0
   

Hillery, Obama, Edwards and the Democrates

 
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Thu 8 Nov, 2007 10:04 am
georgeob1 wrote:
While the Clinton style may well be familiar and even "tired and old" to some, that shouldn't be confused with the likely policy initiatives of a Clinton Administration, if she wins. We have every reason to believe they will be materially different from those of the present administration.

Our familiarity enables us to better guess the prevarications and failings that may accompany a Clinton Administration. However we should remind ourselves that the other candidates (of either party) will likely have theirs too. Those who appear "fresh" and "new" merely have flaws that are (so far) hidden from view. (See how I am mentally preparing myself for the coming follies)

The excessive hype that increasingly accompanies our political campaigns is inevitably followed by excessive disappointment when reality replaces carefully crafted illusions, and the opposition begins its ritual of political pecking.


Want to outline exactly what the Presidents Clintons policy initiatives may be?

They have not really communicated what they will actually be.

Please be specific.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Thu 8 Nov, 2007 11:54 am
woiyo wrote:
Want to outline exactly what the Presidents Clintons policy initiatives may be?

They have not really communicated what they will actually be.

They have, actually, to those willing to listen.

Random example: Clinton's newly released energy plan.

If you don't want to read the plan itself, you could read this evaluation of it.

Look, I'm sure you will disagree with most of Clinton's plans, and that's fine - but the shtick that they dont have any is just silly. Anyone willing to click a few links, look at the Hillary website itself, or read the odd issue-focused NYT or WaPo story can show you wrong.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Thu 8 Nov, 2007 12:05 pm
Yea, some effing plan. Lots of big words but no substance.

"Recognizing that transportation accounts for 70 percent of U.S. oil consumption, Hillary would increase fuel efficiency standards to 55 miles per gallon by 2030, but would help automakers retool their production facilities through $20 billion in "Green Vehicle Bonds.""

This can be done in 2 years if any politician have the balls to force Detroit to immediately meet this standard or every car they sell will be taxed for every mile under 55 MPG it gets. FDR did it.

No substance in anything else. If it sounds like I do not trust her words, you are correct. Her inaction during her first 8 year term set the standard for which I base my opinion.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Thu 8 Nov, 2007 12:07 pm
woiyo wrote:
Yea, some effing plan.


you said there were no plans. there are plans. you don't have to like them.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Thu 8 Nov, 2007 12:09 pm
ehBeth wrote:
woiyo wrote:
Yea, some effing plan.


you said there were no plans. there are plans. you don't have to like them.


I think I already said that Einstein! Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Thu 8 Nov, 2007 12:15 pm
Interesting that there is not a word about nuclear power - which today accounts for about 22% of our electrical energy. Moreover the construction of the 12 new plants currently pending site approval by the NRC will do more than any of her proposals to displace greenhouse gas emissions. It is just more of the same old pap - mandated vehicle emission standards, neon lightbulbs and more federal research dollars (as if that is likely to produce anything useful) and more bureaucrats to cluutter up the scene.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Thu 8 Nov, 2007 12:28 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
Interesting that there is not a word about nuclear power - which today accounts for about 22% of our electrical energy. Moreover the construction of the 12 new plants currently pending site approval by the NRC will do more than any of her proposals to displace greenhouse gas emissions. It is just more of the same old pap - mandated vehicle emission standards, neon lightbulbs and more federal research dollars (as if that is likely to produce anything useful) and more bureaucrats to cluutter up the scene.


I'm curious as to why you think that federal research dollars don't produce 'anything useful.' Our defense, aerospace, pharmaceutical industries would disagree with you.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Thu 8 Nov, 2007 12:29 pm
Now HERE is a plan....

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) - California sued the federal government on Thursday to force a decision about whether the state can impose the nation's first greenhouse gas emission standards for cars and light trucks.

More than a dozen other states are poised to follow California's lead if it is granted the waiver from federal law, presenting a challenge to automakers who would have to adapt to a patchwork of regulations.

The state's lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency, filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., was expected after Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vowed last spring to take legal action.

"Our future depends on us taking action on global warming right now," Schwarzenegger said during a news conference. "There's no legal basis for Washington to stand in our way."

At issue is California's nearly two-year-old request for a waiver under the federal Clean Air Act allowing it to implement a 2002 state anti-pollution law regulating greenhouse gases.

Eleven other states have adopted California's standard as a way to combat global warming and five others are considering it.

"Our position is that it's time for EPA to either act or get out of the way," said Lee Moore, a spokesman for New Jersey Attorney General Anne Milgram.

Arizona, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington plan to join California's lawsuit against the federal government, said Gareth Lacy, spokesman for California Attorney General Jerry Brown.

