Sportsmen get riled about anti-access vote

[shoots-straight]

Brudno, you should really stop commenting on this subject. Your really embarrassing yourself.
Hypocrisy knows no bounds.

BTW, George Bush's "life membership" to the NRA was revoked after he signed the assault weapons ban. I'll bet you voted for him.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Actually, different state legislatures and federal agencies mandated the Renewable Energy standards.

If the demand wasn't there, would the manufacturers make them, or are they being stockpiled like the Ark in some secret gov't warehouse?

We'll start our venture once you figure out how government works. I've got the place in mind, and know the regulators who can help us expedite the process. You get to work coming up with the capital. Deal?

 

[Brudno]

Brudno, you should really stop commenting on this subject. Your really embarrassing yourself.
Hypocrisy knows no bounds.

BTW, George Bush's "life membership" to the NRA was revoked after he signed the assault weapons ban. I'll bet you voted for him.

Nope, no bush vote here, but I'm glad I have your inbred insight on the subject matter now.

 

[Brudno]

Actually, different state legislatures and federal agencies mandated the Renewable Energy standards.

If the demand wasn't there, would the manufacturers make them, or are they being stockpiled like the Ark in some secret gov't warehouse?

We'll start our venture once you figure out how government works. I've got the place in mind, and know the regulators who can help us expedite the process. You get to work coming up with the capital. Deal?

Is that not what I said? lol, if the feds and legislatures mandate utilities have a certain percentage of there energy come from "clean" energy by a certain deadline, what does that mean? It certainly doesnt mean the goverment is stepping in to help the utilities make more money and lower consumer costs. The demand is there because the mandate is there, the demand certainly isnt there because of the consumer, did you know that most utilities allow you to pay significantly more per kW/hour to purchase and fund clean energy programs? How much of a model steward are you?

 

[shoots-straight]

Nope, not bush vote here, but I'm glad I have your inbred insight on the subject matter now.

You know, I wouldn't admit to that either. Laffin!

 

[Ben Lamb]

The energy in Helena is from hydro. I'm carbon neutral in that respect.

My fuel cost is about $120/month for both vehicles (about 40 gallons on average) and I live within 5 miles of my work. I have no AC in our house, and we try and reduce all use and recycle what we can here. In the winter, we keep our heat around 65. It's nat gas, and I have no problem with that so long as it's done with respect to other uses on the land. We rent, so we don't own a home and we're in town, so we're not screwing up more winter range with a 5 acre plot somewhere. How about you?

As far as the mandate, it was the people who instituted that. It's the consumers who wanted it. Those consumers lobbied their gov't officials, and they created the mandate. So, the people want it.

Why do you hate Americans?

 

[Brudno]

The energy in Helena is from hydro. I'm carbon neutral in that respect.

My fuel cost is about $120/month for both vehicles (about 40 gallons on average) and I live within 5 miles of my work. I have no AC in our house, and we try and reduce all use and recycle what we can here. In the winter, we keep our heat around 65. It's nat gas, and I have no problem with that so long as it's done with respect to other uses on the land. We rent, so we don't own a home and we're in town, so we're not screwing up more winter range with a 5 acre plot somewhere. How about you?

As far as the mandate, it was the people who instituted that. It's the consumers who wanted it. Those consumers lobbied their gov't officials, and they created the mandate. So, the people want it.

Why do you hate Americans?

Sounds alot like the tea party congress right now. I geuss America had some buyers remorse if you wanna play salesman now. If thats what Americans wanted why dont they check the box to pay more for there energy then? Whats that say about Montanas 62nd? Why do you hate Montanans? lol j/k buddy

As for me I dont live to much different than you, I live much further away from work (25 miles 5-10 times a week), pay more for fuel, admitily I dont recyle much, I own my own house keep it at 64* natural gas, its in a subdivision for now, I moved away from the family and farm to get started with a better life and oppurtunites until I get the chance to move back, whitetails dont much care were you live they're adaptive, unfortunately the same is not said for mule deer and I agree with you on the winter ranges, if your fishing for me to tell you I'm some kind of baby bighorn sheep eating monster it aint going to happen, I love the outdoors, when it comes down to it I dont expect to tell anyone how to live there lives or push my choices upon them anymore than I want you or anyone else telling me or anyone we should live your way. You want to work and live one with nature, I work to live with nature for a few weeks a year, without work, with a higher tax burden I wouldnt be able to as well as give up luxuries I've worked in life to attain, I beleive man can progress without hampering enviroment or the economy. You?

