The Change We Need

[rabbitproof]

Good discussion on energy. Relating to Mavdog's point of foreign policy:

200 former U.S. diplomats endorse Obama

CHICAGO, Sept. 28 (UPI) -- More than 200 former U.S. diplomats have signed a statement announcing their support for Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama.

The former diplomats and ambassadors signed the statement before the Friday debate between Obama and Republican nominee John McCain.

"We are supporting Senator Barack Obama because of his judgment, experience, and ability to inspire people to come together around a common purpose," the letter said. "Senator Obama's talents offer an historic opportunity; for the sake of America's security and standing in the world, we must seize it."

The letter, signed by officials from both major political parties, said the foreign policies of the Bush administration have diminished America's alliances abroad.

"As former diplomats, we believe it is past time that we had a President with the judgment and confidence -- in himself, our diplomatic corps, and our values -- to talk directly to America's adversaries with due preparation but without preconditions," the letter said.

The signatories include former secretaries of state Madeleine Albright and Warren Christopher, former National Security Adviser Richard Clarke and former U.S. Ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk.

Link: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/09/...8941222655586/

----

The willingness to talk without preconditions (and not the way McCain wanted to paint it) is a SYMPTOM of Obama's foreign policy vs his actual foreign policy. In short, it is the desire to talk first, be a good neighbor and to look for common ground rather than to dictate first, lead a bunch of followers and draw a them vs. us map of the world.

Another link: http://washingtontimes.com/weblogs/k...endorse-obama/

[rabbitproof]

I want to add this is a good thread (incoming rep!). Even if your mind is set, it's good to hear things out as we will have to come and work together eventually.

I'd like to hear why McCain supporters support McCain and UNLIKE Flaco, I have no preconditions! Another thread, folks?

[DirkFTW]

Originally Posted by Fidel

It won´t be cheaper than it is now. And the price will climb faster and faster. Domestic drilling won´t stop that so why even bother? The only thing it will really do is giving oil companies some extra profit, that´s all. So why not steer away from oil right now? Actually electric cars will be readdy pretty soon as recent projects like the tesla roadster and the electro smart show. Batteries are still the Problem but the progress is astonishing given the rather small investments so far. There are pretty easy concepts for city cars that run on solar generated electricity.

Solar by the way is the only realistic alternative to fossil energy right now. Nuclear isn´t because there´s not enough Uranium. Bio mass isn´t because you can´t produce nearly enough to substitute oil. Same goes for Wind and Water (to unstable and not enough). But Solar actually would work.The sun is sending 10000 times the energy to earth each day than what we consume right now. You just have to convert it and find a good carrier, likely hydrogene.

My understanding of "alternative energy" is that it's a hodgepodge of possibilities. We don't know which one(s) are viable replacements on a nation-wide scale. So, the idea isn't to drill domestically exclusively. Or to do nuclear power exclusively. Or to do wind exclusively. Or to do biofuels exclusively. Or to do solar exclusively. Or to do natural gas exclusively. It's to do all of it. Maybe if we knew which solution would be the fix-it-all solution, then we could dump 100% of everything we've got into it... but what if it's another corn ethanol? Leaps of faith sound good, but before we totally sever/steer away from oil, let's have a place to land.

And while we're looking, let's do what we can to make things better until that day. Even if global demand increases will outpace domestic drilling benefits, it's better than nothing. If you knew that the oil price would double right now if you did nothing, but if you drilled, it would only go up by 50%, which would you do? And even if we've only got enough nuclear fuel to power the entire world for 15 years, that means we've got more than enough to power just the United States for the 10 years (or however long) it would take to develop something else.

I'm not categorically against oil companies. This is probably going to open a can of worms, but Exxon invested over $100 million into alternative energy research last year. Lots of people poopooed that amount saying "oh, it's only 1% of all their profits." But, in the end, that was $100 million that wasn't there before. Chevron invested $300 million. I sure as heck don't have money to spare for alternative energy research.

If Big Oil invents something that is totally clean and totally renewable, do you say "Hallelujah!" or do you knee them in the crotch and walk away?

[purplefrog]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

I think the key here, though, is doing something NOW while you're looking for future solutions.

In that regard, I'm actually starting to become a fan of the PickensPlan, the more I think about it.

Has anyone read Pickens' most recent book? I'm almost finished. Fascinating to say the least.

[Fidel]

Originally Posted by DirkFTW

My understanding of "alternative energy" is that it's a hodgepodge of possibilities. We don't know which one(s) are viable replacements on a nation-wide scale. So, the idea isn't to drill domestically exclusively. Or to do nuclear power exclusively. Or to do wind exclusively. Or to do biofuels exclusively. Or to do solar exclusively. Or to do natural gas exclusively. It's to do all of it. Maybe if we knew which solution would be the fix-it-all solution, then we could dump 100% of everything we've got into it... but what if it's another corn ethanol? Leaps of faith sound good, but before we totally sever/steer away from oil, let's have a place to land.

