114
   

Where is the US economy headed?

 
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Apr, 2009 02:05 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
How was the question answered?
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Apr, 2009 02:17 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

As with our economy, working on alternative energy sources is a long-term goal. Things will not happen over-night or within the next few years. All you have done is attack Obama's plan to increase alternative energy sources; that is the right course of action for our future. Oil and coal now makes up 66% of human energy use; that cannot be sustained for the long term future. Oil and coal are natural resources that have limits, and they increase CO2 and pollutants into the atmosphere. Oil has price constraints when the supply cannot meet demand, and we've already seen what can happen we have to pay over $4/gallon. Coal is not a clean fuel. We must reduce the demand for these two major sources of energy.

Finally a reasoned post, but the substance of your post does not match to your apparent general view that alternative energy is going to be significant soon under Obama.

I agree, working on alternative energy sources is a good idea. I guess you miss the fact that it is indeed happening. I have driven through probably a half dozen new wind farms in the last 5 years that did not exist 10 years ago, and new turbines are going up in many areas. I have seen them in Oklahoma, Kansas, Texas, and Colorado, places I frequent. I have also seen a solar installation in the San Luis Valley of Colorado, and am aware of other similar plans, but these take time, and the grandest of projections would not make solar a big contributor of electricity anytime soon. No way.

It is implied we are not working on alternative energy and Obama is going to change that. That is false. We have been working on these for a very long time. I can vouch for the fact that when I worked for an energy company, we had a geothermal program clear back in the 70's or early 80's. As a matter of note, alot of the most potential areas are off limits due to environmental or other restrictions. When Obama mentioned geothermal as one of the things that would wean us off of cartel oil in one of the debates, I could only marvel at his ignorance.

Even though we are working on alternative energies and installing some, the reality of actually converting a significant portion of our energy consumption to these sources is decades away, not years away. If you doubt that, educate yourself, or find the evidence and then come back here and show it.

And finally, the subject of nuclear, we would in fact be far better off right now if the same type of liberal political cabals that we deal with now, the same factions to which Obama is associated with, if they had not ended the building of new nuclear facilities in the U.S. about 30 years ago. And even now, even though Obama claims to be in favor of nuclear, he and his constituents cannot agree on a disposal program, so until that happens, don't look for anything much to happen on this. Nuclear is in fact the one energy source that could contribute greatly to electrical generation, but thank the environmentalists for stalling that out. These types of people are anti-capitalists and want the government to solve every problem, but sadly the government is primarily an obstructionist organization in terms of allowing business to solve the problems.

If you want the government to control everything, say so, and then we could decide which way we go, government all the way or business, but be aware we should be prepared for the consequences of that decision.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Apr, 2009 03:08 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:
Quote:
Finally a reasoned post, but the substance of your post does not match to your apparent general view that alternative energy is going to be significant soon under Obama.


When did I even imply that "alternative energy is going to be significant soon under Obama?"

You're a goddam liar.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Apr, 2009 03:57 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Before you start calling names, yes, I think you clearly implied it:
Go back a few pages:

cicerone imposter wrote:
The only one insane around here is you. You continue to make statements that are easily repudiated.

You don't understand facts or evidence, and continue to use your own deranged imagination. Your posts are usually meaningless and stupid.

To which I replied:
okie wrote:
Speaking of the subject, "stupid," listening to Bob Brinker today, the financial talk guy. I have listened to him off and on, usually on Saturday, while puttering in the garage. He has always been pretty non-partisan, not necessarily siding with Democrats or Republicans, occasionally bashing both. Today, he pretty much called the current administration "stupid." That in regard to the energy policy. What this relates to is the administration's "apparent" belief that by promoting wind and solar, they can wean ourselves off of oil cartel oil in 10 years. This of course a promise by President Obama. I think Brinker has tabbed this pretty well, anybody that believes such a policy, to the exclusion of oil, coal, natural gas, and nuclear, is, yes, just "stupid."

This issue just one of many, with similar parallels. Do you wish to discuss stupidity any further, ci, or is Bob Brinker also a whacked out idiot without a brain?

After this post, George defended me, to which imposter replied to George:
cicerone imposter wrote:

When okie continues to make statements that has no basis in fact but his own imagination, and he keeps doing it after all the challenges some of us have made, there can't be too much intelligence or foundation for the kind of support you seem to provide on his behalf.

I'm an old codger who has no patience for stupid people who continues to insult our intelligence with unfounded claims.