As for Helena's power only coming from hydro? Your sure about that? Theres a rather large grid out there, lots of buying and selling going on, maybe you live in a self sustaining city? lol

 

[Big Fin]

When I read this stuff about alternative fuels not being feasible without subsidy it makes me laugh. Seems some simple analysis quickly show what a lopsided market alternative sources are up against when it comes to energy markets.

First, oil and gas get a subsidy via the tax code of around $15 Billion per year. Yup, per year. Not insignificant.

Seems that the oil and gas industry get an amazing subsidy by having the Federal government lower environmental standards for production on public lands. And, have a far lower royalty payment on Federal lands than what is normally made to private mineral interest holders. How many Billions per year does that represent? Many Billions, I am sure. But, if they can pass that cost on to the American taxpayer or state governments, why wouldn't they?

Then we have this messy thing called the Iraq war. I am a far right guy, but I was concerned at the time of the invasion, and am even more skeptical now, that Iraq was all about stabilization of oil markets. So we have spent $800 Billion on Iraq, and have many hundred billion more to go. Seems to me that is a serious subsidy shared by a very small handful of companies, even a smaller portion of whom are American companies.

A more expensive price paid for oil and gas market stabilization would be the lives of those killed, wounded, and separated from work and family while sent to Iraq. Not sure how you can put a price on that, but it sure seems that not one American life is worth the benefit to keep oil and gas markets stabilized. Just my personal opinion. I admire the hell out of those people who served, and despise those who sent them there.

Let's talk about some other subsidies. Mostly in the form of foreign policy spending. Do those who despise alternative energy think US policy and the funding of foreign aid is disconnected to oil and gas? I have always thought it was directly connected to oil and gas, and the last year only convinces me further of that.

Look at Syria and Libya. Syria is killing protesters on a daily basis. What does the US do? Nothing. Why? Syria has very little impact on the oil and gas markets. Libya has a huge impact and almost overnight, we were lobbing missels on Tripoli. Good luck convincing me there is no connection.

And we do all of this with borrowed money. A subsidy to all American taxpayers, that will someday be paid by our kids. Complete hypocrisy for those who selectively talk about alternative energy subsidy, yet subsidize our biggest companies with borrowed money, tax benefits, human lives, foreign policy, and pass the cost of our current subsidy benefits on to our children.

I could go on and on, but I think I have made my point. The argument that alternative fuel is financial unfeasible is a political farce being bought into by many. I ain't buying it.

Get rid of all the oil and gas subsidies and gas would be $15 per gallon. Think alternative fuels would be more attractive then? I do. if we have oil and gas nursing from the biggest subsidy teat, it is hard to complain about the small subsidies to alternative energy in the context of a discussion of free market energy options.

I understand trying to keep energy prices lower for the sake of the economy. But, until we stop the BS rhetoric about alternative energy we will never find long-term solutions.

These same people claim we have 100 years of reserves in the US. Yeah, so. What do we do after 100 years? A country should probably be thinking in a longer term perspective than that.

Sorry for the long rant. I am just fed up with talking politicos trying to bullship me about the welfare given to gas and oil, while my favorite hunting areas get paved, plowed, and plucked so oil companies can enjoy even more subsidies all in the spirit of lower prices, which really seem to be expressed in the form of higher oil company profits.

Maybe I am off my rock to think that there are greater values to our last remaining quality habitats than the short-term plunders they can provide to BP or some other welfare operator.

Maybe I am in the minority, but would pay more for gas and oil if it means my kid and grandkids get the same hunting and fishing opportunities that I had. We are already screwing them by mortgaging their future. Least we can do is leave them a few acres to hunt and fish.

 

[RockyDog]

Under Obama i can now carry a rifle when i hike in yellowstone park on my way to elk hunt. Yeah, what a degradation of my 2nd amendment rights.