"The longer the delay in reducing these emissions, the more costly and harmful will be the impact on California," the state attorney general's office said in its 16-page complaint.

Schwarzenegger and other state officials say implementing the law is crucial in order to meet the provisions of a separate global warming law that passed law year. That law seeks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 25 percent by 2020.

California asked the EPA to grant its waiver in December 2005. EPA administrator Stephen Johnson said last summer that he would make a decision by the end of this year.

Brown said the EPA simply was "sitting on its hands."

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8SPL3IG1&show_article=1

I do not think this is enough but it is a start.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Thu 8 Nov, 2007 12:58 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
georgeob1 wrote:
Interesting that there is not a word about nuclear power - which today accounts for about 22% of our electrical energy. Moreover the construction of the 12 new plants currently pending site approval by the NRC will do more than any of her proposals to displace greenhouse gas emissions. It is just more of the same old pap - mandated vehicle emission standards, neon lightbulbs and more federal research dollars (as if that is likely to produce anything useful) and more bureaucrats to cluutter up the scene.


I'm curious as to why you think that federal research dollars don't produce 'anything useful.' Our defense, aerospace, pharmaceutical industries would disagree with you.

Cycloptichorn


Do you speak for the Defense, Aerospace and pharmaceutical industries?? Do you have any experience with any of them? Do you know whereof you speak?

In general in these areas - and even more so in the energy field - Federal research spending is a small part of the total and an even smaller part of the really significant discoveries. "Big physics" might be the exception since the advent of Billion plus electron volt accelerators. However in the other fields listed, including defense, the Federal money is more of a supplement than the main event. Moreover as with the genome program the privately funded research generally yields quicker, better results at much lower costs. Perhaps you should look into the UC managed Laboratories at Livermore and Los Alamos.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Thu 8 Nov, 2007 01:02 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
georgeob1 wrote:
Interesting that there is not a word about nuclear power - which today accounts for about 22% of our electrical energy. Moreover the construction of the 12 new plants currently pending site approval by the NRC will do more than any of her proposals to displace greenhouse gas emissions. It is just more of the same old pap - mandated vehicle emission standards, neon lightbulbs and more federal research dollars (as if that is likely to produce anything useful) and more bureaucrats to cluutter up the scene.


I'm curious as to why you think that federal research dollars don't produce 'anything useful.' Our defense, aerospace, pharmaceutical industries would disagree with you.

Cycloptichorn


Do you speak for the Defense, Aerospace and pharmaceutical industries?? Do you have any experience with any of them? Do you know whereof you speak?

In general in these areas - and even more so in the energy field - Federal research spending is a small part of the total and an even smaller part of the really significant discoveries. "Big physics" might be the exception since the advent of Billion plus electron volt accelerators. However in the other fields listed, including defense, the Federal money is more of a supplement than the main event. Moreover as with the genome program the privately funded research generally yields quicker, better results at much lower costs. Perhaps you should look into the UC managed Laboratories at Livermore and Los Alamos.


It seems to me that Federal dollars helped us achieve space superiority with rapidity in earlier decades.

It also seems to me that Federal dollars have lead to many of the pharma advances, which rely upon basic research at the university level.

I know for a fact that federal dollars have sped defense along. We had significant contracts at the University of Texas to that extent.

I think you are being purposefully ignorant of the role that basic research plays in all of these fields.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Thu 8 Nov, 2007 01:13 pm
I'm not ignorant about it at all. Indeed I have a good deal of direct knowledge of the process and many of the institutions involved. The list of major Federal research programs that consumed billions (mostly in the support of self-perpetuating scientific bureaucracies) and produced nothing is very long indeed. To some extent this is mitigated by the fundamental character of much of the advanced research so funded. However, in general it is far less focused and productive than its private sector companions.

Your example of NASA is irrelevant. The government had and still has a legal monopoly on space exploration in this country. It has no competitors.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Thu 8 Nov, 2007 01:18 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
I'm not ignorant about it at all. Indeed I have a good deal of direct knowledge of the process and many of the institutions involved. The list of major Federal research programs that consumed billions (mostly in the support of self-perpetuating scientific bureaucracies) and produced nothing is very long indeed. To some extent this is mitigated by the fundamental character of much of the advanced research so funded. However, in general it is far less focused and productive than its private sector companions.

Your example of NASA is irrelevant. The government had and still has a legal monopoly on space exploration in this country. It has no competitors.


Part of basic research is in proving that theories are correct, or trying to prove theories that in fact turn out not to be correct.

When you say 'produce nothing' you are incorrect. They don't lead to new products on the shelf; but that isn't the point of basic research. You understand this, but still seek to knock the basic research as a waste. It isnt' a waste; in fact, it is fundamental to our progress as a society.

There's not much doubt in my mind that greater Federal outlays towards renewable energy, energy storage, and energy network capacity could lead to results in a relatively short time period.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Thu 8 Nov, 2007 05:15 pm
nimh wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
I received calls from that company, including the one with Pat Boone, and I must agree that the anti-gay calls didnt come from them.
There was nothing on that call that identified it as coming from the Fletcher campaign, like there was on the other call I got from them.

Dont be naive - of course there wouldnt be.


So what you are saying is that since there is no evidence that those calls came from the Fletcher campaign, that means that they must have.

Since you dont live here in Ky, I would suggest you actually wait till the whole story comes out before you judge.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Thu 8 Nov, 2007 05:29 pm
mysteryman wrote:
nimh wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
I received calls from that company, including the one with Pat Boone, and I must agree that the anti-gay calls didnt come from them.
There was nothing on that call that identified it as coming from the Fletcher campaign, like there was on the other call I got from them.

Dont be naive - of course there wouldnt be.


So what you are saying is that since there is no evidence that those calls came from the Fletcher campaign, that means that they must have.

Since you dont live here in Ky, I would suggest you actually wait till the whole story comes out before you judge.


The point is, any campaign doing fake calls like that wouldn't be stupid enough to put their name on it.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Thu 8 Nov, 2007 05:46 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:

There's not much doubt in my mind that greater Federal outlays towards renewable energy, energy storage, and energy network capacity could lead to results in a relatively short time period.

Cycloptichorn


Perhaps you should check this out with the Engineering school on campus. There has been a large Department of Energy program spending billions on this for over a decade. It has produced very little. I have a fairly close knowledge of that malformed and largely incompetent bureaucracy and wouldn't willingly invest a cent in them. (actually more than close - I was genaral Manager of a couple of their major sites for several years.)

The truth is the science and engineering skills to produce more emissions free energy are largely already at hand. The problems are (1) most of it costs much more than available alternatives, and (2) the rest is bitterly opposed by various loonie groups, particularly including environmentalist agitators.

I doubt very much that Hillary's proposals to further regulate automobile design, invest more in the bottomless pit of the DOE research bureaucracy and produce "emissions free Federal office buildings - while consulting with her new Energy Council will do very much - certainly far less than simply allowing the existing power companies to build the 15 - 20 new reactor plants they have proposed for licensing and construction (using their own money, by the way) would very quickly accomplish far more. Odd that she didn't mention that in her program.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Thu 8 Nov, 2007 08:43 pm
woiyo wrote:
ehBeth wrote:
you said there were no plans. there are plans. you don't have to like them.

I think I already said that Einstein! Rolling Eyes

You said that Clinton hasnt communicated what her policy initiatives will actually be. Thats demonstrably false, and a random example was quickly found and shown you. Bluster is not the best response to that - just looks silly. <shrugs>
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Thu 8 Nov, 2007 08:53 pm
woiyo wrote:
Now HERE is a plan....

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) - California sued the federal government on Thursday to force a decision about whether the state can impose the nation's first greenhouse gas emission standards for cars and light trucks.

Right. So when Hillary proposes mandated vehicle emission standards, it's "some effing plan" with "no substance"; but when Schwarzenegger wants to mandate vehicle emission standards, now THERE is a plan, or at least a start!

OK then.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Thu 8 Nov, 2007 09:06 pm
Both, whether done by Hillary or the Governator are equally cynical pandering to authoritarian souls who believe that surrendering their (and others) freedom is the path to a green nirvhana. If people want high mileage vehicles they can buy them now. This action will accomplish very little.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Fri 9 Nov, 2007 07:01 am
nimh wrote:
woiyo wrote:
Now HERE is a plan....

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) - California sued the federal government on Thursday to force a decision about whether the state can impose the nation's first greenhouse gas emission standards for cars and light trucks.

Right. So when Hillary proposes mandated vehicle emission standards, it's "some effing plan" with "no substance"; but when Schwarzenegger wants to mandate vehicle emission standards, now THERE is a plan, or at least a start!

OK then.


Arnold is actually DOING SOMETHING. He is holding the Feds responsible for their inaction.

The Clintons words are only that....words.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Fri 9 Nov, 2007 08:53 am
woiyo wrote:
Arnold is actually DOING SOMETHING. He is holding the Feds responsible for their inaction.

Arnold is a Governor. It's an executive office, so he can do things. Hillary is a Senator - all she can do is propose legislation, and as long as you have Bush wielding his veto and a reliable 40+ Republican minority in the Senate, there's not much she can do. Switch their positions around and they would be in each other's place. <shrugs>

That said, I'm glad we apparently agree on the common sense of these emission standards. Sometimes pragmatism has to trump ideological concerns like George's.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/02/2022 at 02:12:24