....


okie wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

I don't mind anyone praising any one president, but okie has to compare Reagan to Obama who has been in office for less than two months. His ability to determine any individual's ability at common sense shows me that okie has none. okie is the least able to make intelligent discourse on any topic whether it's about economics or politics.

Show me where I'm wrong.

I'd rather look foolish than let okie spill his drivel every day.


If I may be so brash as to interrupt this conversation, ci, and point out one clear example of Obama's lack of common sense that I brought up, that you have totally ignored.

I go back to the fact that Obama has more than once promised that he would make the U.S. free of importing OPEC oil in ten years, by instituting his energy policy, which apparently consists of throwing more money at wind and solar. He also mentioned geothermal once in a debate as something that he would promote. This is not an honest opinion or it is not an opinion that can be promoted by anyone with common sense. To walk you through this, see the following chart:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/sources/renewable/images/Renew%20consumption%202007A.png

Now, I challenge you to read all the material you can put your hands on and provide one ounce of data or evidence that in 10 years, we could become self sufficient from OPEC oil with any realistic hope to do it with wind and solar. Remember, Obama has marginally said he was in favor of nuclear, but he opposes any disposal solutions of waste that have been proposed, so you can forget nuclear as part of the equation. But even if it was, there would be no practical way to expand nuclear in 10 years, given the regulatory nightmares in this country.

ci, Ronald Reagan would have never suggested something like Obama suggested, because it defies something called "common sense." Now, go do your homework, call any energy expert, and report back to us all here on A2k and let us know what you find out. But please come back here with something called evidence. A snide comment about my intelligence no longer flies, as if it ever did.


A page or two after that:
okie wrote:
By the way, ci has not answered the challenge, and I don't expect him to. He can't because he has nothing. He flunks the test of reality. As did Obama. And as is Obama.


And ci has yet to answer that challenge, offered more than once, but instead continues his inane comments, so I think, yes, you clearly imply you agree with Obama in regard to his energy policy. Now you call me a liar for believing you must agree with Obama. I don't think that works for you, ci.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Apr, 2009 04:06 pm
@okie,
okie, Where did Obama promise to free us from OPEC oil in ten years? Please provide us with the link.

You wrote:
Quote:
I go back to the fact that Obama has more than once promised that he would make the U.S. free of importing OPEC oil in ten years, by instituting his energy policy, which apparently consists of throwing more money at wind and solar.


Here's the Obama energy policy:

Quote:
The Obama-Biden comprehensive New Energy for America plan will:

Watch the Video
* Provide short-term relief to American families facing pain at the pump
* Help create five million new jobs by strategically investing $150 billion over the next ten years to catalyze private efforts to build a clean energy future.
* Within 10 years save more oil than we currently import from the Middle East and Venezuela combined.
* Put 1 million Plug-In Hybrid cars -- cars that can get up to 150 miles per gallon -- on the road by 2015, cars that we will work to make sure are built here in America.
* Ensure 10 percent of our electricity comes from renewable sources by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025.
* Implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Apr, 2009 05:07 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:
Quote:
Now, I challenge you to read all the material you can put your hands on and provide one ounce of data or evidence that in 10 years, we could become self sufficient from OPEC oil with any realistic hope to do it with wind and solar.


You can't even read English properly; what in hell are you doing on a2k? Even foreign participants whose primary language is not English understands English better than you! You should be ashamed of yourself - and crawl back into the cave from which you came.
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Apr, 2009 05:36 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
* Put 1 million Plug-In Hybrid cars -- cars that can get up to 150 miles per gallon -- on the road by 2015, cars that we will work to make sure are built here in America.


And where is the electricity going to come from to power those cars, and homes, and factories, and everyplace that uses electricity?
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Apr, 2009 05:38 pm
How many cars is a million as a % ci?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Apr, 2009 05:53 pm
@mysteryman,
Not my problem. You can try to figure that one out - at your leisure.
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Apr, 2009 05:57 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Actually, it is your problem.
If you support the idea of all those electric cars, then you must have some idea of how much electricity it will take to power them.

If we need to produce that much electricity, we will need to have power plants to make the electricity.

So, do you support building more power plants?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Apr, 2009 06:17 pm
@mysteryman,
Show me where I said I supported electric cars. As for power plants, that's not my problem. I have no control over the production of energy, nor its use - except for what we consume.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Apr, 2009 06:25 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

okie wrote:
Quote:
Now, I challenge you to read all the material you can put your hands on and provide one ounce of data or evidence that in 10 years, we could become self sufficient from OPEC oil with any realistic hope to do it with wind and solar.


