Are you For or Against an increase in domestic drilling? [Archive] - The Well-Trained Mind Forums (aka Hive Mind)

Carol in Cal.

05-05-2008, 02:53 PM

GretaLynne

05-05-2008, 03:02 PM

That energy plan should develop renewable, sustainable sources of energy rather than rely on the fossil fuel band aid. There is only so much oil in the ground. Once it's gone, then what? If we were focussing significant portions of our research spending on this, we would probably have cheap solar homes and cars all over the country by now. It's time to get serious about this.

:iagree:

Increasing domestic drilling is only delaying the inevitable. We need to focus on real, viable solutions like CLEAN renewable energy.

Mrs Mungo

05-05-2008, 03:07 PM

Ditto that. I'd love to see ethanol work out, but when you start to see people in the news going hungry because of a lack of grain, you start to wonder.

Except the government is still paying farmers to NOT farm so that grain prices don't drop too far.

eta-this is from 2006 but I'm pretty sure it still applies:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/01/AR2006070100962.html

specifically on rice:
http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/environment/archives/137608.asp

and they do this in the EU as well:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article1506042.ece

battlemaiden

05-05-2008, 03:11 PM

Carol in Cal.

05-05-2008, 03:37 PM

What if it wasn't either/or?:001_smile:

What if we proceeded with research into sustainable sources of energy, increased production of coal into fuel, AND increased our domestic supplies of oil? What if we did these things all at once?

Jo

This is a fair question, and I would answer it by looking around, LOL. In theory, we are doing all these things at once right now. In theory, there is a free market of ideas that should encourage development of renewable/sustainable energy sources (the 'build a better mousetrap...' theory). In fact, this research is very expensive and is not subsidized like the oil companies are. And to a large extent it has not happened. What will make it happen?

In theory, we should be looking for increased production from domestic sources all the time, on principle, to stay independent. In fact, when the price of oil was a little lower than it is now, lots of older oil wells were capped even though they had oil left. It was unclear whether that oil could be accessed economically, and so it was left there in favor of foreign suppliers who were more economically viable. This makes sense unless you have a strategic goal of energy independence, in which case you need to adjust your policies to promote use of known, internal sources. But wait! That would mean that we would need to either subsidize those prices, or tax imports. And taxing imports would violate the WTO. Price subsidies would be unpopular, although one could argue that the tax law is so arcane that we already have some of these and they are just not generally known, so they could probably be extended. But we can't afford this because we are pouring so much money into Iraq and, to a lessor extent, Afghanistan. So there you have it--gridlock/stalemate.

The last thing we should do, IMO, is to then turn around in the face of all this and say, "OK, now we are going to do NEW drilling in NEW fields in environmentally sensitive areas, knowing that it is a stopgap, knowing that based on past experience we will use this as a crutch to enable us to refrain from developing the stable sources of energy that we really need, rather than as a bridge to take us in parallel to the stable sources."

In my view, the stable sources of fuel will not be developed unless and until there is no alternative; and also, the underutilized currently developed sources of fossil fuels should be the source of the 'bridge' to the sustainable ones.

Colleen

05-05-2008, 03:41 PM

Are you for or against increased domestic drilling?

I'm against it ~ no surprise there.;) It's on par with the band-aid approach to traffic congestion ~ simply adding more lanes.

Old Dominion Heather

05-05-2008, 03:43 PM

Sometimes, I wonder whether the current rise in prices is being pushed up by the companies that want the gov't to allow more drilling. If they can get the oil prices sky high, the people put more pressure on the gov't to allow more drilling...

Or maybe I have no understanding of how it all works and this is a silly idea. That might well be the case.

lynn

05-05-2008, 03:53 PM

It's there go for it.

StacyWithFourRugrats

05-05-2008, 03:55 PM

I don't trust the environmental record of the PTB. I think that drilling offshore near Montery or up in the ANWR would be tragically and permanently bad for the environment. Also, fundamentally, this will not make us energy-self-sufficient. We need to focus on energy self-sufficiency, IMV, in a strategic way that actually closes on an eventual lack of need for imported oil. That energy plan should develop renewable, sustainable sources of energy rather than rely on the fossil fuel band aid. There is only so much oil in the ground. Once it's gone, then what? If we were focussing significant portions of our research spending on this, we would probably have cheap solar homes and cars all over the country by now. It's time to get serious about this.

:iagree:

We procrastinate and continually try to take the easy way out. It is human nature in many cases to do so. It is no different with the environment. If it was easy and quick (and economically viable) to create alternate fuels, everyone would be on the bandwagon (except maybe the oil companies). It is not going to be a quick fix. It is not going to be easy. AND it will most likely be expensive before it gets better. We need to deal with that and stop complaining about relying on imported oil and tapping into the resources below some of the most pristine places left in this country.

Everyone, when asked, will say they want to leave this planet in better shape for their kids. But how many people actually do something about it? Or better yet, suffer through hardships to make it happen? All over the world people have been paying out the nose for gas for a long time. They are used to it. Their governments created public transportation as an alternative. Where is our public transportation huh?

I don't think drilling in the ANWR is going to make anything better. Just a band-aid as others stated. And for me, I would like to be able to one day visit ANWR without having to go out on a boat through oil-slick water, on roads that have cut through forests and destroyed habitats, and through areas with trees cut down by oil companies. Can't we have some areas that are sacred?

Quiver0f10

05-05-2008, 07:00 PM

:iagree:

Increasing domestic drilling is only delaying the inevitable. We need to focus on real, viable solutions like CLEAN renewable energy.

:iagree:

Heather in the Kootenays

05-05-2008, 07:03 PM

Agreeing wholeheartedly with those who say it's only delaying the inveitable - another attempt at a quick fix.

cornopean

05-05-2008, 07:04 PM

I love Robert Samuelson on this issue. lots of factual info here to ponder. Is there a reason why we can't do both? drill and search for alternatives? are the two mutually exclusive?

WASHINGTON -- What to do about oil? First it went from $60 to $80 a barrel, then from $80 to $100 and now to $120. Perhaps we can persuade OPEC to raise production, as some senators suggest; but this seems unlikely. The truth is that we're almost powerless to influence today's prices. We are because we didn't take sensible actions 10 or 20 years ago. If we persist, we will be even worse off in a decade or two. The first thing to do: Start drilling."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/04/start_drilling.html

Violet

05-05-2008, 10:05 PM

Are you for or against increased domestic drilling?

Completely against.

Violet

05-05-2008, 10:18 PM

Can't we have some areas that are sacred?

Not if the oil industry has anything to say about it.

Kelli in TN

05-05-2008, 10:26 PM

Their governments created public transportation as an alternative. Where is our public transportation huh?

Oh, preach it sister! I want to get on a train and go to Memphis and visit gardenschooler and go to the zoo. I want buses in my city that have routes that make sense, like the ones we rode around on in Chicago.

Ever since our visit to Chicago I have been totally enamored with public transportation. It was like magic, stand here and the magic carriage will come and get you and take you to Navy Pier. Stand there and the magic carriage will come and take you to the train station.

I want some dang public transportation!!!

battlemaiden

05-06-2008, 12:11 AM

Oh, preach it sister! I want to get on a train and go to Memphis and visit gardenschooler and go to the zoo. I want buses in my city that have routes that make sense, like the ones we rode around on in Chicago.

Ever since our visit to Chicago I have been totally enamored with public transportation. It was like magic, stand here and the magic carriage will come and get you and take you to Navy Pier. Stand there and the magic carriage will come and take you to the train station.

I want some dang public transportation!!!

Where I live we have a very active debate about the need for light rail. People are generally for it- if the local radio discussions can be trusted. My dad is a civil engineer who specializes in light and commuter rail- he has worked in Europe, China, and the United States presenting proposals on the various types of public rail that would work in different communities. Hands down the biggest obstacle has been local city government. The Federal Government gives **millions** in grant money for cities to get public transportation up and running.

Along with this problem is the complete lack of smart community planning that require a dependence on driving....also a local government failing.

Who are we electing to lead our communties in these public transportation efforts? Are we really holding them accountable?

Jo

JWSJ

05-06-2008, 12:47 AM

:iagree:

Increasing domestic drilling is only delaying the inevitable. We need to focus on real, viable solutions like CLEAN renewable energy.

Like what?

I don't see any real, viable, renewable energy sources that compare to the energy output of petroleum.

Amy in Orlando

05-06-2008, 01:02 AM

I feel wishy-washy, but I'm in the "can't we do both?" camp. I'm all for alternative fuel sources and public transportation, but there is no quick fix. It's nice to say that if people are hit hard enough in the pocketbook that they'll change their "evil" ways, but that's just not realistic in many states. I grew up in the northeast and public transportation was the norm, walking was the norm and the towns and cities were set up for this kind of thing. Florida is not. It will be decades before Florida addresses and fixes this problem. If it's even fixable. We're a "driving" state (at least Central Florida). I combine errands, we just today turned on our a/c and it's set at 83, I send the boys on their bikes if I just need a gallon of milk, if it's under two miles, we walk or bike for the most part (until our temps & humidity top 95). But, we're the neighborhood oddballs.

So, I feel stuck in the "what can't we do both?" mindset.

battlemaiden

05-06-2008, 01:07 AM

And for me, I would like to be able to one day visit ANWR without having to go out on a boat through oil-slick water, on roads that have cut through forests and destroyed habitats, and through areas with trees cut down by oil companies. Can't we have some areas that are sacred?

This seems a bit of an extreme statement considering the proximity of the drilling area (a small corner of ANWR right next to established drilling areas and the oil town of Prudhoe Bay).

And isn't that area above the tundra? No trees? I'll have to look further into the flora and fauna. My dh flew out of Prudhoe Bay on his way to the North Pole last year- he described it as a barren landscape on the edge of nowhere. It doesn't sound like the ecotourist type of location.

I'm assuming you were talking about ANWR. Off-shore drilling platforms in the gulf have a much more established record of attracting sea-life (have you seen the story of about the whale shark's love of platform legs?). Perhaps the Discovery Channel or National Geographic can boat out to those Chinese drilling platforms off of our coasts to do their next story about the sea life habitat. ;)

Jo

battlemaiden

05-06-2008, 01:11 AM

Amy in Orlando

05-06-2008, 01:15 AM

Jo - I'm amazed your father's head has not exploded in frustration! My hat is off to him for hanging in there.

Kelli in TN

05-06-2008, 07:36 AM

Hands down the biggest obstacle has been local city government. The Federal Government gives **millions** in grant money for cities to get public transportation up and running.

Along with this problem is the complete lack of smart community planning that require a dependence on driving....also a local government failing.

