(06-20-2011 09:13 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(06-20-2011 08:42 AM)Smaug Wrote:  

(06-20-2011 01:00 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The reason we haven't progressed away from oil is that we don't have anything to progress TO. There are no viable substitutes for oil.

Could that at least be partially due to large monied interestes who aren't interested in any alternatives to oil?

What alternatives?

Perhaps the seekers of alternate energy should explain where the energy is going to come from if we can’t drill for oil, can’t burn coal, can’t dam streams, can’t put windmills where they might spoil a Kennedy’s view, and can’t build nukes.

Vague allusions to “green power” don’t count.

Any discussion about future energy has to start with this truth: The electrical grid cant sore energy. Electricity is produced in near real time based on current load requirements.

You can burn coal or oil (or run a nuke) plant in such a fashion. Solar, Wind, even Hydro (except on a massive scale like the Niagara River) can't be your source of power.

Unless you use wind, solar, or hydro to efficiently store, and then recover, energy they will be bit players on the grid.

Hydro gets around this by pooling water in reserve pools at the top of damns, but even that is limited. You're not really storing electricity but the same kinetic energy that's used by the turbines.

Most ways of storing electricity (batteries, capacitors, etc) are worse for the environment than burning oil (hence the illusion of a benefit from the Chevy volt).

Large scale storage will almost have to be mechanical.

(06-20-2011 09:13 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(06-20-2011 08:42 AM)Smaug Wrote:  

(06-20-2011 01:00 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The reason we haven't progressed away from oil is that we don't have anything to progress TO. There are no viable substitutes for oil.

Could that at least be partially due to large monied interestes who aren't interested in any alternatives to oil?

What alternatives?

Perhaps the seekers of alternate energy should explain where the energy is going to come from if we can’t drill for oil, can’t burn coal, can’t dam streams, can’t put windmills where they might spoil a Kennedy’s view, and can’t build nukes.

Vague allusions to “green power” don’t count.

I don't know what, if any, potential alternatives there are. That's not my bailiwick.

I was just posing the question, and will reiterate, what impetus is there among the powers-that-be to pursue potential alternatives?

(06-20-2011 09:23 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(06-20-2011 05:58 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  

(06-20-2011 05:46 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  There has been legislation on the floors of Congress for over a Decade that would have solved this problem. It is called the FairTax.

Fair in name only as it lowers taxes at the top while raising them for the poor and middle class.

You realize 49% of Americans pay no income tax at all? You really think the majority of that 49% are rich?

I love the kennard that the Reagan tax cuts "mainly" benefited the top tier. Let's grant for a moment the assumpition that they did. That top tier took it and helped create 17 million NEW JOBS in Reagan's 8 years. I say if that's what happens when tax policy mainly benefits the top tier, we need more of it.

Flat tax is the way to go. 20% with the first 50k exempt. Eliminate all deductions save mortgage interest and charitable giving. You could pretty much eliminate the IRS completely under such a structure, saving billions a year. Then sit back and watch the economy roar.

How many people making under $20,000 do you think can actually pay more? Better yet, how much do you think you can squeeze out of people making less than $20,000? It ain't much. Certainly won't do a whole hell of a lot for paying down the debt/deficit.

(06-20-2011 05:58 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  

(06-20-2011 05:46 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  There has been legislation on the floors of Congress for over a Decade that would have solved this problem. It is called the FairTax.

Fair in name only as it lowers taxes at the top while raising them for the poor and middle class.

That is simply incorrect. It totally untaxes the poor. This has been explained on this board over and over in detail. There are plenty of resources at your finger tips to educate yourself on the FT since you have not been paying attention.

(06-20-2011 11:41 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(06-20-2011 09:23 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(06-20-2011 05:58 AM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  

(06-20-2011 05:46 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  There has been legislation on the floors of Congress for over a Decade that would have solved this problem. It is called the FairTax.

Fair in name only as it lowers taxes at the top while raising them for the poor and middle class.

You realize 49% of Americans pay no income tax at all? You really think the majority of that 49% are rich?

I love the kennard that the Reagan tax cuts "mainly" benefited the top tier. Let's grant for a moment the assumpition that they did. That top tier took it and helped create 17 million NEW JOBS in Reagan's 8 years. I say if that's what happens when tax policy mainly benefits the top tier, we need more of it.

Flat tax is the way to go. 20% with the first 50k exempt. Eliminate all deductions save mortgage interest and charitable giving. You could pretty much eliminate the IRS completely under such a structure, saving billions a year. Then sit back and watch the economy roar.

