When you toss out a slander that rings of a Republican talking point and claim it represents the Democratic point of view, expect an answer.

Start by going to the source and reading the ideas:

http://www.dnc.org/

Go to the source, do the research, and we'll have something to discuss. For example:

http://www.dnc.org/a/national/clean_environment/energy/

"We will create a cleaner, greener and stronger America by reducing our dependence on foreign oil, eliminating billions in subsidies for oil and gas companies and use the savings to provide consumer relief and develop energy alternatives, and investing in energy independent technology. Energy independence puts America in the driver's seat to pursue affordable and efficient energy solutions that will benefit all Americans, improve America's security, reduce the burden on American families, and help clean our environment.

American families should not have to pay the price for a failed national energy policy. They deserve an energy policy that creates a cleaner and stronger America that reduces our dependence on foreign oil and also creates new jobs for American workers. By clearing the pathways to innovation, investing in our workers and infrastructure, and providing American consumers with broader, more responsible choices, the Democratic plan will provide the tools to help move America forward, toward real energy security for the 21st century. . . ."

Bob Wilson

 

I don't see much substance in the DNC post Bob, maybe you can help me sift through your DNC talking point.
A lot of what with no how.

I'd like to see the subsidies for oil and gas companies eliminated. I wish the Democrats and Republicans felt the same about eliminating other subsidies like farm subsidies and tarriffs which have ironically done well for large agribusiness and hurt small farmers and trading partners. Eliminating oil subsidies will raise the price of oil to more correctly reflect it's worth, eliminating farm subsidies will lower the price of food benefiting all americans, even those below our border, and lots of other countries wishing to trade with us.

I'd rather that money be returned to tax payers (lower tax is what they mean by consumer relief right?) not let the government invest it on energy alternatives or energy independent technology. Maybe consumer relief means a free bus pass?

This investing is essentially a subsidy to energy producers anyways, the government never makes a technological advancement by itself and then provides taxpayers with the benefit, it hands money over to private companies for research and the private companies benefit. Who gets the research money?, and how much money have these companies already donated to the election of Democrats in hopes of receiving this money? We just have a different set of special interests getting their voice heard. Stem cell researchers donate to Democrats, as do trial lawyers, and they'll get their payoff too.

I wish the Democrats would have simply come out and said, "we must raise the price of gas to force conservation, since you aren't doing enough on your own folks" To quote Richard Thompson "I'll hurt you until you need me". That would be more honest.

Sounds great, but how. Do they know? To paraphrase Lou Reed "Are these words or just sounds?". They mean nothing. Is "Driver's seat" a joke, "passenger's seat" is more appropriate for working families.

I agree we should clear the pathway for private investing and innovation by minimizing regulations and eliminating existing subsidies that favor inefficient existing energy producers.

The rest is more wonderful smoke with no substance. Are drilling innovations for extracting oil from ANWR and off shore part of this independence plan? There's vast reserves of cleaner natural gas in Colorado that will remain untapped if Democrats have their way. What are the new jobs? How do we invest in our workers? What infrastructure?, light rail, heavy rail, and buses? Are those the broader, more responsible choices? There's going to have to be a lot more hurting to make those choices needed for the majority of US citizens.


The DNC's plan leaves a lot unclear.

Libertarian rant over.

 

You've answered your own question.

Our country has had a policy of cheap food since the Great Depression. But subsidies have to achieve a goal for our country, not just line the "K Street" pockets.

Maybe it means ending the hydrogen fraud and returning to the high mileage vehicle program. It was working and the only difference is Toyota and Honda didn't stop.

Yeap, those dang trial lawyers who keep getting insurance companies to meet their obligations. Nothing like having a little justice to the individual who paid their premiums only to have an insurance company lawyer cheat them out of the payment in a Katrina or ordinary traffic accident.

So you are happy that the Republicans simpy payoff the oil companies with borrowed Chinese money?

The greatest deficits since Reagan == George W. Bush, yet you remain blind to them.

. . . [nonsense]


You are agreeing with yourself. In 2000, Enron raped California including in some cases, exporting California electricity to sell back at a huge profit. The 'resession' came from GW's buddy, "Kenny boy" putting a monopoly's squeeze on 25% of our nation's economy. Deregulation led directly to that fiasco and the fix was to bring back enough to stop Enron and the sister companies from raping 25% of our economy.

Amazing, my very thoughts about these 'libertarian' assertions. . . .