 

[Brudno]

When I read this stuff about alternative fuels not being feasible without subsidy it makes me laugh. Seems some simple analysis quickly show what a lopsided market alternative sources are up against when it comes to energy markets.

First, oil and gas get a subsidy via the tax code of around $15 Billion per year. Yup, per year. Not insignificant.

Seems that the oil and gas industry get an amazing subsidy by having the Federal government lower environmental standards for production on public lands. And, have a far lower royalty payment on Federal lands than what is normally made to private mineral interest holders. How many Billions per year does that represent? Many Billions, I am sure. But, if they can pass that cost on to the American taxpayer or state governments, why wouldn't they?

Then we have this messy thing called the Iraq war. I am a far right guy, but I was not concerned at the time of the invasion, and am even more skeptical now, that Iraq was all about stabilization of oil markets. So we have spent $800 Billion on Iraq, and have many hundred billion more to go. Seems to me that is a serious subsidy shared by a very small handful of companies, even a smaller portion of whom are American companies.

A more expensive price paid for oil and gas market stabilization would be the lives of those killed, wounded, and separated from work and family while sent to Iraq. Not sure how you can put a price on that, but it sure seems that not one American life is worth the benefit to keep oil and gas markets stabilized. Just my personal opinion. I admire the hell out of those people who served, and despise those who sent them there.

Let's talk about some other subsidies. Mostly in the form of foreign policy spending. Do those who despise alternative energy think US policy and the funding of foreign aid is disconnected to oil and gas? I have always thought it was directly connected to oil and gas, and the last year only convinces me further of that.

Look at Syria and Libya. Syria is killing protesters on a daily basis. What does the US do? Nothing. Why? Syria has very little impact on the oil and gas markets. Libya has a huge impact and almost overnight, we were lobbing missels on Tripoli. Good luck convincing me their is no connection.

And we do all of this with borrowed money. A subsidy to all American taxpayers, that will someday be paid by our kids. Complete hypocrisy for those who selectively talk about alternative energy subsidy, yet subsidize our biggest companies with borrowed money, tax benefits, human lives, foreign policy, and pass the cost of our current subsidy benefits on to our children.

I could go on and on, but I think I have made my point. The argument that alternative fuel is financial unfeasible is a political farce being bought into by many. I ain't buying it.

Get rid of all the oil and gas subsidies and gas would be $15 per gallon. Think alternative fuels would be more attractive then? I do. if we have oil and gas nursing from the biggest subsidy teat, it is hard to complain about the small subsidies to alternative energy in the context of a discussion of free market energy options.

I understand trying to keep energy prices lower for the sake of the economy. But, until we stop the BS rhetoric about alternative energy we will never find long-term solutions.

These same people claim we have 100 years of reserves in the US. Yeah, so. What do we do after 100 years? A country should probably be thinking in a longer term perspective than that.

Sorry for the long rant. I am just fed up with talking politicos trying to bullship me about the welfare given to gas and oil, while my favorite hunting areas get paved, plowed, and plucked so oil companies can enjoy even more subsidies all in the spirit of lower prices, which really seem to be expressed in the form of higher oil company profits.

Maybe I am off my rock to think that there are greater values to our last remaining quality habitats than the short-term plunders they can provide to BP or some other welfare operator.

Maybe I am in the minority, but would pay more for gas and oil if it means my kid and grandkids get the same hunting and fishing opportunities that I had. We are already screwing them by mortgaging their future. Least we can do is leave them a few acres to hunt and fish.

I dont think gas and oil susidies are lost on me or anyone here, I dont know what I'd be like though driving a Nissan leaf to my favorite hunting spot 1400 miles away, knowing how far this thread got OT and how its been me and ben going back and forth, I know your post is directed at me, this is somthing more in depth than and of my scratching the surface comments or yours are or we'd both be talking about coal and nuclear power as well since there the most viable forms of energy for our future, I dont think a dammed up world, blocked with views of windmills and there noise pollution is the answer (unless there distributed along the eastern and western sea board). The world is more complex than any of us care to admit and we all have our opinions on how it should be, even if that means falling upon a deaf choir of out equally frustrated peers. I would like not only for my son and whatever the future brings my family to be able to hunt and fish on a few acres but be able to do it within there means, I think most of us are working towards the same goal in the end even if we have differing ideas on how to get there.