Who are we electing to lead our communties in these public transportation efforts? Are we really holding them accountable?

Well, I can't speak for other communities, but I can tell you that in our community we elect the "good ol' boys club" to lead our city. I am proud to say that, as a group, they are as inefficient and inept in every area as they are in the public transportation area.

Of course I am outside city limits and can't vote for these fine folks, so I am left with no recourse but to gripe about our community's lack of public transportation. (as well as our lack of recycling centers, the dismal condition of some our historic areas, and the fact that I am the only person in our portion of the state who drives the speed limit)

readwithem

05-06-2008, 07:36 AM

I feel sure the rest of the world is laughing at our dependence on their oil. We want to have our cake and eat it too. It's too bad major cities don't have better mass transport. I read recently the buses in Houston (which desperately needs a train system but it will never happen) have been much fuller recently with the higher price of gas.

Melinda in VT

05-06-2008, 07:59 AM

Virginia Dawn

05-06-2008, 08:10 AM

I'm convinced if we want good public transportation and less dependency on automobiles, we need to get rid of the subdivisions. But we all seem to want newer houses with largish yards and two-(or three-)car garages.

I tend to get angry at the developers and the local governments, but usually they are just giving us what our actions have told them we want.

We have a related issue here. In order to keep the "rural nature" of the area, most land is zoned for 5-acre lots. And yet people complain that we don't have public transportation year-round. What we need to do is cluster the houses together, so it is cost-effective to run buses.

I think allowing and encouraging small family business to move into subdivision and rural areas would be much more cost effective than public transportation. We need to go back to smaller/local, but I don't know what it will take to do that. Here in our rural area, there is a Wal-Mart 45 min. in each direction, and people will use their gas to go there, instead of to the closer grocery stores.

Melinda in VT

05-06-2008, 08:19 AM

I think allowing and encouraging small family business to move into subdivision and rural areas would be much more cost effective than public transportation. We need to go back to smaller/local, but I don't know what it will take to do that. Here in our rural area, there is a Wal-Mart 45 min. in each direction, and people will use their gas to go there, instead of to the closer grocery stores.

I think that's a good idea, but I'd like to see that happen in addition to public transportation. :D

Doran

05-06-2008, 08:27 AM

This is a fair question, and I would answer it by looking around, LOL. In theory, we are doing all these things at once right now. In theory, there is a free market of ideas that should encourage development of renewable/sustainable energy sources (the 'build a better mousetrap...' theory). In fact, this research is very expensive and is not subsidized like the oil companies are. And to a large extent it has not happened. What will make it happen?

In theory, we should be looking for increased production from domestic sources all the time, on principle, to stay independent. In fact, when the price of oil was a little lower than it is now, lots of older oil wells were capped even though they had oil left. It was unclear whether that oil could be accessed economically, and so it was left there in favor of foreign suppliers who were more economically viable. This makes sense unless you have a strategic goal of energy independence, in which case you need to adjust your policies to promote use of known, internal sources. But wait! That would mean that we would need to either subsidize those prices, or tax imports. And taxing imports would violate the WTO. Price subsidies would be unpopular, although one could argue that the tax law is so arcane that we already have some of these and they are just not generally known, so they could probably be extended. But we can't afford this because we are pouring so much money into Iraq and, to a lessor extent, Afghanistan. So there you have it--gridlock/stalemate.

The last thing we should do, IMO, is to then turn around in the face of all this and say, "OK, now we are going to do NEW drilling in NEW fields in environmentally sensitive areas, knowing that it is a stopgap, knowing that based on past experience we will use this as a crutch to enable us to refrain from developing the stable sources of energy that we really need, rather than as a bridge to take us in parallel to the stable sources."

In my view, the stable sources of fuel will not be developed unless and until there is no alternative; and also, the underutilized currently developed sources of fossil fuels should be the source of the 'bridge' to the sustainable ones.

Carol, I wanted to add something pithy to this thread, but I would not be able to do so without tripping over my keyboard. And, here you've stated an "against" position so well, that I'll just say, "Hear, hear!" Thanks!

EKS

05-06-2008, 09:03 AM

Here is what I'm for--legislation for automakers to make high fuel efficiency vehicles (I mean 50+ mpg) and very serious conservation legislation. We simply need to use a lot less fuel. Yes, it's going to be uncomfortable but the party's over, folks. This needs to be done while we still have the infrastructure in place to do it.

Doran

05-06-2008, 10:28 AM

cin

05-06-2008, 11:20 AM

I, personally feel that the Middle East currently has a monopoly on our oil supply. Therefore, they can charge whatever they want. They KNOW that we will not drill because of our environment. It doens't matter if no one can afford to go see these pretty places, or if we cannot afford to feed our families. And they are probably laughing at us.

I just read an article that someone posted. It noted that during Katrina, there were no oil spills. ALl of the rigs in the gulf held up very well. So, whats the problem with a few more rigs? Especially up in Alaska, as someone pointed out, the Chinese are drilling just beyond our waters? Why should they be able to pollute/destroy our enviornment, and reap all the benefits?

If we started drilling, even just a couple of new places, the Middle East would realize that they can't sc&ew us as much, and would probably loosen their grip on our oil. They would realize that they are not going to get our money forever. There might even be, COMPETITION????? and lower prices. THEN some of us might be able to feed our families something besides beans and rice, and go to these beautiful places that everyone wants protected. Cause right now, I am not planning on ever seeing the north shore of Alaska. Where all the other drilling is taking place, just not the most efective one.

jmho, :leaving:

Mamagistra

05-06-2008, 11:45 AM

In fact, when the price of oil was a little lower than it is now, lots of older oil wells were capped even though they had oil left. It was unclear whether that oil could be accessed economically, and so it was left there in favor of foreign suppliers who were more economically viable.

...the underutilized currently developed sources of fossil fuels should be the source of the 'bridge' to the sustainable ones.

I voted 'for' because this is what I had in mind...not new drilling per se, but use of burgeoning technology that would allow the US to retrieve countless barrels of oil from these difficult or abandoned existing sources.

There are so many wells that are underutilized, and the technology used to access this "hidden" oil could be, imho, a great boon to our nation. I don't know the statistics on domestic versus foreign usage of such advances, however, I certainly believe that the US should bridge the gap, as Carol put it, by continued investment in technology that will utilize these existing resources.

I don't know much about ANWR myself, though I understand the reticence about the intrusion of industry in any unspoiled region. A few years ago, I probably would have been all for such drilling, but now I'm quite skeptical of it. While I'm not in the oil-is-bad camp, I have little regard for either biggie (business or government) at the moment. :glare:

ETA: I am all for alternative, clean, miraculous, renewable (affordable?) energy sources, btw. I simply don't see much on that horizon, thus I can't speak intelligently about the subject. :blush:

4arrows

05-06-2008, 12:35 PM

I am for it (based on what little info I have). I, too, would like them to protect the area.

mom2att

05-06-2008, 01:21 PM

ANWR=Arctic National Wasted Resources

It's estimated that the recoverable oil at ANWR is in the neighborhood of 10.4 BILLION barrels. The area required for drilling would be the size of a postage stamp on a football field, relatively speaking. So you get your football field of "sacred" arctic tundra, I get my postage stamp of oil drilling, prices decrease across the board, and we all go home happy. In the meantime, we can be working our little tails off to develop alternative forms of energy that are both environmentally-friendly AND cost-effective. Watching the economy tank while we sit on even more oil than exists in the middle east benefits no one (except the middle east), and hurts many. Our economy relies on cheap, plentiful energy--we need to use what we've been given.

My .02--likely worth a lot less! :-)

Jill, OK

05-06-2008, 01:38 PM

I'm in the "can't we do both?" camp.

But then again...I think the same thing. :D

I live in another 'driving state', in a rural area, and no, I can't see developing it all up just to make public transportation workable. You'd literally have to change the face of our state to do that, and the thought makes me shudder.

But I do support some of the measures from almost every idea pool. Politics aside, it's not necessarily a black/white issue on every front.

Jill, OK

05-06-2008, 01:52 PM

I think allowing and encouraging small family business to move into subdivision and rural areas would be much more cost effective than public transportation.

As I said above, under Amy's post, you'd literally have to overhaul our entire state and change generations of ways of life to make a public transportation system like what you see in a place like the East Coast workable here, and I can't express how against that idea I am, lol. (If you look at a list of states by population density, Oklahoma is about 35th, I think. Look at all the other low population density states--Montana, Wyoming, etc.--and you'll get an idea of what I'm talking about; they're difficult to make public transit-friendly for a reason--wide open spaces--and most folks that live there, like them that way. And I'm just more conservation minded than I am practical. :D)

But encouraging local community is a win-win, IMO.

We're fortunate in that we live outside of a small town that really has everything we need, in a bare-bones sense, although it's generally cheaper for me to find opportunities to shop when I'm in 'town' (next bigger town over) or the city. Most of the rural communities around here are the same, but...it's still iffy to invest in opportunities that aren't sure things (located in a population center).

My ideal is great public transportation for cities, and centrally located local commerce opportunities in rural/suburban areas.

Mrs Mungo

05-06-2008, 02:27 PM

ETA: I am all for alternative, clean, miraculous, renewable (affordable?) energy sources, btw. I simply don't see much on that horizon, thus I can't speak intelligently about the subject. :blush:

Well, for the time being I'd just be happy with alternative with an eye toward further change.

SO, if we weaned people off of gas-driven cars to electric cars and moved toward burning coal that would be a viable alternative that exists with current technology. Granted, coal isn't clean or renewable (although we have enough coal to last a couple of hundred years) but we could gradually switch those plants over to wind power (which is clean, renewable and works well) or a combination of solar and wind power or some such.

battlemaiden

05-06-2008, 02:47 PM

Why is it that the poll results here are showing an overwhelming number of people who've voted in favor of increased domestic drilling, but it appears that the majority of those posting explanations are those who are against, or at least seem to lean toward approaches more geared toward conservation?

I'm not trying to instigate controversy, but maybe there could be some additional comment from the "in favor" folks? Have I just overlooked them?

I was discussing this fact with my dh last night. Aren't anonymous polls a kick? I think it is a very telling reflection of the wider population.

People generally want to drill, but the stigma associated with oil isn't something people want to be associated with. When the responses label drilling as a means of destroying ecosystems, who wants to be a part of that? I believe there are valid opinions on both side, but some are louder and more politically correct than others (and I'm talking about the national debate, not what we've seen on this board).

The posts have demonstrated how complex the issue really is, and that the reasons for wanting to drill are varied- some for price purposes, some for national security, and some a mixture of the two. I have enjoyed hearing from everyone.

