A first(?) thread on 2008: McCain,Giuliani & the Republicans

Okie, the info is there. Stay ignorant or don't, but don't blame Obama, me, or anyone but yourself for your ignorance. I know you can read; so you're either too lazy to read his positions or too damn dumb to remember them. My guess is the former.

0 Replies

Thanks for the glowing compliments, ob, but you don't get it, do you? It is not my ignorance, your ignorance, my dumbness, or your dumbness that are the issues here. The information may be available in vague form, hidden in his website or elsewhere, but instead of addressing the point of my comments, you resort to "dyslexisms." I think if you keep following this campaign, the point that I raise here will become much more prominent, who is Obama and what exactly does he mean when he chants, "change?" As I said, I am tired of that, and as aptly explained by Giuliani, almost everybody wants change, the argument is in what direction. The term "change" means nothing without being accompanied by details. And when I hear any explanation from him at all, it doesn't sound like much of a change from the same old tired liberal stuff.

And if you are one of his supporters, you also fall into the category of not really knowing how to summarize it or you would do it.

If you apply this change business as he hints at, change means higher taxes, especially to rich people, punish and demonize corporations, wean ourselves off of foreign oil, but how, that is the question, and none of this stuff have practical answers. We could go through the list, but "change" becoming a turnoff word in my mind, especially if you apply it to the country. I happen to like the country.

Anyway, this belongs on the Obama thread, and any of the Republicans have more practical answers to questions than any Democrat, that is the point.

0 Replies

"Any of the Republicans have more practical answers to questions than any Democrat?" Really, okie?

Well then, here's my question: How do the Republicans want to wean America off of foreign oil?

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

"Any of the Republicans have more practical answers to questions than any Democrat?" Really, okie?

Well then, here's my question: How do the Republicans want to wean America off of foreign oil?

Actually there is a fairly effective policy already in place to boost the production of electrical power by clean coal and nuclear and thereby displace a major portion of the 17% of our electrical power we wastefully produce with relatively abundant domestic natural gas to transportation fuels - either directly in internal combustion engines or fuel cells, or through the production of hydrogen from the gas (or even directly from coal). All of this is much more promising than the authoritarian demand reduction schemes or the fantasies about significant, low cost production from solar or wind turbines that Democrats so favor. Operating licences for most existing nuclear powerplants have been extended past 2025 and the process for new licenses vastly simplified - so far about sixteen have been issued, mostly for the construction of new plants adjacent to existing ones.

Constructive action and political rhetoric are not the same thing.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

All of this is much more promising than the authoritarian demand reduction schemes or the fantasies about significant, low cost production from solar or wind turbines that Democrats so favor.

You will certainly be able to point out all the "authoritarian demand reduction schemes" that the Democratic candidates want to implement, right?

And, quite apart from that, most of the Republican candidates (apart from Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo and Fred Thompson) have come out in favour of significant, low cost production from solar or wind turbines - financed by either tax cuts, by investing oil profits, by subsidizing alternative energies or even by a major programme.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

You will certainly be able to point out all the "authoritarian demand reduction schemes" that the Democratic candidates want to implement, right?

Right -- all of them advocate significant revision of the so-called CAFE standards that legally limit the average fuel consumption of vehicles sold in the country. I understand that similar rules are a contemporary issue in Germany as well. I am skeptical of government's ability to wisely design vehicles.

old europe wrote:

And, quite apart from that, most of the Republican candidates (apart from Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo and Fred Thompson) have come out in favour of significant, low cost production from solar or wind turbines - financed by either tax cuts, by investing oil profits, by subsidizing alternative energies or even by a major programme.

In the first place there is no such thing as "low cost production' from solar or wind turbines. On naverage they cost two to three times as much as nuclear per unit of energy produced: moreover they constitute only a trivial fraction of our proiduction.

In the second, some rhetorical acknowledgement of the contemporary public fantasies about magical new "low cost", "renewable" sources is probably necessary for all of them. My hope is that the Republicans know better than to believe it.

