Golbez
Dirty Bastid
 From: Michigan
Registered: 06-20-05
Posts: 1770
|
|
No need to sound dismissive about "my source" of tire pressure. It's right there in the link, and links are provided:
A far more authoritative estimate comes from the U.S. Government Accountability Office, which puts the figure at 1.2 billion gallons of fuel per year. In a report dated Feb. 9, 2007, GAO says:
GAO: The Department of Energy’s designated economist on this issue indicated that, of the 130 billion gallons of fuel that the Transportation Research Board (TRB) estimated were used in passenger cars and light trucks in 2005, about 1.2 billion gallons were wasted as a result of driving on underinflated tires. |
Now it's true not everyone will maintain properly inflated tires, so we will never save that 1.2 billion gallons/year. But it would save the individual about 3% gas mileage immediately. And if we weren't so dismissive as a whole about the concept, maybe we could recoup .6 billion gallons/year nationally. So what makes Obama a liar, as you put it? And if you wanna go that route, McCain lies as much as he tells the truth (relative to investigated campaign claims/assertions/speeches): http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... hn-mccain/
Regardless, the gas push is a dated vision and policy. The United States has on reserves about 3% of the world's national supply of crude oil, and we use 25% of the world's oil. It's a very finite supply, it's going to take a while to produce and have an effect, and it doesn't improve upon the carbon emission situation. And both candidates are pledging to eliminate foreign oil imports within 10 years (at least from countries with terrorist-friendly regimes, I imagine; we import about 1/3 oil from Canada and Mexico). The move forward is renewable energy which is environmentally safe, unlimited in supply, and the more you invest and build up the infrastructure, the cheaper it becomes. But Obama has given some leeway in his plan for domestic oil supplies. A large concern of his is carbon emissions. His is all for clean coal technology and carbon sequestration. Besides there are over 68 million acres that aren't producing squat - http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/629/
The site even argues they're taking measures to produce oil (they're not idly doing nothing), and still no oil is being produced. So this whole off-shore drilling business is a fringe argument. It will have little effect on our energy supply.
As to oil shale, in addition to cost efficiency -
| Both mining and processing of oil shale involve a variety of environmental impacts, such as global warming and greenhouse gas emissions, disturbance of mined land, disposal of spent shale, use of water resources, and impacts on air and water quality. The development of a commercial oil shale industry in the United States would also have significant social and economic impacts on local communities. Other impediments to development of the oil shale industry in the United States include the relatively high cost of producing oil from oil shale (currently greater than $60 per barrel), and the lack of regulations to lease oil shale. |
Again, he favors clean coal technology and carbon sequestration technology. But that's going to take money. And we're in a recession, so I guess the rich can't afford more taxes, as evidenced by Wall Street's continued social events.
ANWR, I take an environmentally friendly approach, as I do generally, and don't support drilling there. Here's a relevant passage from this link: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/678/
But the reality of tapping the oil reserves in ANWR isn't that simple and debates over economic benefits and environmental costs rely on plenty of conjecture. An authoritative estimate of what ANWR might hold for oil production comes from a three-year study by the U.S. Geological Survey that was released in 1998, which estimates that between 5.7-billion and 16-billion barrels of recoverable oil might be found in ANWR. But the report concludes that the oil is not concentrated in a single area but is instead spread throughout the refuge, meaning the 2,000-acre cap could only be viable if those acres weren't contiguous. And, between those acres would have to be a network of roads and pipelines connecting them.
In fact, the GOP proposal that would have set the 2,000-acre cap acknowledges this fact without stating it outright. For example, the legislation specified that the acres would be used on production equipment, airstrips and berms and structural supports for pipeplines. But it wouldn't include roads, and the legislation also says the acreage toward that limit only would count equipment that touches the ground so that miles of pipeline wouldn't count, only the stanchions holding it up.
Environmentalists contend pipelines and roads and related infrastructure would cover a much larger area than a mere 2,000 acres, which could fragment fragile wildlife habitat. |
And on the whole, ANWR is a percentage of the 3% oil reserves we have. Again, to me, a fringe element. So I don't know about that whole "no good reason not to drill everywhere." That's a wholly one-sided approach, and a short-sited one at that. So sure a better time would have been 10 years ago (or before), and now is indeed a good time, when considering the oil we import from the mid east. But we should still be doing more with the acres of land we already have available rather than crusading over ANWR.
Quasi-socialist, no. Psuedo-socialist, fine. I don't care what term some random "Joe" defines it as. It's ~4% tax hike on the rich. And it's revenue the government will spend as it always has. It is in no uncertain terms completely ridiculous to say that a 29% tax for the rich is just fine, but a 33% tax on the rich is socialism. The numbers are probably off, but as an example, it's suitable. It's ridiculous. At 29%, it's still "spread the wealth around," which is just a slandered expression to hint at socialism, even if it's what we've always done anyways. So spare me the nonsense.
| "Now taxing the rich and tax-cutting the not so rich is the exact same thing as taking their money and giving it to us. And since 30-40% of americans don't pay taxes..." |
No. No! If you were a dog, I'd rub your nose in it. If the lower/middle class have a lower tax bracket, that means they are PAYING LESS. I DID THIS IN CAPS LAST TIME SO IT WOULD SINK IN. THE POOR ARE PAYING LESS. THE POOR ARE GIVING TO THE GOVERNMENT A SMALLER PORTION OF THEIR INCOME. THE POOR ARE KEEPING A LARGER PORTION OF THEIR OWN MONEY. So it does not translate into "people who don't pay taxes get money from the rich," with exception to the windfall profits tax I've already discussed.
And I see how you've tied socialism to hundreds of thousands of deaths world-wide, but correlation does not equal causation. And it was pretty ridiculous for you to even bother stating that. Unless you care to explain how Obama's tax plan somehow translates into national genocide.
And I thought Ron Paul was cool, though I would have certainly needed to look up some of his stances and claims. It seems most of his own party could refute some of his positions, and his gold-backed dollar idea sounded as if that was a bad idea, as a friend of mine reasoned. But those would be some of the things I'd have to look up in detail.
_______________________________________
|
|
What's interesting about this article is how little the author understands.