How many people making under $20,000 do you think can actually pay more? Better yet, how much do you think you can squeeze out of people making less than $20,000? It ain't much. Certainly won't do a whole hell of a lot for paying down the debt/deficit.

1) People making under 20K don't pay anything at all, in fact they often get a net + after using the standard deductions.

2) How much *more* they can pay is largely a function of Geography. Someone in NYC can afford a lot less than someone in Montana or West Virginia. This is why the bulk of your government taxes and services should be at the *state* level.

3) How many jobs do people making 20K or less create? You don't make more good jobs by taking money away from the people who invest it in things that create jobs.

(06-20-2011 11:17 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(06-20-2011 08:39 AM)CountryRedHawk Wrote:  Get rid of public-funded education! You can do better with Catholic Schools.

*runs away*

At the very least get the fed out of education all together.... If Bubmlef&^% County wants to have a crappy district, let them! If Nice Town, USA wants to spend 15K per kid let them!

All having the fed involved does is allow vote buying

So what you are saying is that the poor will always be poor because they can't afford to give a good education and the wealthy will always be wealthy because they can afford to pay for a good education. That is the Republican way!

(06-20-2011 11:17 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  At the very least get the fed out of education all together.

I could get behind that if Alabama couldn't be trusted to further cluster**** public education.

(06-20-2011 11:55 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(06-20-2011 11:17 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(06-20-2011 08:39 AM)CountryRedHawk Wrote:  Get rid of public-funded education! You can do better with Catholic Schools.

*runs away*

At the very least get the fed out of education all together.... If Bubmlef&^% County wants to have a crappy district, let them! If Nice Town, USA wants to spend 15K per kid let them!

All having the fed involved does is allow vote buying

So what you are saying is that the poor will always be poor because they can't afford to give a good education and the wealthy will always be wealthy because they can afford to pay for a good education. That is the Republican way!

Purposefully obtuse or just plain stupid Robert?

What I am saying is that being Poor in NYC means you're making about 50K and under a year (A city where a two bedroom basement apartment (in an outlying borough) can cost $1,500+ a month.

Poor in Smallville North Dakota is probably 15-20K because you can get a decent apartment for somewhere in the neighborhood of 400$ a month.

Now in comes Washington DC and tells a guy in Fargo making 30K that he is "poor" and needs help, and they tell the guy in NYC making 45K that he is "middle class" and might have to pay taxes.

So you see the problem yet?

Our tax code is already immensely complex even while ignoring very important things like the cost of living. Maybe you need 15-20K a year per kid in NJ because teachers there make 80K (and they have to because the cost of living)... Does a teacher in ND need to make 80K a year? does an administrator need to make 200K a year?

By letting the federal government use its standards for poor to apply to the whole nation people in the most expensive places to live (usually large urban areas) get screwed by being lumped in with rural less expensive areas.

If you take away all but the most essential things from the federal Government and let states do what they are more than capable of doing, you can avoid taxing people in an area with a low cost of living as if they were in an area with a high cost of living.

Or, if you must fund the fed to do inane crap beyond its constitutional scope, a sales tax (and only a sales tax) will self correct for the cost of living in various areas.

(06-20-2011 11:34 AM)Smaug Wrote:  I was just posing the question, and will reiterate, what impetus is there among the powers-that-be to pursue potential alternatives?

Yup, and I'd piggy back onto that to ask if there are potential alternative sources to oil, why is the enviromental movement often the first roadblock to exploration?

(06-20-2011 11:41 AM)RobertN Wrote:  How many people making under $20,000 do you think can actually pay more? Better yet, how much do you think you can squeeze out of people making less than $20,000? It ain't much. Certainly won't do a whole hell of a lot for paying down the debt/deficit.

What the hell are you talking about? Where did 20k come in?

I've read estimates that oil should be 15 dollars a gallon if we didn't subsidize it so heavily. Anything north of 5 dollars and alot of things would come online within 5 years. The market would solve this. Powers that be won't allow it though. Then you get "the numbnut crowd" who will say our economy can't handle 5 dollars a gallon. They can't see that we are paying far more than that when we inlcude the hidden costs. Google "hidden costs of oil". Oil subsidises. Alternatives can't get a foothold.

The Fair Tax poeple (and I definetly could be convinced) have to understand that our govt. and more specifically the politicians will NEVER pass it. Too much power in setting up the tax code. They AIN'T givin that up.

(06-20-2011 12:36 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(06-20-2011 11:34 AM)Smaug Wrote:  I was just posing the question, and will reiterate, what impetus is there among the powers-that-be to pursue potential alternatives?

Yup, and I'd piggy back onto that to ask if there are potential alternative sources to oil, why is the enviromental movement often the first roadblock to exploration?