You can't even read English properly; what in hell are you doing on a2k? Even foreign participants whose primary language is not English understands English better than you! You should be ashamed of yourself - and crawl back into the cave from which you came.

Apparently, you never watched the presidential debates, ci. I remember Obama saying it, so I looked it up.
Do you have the honor of admitting it when you are just plain wrong, ci?
By the way, there are many problems with his statements as follows, not just the 10 year issue.

http://www.ontheissues.org/International/Barack_Obama_Energy_+_Oil.htm

"Q: How much can we reduce foreign oil imports?
OBAMA: In ten years, we can reduce our dependence so that we no longer have to import oil from the Middle East or Venezuela. Number one, we need to expand domestic production and that means telling the oil companies the 68 million acres that they currently have leased that they’re not drilling, use them or lose them.
Source: 2008 third presidential debate against John McCain Oct 15, 2008 "

OBAMA: "I’ve called for an investment of $15 billion a year over 10 years. Our goal should be, in 10 year’s time, we are free of dependence on Middle Eastern oil. And we can do it. Now, when JFK said we’re going to the Moon in 10 years, nobody was sure how to do it, but we understood that, if the American people make a decision to do something, it gets done. So that would be priority number one.
Source: 2008 second presidential debate against John McCain Oct 7, 2008 "

"Q: What can you do to move Congress on climate change?
OBAMA: I’ve called for investments in solar, wind, geothermal. Contrary to what Sen. McCain keeps on saying, I favor nuclear power as one component of our overall energy mix. But this is another example where I think it is important to look at the record. Sen. McCain said a while back that the big problem with energy is that for 30 years, politicians in Washington haven’t done anything. What Sen. McCain doesn’t mention is he’s been there 26 of them. And during that time, he voted 23 times against alternative fuels.

Source: 2008 second presidential debate against John McCain Oct 7, 2008"




okie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Apr, 2009 06:31 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Show me where I said I supported electric cars. As for power plants, that's not my problem. I have no control over the production of energy, nor its use - except for what we consume.

You support electric cars, but I guess you just don't support producing the electricity to charge them, is that your position now? I just want to clarify what your position is on this policy. Build more electric cars, but not the power plants?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Apr, 2009 06:32 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:
Quote:
OBAMA: In ten years, we can reduce our dependence so that we no longer have to import oil from the Middle East or Venezuela.
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Apr, 2009 06:35 pm
@cicerone imposter,
So are you saying you DONT support the idea of electric cars?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Apr, 2009 06:41 pm
@mysteryman,
I didn't say one way or the other. That's really not my problem; I already have a relatively new Acura TL, and drive less than 5000/year.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Apr, 2009 06:42 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

okie wrote:
Quote:
OBAMA: In ten years, we can reduce our dependence so that we no longer have to import oil from the Middle East or Venezuela.


Yes, thats what Obama said. That is what I said he said. The problem is doing it. You got that, ci. Do you have any evidence at all that his plan has any chance or snowballs chance of even getting close to that? Consider now he is investing in wind, solar, and geothermal, to do that, which now constitutes 7 tenths of 1% of our energy production, while OPEC oil imports exceed about 5 million barrels per day. Also consider the fact that Obama does not believe in more drilling to increase our own declining production in places like Alaska's Prudhoe Bay. You may wish to consider all of these factors in your analysis and your effort to find any evidence whatsoever that Obama is realisic with his plan.

Again, a challenge, produce any credible evidence. Accusations of other peoples stupidity doesn't do it. That is your homework, ci, get with it.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Apr, 2009 06:55 pm
@okie,
We won't know until he does it, can we?

It's not that I have any evidence on the success of his plan, but if you refute it can be done, it is you who must provide evidence.

Are you an expert of energy? I think not; but Obama does have experts who advises him. Who do you rely on for information on energy? Your imagination as usual.
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Apr, 2009 06:55 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
That's really not my problem


Arent you the one that keeps saying that to think "its not MY problem" is actually part of the problem?
Arent you the one that keeps saying that we all need to pay to ensure that everyone has it better?

If you think it isnt your problem, then how are you contributing to solving the problem?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Apr, 2009 06:56 pm
@mysteryman,
I'm not in any position to solve our energy problems. I'm only a consumer.

I have learned early in life that trying to control things I have no control over is a waste of my energy and time.
 

Related Topics

The States Need Help - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fiscal Cliff - Question by JPB
Let GM go Bankrupt - Discussion by Woiyo9
Sovereign debt - Question by JohnJD
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 03/16/2025 at 12:47:34