It is the same fantasies we saw in 1929 that took a generation and a world war to dig ourselves. Combined with the "Iraq Victory," history is repeating itself.

Bob Wilson

 

I don't follow Bob, we both agree oil subsidies should go, but how does eliminating oil subsidies create a cleaner, greaner and stronger america and how do we achieve energy independence?

Are you saying farm subsidies produce cheap food? It causes more expensive food in general.

Toyota and Honda are smart enough not to need a forced high mileage vehicle program. I have no sympathy for our domestic automakers, they should be allowed to fail and appear to be.

So it's okay that they pay off democrats?

No, I think you knew that from your first quote from me, but a large part of the oil payoff is actually tax reductions or eliminations that really don't cost anything to the taxpayer, unless you look at your money as the governments first, and yours second. Nothings stopping you from giving more to the government that the IRS requires if you don't think your being taxes enough.

When have I defended Bush?


I usually agree with myself Bob. I don't see how California's "deregulation" had anything to do with actual deregulation. How is not allowing utilities to pass on cost to consumers deregulation, sounds more like an attempt at price control. How is not allowing utilities to negotiate long term contracts deregulation?, sounds like regulation. I'm not arguing for Enron as you think, what they did was found to be criminal. California's reregulation was a disaster.

Amazing, you haven't clarified anything the Democrats will do, or how they will do them.

I looked at the site and mostly found Bush bashing, which is fine, but still I found nothing of substance from the Democrats. The best I found was this.

So the idea is to spend billions on handouts to Corporations that will expand and hire millions of workers to figure out how to make biofuels sustainably. I'll guess that giant agricorporations will benefit greatly. Will the Nuclear lobby get a piece of this pie? Can anyone get a chuck of money for homegrown efforts?

I don't follow how "Improvements in infrastructure and electricity options and standards" equals "much greater use of alternative fuel and hybrid vehicles". I hope their aren't promoting E-85 from corn, only hydrogen is a worse idea.

We can commit to efficiency and renewably-generated electricity and invest massively in advanced energy technologies, but how will that lead to reduced electricity and fuel bills? Sounds more like a massive tax increase is on the way. Renewably-generated electricity would be around now if it was less expensive, subsidies mean more taxes, and epitomize "unsustainable".

Getting out of Iraq would stop a lot of waste, maybe we should commit that "savings" to 10,000 new grade schools and 10,000 new high schools. That should solve our failing school system too.

 

Hi,
So is it a subsidy or a tax reduction? Perhaps it is simply the cost of a government that protects the deeds and leases from a foreign government and theft.


The subsidies keep farm products cheap and at one time, were aimed at slowing down the rush from rural to urban areas. They also provide insurance for the variabilities of weather. As for Japan Inc., they have a different social contract and one that I find has a lot to admire.

As much as it is OK for insurance lawyers to pay off the republicans.

When you didn't vote democatic.

They seem much happier now than they were in 2000.


Like Will Rogers said, "I don't belong to an organized political party. I'm a democrat."

Now we'll get a chance to find out what can be done but we do have Jimmy Cater's model. He'd started up an oil-shale plant, universal 55 mph and put solar heaters on the White House. Given GW has a veto pen, I don't have any great expectations other than putting the brakes on the worst republican follies and dealing with the worst of the tax cuts.

Bob Wilson

 

I don't forsee much difference regarding fuel or hybrids being affected by the elections. I don't thing GB has allot to do with it either.

The do nothing house/senate got tossed out on a revolt for many reasons and now the Dems hope to hold power in two years.
They won't drop the Nat'l speed limit to 55 or pass a fuel bill which could be interpreted as a threat to the economy.
I really don't predict any major changes as they need to walk softly including subsidies and appear more to the "right" to appease the more "centrist" voters.

Depending on what happens in 2008 all bets are off.

 

Actually, the Apollo project was not something I would describe as handouts to corporations. For one thing, it was run by the government, although certainly there were a lot of private companies that had contracts to do work for NASA. All those companies hired people. Those people took home their salaries, spent them or saved them, and contributed to the American economy... what's wrong, in your view, with hoping that a new technology investment project means that the American government and its contractors (probably mostly American companies) use the money to 'hire millions of workers?' I thought hiring workers was generally considered to be a plus. You know, job creation?

