogs I've met were great. They had good manners and families that loved them and took good care of them.
I'd rather have a farm collie if I could find one or maybe a goldie but I'm always happy to see any nice doggies.
Many pure bread dogs have been ruined by puppy mills. Bull dogs were bread for a specific purpose. You and I might not agree with it but that is the past.
The few of the dogs I've met were great. They had good manners and families that loved them and took good care of them.
I'd rather have a farm collie if I could find one or maybe a goldie but I'm always happy to see any nice doggies.
I love dogs too. When kid and younger I had poodle dogs and later on german sheppereds and also a dubermann. Fabulous dogs but my favourite is german shepperd. Some friedns of mine had bulldogs and there is always some thing worng with the poor dog... breathing difficulties, allergies, skin conditions with no real explanations or diagnoses, digestion difficulties and beside problems with the humor of the dog once in a while which made every body other than the owner scared. Beside there was problem with being able to keep saliva from being all over the place... there is some thing wrong with the shape of jaw and so on people say
Today ... I have got no dogs... would love to get some again if buying a house but in an apartement... I do not think it is propper to have dogs. They need fresh air ad a lot space to run being able to experience a little bit of naturality at least. Good for you having dogs Katt1017... I am sure you love them and they love their mommy as well.
katt1017: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zHN4vCfwh4
------------ 
raphael118: bush kept cutting their taxes for eight years, one reason we are near broke!!!!!!!!!
You are a cool fellow mister Raphael
More Threads
Common Issues with the BMW X1
Don Shits-In-Pants!!!
rarotonga
your personality
The Best of the GOP
1830's Music
men's perspective towards women
Sleepy Don!
the way you look
wanting beyond need
More Threads
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
And I was so hoping you'd play, "now go win one for the gipper".