And while we're looking, let's do what we can to make things better until that day. Even if global demand increases will outpace domestic drilling benefits, it's better than nothing. If you knew that the oil price would double right now if you did nothing, but if you drilled, it would only go up by 50%, which would you do? And even if we've only got enough nuclear fuel to power the entire world for 15 years, that means we've got more than enough to power just the United States for the 10 years (or however long) it would take to develop something else.

I'm not categorically against oil companies. This is probably going to open a can of worms, but Exxon invested over $100 million into alternative energy research last year. Lots of people poopooed that amount saying "oh, it's only 1% of all their profits." But, in the end, that was $100 million that wasn't there before. Chevron invested $300 million. I sure as heck don't have money to spare for alternative energy research.

If Big Oil invents something that is totally clean and totally renewable, do you say "Hallelujah!" or do you knee them in the crotch and walk away?

They invest for profit but it´s better than nothing. The thing is that a fix-it-all solution really allready exists. Solar is that solution. If you don´t think so just follow the link I gave (yes it´s just Wikipedia but at the bottom there are alot of links and books that are credible, and actually the Wikipedia article is ok too). If you use two acres of land and on one acre you produce corn ethanol on the other you use the latest csp/solar technique, then you get 85 times (and no that´s not a typo, why do people even talk about corn ethanol?) more energy through solar. Solar is ready, all that´s needed is a huge investment in infrastructure and carrier infrastructure. Obviously there are huge interests against such a solution which is what stops it from happening (and yes it is more expensive than other resources right now which is another big reason, the biggest from an economic standpoint. But the price would drop dramaticly if we´d produce our energy through solar mainly. Sure other resources would get even cheaper then but I think there could be an easy political solution like taxing or something else). That´s the biggest problem with politics right now. Too often they only care about the interests of a few, instead of doing what´s best for all and what is the obvious and intelligent solution to a big problem.

[Flacolaco]

From the Chicaco Sun Times...

How would Barack Obama pay for the $800 billion that John McCain claimed in the first presidential debate Sept. 26 in Oxford, Miss., that his Democratic opponent would spend if he were elected president? Obama replied, by "closing tax loopholes."

Obama was no more specific in the debate, and tax experts doubt that structural changes without increasing taxes can raise anything close to that amount of money.

My office asked the Obama campaign for the details, and it responded with a 19-page single-spaced paper on the candidate's "tax plans."

In fact, there was precious little about tax policy in the paper, which amounted to a repeat of Democratic campaign oratory that can be heard in 30-second speeches before both houses of Congress daily on C-SPAN.

Obama has made clear that he would try to roll back President Bush's tax cuts, but that does not come under the definition of a "loophole." A loophole consists of a conniving tax attorney discovering a weakness in the Internal Revenue Code or such a weakness intentionally legislated by Congress under the instigation of crafty lobbyists. The only specific tax legislation contained in his paper would raise the capital gains rate for most shareholders, restore taxation on dividend income to pre-Bush standards and restore the full estate tax.

These were not loopholes but presidential proposals enacted by Congress. The Obama paper paints a picture of lobbyists running wild on Capitol Hill but neglects to assess the impact on the economy during the current financial crisis of taking a serious strike against the stockholding public.

Obama's dividends and capital gains proposals appear to be a major attempt at redistribution of income rather than a serious attempt to pay for the spending that he has proposed.

This reminds me of when Charlie Gibson asked Obama about raising the capital gains tax....

GIBSON: All right. You have, however, said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, "I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton," which was 28 percent. It's now 15 percent. That's almost a doubling, if you went to 28 percent.

But actually, Bill Clinton, in 1997, signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent.

OBAMA: Right.

GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.

OBAMA: Right.

GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down.

So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?

OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.

We saw an article today which showed that the top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year -- $29 billion for 50 individuals. And part of what has happened is that those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That's not fair.

So he agrees that raising the capital gains tax would bring in less revenue over all, and hurt investors, but says he'd do it anyway? For "fairness"? Seems like for purposes of spite.

If it wouldn't get more revenue, what's the point? It's not going to raise the secretaries salary. So his government would have less revenue, the investor who is helping the economy go would have less capital to do so, and this poor destitute secretary (working for one of the top 50 hedge fund managers in the country, gosh she must be making 5.25 an hour) would still be where she was. I'm not sure what's pragmatic or prudent about that.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

From the Chicaco Sun Times...



This reminds me of when Charlie Gibson asked Obama about raising the capital gains tax....



So he agrees that raising the capital gains tax would bring in less revenue over all, and hurt investors, but says he'd do it anyway? For "fairness"? Seems like for purposes of spite.