These sources do benefit from hidden subsidies, in that utilities & producers are constrained to sell their power from all sources at their average cost of production from all sources. This coupled with increasing state requirements that specified fractions of production must come from "renewable" sources, constitutes a huge government-enforced subsidy for these sources. it is deceptively described as "low cost solar and wind power', but no discerning person can believe that - I'm surprised that you do.

0 Replies

It would be a benefit if governments help subsidize the cost of developing more wind and solar energy. The initial cost may be high, but it should result in long-term benefits.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

It would be a benefit if governments help subsidize the cost of developing more wind and solar energy. The initial cost may be high, but it should result in long-term benefits.

Such subsidies are already in place. However the "benefits" so far are rather hard to find. Production costs have been reduced only very slightly: indeed the subsidies so favored by the misguided are a positive disincentive to the development of needed improvements. This is a marvelous illustration of Aesop's story about the mice belling the cat.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

old europe wrote:

You will certainly be able to point out all the "authoritarian demand reduction schemes" that the Democratic candidates want to implement, right?
Right -- all of them advocate significant revision of the so-called CAFE standards that legally limit the average fuel consumption of vehicles sold in the country. I understand that similar rules are a contemporary issue in Germany as well. I am skeptical of government's ability to wisely design vehicles.

That does not set them apart from all Republican candidates, though.

John McCain, for example, has voted in favour of the CAFE standards. He voted 'no' on terminating CAFE standards. Granted, he voted also 'no' on a bill that would have directed NHTSA to establish a new CAFE standard within 15 months to two years - but so did Hillary Clinton.

georgeob1 wrote:

old europe wrote:
And, quite apart from that, most of the Republican candidates (apart from Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo and Fred Thompson) have come out in favour of significant, low cost production from solar or wind turbines - financed by either tax cuts, by investing oil profits, by subsidizing alternative energies or even by a major programme.
In the first place there is no such thing as "low cost production' from solar or wind turbines. On naverage they cost two to three times as much as nuclear per unit of energy produced: moreover they constitute only a trivial fraction of our proiduction.

In the second, some rhetorical acknowledgement of the contemporary public fantasies about magical new "low cost", "renewable" sources is probably necessary for all of them. My hope is that the Republicans know better than to believe it.

I see. So you don't really go by the statements of the candidates, but rather by some belief that the Republican candidates, when they come out in favour of alternative energies, will magically do the right thing, while Democratic candidates, when making the same statements and even supporting virtually identical programmes, will, by default, mess things up.

georgeob1 wrote:

These sources do benefit from hidden subsidies, in that utilities & producers are constrained to sell their power from all sources at their average cost of production from all sources. This coupled with increasing state requirements that specified fractions of production must come from "renewable" sources, constitutes a huge government-enforced subsidy for these sources. it is deceptively described as "low cost solar and wind power', but no discerning person can believe that - I'm surprised that you do.

That's not the way things have been implemented here, and it's certainly not the only way it can be implemented. I don't really want to go into the details here, but here, for example, producers are not "constrained to sell their power from all sources at their average cost of production from all sources."

Rather, they charge higher rates for energy from renewable/alternative sources, and lower rates from sources like coal or nuclear power plants.

But apart from all of that, that still doesn't validate okie's claim that the "Republicans have more practical answers than any Democrat." It doesn't even show how Republicans have different answers on specific topics than Democrats do.

Just one other example: Rudy Giuliani has stated that he wants to reach energy independence by advancing all kinds of alternative energy, that the "president has to treat this like putting a man on the moon."

Does that sound like a big government funded programme to you or not?

I'm not saying that there are big differences between the candidates. But the 'all Republicans' vs. 'all Democrats' angle is just ridiculous.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Rudy Giuliani has stated that he wants to reach energy independence by advancing all kinds of alternative energy

Oh, one thing. He's come out in favour of all kinds of alternative energy apart from wind power.

Worth mentioning.