 

[sweetnectar]

I believe government should spent less. I love the spendital commercial.
http://youtu.be/dBoYYc1APr8
I saw a bumper stinker the other day that I liked that said, "Stop foreign aid, we could use the money."
I want less government choking the people. I guess I fit this idea of the tea party or perhaps a libertarian. And yes this means I support less government funding of programs even if it has to do with conservation. I would rather more cuts be made in other areas but am not upset that cuts are being made regardless.

The other night I was watching the debate over the nations debt and I was upset how I heard things like "The Speaker of the House will now address us from the ceremonial chambers." I'm like what the hell is a ceremonial chamber? Are we talking about a palace for queens and kings. It should be called room 302. Then I here "bla bla bla and the presidential seal." I'm like presidential seal my butt. Isn't our president suppose to be a public servant not a King with a seal? Or I hear "the best government is one that always compromises and comes to a decision together (I'm paraphrasing)" I'm like excuse me, we divided the powers in government so that every issue would not have a compromise and then government could keep its noses out of our pursuits of happiness. Ya I soured.

BTW - my tax load is about 15-20% for the Fed, and about 10-15% at the state level.

Ben, your getting all frustrated on this post and not thinking straight if you believe that is all you pay in taxes. I would gander your real tax rate is well over 60%. A large part of what you pay for goods and/or services is due to taxes and government policies. In other words the gas you put in your vehicle would be a whole lot cheaper if there wasn't a 43 cents per gallon tax on it plus all the taxes, fees, mandated permits, environmental impact studies, filings, other environmental regulations, OSHA requirements, trade agreements, ect that effect the supply chain that eventually reflects the price of fuel at the pump. I'm not saying these policies are good or bad but they surely effect every price. That portion of what you pay that is above and beyond a free market price is tax. You and I and everyone else pay way more in taxes than what we think in terms of Federal and State income taxes.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I dont think gas and oil susidies are lost on me or anyone here, I dont know what I'd be like though driving a Nissan leaf to my favorite hunting spot 1400 miles away, knowing how far this thread got OT and how its been me and ben going back and forth, I know your post is directed at me, this is somthing more in depth than and of my scratching the surface comments or yours are or we'd both be talking about coal and nuclear power as well since there the most viable forms of energy for our future, I dont think a dammed up world, blocked with views of windmills and there noise pollution is the answer (unless there distributed along the eastern and western sea board). The world is more complex than any of us care to admit and we all have our opinions on how it should be, even if that means falling upon a deaf choir of out equally frustrated peers. I would like not only for my son and whatever the future brings my family to be able to hunt and fish on a few acres but be able to do it within there means, I think most of us are working towards the same goal in the end even if we have differing ideas on how to get there.

That's beautiful dude [passes medical doobie]

Good post Nick. Honestly.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I believe government should spent less. I love the spendital commercial.
http://youtu.be/dBoYYc1APr8
I saw a bumper stinker the other day that I liked that said, "Stop foreign aid, we could use the money."
I want less government choking the people. I guess I fit this idea of the tea party or perhaps a libertarian. And yes this means I support less government funding of programs even if it has to do with conservation. I would rather more cuts be made in other areas but am not upset that cuts are being made regardless.

The other night I was watching the debate over the nations debt and I was upset how I heard things like "The Speaker of the House will now address us from the ceremonial chambers." I'm like what the hell is a ceremonial chamber? Are we talking about a palace for queens and kings. It should be called room 302. Then I here "bla bla bla and the presidential seal." I'm like presidential seal my butt. Isn't our president suppose to be a public servant not a King with a seal? Or I hear "the best government is one that always compromises and comes to a decision together (I'm paraphrasing)" I'm like excuse me, we divided the powers in government so that every issue would not have a compromise and then government could keep its noses out of our pursuits of happiness. Ya I soured.