Not to mention that investment in long-term scientific research, especially basic research, like the sort of things being considered in the 'new Apollo project,' as it may be called, is one of the very best ways to create growth, profits, prosperity, increases in standard of living, education, ... all kinds of good things on a national scale. These are the kind of things that people of both parties can really get behind, and get excited about, too.

Being at the technological forefront means that everyone wants to invest in American businesses and so capital from around the world would be directed here. It means that the brightest minds from around the world will want to come here to work, that the world's best students will want to come here to be educated, and that Americans educated here will be able to get more and better jobs if they go abroad.

I'm something of a technophile, and I have a scientific background, scientists in my family, and many near neighbors and good friends whose careers are scientifically-oriented, so I'm not exactly without bias on this subject, but believe me, the data backs it up. For all the money the government invests in science (which is actually surprisingly little in the grand scheme of things), the returns to the country are much greater.

A large-scale, focused project that has patriotism and enthusiasm driving it, as the space program did in the first Apollo project, can accomplish even more than most research. Why? Because as people innovate to solve particular problems in one field, they often invent things that have very useful applications that can be adapted to other areas. Someone from another field might notice a development and think, hey, that could work for MY problem, too!

When science is governmentally funded, instead of privately, then the potential for that kind of crossover increases exponentially. Ever heard the expression "publish or perish?" It's the mantra most academics live by. They gain status, grant money, positions, promotions, most everything in the academic world through succesful publication of peer-reviewed papers, which ensure not only that the best ideas are subjected to the highest levels of scrutiny, but also that they are spread widely and freely to anyone else who may be able to use those findings to innovate further. In privately funded science, intellectual property protection schemes, trade secrets and so on, often get in the way of this kind of highly beneficial openness.

 

Also, to follow up on my earlier research into the bills that the Democrats have on the table right now, it looks like I was right. Already, three Senators who are about to be the chairmen of major committees are making public statements about the fact that climate change legislation is on its way to the White House. Read more about it here:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/bca29d1a-757...0779e2340.html

 

The idea that taxing citizens to then use that money to create jobs is terribly wasteful. All government run institutions turn into money wasting self serving beauracracies. My brother has worked both for Mc Donald Douglas and NASA and he left NASA in disgust at how there were huge departments of people doing little or nothing and layer upon layer of managers. Mc Donald Douglas wouldn't be in business if it ran like NASA.

Here's a libertarian recommendation for disbanning NASA.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb107/hb107-35.pdf

I suppose we could look at the war in Iraq as a great job creator. With high enough taxes we could offer everyone a job, just because Russia couldn't make it work doesn't mean we can't.

The shuttle project and Internation Space Station are incredibly expensive money pits. Just like the war in Iraq.

Where's the evidence that government spending provides great returns? I like data.

There is lots of evidence that private companies do invest their own money with great success and profit and jobs. It's called the Wall Street Journal. But when private companies fail they are replaced with a better provider, with government the failure means more money and taxes. To quote Bob Dylan "There's no success like failure, and failures no success at all". Government wins when it fails, but we lose.

It is the profit motive that creates the real wealth and innovation that has made this country, not government funding. Where's the evidence that government funding has had exponential increases in anything but spending?

These academics that live by "Publish or Perish" should get jobs in industry trying to produce something, not seeking government grant money. There is a twisted incentive to make dire predictions. To quote Bob Dylan again "When all of your advisers heave their plastic, at your feet to convince you of your pain,
Trying to prove that your conclusions should be more drastic, won't you come see me Queen Jane". No one gets more grant money by concluding there isn't a problem. Bush should have listened to Dylan, not Rumsfeld.

If stem cell research was as promising as we are told, then there would be no need for grant money, private companies would be investing their own money with expectations of a large return. That it takes government money tells me the potential isn't that great. The idea that it takes government investment to create things ignores the reality that the profit motive is the real incentive in our capitalist society. Not defending Bush, but he hasn't tried to BAN stem cell research, but Germany does. There's a difference between not allowing research and not funding it. I'd rather see the profit motive drive research, as it usually has.

That it takes government investment to try to replace coal and oil means they are still the best options.

 

Make that cheapest, most profitable options.
They may not be the BEST option for the future or the security of our country, however. Most big-business companies care very little about that, nor do they care for our collective well-being.
There ARE times when government NEEDS to step in - and I'm certainly not one for big government. Typically they are the least efficient at accomplishing a task. But sometimes they should jump-start good ideas by offering funding or incentives - possibly before the idea's time has really come - for the good of the country.