0 Replies

I suppose you have a point, however you neglect consideration of what the respective parties are likely to really do in power. The Bush administration has, without any rhetoric or public promotion of the fact, prevented the early demise of our existing nuclear establishment, and even enabled its significant expansion - something the Democrats will surely try to reverse if put in power. It has also funded research into the use of natural gas as a feed stock for transportation fuels -- actions which directly address both the problems of imported petroleum and net CO2 emissions - offering far more practical benefit than the popular fantasies in such demand now..

The public demands reassurance that "cheap, clean, renewable" sources alone can solve the problem, and to some extent both parties feed these illusions. However the Democrats offer nothing else at all, while the Republicans rather quietly retain far more meaningful and effective methods in their approach. We have already seen the feckless disarray of the Democrat Congress - they are against all that is considered evil by them, however just what they are for remains incoherent and mostly senseless.

If I am not mistaken even Germany, despite a huge investment in wind generation, is finding it necessary to resume construction of new coal-fired power plants to practically meet rising demand.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

I suppose you have a point, however you neglect consideration of what the respective parties are likely to really do in power. The Bush administration has, without any rhetoric or public promotion of the fact, prevented the early demise of our existing nuclear establishment, and even enabled its significant expansion - something the Democrats will surely try to reverse if put in power. It has also funded research into the use of natural gas as a feed stock for transportation fuels -- actions which directly address both the problems of imported petroleum and net CO2 emissions - offering far more practical benefit than the popular fantasies in such demand now..

The public demands reassurance that "cheap, clean, renewable" sources alone can solve the problem, and to some extent both parties feed these illusions. However the Democrats offer nothing else at all, while the Republicans rather quietly retain far more meaningful and effective methods in their approach. We have already seen the feckless disarray of the Democrat Congress - they are against all that is considered evil by them, however just what they are for remains incoherent and mostly senseless.

If I am not mistaken even Germany, despite a huge investment in wind generation, is finding it necessary to resume construction of new coal-fired power plants to practically meet rising demand.

The other side of the equation is the energy cost to produce 'cheap, clean, renewable' energy. My son, for instance, was project manager to design, construct, and put on line a fat rendering plant that converts beef and chicken fat into usable fuels. (This in response to the latest and perhaps rather dubious energy legislation.) It takes both electricity and natural gas to operate the plant, however, and those cows and chickens have to be housed, innoculated, and fed in order to produce the fat, and the food they eat has to be grown in plowed, fertilized, watered, and harvested fields with all processes consuming large quantities of energy. It remains to be seen how much in energy savings will be accomplished with this renewable fuel.

One engineer I talked to recently ponders how much ethanol would be made available to consumers if all the equipment used to produce it were run on ethanol. He suspects it would be very little.

Another source--I don't remember where it was--suggested that we could use ALL available land that was suitable for wind farms and solar panels and put wind farms and solar panels on it, and that would produce a relatively small percentage of our total energy needs while eroding valuable farm and ranch land.

As we currently do have plentiful crude oil, natural gas, and coal supplies and nuclear has proved to be the safest and most efficient energy producer of all, I think the most practical policy is to work on better technologies to harvest and utilize these in safe and environmentally friendly ways while we continue to work on new and better technologies for new energy sources. I look dubiously at any politician who would diminish cost efficient and energy effective sources due to political expediency.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

I suppose you have a point, however you neglect consideration of what the respective parties are likely to really do in power.

Well, certainly. I'd fully agree with you if this was an election in a parliamentary system, where you'd be voting for a party. However, it is not, and you are not.

So it comes down to the individual candidate just as much as to the party. I mean, just look at the Bush administration, and the neocons... So many ways in which they did the exact opposite of what you'd expect from a conservative government (in the context of US politics, of course). Just look at issues like fiscal responsibility, or immigration.

georgeob1 wrote:

The Bush administration has, without any rhetoric or public promotion of the fact, prevented the early demise of our existing nuclear establishment, and even enabled its significant expansion - something the Democrats will surely try to reverse if put in power.

"The Democrats will surely try to reverse?"