Jo
Jo

Reya

05-06-2008, 03:56 PM

I'm for drilling. I find arguments against it ignorant and knee-jerk--I'm saying this as someone who lived down the street from a pump jack and who had a number of acquaintances who worked on various rigs and derricks. Wells aren't "dirty," as a rule. They aren't destructive. I can't imagine what people are thinking of when they freak out about drilling--that millions of acres of forest are going to be leveled? That pipes will snake across the landscape everywhere? It's like people have been trained to go oil=bad! without upper logic centers ever kicking in.

Riiiiight.

And NO, I am not for living like people from second- and third-world countries. I have done--and continue to do--vast amounts of research on the social implications of technological revolutions of various sorts. So I know that kind of life is enabled on the back of a vast underclass--which consists of the poor, of immigrants, of minorities, and of WOMEN. I am not interested in being a slave of society again just because we want to save a few watts. Most work HAS to be done. It's either done by vacuum cleaners, dish washers, clothing washers and dryers--by trucks, trains, and boats hauling goods across the country--or it is done by hand, mostly by women. Feminism was not possible until the home-appliance revolution because that--and nothing else--freed the average woman from slavery to her house. Low-killed manual labor is not uplifting, though it is necessary. It is something that degrades the monetary value of an individual's work which always, without fail, results in a degradation of their rights and status. If we turn away from industrial and post-industrial solutions to the labor/energy question, we will discover ourselves in a pre-industrial labor situation, which is to no one's benefit but the very rich.

I am also against ethanol because it is stupid--technologically and socially, both. I am for developing other alternative fuels. The present state of solar power means that it is an incredibly expensive means of gaining power in 98% of cases, so I am not for that. I'd like to see progress int hat area. I am, however, for an embracing of passive solar design, which can dramatically lower heating needs in many areas just by following a few simple guidelines.

I am for restricting the production of SUVs in particular and for adding a tax on trucks that are non-work vehicles. I am for the dramatic raising of gas mileage--though not at the expense of safety. I am strongly in support of nuclear power, which is the only reasonable alternative to coal that we have, but that will do nothing about the costs of oil. I am less than enthusiastic about the results of deregulating utilities, and I think that the average consumer has really been done a disservice. I am strongly against laws that prohibit power plants from improving efficiency and reducing pollutants without completely gutting existing systems. I loathe people who stand in the way of building a better power infrastructure on the "moral principle" that "people should just conserve more." (Funnily enough, most of those people live in suburbs in above-average-sized houses....)

jacqui in mo

05-06-2008, 04:34 PM

Well, for the time being I'd just be happy with alternative with an eye toward further change.

"we could gradually switch those plants over to wind power (which is clean, renewable and works well) or a combination of solar and wind power or some such.

Could you link me to some info on the feasibility of wind power? I don't know much about it. My impressions are that while it might work well in some areas with large land tracts, it cannot be feasibly used everywhere. (not enough land or consistent wind patterns, etc.)

Jacqui

jacqui in mo

05-06-2008, 05:02 PM

One reason I'm in favor of drilling is that it is going to be a long time before most of the alternative energies are feasible enough to use for big scale uses like oil is now. In fact, most of the research on alternative energies need oil & other fossil fuel based technology to get done. (i.e they need electricity to run the buildings the research is being done in, the computers & other machines to work with, to build parts, construction equipment to build big wind mills, cars for the researchers to get to their labs, etc.)

I watched a show on PBS (don't recall the name, Maybe "Curious") & they were talking about a really cool fuel cell they were working on that did sound like it would be more feasible than anything so far. But the researchers lamented that it would be a long road before it was ready for economic use. (Not lack of funding, but just the need for more research)

Jacqui

cornopean

05-06-2008, 08:08 PM

Oh, preach it sister! I want to get on a train and go to Memphis and visit gardenschooler and go to the zoo. I want buses in my city that have routes that make sense, like the ones we rode around on in Chicago.

Ever since our visit to Chicago I have been totally enamored with public transportation. It was like magic, stand here and the magic carriage will come and get you and take you to Navy Pier. Stand there and the magic carriage will come and take you to the train station.

I want some dang public transportation!!!
I respectfully think public transportation is foolish. we know that any govt owned and operated enterprise will be inefficient and wasteful. if there was a need for busing, the private companies would step up and provide it.
Thomas Jefferson wrote;
"Private enterprise... manages so much better all the concerns to which it is equal." --Thomas Jefferson: 6th Ann. Message, 1806. ME 3:423

http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1320.htm

nancypants

05-06-2008, 08:45 PM

I want horse and buggy to come back in style!! Then we could all not only save a whole lotta gas but we could have really nice and green lawns from all the free fertilizer our transportation sources would produce! :tongue_smilie: Seriously... The Amish are onto something.

Fortunately I live in a city where public transport is really good and is ever expanding. We are on the very western edge of our city (of a million people) and the LRT will be right up next to our subdivision within 2 years. And lots of people use it (so many that claustrophobic people like me simply cannot get on those things without having a panic attack. :willy_nilly:)

I want more to be done to come up with renewable energy sources and I don't really want the earth to be a big piece of burnt toast, ever.

That being said, I do support increasing domestic drilling, not at any and all costs, mind you... but it seems to me that no matter what, fuel cost (no matter the source) at least for the foreseeable future, is going to have a worldwide effect as we are already seeing with ethanol and the worldwide food shortages, which is just downright unacceptable in my view. I think ethanol takes more fuel to create than it saves. I am looking forward to the day they make it so that our cars can run on garbage (remember Back to the Future? :D)

Horse and buggy people. That's how I want it... but I live on a tiny city lot the size of an outhouse (okay, so it's a wee bit bigger) so there's no room for my horses. :glare:

Teddi

05-06-2008, 08:54 PM

In areas with a smaller population base, like the one I live in, it doesn't work that way. You wait for the next bus in the cold or heat or drizzle a very long time. No thanks!

Ever since our visit to Chicago I have been totally enamored with public transportation. It was like magic, stand here and the magic carriage will come and get you and take you to Navy Pier. Stand there and the magic carriage will come and take you to the train station.

I want some dang public transportation!!!

GraceinMD

05-06-2008, 08:59 PM

I'm for drilling. Wells aren't "dirty," as a rule. They aren't destructive.

I am also against ethanol.

I am for developing other alternative fuels. The present state of solar power means that it is an incredibly expensive means of gaining power in 98% of cases, so I am not for that.

Yup. Have to agree with you, Reya. Ethanol, in particular, I find troubling, because the evidence for energy savings simply isn't there, yet the bandwagon is full of folks who are convinced that we're doing something wonderful by supporting ethanol-based programs.

As far as drilling, the ANWR wd be, what, 1% of the area? I do not think that there's any evidence that it would "destroy the ecosystem" up there, and it seems foolish that we're not taking advantage of oil reserves we have access to.

Should we be mindful of energy? Of course. Should we be good stewards? Of course? But it seems that people don't look at the bottom line when making decisions about energy.

Reya

05-06-2008, 09:07 PM

nancypants

05-06-2008, 09:09 PM

I know you're mostly kidding, but horses are FAR most expensive to own and operate as transportation than cars for anyone not already living on 5+ acres. Also, the pollution problems are staggering--just the sheer logistics of the manure that had to be removed from 19th-c cities is STAGGERING.

I do support packaging reduction measures, too, btw. Save costs at every point and fit more on the shelves--win all around.

Yeah, but they're cute and they make a glorious sound when chomping their hay!

Really, I am kidding... I don't think I'd so much like the smell of the neighborhood! :blink:

Reya

05-06-2008, 09:11 PM

I respectfully think public transportation is foolish.

Some is, some isn't. The most AWESOME transportation system that I've heard of is a BUS system that is set up in such a way that it's almost as fast as a subway--but with bus-like costs. It makes so much sense! People pay as they enter a platform-like area, the buses have extra-wide doors, they drive in dedicated bus lanes, and they have limited stops, like a subway--once every 5 blocks or so instead of every corner. They're just amazing! I think it was a South American country that set it up--limited budget and desperate need for EFFICIENT public transportation.

Reya

05-06-2008, 09:12 PM

Yeah, but they're cute and they make a glorious sound when chomping their hay!

Really, I am kidding... I don't think I'd so much like the smell of the neighborhood! :blink:

Yeah, we had neighbors who boarded horses. Now that was pretty bad...

Amy in NY

05-06-2008, 09:21 PM

It's the only way to bring down the price of oil. We are currently at the mercy of a cartel.

As for ethanol....it goes against all of my common sense to burn food. And when all is said and done, it's really no better for the environment.

Amy

Amy in NY

05-06-2008, 09:23 PM

Amy in NY

05-06-2008, 09:26 PM

What we need to do is cluster the houses together, so it is cost-effective to run buses.

I live in a rural area now but once lived in a very suburban community that had shifted to cluster housing in new developments. While some may choose that, I would not and should not have the government telling me what type of home/land/car to own.

Mandating lifestyle choices will not fix the current oil price. Competition will.

Michelle in TX

05-06-2008, 09:27 PM

Teddi

05-07-2008, 12:40 AM

I completely agree with what I've highlighted in red.

"New Urbanism" should NOT be mandated to save fuel. Some of us don't care to be packed in like sardines.

I live in a rural area now but once lived in a very suburban community that had shifted to cluster housing in new developments. While some may choose that, I would not and should not have the government telling me what type of home/land/car to own.

Mandating lifestyle choices will not fix the current oil price. Competition will.

Colleen

05-07-2008, 04:05 AM

I respectfully think public transportation is foolish. we know that any govt owned and operated enterprise will be inefficient and wasteful.

Nope, "we" don't know that. I've seen and used enough excellent, government-run public transit systems to disprove your assumption.:)

Colleen

05-07-2008, 04:16 AM

We simply need to use a lot less fuel.

You win!:D The mistaken assumption that domestic drilling is the "only" way to lower oil prices overlooks the obvious: Decrease demand.

Caroline

05-07-2008, 06:47 AM

You win!:D The mistaken assumption that domestic drilling is the "only" way to lower oil prices overlooks the obvious: Decrease demand.