Ben, your getting all frustrated on this post and not thinking straight if you believe that is all you pay in taxes. I would gander your real tax rate is well over 60%. A large part of what you pay for goods and/or services is due to taxes and government policies. In other words the gas you put in your vehicle would be a whole lot cheaper if there wasn't a 43 cents per gallon tax on it plus all the taxes, fees, mandated permits, environmental impact studies, filings, other environmental regulations, OSHA requirements, trade agreements, ect that effect the supply chain that eventually reflects the price of fuel at the pump. I'm not saying these policies are good or bad but they surely effect every price. That portion of what you pay that is above and beyond a free market price is tax. You and I and everyone else pay way more in taxes than what we think in terms of Federal and State income taxes.

True. I was speaking about income tax. Add up my contributions to PR/DJ and we'd be looking at a lot more.

 

[theat]

Here is an interesting article I read in todays paper that has to do with the debt problem we are facing as a nation.

Some interesting highlights are--"This year's federal tax revenues are forecast to equal 14.4 percent of gross domestic product--- That's the lowest share since 1950, long before Congress approved expensive programs such as Medicare. Tax collections have been reduced by the recession and by tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003."

and--- "When it comes to health care, the U.S. spends the equivalent of 17.4 percent of its GDP -- by far the highest percentage among wealthy nations."

IMO Compromises need to be made including large cuts in govt spending as well as eliminating most of the subsidies to the oil and gas industry and raising taxes on the weathiest 1-2% of americans (I'm pretty sure that all of us on here are safely out of that tax bracket and wont have to pay the extra hundred thou or two). And if there is someone here that it would aply to, I would take a one time payment of $100,000 to change my mind and fight for continued tax breaks for the wealthy(at least while I am not using the money to chase dall sheep and moose around alaska

WASHINGTON—Wealthy countries all over the world are dealing with debts and strained budgets as they mop up after the Great Recession and brace for the budget-busting retirement of the baby boomer generation.But the United States is in a bigger fix than almost anyone else.

The U.S. federal debt was equal to 95 percent of the overall economy in the first three months of 2011, the fifth-highest on the Associated Press Global Economy Tracker, an analysis of economic and financial data from 30 of the biggest economies.

Every year that the U.S. government spends more than it collects in taxes, it records an annual budget deficit. The $14.3 trillion debt is the sum of all annual deficits and surpluses.

As U.S. policymakers argue over raising the federal borrowing limit and slashing debts, America is hobbled in ways the others are not. Tax collections are low by historical and international standards. Health care costs are astronomical -- and still rising. The political system is gridlocked.

Those problems suggest the current impasse over raising the U.S. government's borrowing limit and cutting the deficit is a prelude to even more intense political combat.

"We as a society will either have to pay more for our government, accept less in government services and benefits, or both," says Douglas Elmendorf, director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. "For many people, none of those choices is appealing -- but they cannot be avoided for very long."

This year's federal tax revenues are forecast to equal 14.4 percent of gross domestic product, a broad measure of economic output, according to the Office of Management and Budget.

That's the lowest share since 1950, long before Congress approved expensive programs such as Medicare. Tax collections have been reduced by the recession and by tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003. Among 29 countries ranked by the Organization for Economic Development and Cooperation, only Japan and Spain take in less tax revenue than the U.S. as a percentage of GDP.

When it comes to health care, the U.S. spends the equivalent of 17.4 percent of its GDP -- by far the highest percentage among wealthy nations. The next highest is the Netherlands, where health care spending equals 12 percent of GDP. Among the 34 wealthy countries that belong to the OECD, health care spending averages less than 9.5 percent of GDP.

Political gridlock magnifies America's debt woes. Among the five biggest countries with a top AAA rating from the credit rating agency Moody's, the U.S. is the only one that hasn't come up with a serious plan to control government debt, says Moody's sovereign debt analyst, Steven Hess.

The U.S. is also the only one of the five that doesn't have a parliamentary system, which allows the ruling party or coalition to pass its agenda undeterred by the opposition. After taking control last year in Britain, for instance, a coalition led by the Conservative Party enacted an austerity program of tax hikes and spending cuts.

The U.S. has a divided government -- Democrats control the White House and Republicans control half of Congress. The effort to narrow annual budget deficits and reduce the debt has bogged down in partisan wrangling.