That's a fair question. I'd think they'd be first in line to pursue any alternative to ugly, dirty, nasty, war-starting, habitat-destroying oil.

(06-20-2011 12:43 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I've read estimates that oil should be 15 dollars a gallon if we didn't subsidize it so heavily. Anything north of 5 dollars and alot of things would come online within 5 years. The market would solve this. Powers that be won't allow it though. Then you get "the numbnut crowd" who will say our economy can't handle 5 dollars a gallon. They can't see that we are paying far more than that when we inlcude the hidden costs. Google "hidden costs of oil". Oil subsidises. Alternatives can't get a foothold.

Generally agree.

One problem--there is no real substitute for oil. It's going to take a bunch of partial substitutes, and a lot of drilling--somewhere--to get us through the rest of this century.

(06-20-2011 08:42 AM)Smaug Wrote:  

(06-20-2011 01:00 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The reason we haven't progressed away from oil is that we don't have anything to progress TO. There are no viable substitutes for oil.

Could that at least be partially due to large monied interestes who aren't interested in any alternatives to oil?

This implies that the natural gas, bio-fuel, electric and auto industries aren't interested in making money... or that petrochemical (plastics) plants aren't interested in cheaper raw commodities. IOW, there are some pretty big players including the domestic consumer who would LOVE to have lower oil prices... and SOME of them are the same people you're talking about. The battery technology just isn't there yet for everything from cars to leaf blowers, and it's NOT for lack of funding. I think we'd (collectively) just rather demonize the oil industry rather than inconvenience ourselves. How many of the far left elite who can literally afford anything have solar/wind powered homes? Serious question. Even Gore preferred buying tax credits to actually reducing his consumption.

(06-20-2011 12:19 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  What I am saying is that being Poor in NYC means you're making about 50K and under a year (A city where a two bedroom basement apartment (in an outlying borough) can cost $1,500+ a month.

Poor in Smallville North Dakota is probably 15-20K because you can get a decent apartment for somewhere in the neighborhood of 400$ a month.

Now in comes Washington DC and tells a guy in Fargo making 30K that he is "poor" and needs help, and they tell the guy in NYC making 45K that he is "middle class" and might have to pay taxes.

So you see the problem yet?

Our tax code is already immensely complex even while ignoring very important things like the cost of living. Maybe you need 15-20K a year per kid in NJ because teachers there make 80K (and they have to because the cost of living)... Does a teacher in ND need to make 80K a year? does an administrator need to make 200K a year?

By letting the federal government use its standards for poor to apply to the whole nation people in the most expensive places to live (usually large urban areas) get screwed by being lumped in with rural less expensive areas.

If you take away all but the most essential things from the federal Government and let states do what they are more than capable of doing, you can avoid taxing people in an area with a low cost of living as if they were in an area with a high cost of living.

Or, if you must fund the fed to do inane crap beyond its constitutional scope, a sales tax (and only a sales tax) will self correct for the cost of living in various areas.

Good synopsis. ANY time you make Federal decisions you run this risk. There are places where $400 gets you a decent apartment, and places where you can't live on a multiple of that. Just because a teacher makes 40k rather than 80 doesn't mean they can't live well and be good teachers. That doesn't argue for lowering teachers salaries... merely for making those salaries reflective of the local economy. Heck, with building codes and land values, much less labor, try building a school in NYC vs one in West Texas.



I agree Mach that the "subsidies" for oil are tremendous... though the vast majority of them go straight to consumers. Our cost of keeping those supply lines open are huge, but virtually nobody has put forth a plan for doing what Brasil did 30 years ago.

Just think about what $.43 a gallon of gas would allow..... talk about roaring out of a recession.

Stanley.... is that a joke or are you tyring to be serious???

(06-20-2011 01:34 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Stanley.... is that a joke or are you tyring to be serious???

You are the one making claims that the cost of oil is artificial. If the price of oil was $5 a barrel, then a gallon of gas would be pennies.

Which would cause this recession to dissapear over a long weekend as supply chain costs fall off a cliff.

Edit, sorry I guess you weren't saying that.

But if gas was cheaper, we would be better off.

(06-20-2011 12:54 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  The Fair Tax poeple (and I definetly could be convinced) have to understand that our govt. and more specifically the politicians will NEVER pass it. Too much power in setting up the tax code. They AIN'T givin that up.

The FT people are fully aware of this fact. That is why it needs to be pushed on a national level during this lousy economy...and be pushed by liberals. I can not understand why liberals would not want to see the poor untaxed and end withholding. My only conclusion is that Liberals do not really want to help the poor and middle class. They just say they do.

not artifical... hidden