I agree totally. It also overlooks the fact that we don't have the refining facilities to deal with more oil. Our refineries are out of date and are not big enough to keep up with production. We need to fix the refining problem more than we need to drill for more oil. More efficient refining is the way to go.

cornopean

05-07-2008, 07:30 AM

Nope, "we" don't know that. I've seen and used enough excellent, government-run public transit systems to disprove your assumption.:)
First, why do you think more public transit will bring down the cost of gasoline?
Second, all govt spending is third party spending. This means that the govt is spending someone else's money. All govt spending is this way and since they aren't spending their own money, the spending is inherently inefficient. It's just a fact of life. Noone spends someone else's money as efficiently as they spend their own. Here is Milton Friedman (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman) (of happy memory);
There are four ways in which you can spend money. You can spend your own money on yourself. When you do that, why then you really watch out what you’re doing, and you try to get the most for your money. Then you can spend your own money on somebody else. For example, I buy a birthday present for someone. Well, then I’m not so careful about the content of the present, but I’m very careful about the cost. Then, I can spend somebody else’s money on myself. And if I spend somebody else’s money on myself, then I’m sure going to have a good lunch! Finally, I can spend somebody else’s money on somebody else. And if I spend somebody else’s money on somebody else, I’m not concerned about how much it is, and I’m not concerned about what I get. And that’s government. And that’s close to 40% of our national income.

cornopean

05-07-2008, 07:32 AM

You win!:D The mistaken assumption that domestic drilling is the "only" way to lower oil prices overlooks the obvious: Decrease demand.
Well we all agree that there are two ways to lower prices. increase the supply or decrease the demand. the question is which is the wisest choice. I would suggest that decreasing demand is going to have a very adverse effect on our economy.
but if we simply removed the govt restrictions on drilling for oil, we could increase the supply of oil, which would lower the price, and we would all be happy.
so I suggest drilling.

Melinda in VT

05-07-2008, 07:53 AM

I completely agree with what I've highlighted in red.

"New Urbanism" should NOT be mandated to save fuel. Some of us don't care to be packed in like sardines.

And some of us don't care to watch the most fertile farmland in the area be gobbled up by street after street of new houses. Or watch our tax dollars be spent on more and wider freeways instead of on public transportation systems. ;)

I don't think the government should mandate where individuals live, but I do think local governments should (indeed, must) begin forcing new development to be done with an eye toward responsible land and energy use.

This issue is particularly in the forefront for me right now, as we just returned from a trip to Utah. They have a few surprisingly progressive ideas (some new urbanism communities, a light rail system, a new commuter rail system) but the suburban sprawl is out of control and shows no signs of stopping. Clearly, the people in charge are not worried about peak oil.

(Just to clarify tone--I am passionate but not angry.:D)

Melinda in VT

05-07-2008, 08:01 AM

First, why do you think more public transit will bring down the cost of gasoline?
Second, all govt spending is third party spending. This means that the govt is spending someone else's money. All govt spending is this way and since they aren't spending their own money, the spending is inherently inefficient. It's just a fact of life. Noone spends someone else's money as efficiently as they spend their own. Here is Milton Friedman (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman) (of happy memory);
There are four ways in which you can spend money. You can spend your own money on yourself. When you do that, why then you really watch out what you’re doing, and you try to get the most for your money. Then you can spend your own money on somebody else. For example, I buy a birthday present for someone. Well, then I’m not so careful about the content of the present, but I’m very careful about the cost. Then, I can spend somebody else’s money on myself. And if I spend somebody else’s money on myself, then I’m sure going to have a good lunch! Finally, I can spend somebody else’s money on somebody else. And if I spend somebody else’s money on somebody else, I’m not concerned about how much it is, and I’m not concerned about what I get. And that’s government. And that’s close to 40% of our national income.

Are you in favor of privatizing the road construction and maintenance?

Amy in NY

05-07-2008, 08:52 AM

I don't think the government should mandate where individuals live, but I do think local governments should (indeed, must) begin forcing new development to be done with an eye toward responsible land and energy use.

Can you tell me how to do this without laws/rules that prohibit my freedom to choose my lifestyle because I can't figure that part out.

Are you in favor of privatizing the road construction and maintenance?

Most definitely. Then, when the job isn't done right or is over budget, the crew can be fired and replaced with someone more efficient. There will be more incentive to do the work right the first time because the company will know that they will lose the contract if they don't. (And this opinion is from experience - dh is involved in the construction business.)

And, as you so eloquently said, I am passionate but not angry. (And I'm not picking on you....:001_smile:)

Margaret in GA

05-07-2008, 08:53 AM

But in the meantime, I will tell you what I think here (for about the 100th time).

Read the book Energy Victory. It is an excellent, market-based approach to our crisis. Yes, I believe we are headed toward a crisis thanks to
ineffectual leadership. NPR quoted someone today that said oil will hit $200/barrel

The basic premise of this book is this: if we all drove flex-fuel cars we could switch to whichever fuel happens to be cheapest that day. Today that fuel is ethanol/methanol. Here in Georgia, we can make cellulosic ethanol from tree parts (the leftover bits when pine trees are used for lumber). That's just *one* thing we can make fuel from. We are building a plant right now that will give Georgia hunderds of jobs.

I cannot bear to hear one more time that making ethanol from "food" is killing people in India. It is simply not true. Please check your source. While ethanol from corn is not very efficient, but it isn't driving the price of our food up. In fact, we are growing more corn than ever before (even when you adjust the amount that goes toward ethanol.)

Someone said we need to protect farmland. Amen! What better way than to make farming profitable again? Let's keep our money here at home and not in the pockets of sheiks in Saudi Arabia! All we have to do is this: Mandate that every car built and sold in America be Flex Fuel. It doesn't cost you or the car companies anymore. If we had done this 5-10 years ago, think of where we'd be. And BTW, there were groups calling on the govt. to do this and they refused-- both Clinton and Bush.

Margaret

Kelli in TN

05-07-2008, 09:11 AM

In areas with a smaller population base, like the one I live in, it doesn't work that way. You wait for the next bus in the cold or heat or drizzle a very long time. No thanks!

It can't work in every community, I do realize that. But it could have worked in my community if our city leaders had thought things through as the community grew. And we could have had trains from our surrounding "bedroom" communities into our city, if someone would have had some foresight.

And I really wish our city had a train to Memphis.

EKS

05-07-2008, 09:12 AM

Actually, oil prices in and of themselves aren't my main concern. What worries me (terrifies, if I think about it too long) is what is going to happen when the oil starts to run out if we don't make major changes now, while we have a chance to change the infrastructure while we still have oil. If we don't, it will get very ugly. Wars, starvation, the US as a nation could very well collapse. I'm serious. Think about everything (it's not just driving the kids to baseball practice or husband to work) that needs oil to run. Then take the oil away, without any preparation for it being withdrawn, and see what you get.

That's why I get cranky when people focus on oil prices. This is about something far more than prices. It's about our way of life going down the tubes. But it doesn't have to be this way.

Kelli in TN

05-07-2008, 09:20 AM

I want horse and buggy to come back in style!! Then we could all not only save a whole lotta gas but we could have really nice and green lawns from all the free fertilizer our transportation sources would produce! :tongue_smilie: Seriously... The Amish are onto something.

Horse and buggy people. That's how I want it... but I live on a tiny city lot the size of an outhouse (okay, so it's a wee bit bigger) so there's no room for my horses. :glare:

I think you are overlooking another benefit to this plan.

When I was a child I lived on a road where everyone had horses. Old Mr. Spralling had several teams of horses and big wooden wagon. This was his only mode of transportation. He was an excellent driver and his horses were perfect. He drove his big wooden wagon up and down the busy highway that connected to our little gravel road. He took a team of horses out pretty much everyday. They would clomp past my house on the way to the highway where they would head off....

to the bar.

And at the end of a long night of drinking Old Mr. Spralling would not remember where he lived, how he came to be at the bar, or even who he was. The folks at the bar would load him into his wagon, put the reins in his hands and send him home. Those horses would bring him safely home and stop in the front yard. He would either sleep it off in his wagon or someone from his family would unload him and put the horses up.

How about that for a value added mode of transportation!:auto:

Melinda in VT

05-07-2008, 09:32 AM

Can you tell me how to do this without laws/rules that prohibit my freedom to choose my lifestyle because I can't figure that part out.

Those who don't want to live in a new urban community (or an old urban community) will have ample choices from our existing housing stock.

Most definitely. Then, when the job isn't done right or is over budget, the crew can be fired and replaced with someone more efficient. There will be more incentive to do the work right the first time because the company will know that they will lose the contract if they don't. (And this opinion is from experience - dh is involved in the construction business.)

In this sense, public transportation (what little we have) is already privatized. The government hires private companies to build the lines, build the buses or trams, etc. Just as the government currently controls where roads can and cannot be built, and which roads are built when, so the government needs to control where public transportation lines are built and when.

:)

Sweetpeach

05-07-2008, 09:53 AM

I am against an increase in domestic drilling -- oil & gas companies are all about the bottom line -- $$$. They care very little about run-off, ponds of sludge, wild-life habitat, people -- it's all about $$.

If, IF IF, big O & G corporations found a way to balance their bottom line with a sincere desire to work within the fragile environmental eco-systems, than maybe I could support that.

As the industry currently operates -- no.

Tammyla

05-07-2008, 10:54 AM

:iagree:I have to agree here, it's a band-aid approach. :iagree:

I'm against it ~ no surprise there.;) It's on par with the band-aid approach to traffic congestion ~ simply adding more lanes.

Colleen

05-07-2008, 11:33 AM

Actually, oil prices in and of themselves aren't my main concern.

It's not my main concern, either. My main concern, in addition to environmental factors, is exploring and expanding "alternative" energy sources such that we aren't hyper-focused on one, limited resource.

Colleen

05-07-2008, 11:42 AM

Here in Georgia, we can make cellulosic ethanol from tree parts (the leftover bits when pine trees are used for lumber). That's just *one* thing we can make fuel from.

I cannot bear to hear one more time that making ethanol from "food" is killing people in India. It is simply not true.

Good points; I'll have to check in to your other thread later today when I have more time. One of my concerns is that the vast majority of corn and soybeans (for example) grown for biofuel production is GMO. Relying on GMO, Roundup Ready corn as an environmentally "sound" means to fuel my vehicle just...doesn't make sense, kwim?

Colleen

05-07-2008, 12:01 PM

First, why do you think more public transit will bring down the cost of gasoline?

Where did I say that? I support public transit for a variety reasons, but I didn't specifically say I consider it a leading means of lowering the cost of gasoline. For the most part, I've not addressed the cost of gasoline here because ~ as I just replied (in agreement) to EKS, below ~ price isn't my primary personal concern.

Second, all govt spending is third party spending....

Right. As an economist, I'm well aware of that. I'm also well aware of Friedman (*wink*), but I disagree that all government (third-party) is inherently wasteful, as you previously stated.

Gotta run...hope to get back to this later!

Mamagistra

05-07-2008, 12:19 PM

One of my concerns is that the vast majority of corn and soybeans (for example) grown for biofuel production is GMO. Relying on GMO, Roundup Ready corn as an environmentally "sound" means to fuel my vehicle just...doesn't make sense, kwim?

AMEN, sista!! :iagree::iagree:

cornopean

05-07-2008, 12:44 PM

Are you in favor of privatizing the road construction and maintenance?
Yes, I do. There are various ways of doing this. Prof. Becker wrote (http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2006/06/on_privatizing_1.html) a very interesting blog post on this.

The advantages are obvious. you can control costs, fire the company that wins the bid if they mess it up, etc.

cornopean

05-07-2008, 12:47 PM

I cannot bear to hear one more time that making ethanol from "food" is killing people in India. It is simply not true. Please check your source. While ethanol from corn is not very efficient, but it isn't driving the price of our food up. In fact, we are growing more corn than ever before (even when you adjust the amount that goes toward ethanol.)

Here is how I understand it. Govt mandates that ethanol be added to gasoline. demand for corn goes up, farmers plant more corn, which means they plant less of the other grains, which means the supply of other grains goes down, which means their price goes up. pork and beef and other meats go up in price b/c they eat corn. that all seems pretty logical to me. where do I err?

cin

05-07-2008, 12:55 PM

One other thing that I don't think has been addressed here is the overall effect on the economy. Even if we do more with public transportation adn such, we still have to deal with increase oil prices and it's effect on the OVERALL economy. The increase in the fuel cost will eventually cause most everything else to go up too. These things have to be transported, either truck, rail, or ship. And in order to cover the increase in fuel prices, those prices will go up too. So essentially, the Middle East has the power to destroy our economy if our dependance on their oil is NOT broken.

sdWTMer

05-07-2008, 01:00 PM

I am for restricting the production of SUVs in particular and for adding a tax on trucks that are non-work vehicles.

I disagree on the restriction of SUV's. I think that people should buy what they want to buy. I must say that our suburban is used for camping, we have that thing packed. We use it to help move ourselves and others. I don't know what we'd have done the last couple of times we've moved without it.

What about people who need bigger cars to store wheelchairs, are you saying that they will need some kind of an exemption or something? I don't think so, IMHO!
:auto: Plus, the funner cars are usually gas guzzlers! ;)

It surprises me how we are soooo okay with giving up freedoms these days.

As for the other things you stated. I agree. I'm for nuclear as well. I voted yes for more drilling. Why not?

Cafelattee

05-07-2008, 01:19 PM

I live of the Alabama coast where oil rigs are seen. I then go off the Florida coast which does not allow them. They are ugly and have the potential to leak. I just know in America we are spoiled andwill not change our habits I love to get in the car and go. So we depend onthe Middle Eastthat really don't like us. So we are basically a economic slave to them. I say we need to drill. I tried a 10%ethanol/gas mix and my 05 jeep ran terrible. I just don't think its the best way to go. I would prefer america start growing its own food, no just corn fields.

Mrs Mungo

05-07-2008, 02:13 PM

Here is how I understand it. Govt mandates that ethanol be added to gasoline. demand for corn goes up, farmers plant more corn, which means they plant less of the other grains, which means the supply of other grains goes down, which means their price goes up. pork and beef and other meats go up in price b/c they eat corn. that all seems pretty logical to me. where do I err?

Where you err is what I said way back in the thread. We're still paying farmers *not* to grow rice and corn so that grain prices remain higher than they would otherwise be. Stop those programs, encourage farming instead of not farming and those prices will drop.

I do agree with Cin that part of the problem is the general economy. Prices have risen not just because OPEC controls oil prices but partly because of the weak dollar. When the dollar is weak everything will go up in price.

I agree with sdWTMer that cars other than SUVs have poor gas mileage.

Drilling is delaying the inevitable. We need to find other ways of weaning ourselves from foreign oil.

Teddi

05-07-2008, 02:25 PM

:iagree: And what of those with larger (by number or body size) families? We tried to do the two-week vacation thing in a mini van and it was miserable.

I disagree on the restriction of SUV's. I think that people should buy what they want to buy.

What about people who need bigger cars to store wheelchairs, are you saying that they will need some kind of an exemption or something? I don't think so, IMHO!

I'm with you here, too. I don't understand why limiting consumer choice/freedom is such a popular answer to our energy problems.
It surprises me how we are soooo okay with giving up freedoms these days.

cornopean

05-07-2008, 02:59 PM

I live of the Alabama coast where oil rigs are seen. I then go off the Florida coast which does not allow them. They are ugly and have the potential to leak.
Robert Samuelson recently wrote a column (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/04/start_drilling.html) in which he writes:
On environmental grounds, the alternatives to more drilling are usually worse. Subsidies to ethanol made from corn have increased food prices and used scarce water, with few benefits. If oil is imported, it's vulnerable to tanker spills. By contrast, local production is probably safer. There were 4,000 platforms operating in the Gulf of Mexico when hurricanes Katrina and Rita hit. Despite extensive damage, there were no major spills, says Robbie Diamond of Securing America's Future Energy, an advocacy group.

Margaret in GA

05-07-2008, 03:43 PM

cornopean

05-07-2008, 04:43 PM

Where you err is what I said way back in the thread. We're still paying farmers *not* to grow rice and corn so that grain prices remain higher than they would otherwise be. Stop those programs, encourage farming instead of not farming and those prices will drop.

so can we agree that the best approach here is for the govt to take a completely laissez faire approach to all this? I would wholeheartedly support the govt not subsidizing anything. I am also for the govt eliminating all its tariffs.

cornopean

05-07-2008, 05:01 PM

"Subsidies to ethanol made from corn have increased food prices and used scarce water, with few benefits."
I have to disagree with you on this. There are three reasons for the rising cost of food:

1. people in third world countries are now eating twice rather than once a day

2. the rising price of fuel for transporting our food.

3. Speculation in the marketplace. Investors are looking for a sure win and food commodities is where its at.

Margaret
Ok...I do disagree. I believe this food crisis is almost entirely a govt engineered crisis.

Here is Prof. Becker. He writes: (http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2008/04/rising_food_pri_1.html)Rather, the boom in petroleum prices and subsidies to ethanol and other biofuels are the most important forces explaining the recent increase in food prices. Both the sharp run up in oil prices, and the continuing subsides to ethanol production in the United States, and to a lesser extent Europe, induced an increasing diversion of corn from feed and human consumption to the production of biofuels. The main goal of the diversion has been to produce more ethanol as a substitute for gasoline. During the past year, one quarter of American corn production, and 11 percent of global production, was devoted to biofuels, and the US contributes a lot to the world corn market. The growth in demand for biofuels explains why acreage was shifted from other grains to corn-the acreage devoted to corn in the United States increased by over twenty percent in 2007-8, while that devoted to soybean production declined by more than fifteen percent. The reallocation of production away from other grains explains the rapid price increases for wheat, soybeans, and rice as well as for corn.
As for the reasons you list, the first one is undoubtedly a factor but a very insignificant one. I agree with #2. I really doubt #3. You are going to need to explain and establish that one a bit more.:bigear:

Mrs Mungo

05-07-2008, 05:52 PM

so can we agree that the best approach here is for the govt to take a completely laissez faire approach to all this? I would wholeheartedly support the govt not subsidizing anything. I am also for the govt eliminating all its tariffs.

No, I disagree with subsidies that are causing food shortages.

However, I would be in favor of government subsidizing research of alternative energies. I'm also in favor of government coming up with zero emission laws as California did and slowly build up on those. eta: I'm not against big government, I'm just against poor logic.

Mamagistra

05-07-2008, 05:53 PM

And I really wish our city had a train to Memphis.

A Houston-to-Galveston line would please me (and countless others) to no end. :001_smile:

summer

05-07-2008, 05:53 PM

AGAINST!!!!

They want to do gas drilling right next to my house! And I do not even live in a rural area, I live in a suburb of a major metropolitan area (Dallas, TX area)

summer

05-07-2008, 05:56 PM

I voted against. I would not so much have a problem with it if they were picking barren far out areas away from people, but they are not. They are drilling all over the metroplex here and there are now stories of cancers and lung problems coming out of it. They are not exactly the safest either. People have died in residential areas from those exploding. It just has to hit one pocket and it can be deadly. And the fumes and such are deadly. The increased traffic from the diesel trucks, it goes on and on and on.

http://www.stopthedrilling.blogspot.com/

Colleen

05-07-2008, 07:48 PM

It surprises me how we are soooo okay with giving up freedoms these days.

And it surprises me you'd think that's the case. I'd be grateful if more people in our society were willing to consider the common good above individual freedom. (But you and I my very well disagree as to what constitutes the common good.;))

cornopean

05-07-2008, 08:39 PM

No, I disagree with subsidies that are causing food shortages.

However, I would be in favor of government subsidizing research of alternative energies. I'm also in favor of government coming up with zero emission laws as California did and slowly build up on those. eta: I'm not against big government, I'm just against poor logic.
well at least we are clear on where we agree and disagree.

Disagree:
I think that govt governs best that governs least. I think that was the vision of our founders.

Agree:
We are both against poor logic.
:iagree:

In defense of my position on govt, what do you think of this Index? (http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/countries.cfm)

cornopean

05-07-2008, 08:45 PM

And it surprises me you'd think that's the case. I'd be grateful if more people in our society were willing to consider the common good above individual freedom. (But you and I my very well disagree as to what constitutes the common good.;))
I would be willing to argue that any society that bases itself on the common good will fail.
Those societies that base themselves on individual rights will prosper.
I think history bears that out.

at any rate, giving up our rights to SUVs and gas hog vehicles is hardly going to do anything for the common good.

Mrs Mungo

05-07-2008, 08:51 PM

In defense of my position on govt, what do you think of this Index? (http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/countries.cfm)

I'm not inclined to accept statistics from such a biased source, sorry. In fact, I'm against *any* private think tank that influences policy to such a large degree, that includes left-wing organizations like the Center for American Progress as well.

cornopean

05-07-2008, 08:56 PM

I'm not inclined to accept statistics from such a biased source, sorry. In fact, I'm against *any* private think tank that influences policy to such a large degree, that includes left-wing organizations like the Center for American Progress as well.
First, is it your position that their bias precludes them from telling the truth?
Second, what is an unbiased source? Is there such a thing?

Colleen

05-07-2008, 09:00 PM

I would be willing to argue that any society that bases itself on the common good will fail. Those societies that base themselves on individual rights will prosper. I think history bears that out.

A prosperous society, of course, gives weight to both individual rights and the common good.

at any rate, giving up our rights to SUVs and gas hog vehicles is hardly going to do anything for the common good.

I wasn't speaking to giving up our rights to SUVs, etc. I was addressing in general SDWTMer's assertion that we're giving up our freedoms all too easily. As it happens, though, I do believe giving up our rights to gas hogs would benefit the common good. Just have to figure out how to haul my family without the gas hog to further that goal:D

cornopean

05-07-2008, 09:08 PM

A prosperous society, of course, gives weight to both individual rights and the common good.
what do you think of this quote (http://www.historycarper.com/resources/twobf3/price.htm) (esp. the boldfaced part)?
I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. -- I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer. There is no country in the world where so many provisions are established for them; so many hospitals to receive them when they are sick or lame, founded and maintained by voluntary charities; so many alms-houses for the aged of both sexes, together with a solemn general law made by the rich to subject their estates to a heavy tax for the support of the poor. Under all these obligations, are our poor modest, humble, and thankful; and do they use their best endeavours to maintain themselves, and lighten our shoulders of this burthen? -- On the contrary, I affirm that there is no country in the world in which the poor are more idle, dissolute, drunken, and insolent. http://www.historycarper.com/images/frankln1.jpg

sdWTMer

05-07-2008, 09:08 PM

A prosperous society, of course, gives weight to both individual rights and the common good.

What example can you give me for the above statement?

The common good is individual rights, that is what made America so great.

I hear that the common good says that we should have our kiddos in public school; it's good to give the federal government our money when our kiddos are there. How can one choose an individual right (homeschooling) in one case and not in the other? I just don't get it. But that's just me. ;)

cornopean

05-07-2008, 09:12 PM

What example can you give me for the above statement?

The common good is individual rights, that is what made America so great.

I hear that the common good says that we should have our kiddos in public school; it's good to give the federal government our money when our kiddos are there. How can one choose an individual right (homeschooling) in one case and not in the other? I just don't get it. But that's just me. ;)
and me. :iagree:

hsmom

05-07-2008, 09:28 PM

Now I did not read the 10 pages of posts.

I am for it 100%, but you also have to understand I am coming from the stand point that this is our lively hood. We are a family that is a bunch of "rig heathens". Dh works in the oil and gas fields, so I see how this effects stuff first hand.

As for us, our family would not survive where we live without the benefits of the drill industry. So, the more holes that are punched in the ground mean job security for us.
Now I know this is not the opinion of all, but it is mine and my reasons behind my answer.

Teddi

05-07-2008, 09:42 PM

The problem is that one size does not fit all.

It would take two of those little "pop-can" sized cars to haul around families with more than four members.

Many Americans really do need larger vehicles because they better fit our families/lifestyles.

I wasn't speaking to giving up our rights to SUVs, etc. I was addressing in general SDWTMer's assertion that we're giving up our freedoms all too easily. As it happens, though, I do believe giving up our rights to gas hogs would benefit the common good. Just have to figure out how to haul my family without the gas hog to further that goal:D

Mrs Mungo

05-07-2008, 09:54 PM

First, is it your position that their bias precludes them from telling the truth?

It is my position that their definition of economic freedom has an agenda. There is no absolute truth when you're making your own definition.

Texas T

05-07-2008, 10:07 PM

:) The sooner the better

cornopean

05-08-2008, 12:47 PM

It is my position that their definition of economic freedom has an agenda. There is no absolute truth when you're making your own definition.
So you disagree with their definition of economic freedom? Where do they err and what definition would you offer?
do you think economic freedom is valuable?

Colleen

05-08-2008, 01:44 PM

A prosperous society, of course, gives weight to both individual rights and the common good.

What example can you give me for the above statement? The common good is individual rights, that is what made America so great.

Ummm...all kinds of examples. Many other countries. Because as I'm sure you're aware, there are many other "great" countries, in addition to America.:)

I hear that the common good says that we should have our kiddos in public school; it's good to give the federal government our money when our kiddos are there. How can one choose an individual right (homeschooling) in one case and not in the other?

I'm not clear as to your question. Are you asking how can we support both homeschooling and public education? If so, my answer is, "Quite easily."

Colleen

05-08-2008, 01:50 PM

The problem is that one size does not fit all.

I never said one size fits all.

Many Americans really do need larger vehicles because they better fit our families/lifestyles.

Well, sure. My "wants" lead to my "needs". If I choose to have five children, if I choose a lifestyle that requires driving hither and yon, then I "need" the gas guzzler. And that's my reality, admittedly. But I don't pretend it's a "need". It's what I've chosen I have to be honest about potentially-negative consequences of my choices.

Colleen

05-08-2008, 01:56 PM

what do you think of this quote (http://www.historycarper.com/resources/twobf3/price.htm) (esp. the boldfaced part)?

the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.

It is perfectly possible to provide a hand-up to the poor, to support all members of society including those who are suffering under less-than-ideal circumstances, without engendering a listless, drunken lower class. Because we are human, and sin knows no class, there will always be people who receive societal support and make no attempt to provide for themselves. Just as there will always be people in the upper echelon of society whose pride is such that they believe they are some how "better than".

Mrs Mungo

05-08-2008, 04:34 PM

So you disagree with their definition of economic freedom? Where do they err and what definition would you offer?

I don't pretend that they *err*, I think different people can have the same information and come to a different conclusion and that's OK.

do you think economic freedom is valuable?

In what sense?

Do I think government should have a hands-off approach to business? No. Business has proved it is about making as much money as humanly possible. Until business learns to grow a conscience (as a few companies have) then it needs to be controlled by government.

Merry

05-08-2008, 06:27 PM

Texas T

05-08-2008, 06:35 PM

battlemaiden

05-08-2008, 06:46 PM

a hands-off approach to business? No. Business has proved it is about making as much money as humanly possible. Until business learns to grow a conscience (as a few companies have) then it needs to be controlled by government.

This gives me the heeby jeebies. Giving the government the power to regulate assumes that the government is above corruption and influence as well. What makes you think politicians have more of a conscience than the business leaders? They are both susceptible to corruption, but one is driven more actively by outside market interests.

This fear of private business and free market exercise terrifies me. We will lose all our big businesses to other countries who are loosening their restrictions and tax rates. We will be ruined if we continue down this path of corporate hatred. Businesses of all shapes and sizes built this country into a thriving, prosperous nation---now we are throwing it all away in favor of government control.

Jo

Mrs Mungo

05-08-2008, 06:51 PM

Just curious, don't we need the oil to make plastic? Or is plastic made from something else? If from oil, then isn't that a huge part of our economy and way of life? Imagine life without syringes, IV tubes, etc. If we get the plastic from the oil, then I vote for domestic drilling.

http://www.grist.org/advice/ask/2007/03/14/plastics/

To quote from the above:
The best estimate I could find says that about 4 percent of the world's annual oil production of some 84.5 million barrels per day is used as feedstock for plastic, and another 4 percent or so provides the energy to transform the feedstock into handy plastic.

According to the U.S. EPA, manufacturing new plastic from recycled plastic requires two-thirds of the energy used in virgin plastic manufacture. I have more numbers, too: one ton of recycled plastic saves 685 gallons of oil. You can find lots of these "x amount is saved when we recycle" numbers in recycling promotional literature.

DoE site (http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/oil_market_basics/demand_text.htm)
Other interesting information that pertains:
Global Oil Consumption per Capita (http://tinyurl.com/4mc6za)

2/3 of the oil used in the US is used for transportation:
Chart with stats to indicate above (http://tinyurl.com/4nqk7o)

US Oil Demands by Product (http://tinyurl.com/3jtex7)

If we could cut the amount of gasoline used by cars it would leave that more oil for the making of plastics (which can also be made from corn, biomass and natural gas; it doesn't have to be petroleum), jet fuel, etc.

Mrs Mungo

05-08-2008, 07:05 PM

This gives me the heeby jeebies. Giving the government the power to regulate assumes that the government is above corruption and influence as well. What makes you think politicians have more of a conscience than the business leaders? They are both susceptible to corruption, but one is driven more actively by outside market interests.

While the child labor movement was a grassroots movement it took political action to cease child labor in this country. Was that a bad thing? At the time businesses argued that the children needed to work in order to keep their families afloat.

What about other labor laws? Do you disagree with those?

This fear of private business and free market exercise terrifies me. We will lose all our big businesses to other countries who are loosening their restrictions and tax rates. We will be ruined if we continue down this path of corporate hatred. Businesses of all shapes and sizes built this country into a thriving, prosperous nation---now we are throwing it all away in favor of government control.

Jo

It's not fear, it's fact. Businesses (especially big businesses but small business too to some extent) will get away with whatever they can in order to make the maximum amount of money.

Case in point: in college my hubby worked in a small machine shop. In order to avoid repairing the machines properly (because they were ancient and the parts would have had to been tooled) the business owners removed the safety features of the machines. As a result my hubby got his finger caught in one of the machines. He was working the night shift, alone and had to drive himself to the ER which was 15 miles away. Yes, the company paid for his surgery and hubby was left with just a bit of scar tissue but he was extremely lucky, it could have been much worse. If it had crushed his hand he would have lost his US Army commission and livelihood.

Even though it was a small business these people were millionares at the time, they had huge houses, the whole nine yards. But they were willing to endanger their employees in order to save a buck. People who work for non-union companies and/or small companies don't have protection from firing to call OSHA over unsafe conditions.

Violet

05-08-2008, 07:17 PM

While the child labor movement was a grassroots movement it took political action to cease child labor in this country. Was that a bad thing? At the time businesses argued that the children needed to work in order to keep their families afloat.

What about other labor laws? Do you disagree with those?

It's not fear, it's fact. Businesses (especially big businesses but small business too to some extent) will get away with whatever they can in order to make the maximum amount of money.

Case in point: in college my hubby worked in a small machine shop. In order to avoid repairing the machines properly (because they were ancient and the parts would have had to been tooled) the business owners removed the safety features of the machines. As a result my hubby got his finger caught in one of the machines. He was working the night shift, alone and had to drive himself to the ER which was 15 miles away. Yes, the company paid for his surgery and hubby was left with just a bit of scar tissue but he was extremely lucky, it could have been much worse. If it had crushed his hand he would have lost his US Army commission and livelihood.

Even though it was a small business these people were millionares at the time, they had huge houses, the whole nine yards. But they were willing to endanger their employees in order to save a buck. People who work for non-union companies and/or small companies don't have protection from firing to call OSHA over unsafe conditions.

Amen, Mrs. Mungo. Also, IMHO big business is controlling our government. America is run by large corporations. Sigh...

Anita

Carol in Cal.

05-08-2008, 07:31 PM

Seriously, do you?

When I was a kid, it was a lot worse than now in urban CA. That is because we now have the pollution controls in vehicles, required by law. We also have the Bay Area Air Quality Control Board watching for emission problems.

This was not a market-driven change. Any company that had put these devices into their cars without needing to would not have been economically viable. The incentive was not there until the law was.

I have visited one South Pacific country without pollution controls. Wow, the diesel fumes...wow. If I lived there, I would probably die of athsma. Still, the smell reminded me of my childhood and the diesel buses on city streets.

I don't favor big government, but I do favor some government. Although in "Civil Disobediance" Henry David Thoreau argued the less government, the better, my view is much more nuanced than that. Big brother government needs to be fought, but no government leaves you with a 'might makes right' and 'he who has the gold rules'-type government.

sdWTMer

05-08-2008, 07:33 PM

A prosperous society, of course, gives weight to both individual rights and the common good.
Ummm...all kinds of examples. Many other countries. Because as I'm sure you're aware, there are many other "great" countries, in addition to America.:)

Okay, I'll bite. Which are they? I think that America far exceeds most other countries. Sure yeah, I love and respect all countries and cultures, but there is a reason for so many people literally dying to get to this country.

I'm not clear as to your question. Are you asking how can we support both homeschooling and public education? If so, my answer is, "Quite easily."

I realize that you can support public education with property taxes, but what my question is, if you truly believe in the "common good" train of thought, why homeschool your kids? I'm sure that most public educators would think that putting your kids in school is for the common good of all. How can you quite easily support public education when your kids not being there deprives them of the funds that they would receive if your kids were enrolled?

battlemaiden

05-08-2008, 07:39 PM

Child labor, pollution, toxic hazards....all valid public interest regulations.

Cost of oil? Production of corn? Mandated crappy looking light bulbs full of mercury? Not so much.

My day has gone from bad to worse, so I'm checking out of this thread for the time being. ;) It's for my own good (and the indirect health of the baby). I don't want you to think I'm not responding sufficiently. Of course I'm right and I need to convince you of that ;), I just don't have it in me right now.

Jo

Mrs Mungo

05-08-2008, 07:48 PM

I realize that you can support public education with property taxes, but what my question is, if you truly believe in the "common good" train of thought, why homeschool your kids? I'm sure that most public educators would think that putting your kids in school is for the common good of all. How can you quite easily support public education when your kids not being there deprives them of the funds that they would receive if your kids were enrolled?

I'm not Colleen but I support the idea of public education. Not everyone is willing or able to educate their own children. I am so I do. Educated (even semi-educated) children are to the benefit of society.

battlemaiden-I do agree that not everything needs government interference, I wasn't trying to make that an argument at all.

battlemaiden

05-08-2008, 08:19 PM

I'm giggling at my own lack of self-control. One more (shower inspired) thought:

I hope the next billionaire capitalist is the one who creates the machine that will sit in the garage and produce all the fuel we need out of garbage- I hope there is a person left in America that profit motivated!

:D

I'm off....really.

jo

cornopean

05-08-2008, 08:35 PM

It is perfectly possible to provide a hand-up to the poor, to support all members of society including those who are suffering under less-than-ideal circumstances, without engendering a listless, drunken lower class.
You claim it is possible but you don't give any examples. Let's be realistic here. I can't think of a govt program that hasn't had perverse, unintended consequences. Some estimate that we've spent over 6 trillion dollars in The War on Poverty. but all this did was create a permanent under class that is trapped in a cycle of dependency and poverty. that is why I am with Franklin here. I ache to help the poor but govt programs exacerbate the problem.

and the same unintended consequences happen when the govt subsidizes research into alternative fuels.

Because we are human, and sin knows no class, there will always be people who receive societal support and make no attempt to provide for themselves.
so how do we help such people? by enabling them with money stolen from other taxpayers? I think the best thing that can be done for such is to cut them loose and make them work or starve.

Just as there will always be people in the upper echelon of society whose pride is such that they believe they are some how "better than".
this is not something the govt can do anything about.

cornopean

05-08-2008, 08:41 PM

I don't pretend that they *err*, I think different people can have the same information and come to a different conclusion and that's OK.

well what conclusion do you come to when you notice that the countries that are most economically free are also the countries with the lowest poverty rates, the highest avg incomes, the best standard of livings, etc etc.?

In what sense?
do you think it is a desirable thing for a country to be economically free? is it something policy makers should aim for when they write legislation?

Do I think government should have a hands-off approach to business? No. Business has proved it is about making as much money as humanly possible. Until business learns to grow a conscience (as a few companies have) then it needs to be controlled by government.
the odd thing is....that the more businesses pursue profit, the harder they try to please the customers. in a free society where there is rule of law, companies can only become really profitable when they please the most people. A company's profits are really a measure of how well they have met people's needs and wants.

cornopean

05-08-2008, 08:50 PM

While the child labor movement was a grassroots movement it took political action to cease child labor in this country. Was that a bad thing? At the time businesses argued that the children needed to work in order to keep their families afloat.

What about other labor laws? Do you disagree with those?
I am not an anarchist. I agree with some very limited basic labor laws.
I have two problems here:

First, when the govt takes from one person in order to give it to another who they judge needs it. this kind of wealth redistribution is theft IMO.

Second, when the govt thinks that it has to "protect" us from all the dangers. I think people should be able to enter contract freely w/ whomever they want. Minimum wages laws are a good example. If some retiree wants to wash windows for 5/hr......why shouldn't he be allowed to do this?

It's not fear, it's fact. Businesses (especially big businesses but small business too to some extent) will get away with whatever they can in order to make the maximum amount of money.

again, I support laws that punish such. but don't forget that the biggest punishment such businesses get is the punisment they get from the free market. people take their business elsewhere.

Case in point: in college my hubby
a good example for why businesses should not be left completely unregulated. we do need some laws. I am not an anarchist. But the current laws are WAY too burdensome. Sarbanes Oxley is a good example.

Carol in Cal.

05-08-2008, 09:00 PM

[QUOTE=cornopean;217200]well what conclusion do you come to when you notice that the countries that are most economically free are also the countries with the lowest poverty rates, the highest avg incomes, the best standard of livings, etc etc.?

QUOTE]
I think that you have not observed other countries accurately as reflected in your statement above.

The US has a much more economically free system but also much higher crime rates than most European countries and than Japan.

In general the countries with the great freedom also have long 'tails' in their distributions of lifestyles and wealth. That is acceptable to some but not to others. Personally, I think that it is reprehensible that we do not have a basic safety net in this country for hardworking people who are unable to completely support themselves, for all children, and for those with disabilities and the elderly. The low end of our economic/safety net tail is a source of shame for our country, IMV.

And, the level of violent crime in our country, amounting to house arrest for most females in cities and suburbs, is horrid. We don't have a cultural consensus in teaching what is and isn't unthinkable. We have an impersonal system.

I love my country, and I want us to be better at these things.

Mrs Mungo

05-08-2008, 09:03 PM

well what conclusion do you come to when you notice that the countries that are most economically free are also the countries with the lowest poverty rates, the highest avg incomes, the best standard of livings, etc etc.?

I don't think our goal as a nation should be to have the highest average income.

do you think it is a desirable thing for a country to be economically free? is it something policy makers should aim for when they write legislation?

I have yet to see you define what you think "economically free" means.

the odd thing is....that the more businesses pursue profit, the harder they try to please the customers. in a free society where there is rule of law, companies can only become really profitable when they please the most people. A company's profits are really a measure of how well they have met people's needs and wants.

This is really *only* true in the customer service industry. None of the customers who bought the product made by my husband's former employer would have had the first *clue* about how the business was run.

There has been a large-scale boycott in place against Nestle more or less since 1977. They participate in *disgusting* business practices and I won't give them my money. I carefully screen my groceries for Nestle products. They own a LOT of companies to include a large share of L'Oreal who in turn owns The Body Shop. I write all 3 companies every year or two to remind them why I'm boycotting. Do they care? No, they don't. Their business practices have not changed despite a UK ruling against them and called on the carpet repeatedly by the UN and UNICEF.

Mrs Mungo

05-08-2008, 09:06 PM

I am not an anarchist. I agree with some very limited basic labor laws.
I have two problems here:

First, when the govt takes from one person in order to give it to another who they judge needs it. this kind of wealth redistribution is theft IMO.

I haven't said anything about wealth redistribution at all. ETA: I've actually lived in Europe and I could expound upon pros and cons of both systems.

Second, when the govt thinks that it has to "protect" us from all the dangers. I think people should be able to enter contract freely w/ whomever they want. Minimum wages laws are a good example. If some retiree wants to wash windows for 5/hr......why shouldn't he be allowed to do this?

A retiree *can* wash windows for $5/hour. However, a company who is making a profit off the sweat of his brow cannot pay him a $5/hr wage to wash windows.

again, I support laws that punish such. but don't forget that the biggest punishment such businesses get is the punisment they get from the free market. people take their business elsewhere.

Again, I disagree but I've discussed this in my post above with regard to Nestle.

a good example for why businesses should not be left completely unregulated. we do need some laws. I am not an anarchist. But the current laws are WAY too burdensome. Sarbanes Oxley is a good example.

But the law *as it stands* did not protect my husband.

cornopean

05-08-2008, 09:16 PM

I have yet to see you define what you think "economically free" means.
I agree with the defn they supply. You disagreed with it, so I asked you what your defn was. I think you need to tell me what is wrong with their defn. I have no problem with it.

For everyone else, their definition of econ freedom (http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/faq.cfm) involves the following:

Business Freedom
Trade Freedom
Fiscal Freedom
Government Size
Monetary Freedom
Investment Freedom
Financial Freedom
Property rights
Freedom from Corruption
Labor Freedom
This is really *only* true in the customer service industry. None of the customers who bought the product made by my husband's former employer would have had the first *clue* about how the business was run.

we have no disagreement with regards to your husband's experience. I agree we need some legislation along those lines.

There has been a large-scale boycott in place against Nestle more or less since 1977. They participate in *disgusting* business practices and I won't give them my money. I carefully screen my groceries for Nestle products. They own a LOT of companies to include a large share of L'Oreal who in turn owns The Body Shop. I write all 3 companies every year or two to remind them why I'm boycotting. Do they care? No, they don't. Their business practices have not changed despite a UK ruling against them and called on the carpet repeatedly by the UN and UNICEF.
do you have any more info on this? what is disgusting?

cornopean

05-08-2008, 09:22 PM

I haven't said anything about wealth redistribution at all. ETA: I've actually lived in Europe and I could expound upon pros and cons of both systems.
last time I checked, the average unemployment rate in Europe was 8.5 percent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_unemployment_rate

I am told that the unemployment rate among young people is near 25 percent.

A retiree *can* wash windows for $5/hour. However, a company who is making a profit off the sweat of his brow cannot pay him a $5/hr wage to wash windows. why shouldn't the company and he be allowed to contract with each other on these terms?

But the law *as it stands* did not protect my husband.well laws are broken. the laws against murder don't always succeed in protecting innocent people from killers either. but the laws do punish those who violate them. your husband's company violated the law and they paid for it. yes?

Mrs Mungo

05-08-2008, 09:27 PM

well laws are broken. the laws against murder don't always succeed in protecting innocent people from killers either. but the laws do punish those who violate them. your husband's company violated the law and they paid for it. yes?

I'm walking out the door but I did want to at least say-no, no laws were actually broken. The company only paid in the sense they paid for DH's medical bills. They went on with the same jacked up equipment they had been using and did not repair it properly.

And about Nestle:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestl%C3%A9_boycott

http://www.clrlabor.org/alerts/2005/oct10-nestle.htm

There is a lot of information out there about Nestle from child labor to the babymilk issue to trying to gain control of water rights. Like I said, I'm walking out the door at the moment or I'd add more!

Colleen

05-08-2008, 09:53 PM

You claim it is possible but you don't give any examples.

As a matter of fact, I consider our own nation an example. Yep, that's right. I don't consider the American "lower class" merely a bunch of lazy, drunken bums. The rest of my experiences (and, therefore, examples) are primarily based in Western, industrialized nations. But being "realistic", I could list every one for you and you'd still disagree because bottom line, we disagree on the subject.

I can't think of a govt program that hasn't had perverse, unintended consequences.

Okay.

I ache to help the poor but govt programs exacerbate the problem.
and the same unintended consequences happen when the govt subsidizes research into alternative fuels.

Yes, I understand that's your opinion.

so how do we help such people? by enabling them with money stolen from other taxpayers?

I don't consider taxation ~ including taxation that exists in part to fund social welfare programs ~ on par with thievery. To that end, your emotional language is lost on me.

I think the best thing that can be done for such is to cut them loose and make them work or starve.

You're labouring (ha! no pun intended) under the mistaken impression that every individual who receives some form of government assistance isn't working and has no desire to work.

Colleen

05-08-2008, 10:05 PM

Okay, I'll bite. Which are they? I think that America far exceeds most other countries.

Do you actually want me to list all the nations? Canada, Switzerland, Germany, Australia, Sweden...and so on? If I do so, that won't really change your opinion will it?:) I appreciate America, too. I would never go so far as to say it "far exceeds most other countries". In my opinion, that reveals a rather narrow view of the world.

I realize that you can support public education with property taxes, but what my question is, if you truly believe in the "common good" train of thought, why homeschool your kids? I'm sure that most public educators would think that putting your kids in school is for the common good of all. How can you quite easily support public education when your kids not being there deprives them of the funds that they would receive if your kids were enrolled?

I am stymied, honestly, as to what point you're trying to make. I support ~ financially and morally ~ government-funded, public education. At this time, I don't utilize the system. Not utilizing the system is most assuredly not in conflict with supporting the existence of such a system.

Carol in Cal.

05-08-2008, 10:07 PM

]
so how do we help such people? by enabling them with money stolen from other taxpayers? I think the best thing that can be done for such is to cut them loose and make them work or starve.

this is not something the govt can do anything about.

No, you can not mean this.

Work or starve? Work or starve?

I choose to believe that this is an example of hyperbole, until you tell me otherwise.

battlemaiden

05-09-2008, 12:09 AM

Do you actually want me to list all the nations? Canada, Switzerland, Germany, Australia, Sweden...and so on? If I do so, that won't really change your opinion will it?:) I appreciate America, too. I would never go so far as to say it "far exceeds most other countries". In my opinion, that reveals a rather narrow view of the world.

This opens up a question-

Since Hans is Swiss, and Switzerland is great, why did you choose to reside and set up "shop" in America?

Just curious.

Jo

FlockOfSillies

05-09-2008, 01:23 AM

Check out these maps: http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/05/this-will-be-1-issue-in-2008-election.html

Now, those of you dear ladies on the lefter side of the aisle may not appreciate the associated commentary, but really, take a good look at the maps, especially the one that shows where China's drilling. I was completely blown away.

I also found some interesting comments from Victor Davis Hanson, one of my favorite brilliant people: http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODBmYzE4MDc0YzhhM2MzY2E2YmRlZTg2MTRkZGE1ZGY= (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODBmYzE4MDc0YzhhM2MzY2E2YmRlZTg2MTRkZGE1ZGY)

jacqui in mo

05-09-2008, 08:47 AM

"This would seem to be an explosive campaign issue (if the candidates disagreed), especially if someone could offer a rough estimate of how many billion barrels of oil are in no-go areas, times them by $120 a barrel, and then compute how many trillions in national wealth we leave untouched while we pay our enemies for the commensurate alternative. I could accept the argument that it will take years to get the oil out of Alaska, the coasts, or other federal lands and therefore is not worth it (the classic argument for stasis), if we could be convinced it will not take even a greater amount of time to get solar and wind technology cheap and efficient enough to produce the bulk of our energy needs.
A postscript: I'm not sure that, ecologically speaking, drilling oil in about 2000 acres in the north of Alaska is all that different from dotting our mountain ridges and coasts (ask the Kennedys et al) with enormous windmills or creating vast acres of solar panels throughout our fragile deserts or covering our roofs with panels and pipes and assorted gadgetry."
:iagree:

And as I said before, we still need the oil i& fossil fuel industry in order to continue the research of the alternative resources. Yes we can & should still conserve but I don't think that is enough, especially while the rest of the world continues drilling & apparently right in our back yard. I think we unnecessarily weaken our country.

Margaret in GA

05-09-2008, 08:56 AM

OK, I found many, many articles when I googled "rising price of oil due to investor speculation". Here is an excerpt from CNBC.com

***"Since the Federal Reserve cut U.S. interest rates in mid-August last year and central banks pumped billions of dollars into financial markets to ease a credit crunch, oil and gold have risen.

Investment flows from pension and hedge funds into commodities, including oil, have boomed, as has speculative trading.

At the same time, the credit crunch has brought some other markets, such as the U.S. asset-backed commercial paper market, to a virtual standstill.

Some of that money has found its way into energy and commodities, analysts say."***

I have some things to say about Free Market and this investor speculation speaks to that. You and I are driving the market in ways we don't even know about because of our stock portfolios. Whether you have just a little money in a 401K or you are a big-time player with a huge, diverse portfolio of mutal funds, etc. , you are pushing this market in sometimes perverse ways. Some of you speak about capitalism as an divine system and indeed, I agree, unless we are talking about these huge corporations run by investors like you and me. They have no conscience. These aren't human beings, they are machines run entirely by numbers. Investors pull out when the numbers don't go up. It doesn't matter if they maintain, you and I demand that they continually GO UP. I cannot stand to compare what my husband and I do as small business owners (true free market, capitalism) with what is going on at Exxon or BP. I don't have a team of lobbyists at my disposal creating spin or policy at the government level, for one thing. Nor do I have a group of people I don't even know that will devalue my stock if I have a few unexpected expenses- like paying sick leave for an employee that needs it- that brings my profit down temporarily.

Margaret

Mamagistra

05-09-2008, 10:49 AM

Some of you speak about capitalism as an divine system and indeed, I agree, unless we are talking about these huge corporations run by investors like you and me. They have no conscience. These aren't human beings, they are machines run entirely by numbers. Investors pull out when the numbers don't go up. It doesn't matter if they maintain, you and I demand that they continually GO UP. I cannot stand to compare what my husband and I do as small business owners (true free market, capitalism) with what is going on at Exxon or BP. I don't have a team of lobbyists at my disposal creating spin or policy at the government level, for one thing. Nor do I have a group of people I don't even know that will devalue my stock if I have a few unexpected expenses- like paying sick leave for an employee that needs it- that brings my profit down temporarily.

Right. What you're describing is not capitalism; it's corporate fascism. :glare:

cornopean

05-09-2008, 07:28 PM

No, you can not mean this.

Work or starve? Work or starve?

I choose to believe that this is an example of hyperbole, until you tell me otherwise.
well, of course, the point is that they won't starve. but if make the options work or starve...they will work. that is what Franklin means by driving them out of their poverty NOT making them comfortable in it.
Look what happened when they passed welfare reform (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1620.cfm);
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/images/66121946.gif

Welfare reform was passed in 1996. When no provision is made for such people, they go out and get a job. that is a plus.

Carol in Cal.

05-09-2008, 09:12 PM

well, of course, the point is that they won't starve. but if make the options work or starve...they will work. that is what Franklin means by driving them out of their poverty NOT making them comfortable in it.
Look what happened when they passed welfare reform (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1620.cfm);
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/images/66121946.gif

Welfare reform was passed in 1996. When no provision is made for such people, they go out and get a job. that is a plus.

All that graph proves is that there was a decrease in people on welfare. It does not prove that they got jobs. It does not prove that they are not starving.

I know hardworking people who spend their entire paychecks to rent one room for their whole family to live in. They have to get food and clothes from charity. They have NO MARGIN. One thing goes wrong, and they are truly homeless.

And do you remember the economic conditions in the late 90s? There were more jobs then and a better economy than since the crash. What has happened to those people now?

I think that we need a safety net in this country. I am willing to be taxed for that and also to contribute toward it, because of my Christian faith.

cornopean

05-09-2008, 09:37 PM

All that graph proves is that there was a decrease in people on welfare. It does not prove that they got jobs. It does not prove that they are not starving.
well it at least proves that they were providing for themselves in some way. I mean if you aren't getting a govt check, you must be earning a living. what other options are there? at least, we have no reports of widespread starvation in this country. Frankly I don't know of any cases of starvation. most poor people in this nation are obese.

I know hardworking people who spend their entire paychecks to rent one room for their whole family to live in. They have to get food and clothes from charity. They have NO MARGIN. One thing goes wrong, and they are truly homeless.These kind of people are rare. for every one of these, there are a hundred who sit on their front porches all day smoking cigarettes all the while collecting hundreds in taxpayer money.

And do you remember the economic conditions in the late 90s? There were more jobs then and a better economy than since the crash. What has happened to those people now?what crash are you talking about?

I think that we need a safety net in this country. I am willing to be taxed for that and also to contribute toward it, because of my Christian faith.I too want a safety net. but I want a safety net that preserves people from destitution and starvation; not a safety net that makes people comfortable while they are lazy and idle with cable TV and 200 dollar sneakers. and I want a safety net that isn't so crazy difficult to administer. one that doesn't require a massive bureaucracy to keep everything straight.

I would suggest a negative income tax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax) or this suggestion from Charles Murray (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008142).