.The AP Global Economy Tracker found most of the wealthy nations of the world struggling with high debt:

-- Japan, which is aging rapidly and has endured more than a decade of economic stagnation, had the heaviest debt burden at the end of the first quarter: 244 percent of GDP. Economists Kenneth Rogoff of Harvard University and Carmen Reinhart of the Peterson Institute for International Finance say anything above 90 percent starts to weigh down economic growth partly by pushing up interest rates. Greece's debt was at 161 percent, Italy's 113 percent, Thailand's 111 percent and the United States' 95 percent.

-- Energy-producing Canada and Norway had some of the lowest debt burdens among wealthy nations at 32 and 31 percent, respectively. The Norwegian government's finances are so strong that it issues debt mainly to ensure it has a functioning debt market and turns a profit by investing the money it borrows, says Nikola Swann, an analyst at credit rating agency Standard & Poor's.

-- Fast-growing developing countries have a big advantage over rich countries when it comes to containing debts. They have younger populations and aren't facing a baby boomer retirement crunch. Brazil (28 percent) and Mexico (27 percent) had light debt burdens relative to GDP.

The U.S. does have a couple of advantages over other rich countries that help it hang onto its top credit rating even as its debts rise and political squabbling over the federal borrowing limit raises the risk of default.

Thanks to a relatively high birth rate and an even higher rate of immigration, the U.S. is aging more slowly than other rich countries. It will have a higher percentage of people working over the next few decades than Europe and Japan. Those workers will pay taxes to finance health care and pension benefits for baby boomers.

Last year, the U.S. had four active workers for every retiree; by 2050, with baby boomers out of the labor force, it will have only two, according to an S&P report on the fiscal impact of aging populations on rich countries. But the countries that are aging fastest -- Japan and Italy -- will have it much worse. An even split between workers and retirees will put enormous strains on their pensions and health care budgets.

Another U.S. advantage: The federal government's debts are all in U.S. dollars, giving America control of its destiny compared with countries that have to pay back debts in another country's currency. The U.S., for instance, can print dollars, driving down the value of the currency. That would make it cheaper to pay back its debts. It would also boost the economy and tax revenue by making American products cheaper around the world and luring foreign investors who build plants and buy real estate.

Cash-strapped Greece, by contrast, is tethered to a common European currency, the euro, and can't take advantage of a weaker currency. It's even worse for countries that owe money in another currency. Their debt payments go up if a currency they have borrowed in rises in value against their own.

Foreigners also like to own dollars, especially in times of crisis. That allows the U.S. Treasury to issue debt at low interest rates.

The U.S. debt burden isn't quite as heavy as it looks at first, either. The federal debt -- $14.3 trillion -- includes money the government has borrowed from itself, mostly revenue from Social Security. Take out the borrowing between government agencies and Uncle Sam's net debt drops to $9.8 trillion, or about 64 percent of GDP.

Some debt analysts consider Australia a model for the way it has controlled its budget and prepared to pay for an aging society. Over the last two decades, Australia cut government spending, imposed a 10 percent tax on most goods and services and sold off state assets including airports and railways. It also prepared to cope with an aging society by requiring employers to contribute toward a pension fund.

As a result, the Australian government's debts were equal to 14 percent at the end of the first quarter, lowest on AP's Global Economy Tracker

 

[Ben Lamb]

Here's an interesting quote from Thomas jefferson:

“If we run into such debts as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, and give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses.

And the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they do now, on oatmeal and potatoes, have no time to think, no means of calling the mis-managers to account; but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains around the necks of our fellow sufferers.

And this is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for a second, that second for a third, and so on 'til the bulk of the society is reduced to be mere automations of misery, to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering.

And the forehorse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression."

 

[BuzzH]

Bigfin, as usual, summed up the point spot on...

I couldnt agree more with the entire post.