Why would they. I think that all of them except for Edwards are running on a platform of expanding nuclear energy - to a point where America becomes independent from imports. How would they do that while working on "the demise of our existing nuclear establishment?"

georgeob1 wrote:

It has also funded research into the use of natural gas as a feed stock for transportation fuels -- actions which directly address both the problems of imported petroleum and net CO2 emissions.

It does. However, that's hardly on the level even the Republican candidates are promising to implement.

georgeob1 wrote:

The public demands reassurance that "cheap, clean, renewable" sources alone can solve the problem, and to some extent both parties feed these illusions.

Well, you keep mentioning "cheap, clean, renewable" sources. Can you point out some statements by candidates where they have mentioned that? Specifically?

I really think you're arguing a lot against what you think they have said rather than against what they have actually said.

georgeob1 wrote:

However the Democrats offer nothing else at all, while the Republicans rather quietly retain far more meaningful and effective methods in their approach.

Doesn't sound like much more than a platitude. So far, you've been unable to show one example of where Republican candidates, as a collective, stand for "meaningful and effective methods" vis-a-vis the Democratic candidates.

georgeob1 wrote:

We have already seen the feckless disarray of the Democrat Congress - they are against all that is considered evil by them, however just what they are for remains incoherent and mostly senseless.

Yes. The Republican Congress was really very popular.

Hey, wait. Aren't you voting for candidates because they "are against all that is considered evil by them?"

georgeob1 wrote:

If I am not mistaken even Germany, despite a huge investment in wind generation, is finding it necessary to resume construction of new coal-fired power plants to practically meet rising demand.

Sure. Nobody is going to argue that the energy consumption of most countries can be satisfied just by wind energy. Some countries (like Norway) manage to meet the energy need just by relying on renewable energy, but that's certainly not possible for most other countries.

Then again, that "huge investment in wind generation" is private investment, for the most part. Same goes for solar energy (where consumers can install solar panels on their roof, and feed surplus energy back into the grid).

It's simply not like there's no other possibility than either waiting for the market to come up with new solutions, or instituting big state run programmes.

(Ha. The same goes for universal health care, by the way.)

0 Replies

I agree that ethanol from corn offers marginal at best energy improvements when the energy imput is taken into account. I suspect the real issue is the eventual potential of ethanol production from more ubiquitous cellulose-rich plants, which don't compete with corn and other food crops - something that depends on the development of suitable enzymes for the biological process, and about which I don't know much. As long as there is a practical expectation of eventual ethanol from cellulose, the current effort will likely pay off in the end. One can only hope.

0 Replies

In an attempt to win back some of the favour and limelight that has gone to McCain, Huckabee and Romney in the last month, Rudy Giuliani outdoes everyone in insanity and promises "a multitrillion-dollar tax cut"... aimed squarely at the richest people, of course.

Quote:

MIRROR, MIRROR, ON THE WALL, WHO'S THE BIGGEST PANDERER OF ALL?

Mike Huckabee currently has the loopiest tax proposal on the table, a 30% national sales tax that he supports because he read a book about it once and thought it sounded kinda neat. It's unworkable, hugely regressive, wouldn't raise half the money Huckabee thinks it would, and would create an underground economy so massive it would make the old Soviet Union look efficient.

But it would cut taxes on the rich, which means it's perfect for the modern Republican Party. So how do you top it? Rudy Giuliani, never a man to let himself be upstaged [..], provided his answer yesterday (numbers added to original Reuters dispatch for easy reference):

Republican presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani has proposed what he called a multitrillion-dollar tax cut that would (1) lower the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent....(2) reduce the capital gains tax from 15 percent to 10 percent....(3) preserve the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts enacted by President George W. Bush....(4) eliminate the estate tax....(5) give taxpayers the option of choosing a simplified tax form with three tax brackets with a maximum bracket of 30 percent....(6) index the alternative minimum tax to inflation and eventually repeal it.
Take that, Huckabee! You say your plan is big? Well, according to an expert that Townhall blogger Matt Lewis talked to, "This plan would be huge." How huge? "It would be 4% of GDP. By comparison, GWB tax cut was 1.3% of GDP. Reagan's was 1.9% of GDP."

Twice the size of Reagan's! Three times the size of Bush's! And deficits? No worries. These babies will pay for themselves!

Oh, and just in case you haven't figured this out yet, all six of Giuliani's tax cuts are aimed at people who already have lots and lots of money.

Grover Norquist loves it, of course, but other economists, not so much, Reuters reports...:

Quote:

Giuliani's failure to recommend an immediate strategy for strengthening the economy and offer a plan to pay for the tax cuts was criticized by other economists.

"What we need right now is a very targeted stimulus plan that goes right to the heart of the problems we face, which can all be traced to the distress in the subprime mortgage market," said Ward McCarthy, managing director of Stone & McCarthy Research Associates, in Princeton, New Jersey.

"Quite frankly, these grandiose, broad-based fiscal proposals now being scattered about in shotgun fashion by a variety of politicians are completely off the mark." [..]

Economics professor Matthew Shapiro at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor said: "Giuliani's plan looks like a tax cut not reform. It's not clear how this would move the budget toward balance."

source

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Another source--I don't remember where it was--suggested that we could use ALL available land that was suitable for wind farms and solar panels and put wind farms and solar panels on it, and that would produce a relatively small percentage of our total energy needs while eroding valuable farm and ranch land.

The United States cover a land area of more 9.1 million square kilometres.

Now, even by the most pessimistic estimates, a tiny fraction of that covered in photovoltaic panels would meet the energy demand of America.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Another source--I don't remember where it was--suggested that we could use ALL available land that was suitable for wind farms and solar panels and put wind farms and solar panels on it, and that would produce a relatively small percentage of our total energy needs while eroding valuable farm and ranch land.

The United States cover a land area of more 9.1 million square kilometres.

Now, even by the most pessimistic estimates, a tiny fraction of that covered in photovoltaic panels would meet the energy demand of America.

Adding to that: the land, where wind turbines are installed, can still be used for farming and cattle grazing. Less than 1% of the land are used for foundations and access roads, the other 99% is used for farming etc. . Atleast that's how it worked and works until now.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Another source--I don't remember where it was--suggested that we could use ALL available land that was suitable for wind farms and solar panels and put wind farms and solar panels on it, and that would produce a relatively small percentage of our total energy needs while eroding valuable farm and ranch land.

The United States cover a land area of more 9.1 million square kilometres.

Now, even by the most pessimistic estimates, a tiny fraction of that covered in photovoltaic panels would meet the energy demand of America.

What tiny fraction do you suggest? And where would you put them? And if these would be so easily accomplished and would be so efficient, why hasn't it already been done? Why do you suppose that even in sunny New Mexico where we have far more sun than clouds, few solar companies have been viable and most who have attempted to gain a foothold have failed?

0 Replies

We can just expand our nuclear power like the UK.

Ten UK nuclear power stations by 2020

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/01/10/eanuclear110.xml

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

old europe wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Another source--I don't remember where it was--suggested that we could use ALL available land that was suitable for wind farms and solar panels and put wind farms and solar panels on it, and that would produce a relatively small percentage of our total energy needs while eroding valuable farm and ranch land.

The United States cover a land area of more 9.1 million square kilometres.

Now, even by the most pessimistic estimates, a tiny fraction of that covered in photovoltaic panels would meet the energy demand of America.

What tiny fraction do you suggest? And where would you put them? And if these would be so easily accomplished and would be so efficient, why hasn't it already been done? Why do you suppose that even in sunny New Mexico where we have far more sun than clouds, few solar companies have been viable and most who have attempted to gain a foothold have failed?

Since you don't remember the source of your above statement, why don't you go and Google some estimates of how much area you would have to cover in photovoltaic panels to meet the energy needs of the US? Might be interesting...

0 Replies

A first(?) thread on 2008: McCain,Giuliani & the Republicans

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know