If it wouldn't get more revenue, what's the point? It's not going to raise the secretaries salary. So his government would have less revenue, the investor who is helping the economy go would have less capital to do so, and this poor destitute secretary (working for one of the top 50 hedge fund managers in the country, gosh she must be making 5.25 an hour) would still be where she was. I'm not sure what's pragmatic or prudent about that.

What you don't understand is that even if we collect less in revenues, at least he was able to make that damn hedge fund manager pay more. And that's what the people want, baby! Schadenfreude!

[92bDad]

Which one of these guys is willing to TAX the oil companies for "Imported" Oil, and allow a tax break for "Domestic" Oil?

Think about it...Exxon/Mobil, Shell, BP and all these other guys are "Global" companies. Honestly what do they care if they use Domestic or Imported Oil?

So one step, is to structure a way for the companies to increase production of "Domestic" oil by making it difficult or expensive for them to "Import" Oil.

Go one step further, and make it effect the local Gas Station owners...ensure that if they use "Domestic" Oil/Gas to stock up their fueling stations, they will get a break in cost/tax...while if the local guys use "Imported" Oil/Gas they have a higher cost.

Then we consumers can choose...if Joe Bob's Gas has $2.00 Gallen "Domestic" Gas versus Hanoi Hilton's Fueling point at $4.00 per gallon, we are easily going over the Joe Bob's.

The market would drive us away from Imported Oil.

Let the Oil companies sell Imported Oil to Europe and other nations.

This would also force some companies that are OWNED by outside parties, such as that guy in Venezuela, to no longer supply America with his Oil...his Gas Stations would simply go out of business.

This is a good way to keep the money of America IN America.

Now, for those that actually keep up the "Imported" Oil...utilize those Tax dollars to re-invest in "Alternate" energy. Let those tax dollars go to finding, exploring and actually pilot testing these alternate ideas. Nuclear, Wind, Water, Others.

As for the companies taking advantage of the "Domestic" Oil...give them a loop-hole with accountability. Tell them for every $ they spend out of the money they make selling "Domestic" Oil, they can get a .50 credit towards their Corporate Tax payment, up to a max of 50% of their tax investment. However, they would have to meet certain conditions with their development or be penalized. Kind of like a Business can operate at a loss for 3 years or lose the ability to claim things on peronal taxes.

Here is where we need experts. What would be the measurables for development and what would be a fair timetable? If Oil Company XYZ, where to invest $5B in the development of Wind Energy, thus getting a $2.5B tax credit...How long would they need to development a viable option that is actually installed in the field and available for consumers to use?

If the next company invested $5B in 'Electric Cars' - thus the $2.5B Tax credit...what do we need to see in terms of progress on Electric Cars?

Companies and people doing things for the common good is all well intended, but reality is that companies live and die by money. So the trick is figuring out a way to provide financial incentives to companies, that will NOT be backed by the Governments money, but rather encourage by policies and programs.

The delicate balance then becomes how you utilize these energies and generate revenue for these companies to exist. Without these companies, we have NO energy, and in turn we have NO tax dollars and ultimately the Country goes broke.

We all need each other, but somehow we have to find that balance in which Energy, People, Economy and Government work together.

We need someone who can have a "Big Picture" view of our society, with the ability to wooo others and actually lead on important policy issues.

Which one of these candidates has a track record of voting and policies that meets this criteria? Don't tell me what they are saying and promising, I want to know who has actually done it at some level? Funny, when I put it this way, there is only one candidate that has this track record - and She's from Alaska!!!

[aquaadverse]

Jimmy Carter was talking about doing something similar until he was told how unworkable that was. What's the backup when OPEC decides to cut us off? OPEC needs us much less than they did in the '70's when they did the first embargo. They know we can't supply enough oil domestically to sustain our economy. Our leverage is zero. 35 years ago our need for imported oil was low enough that his plans might have worked. The Alaska pipeline opened, OPEC members broke solidarity and needed to produce and sell more oil to stay even and the glut drove the price down so it was cheap again.

Carter had pushed through substantial credits and incentives for alternative energy production. Problem was, they made no fiscal sense when oil dropped. All the resources we could muster were used to expand the economy and climb out of recession, and try to stay ahead of the USSR. Turned out skipping the Olympics had very little effect on getting them out of Afghanistan. They did appreciate all the extra medals they won, and used them for propaganda. Carter was so freakin' inept.

Our economy would be a smoking ruin, politicians would be hanging from lamp posts.You're assuming that the oil producers are simply going to sit there and take it. History disagrees. They are very aware they have a finite resource that is going to be less essential as time goes on.

For everyone who thinks Obama is spouting new and fresh ideas, and weren't around for the Carter fiascoes:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carter/...ps_crisis.html