 

[mightyhunter]

Ben Lamb,
The bottom line in all this back and forth is everyone is a critic but few people have a solution. I don't like the proposed cuts you were talking about when you started this post. I have been watching the hearings on C-SPAN. What specifically should be cut? If you mention Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, the War on Terror, the Cost of Illegal Immigration, Veterans Benefits, etc. you get hammered by one side or the other. That is where the money is but you can't touch those sacred cows. You simply can't solve this problem with the "democratic mantra" of higher taxes and the closing of loopholes. Whether the annual gas and oil subsidy is 5 billion or 15 billion, the amount is a drop in the bucket compared to the size of the overall deficit problem. I am all for taking it away, but don't think we won't still have a serious deficit problem. The Simpson/Bowles debt commission had some good ideas and they were ignored and tossed. Both parties are at fault. The partisan acrimony is killing this country. I read all the posts from the beginning and you can just see it. Our two party system is broken and ideology trumps common sense and compromise. All these politicians want to do is get re-elected. They will kick this can down the road until after the 2012 election. All of us will suffer as a result.

 

[Big Fin]

I dont think gas and oil susidies are lost on me or anyone here, I dont know what I'd be like though driving a Nissan leaf to my favorite hunting spot 1400 miles away, knowing how far this thread got OT and how its been me and ben going back and forth, I know your post is directed at me, this is somthing more in depth than and of my scratching the surface comments or yours are or we'd both be talking about coal and nuclear power as well since there the most viable forms of energy for our future, I dont think a dammed up world, blocked with views of windmills and there noise pollution is the answer (unless there distributed along the eastern and western sea board). The world is more complex than any of us care to admit and we all have our opinions on how it should be, even if that means falling upon a deaf choir of out equally frustrated peers. I would like not only for my son and whatever the future brings my family to be able to hunt and fish on a few acres but be able to do it within there means, I think most of us are working towards the same goal in the end even if we have differing ideas on how to get there.

Agreed.

I did not direct that at you personally, but at your comments that contain some of the popular arguments that try to make these complicated issues seem solveable by the simplified rhetoric so popular today. As you stated, these are complicated issues. Unfortunately, the sides with the most to gain seem to excel making the issues even more complicated, yet use their PR machines to try convince us the solutions are simple.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Mighty,

My suggestions are as follows:
Eliminate subsidies for corporations that are recording record profits. All corps. Not just O&G.

We also need to seriously discuss how we tax people, and companies and be ready, as Jefferson said, to work 16 hours and give 15 hours of that labor to eliminate the debt. How we do that as a nation is through increased taxes, and cuts to the federal budget. I'm all for sharing the pain as far as conservation programs go, but we do need cost/benefit anlysis so that we don't cut programs that are generating revenue to the private sector, and the gov't.

Another good place to cut is in defense. When companies lose billions of dollars, we need to hold them accountable. Same goes for tax dodgers on the individual scale.

 

[Devil Diver Down]

Interesting turn this thread has taken since I checked it yesterday. I agree with Fin's point: None of us know what the real price of gas/oil is--both in relation to alternative power sources and to actual costs if there were a true, free market at work. Subtract the subsidies to the oil companies and our foreign relation (in the form of both aid and war) strategies and I suspect gas would bear out about $12 or so a gallon. Maybe higher. Then people could decide where they stand on the issue. And whether they "need" to drive as much. It might also cripple the economy beyond repair.

When we reach "peak oil", we (as a country and as a planet) will be in far worse shape to make those decisions. The 100 year estimate is a pipe dream IMHO. That's a best case scenario if factors remain the same--our rate of dependence + consumption/import of foreign oil. The US dependence is growing by leaps and bounds. The reserve continues to shrink worldwide. After peak oil, driving in a vehicle powered by an internal combustion engine will be a luxury. Flying will be like it was 50 years ago--reserved for the very wealthy.

After that tipping point, coal and nuclear are very, very short term stop gaps at best. We would need thousands of nuclear plants built to match the energy we consume right now, in this country alone. Very few (if any) energy experts view alternative energy as a viable replacement for oil. Just not enough energy pumped out to greatly supersede the energy it takes to move the usable energy down the line. Certainly not sustainable as they are now. Whatever subsidies they're getting right now aren't moving development along fast enough. More is going to have to be invested to develop any suitable process. Whatever cuts to budgets of things we care about that we are seeing now are just the real beginning. And the mortgaging of the future will continue at a greater pace.

BTW, it won't matter who is/was/will be in the White House or sitting in Congress.

Glad I could brighten everyone's evening. :W: