What a shock!? BUSH popularity at all time low...

[reeds]

Its just too bad it took the public sooooo long to figure it out...



Bush popularity at all-time low, poll finds
From staff reports
President Bush's popularity has sunk to the lowest levels of his presidency, the Gallup poll organization said Friday.

In poll results released Friday afternoon, the president's approval rating was 40%, the lowest in his presidency by 4 points.

The poll of 1,007 adults was conducted Monday through Thursday, a period overlapping the president's series of speeches defending his Iraq war policies.

Those surveyed in the poll included 29% Republicans and 35% Democrats.

The Gallup organization said the president's disapproval rating was 56%. That rating, and the 40% approval figure, are the most negative ratings of the Bush administration. Bush's previous low point in approval was 44% in a poll conducted July 25-28.

Among Republicans, Gallup said, Bush's 82% approval rating is down from the 85%, 86%, 87%, 87%, and 86% recorded in the last five polls prior to this one, and is below the 89% Republican approval rating he has gotten this year before the most recent poll. He has averaged a 92% approval rating among Republicans for his entire presidency, the Gallup Web site said.

In a second set of poll results released Friday, those surveyed put their overall satisfaction with the way things are going in the U.S. at 34%, the lowest since March 1996.

[Mavdog]

here come the retorts of "scoreboard", like that somehow overcomes the errors in judgement by bush that have cost our country so much.

I was at a play this week where in the dialogue Bush's name was mentioned in a negative context. striking just how much applause met that negative mention.

I wonder how the mid-term elections will turn out?

[MavKikiNYC]

And you know what? Bush doesn't give a damn. Unlike the pathologue Clinton, Bush couldn't care less about how history regards him.

He's leading the country through a very, very difficult period in history, on a very difficult course--presumably reflected by the second poll (if in fact it reflects anything). No easy choices, and unlike Clinton or the pussy Jimmah Carter, Bush isn't looking to take the easy way out.

It's called leadership---Presidential leadership, something the current crop of ballless, spineless Democrats knows precious damned little about.

Bush 43 is one of the five greatest presidents in U.S. History.

Read it. Eat it.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: MavKikiNYC
And you know what? Bush doesn't give a damn. Unlike the pathologue Clinton, Bush couldn't care less about how history regards him.

I'm not so sure that is accurate.

Like you, I do hold him in much higher personal regard than clinton or carter.

He's leading the country through a very, very difficult period in history, on a very difficult course--presumably reflected by the second poll (if in fact it reflects anything). No easy choices, and unlike Clinton or the pussy Jimmah Carter, Bush isn't looking to take the easy way out.

It's called leadership---Presidential leadership, something the current crop of ballless, spineless Democrats knows precious damned little about.

Bush 43 is one of the five greatest presidents in U.S. History.

Read it. Eat it.

"five greatest"?? that kiki is yet to be determined.

[MavKikiNYC]

"five greatest"?? that kiki is yet to be determined.

It could be Top 3. I didn't want to be bombastic.

[dude1394]

I'm with you kiki (as you would expect), I'll put dubya's legacy up there against anyone's in about 10-20 years.

In January 1983, 56% of Americans said they disapproved of Ronald Reagan. Five polls conducted from December 1982 through February 1983 found at least 50% of Americans disapproving of Reagan.

Good company there I think.

[Drbio]

Damn fine post kiki.

Great call dude.

[mavsman55]

He's not popular? Since when?

EDIT: Who cares?

[reeds]

"And you know what? Bush doesn't give a damn. Unlike the pathologue Clinton, Bush couldn't care less about how history regards him."

Who gives a damn if Bush doesnt give a damn?? Does that make it better? Hell no.. He is still a moron and the country is finding that out...too bad it took two terms...

[Drbio]

Lucky for your reeds that YOUR president is looking out for you anyways.

[MavKikiNYC]

Originally posted by: reeds
"And you know what? Bush doesn't give a damn. Unlike the pathologue Clinton, Bush couldn't care less about how history regards him."

Who gives a damn if Bush doesnt give a damn?? Does that make it better? Hell no.. He is still a moron and the country is finding that out...too bad it took two terms...

Who gives a damn if anybody gives a damn whether Bush gives a damn.......


Does it make it better? It makes it irrelevant. Pretty much like every cognitive fart that you emit here, passing them off as thoughts.

[Bystander]

His ratings are so low because we're tired of the excuses. Republicans want it to be refered to as intelligence failure or a systems failure, when in truth it has nothing to do with that. The players are the system. Even Powell knew he was serving crooked stew. If you don't side with the players your replaced. Everything the intelligence community said was correct. Not the fairytale that Bush created. I know I will be labeled a Democrap and that simply isn't true. All I can say is I'm left of THIS right.

[MavKikiNYC]

Originally posted by: Bystander
His ratings are so low because we're tired of the excuses. Republicans want it to be refered to as intelligence failure or a systems failure, when in truth it has nothing to do with that. The players are the system. Even Powell knew he was serving crooked stew. If you don't side with the players your replaced. Everything the intelligence community said was correct. Not the fairytale that Bush created. I know I will be labeled a Democrap and that simply isn't true. All I can say is I'm left of THIS right.

Not everyone is tired. Not everyone hears excuses. Some understand that the cost will be high; that the losses will be painful. And yet they know that the cost would be greater later on.

As stupid as Democrats try to make President Bush to be, he sees bigger than they do, geopolitically speaking. Either they don't get it, or they are willing to sell out for political gain.

The same things that are being said about Bush now were being said and written about Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War. Odd how a little historical perspective changes things.

[Bystander]

If everything Bush is doing is so brilliant, couragous, and honorable, why lie about it. You say he has vision. He said Clinton would get us bogged down in Bosnia with no end in sight. You compare him to Lincoln because you buy what he's selling. You don't even question the product. I hope Bush doesn't start selling brake pads.

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: Bystander
Even Powell knew he was serving crooked stew.

Really, is that why Powell gave the most detailed, most high-profiled, passionate presentation of Iraqi WMD by anyone in the country? Heck the world for that matter.

Interesting that you also know his mind as well.

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: Bystander
If everything Bush is doing is so brilliant, couragous, and honorable, why lie about it. You say he has vision. He said Clinton would get us bogged down in Bosnia with no end in sight. You compare him to Lincoln because you buy what he's selling. You don't even question the product. I hope Bush doesn't start selling brake pads.

Bullcrap... Prove the lie, you say he is lying and I guess lying still. Prove it.

[Bystander]

You are correct about Powells details. He just left out invisible. When you take reports and spin them, it's called fiction.

[dude1394]

As usual, just a smear without anything to back it up. Tin-hat-time.

[MavKikiNYC]

Originally posted by: Bystander
You don't even question the product.

I don't question the war against terrorism, no. Do you? If so, does that mean you are pro-terrorism?

Come a little closer, let me smack you.

[Bystander]

Some people need to be lied to. It gives them comfort in the fact that their not required to think alone. It's what steers their ship and keeps it on course. For them it's a "slam dunk". No assembly required. They'll buy the product and follow directions. Leave the fear to someone else. If it should fail, just point and finger some other cause to blame. If they are lying, it is most certainly for my own good. I just have to keep telling myself, buy the product and follow their directions.

[MavKikiNYC]

Originally posted by: Bystander
Some people need to be lied to. It gives them comfort in the fact that their not required to think alone. It's what steers their ship and keeps it on course. For them it's a "slam dunk". No assembly required. They'll buy the product and follow directions. Leave the fear to someone else. If it should fail, just point and finger some other cause to blame. If they are lying, it is most certainly for my own good. I just have to keep telling myself, buy the product and follow their directions.

And some imbeciles need to question the obvious. It makes them feel self-righteous and superior. It's what inflates their ego and salves their sense of existential angst. For them, no truth is beyond defaming, no cause is worth defending, no crime is worth punishing, no atrocity is worth preventing. They'll oppose anything just to convince themselves they're (not their) alive, and that their (not they're) tiny, insignificant life is worth something in this immense, and immensely cruel universe.

For them the failing to do anything, is better than making a mistake. If they (or fellow citizens) get blown up by a bomb, well at least they weren't so craven as to think evil of a foreigner.

You don't have to buy the product--you benefit from Bush's decisions and actions whether you like them or agree with them or not.

And you don't even have to keep quiet (though it would be nice)---that's the right you're being bought.

[Bystander]

I admire the way some of you have fallen in line. Bush would be proud. It's like some of you are employees at Bush's Resturant. Your slogan is "Eat here or I'll kill ya"!

"We are invading Iraq because of weapons of mass destruction and Saddam's link to terrorism"!

WHOOPS

"We are here to liberate the fine people of Iraq"! Don't worry. There's room for others reasons if needed. There's always room.

You got to hand it to him. Now that were there, the terrorist have shown up. In droves.

[capitalcity]

You got to hand it to him. Now that were there, the terrorist have shown up. In droves.

You prefer the front lines be in our shopping malls and elementary schools?

[Drbio]

No kidding cap. It's easy to be a liberal shill with blinders on. What's not easy is displaying a set of testicles and sticking to your guns....something that a libidiot wouldn't understand.

[Bystander]

I have yet to meet anyone who was not ready to sacrifice everything. To find and destroy everyone and everything that was responsible for the attacks on 911. All Americans with an ounce of patriotism and a firm belief in freedom were steadfast and united in that quest. Ready to follow Pres. Bush into the fires of hell.

He led us down a separate path.

[MavKikiNYC]

Originally posted by: Bystander
I have yet to meet anyone who was not ready to sacrifice everything. To find and destroy everyone and everything that was responsible for the attacks on 911. All Americans with an ounce of patriotism and a firm belief in freedom were steadfast and united in that quest. Ready to follow Pres. Bush into the fires of hell.

He led us down a separate path.

Drivel.

[Drbio]

That's offensive to drivel.

[Usually Lurkin]

These polls are all about the gas prices right now.
I bet approval ratings are down for everything - wal-mart; city councils; shoe comfort; environmental groups; hollywood movies; etc.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: Usually Lurkin
These polls are all about the gas prices right now.
I bet approval ratings are down for everything - wal-mart; city councils; shoe comfort; environmental groups; hollywood movies; etc.

no, not everything, cuz I just saved a bunch of money on my car insurance....[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

It will be quite ironic to have the rise in energy costs smack the repubs in mid term elections. After all, if the Cheney Energy Task Force had a) been open to who was involved, b) reveal exactly what they did/discussed and made WH policy. and c) offered up ANY program to reduce the cost of fuel. this issue could quite possibly be politically neutral.

As it is, the CETF did none of the above, causing many thinking voters to ask the question, "heck, just what is my government doing about the energy price squeeze?" as the costs to the consumer of gas & heating oil keep increasing.

OTOH, maybe this is just what the goal of the Cheney Energy Task Force was. With all the oil industry people who were rumoured to be on the committee, who else but they are profiting from the run up in prices?

[dude1394]

You know md, most of the time I think you are misguided but intelliegent. But I sort of begin to question that when you throw something like the above out?

There is absolutely nothing that can be done about high energy costs except..
- Drill more, refine more, build more power plants, build more nuclear power, buy cars that get more gas mileage. Of course the high prices will do all of these things automatically and hopefully throw out the democrats who fight hand and tooth these policies. I believe for example we'll approve drilling in ANWAR soon, thank goodness.

Of course the fastest thing to do would be to:
1. Somehow derail the china and india growing economies.
2. Price caps, then we could just have shortages like jimmah brought us, but it'd be cheaper!

Somehow, somehow you honestly think that an issue of executive priviledges would somehow obviate what folks are feeling seeing gas go from 1.00 to 3.00...

No WONDER your party keeps losing elections.

[Drbio]

Not just losing elections but being bitchslapped mercilessly.

[reeds]

"Lucky for your reeds that YOUR president is looking out for you anyways. "

You can even call me an asshole if you wish- but DONT call that moron MY president..id rather eat the asshole out of a skunk.

[Drbio]

Start eating...it won't matter my friend. George W. Bush is YOUR President. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: dude1394
You know md, most of the time I think you are misguided but intelliegent. But I sort of begin to question that when you throw something like the above out?

There is absolutely nothing that can be done about high energy costs except..
- Drill more, refine more, build more power plants, build more nuclear power, buy cars that get more gas mileage. Of course the high prices will do all of these things automatically and hopefully throw out the democrats who fight hand and tooth these policies. I believe for example we'll approve drilling in ANWAR soon, thank goodness.

you look at this very simplisticly, and you are decieving yourself if you honestly believe that we can not do anything about our oil addiction. look into brazil for example, where they are using renewable energy sources (such as ethanol) for about 1/3 of their energy needs. we produce enough corn to halve our oil imports, if our government had supported this type of endeavor rather than subsidizing oil production we likely would not be feeling the price squeeze.

want to reduce high energy costs? develop alternative sources to reduce the demand on oil.

your soapbox on demos/repubs is getting sooo old. there are many demos who want higher gas mileage standards fo autos...but guess who blocked them? and ANWAR as a solution? that's the same mindset that has left our country depending on oil for our energy needs today.

Of course the fastest thing to do would be to:
1. Somehow derail the china and india growing economies.
2. Price caps, then we could just have shortages like jimmah brought us, but it'd be cheaper!

Somehow, somehow you honestly think that an issue of executive priviledges would somehow obviate what folks are feeling seeing gas go from 1.00 to 3.00...

No WONDER your party keeps losing elections.

actually I''ve voted for many winners and many losers of elections. some were dems and some were not. get off your friggin' soapbox, you sound too much like limbaugh.

the chinese and indian economies help keep ours going, we're globalized remember? i recall reading on how the chinese boom has reduced our core inflation rate by about 2.5 points.

the champion of price controls was none other than...dick nixon. so much for your party bashing...

the isssue of our energy dilemna isn't executive priviledge, it does however rest on what our executive and legislative branchs are doing to help us reduce our appetite for imported energy. while they continue to propose and help pass legislation that gives corporate welfare to the energy producers under the guise of our national interests, opportunity is lost to facilitate and develop alternative energy sources that are not only indiginous but renewable.

don't you ask yourself why, if we had the scenario unfold 30 years ago of an energy crisis, we find ourselves here today with a similar scenario? it isn't because of dems or repubs, it's due to the lobbyists getting their way.

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: Mavdog


you look at this very simplisticly, and you are decieving yourself if you honestly believe that we can not do anything about our oil addiction. look into brazil for example, where they are using renewable energy sources (such as ethanol) for about 1/3 of their energy needs. we produce enough corn to halve our oil imports, if our government had supported this type of endeavor rather than subsidizing oil production we likely would not be feeling the price squeeze.

I am not looking at it simplisticly. Unfortunately you are and most of the folks who put on their tin-hats and talk about the evil oil companies are. The reason that oil and fossil fuels are used for energy is..
a. It's cheap
b. It's really, really efficient
c. There is a whole hell of a lot of it.
d. It's relatively easy to produce

Even in brazil they have 95% of their electricity provided by hydro. Give the US 95% of it's electricity by hydro and there are no high prices for gasoline.

I would have picked France to be honest, since that's a more representative industrialized country. And we know how they do it, nuclear which your party will not allow either.

Even the scales aren't comparable. Oil consumption by brazil is ~2.2 mbbls/day, the US is 10x that 19.65 mbbls/day. You are saying we are going to create 6mbbls/day of ethanol and biomass? You are nuts.

Here (imo) is about the best thing I've seen on energy. Take a read and if you still think that renewable energy will make anymore of a dent then comeback with something. You have to follow the links, because Steven has tackled it all, ethanol, wind, turkey guts, fusion, core taps, you name it.

Here is one particularly interesting example talking about how enviromentally friendly ethanol is:

Let's run some numbers, shall we? Let's optimistically assume that 10% by weight of the corn plant is harvestable grain. (It probably isn't that high.) Let's assume a 25% conversion of grain into alcohol, also by weight. (It's doubtful it's that efficient.)

5 billion gallons of ethanol is 18.925 billion liters. Ethanol has a density of .789, so that's 14.931 billion kilograms. Each kilogram of ethanol would come from 4 kilograms of grain, leaving 36 kilograms of greenery behind, so we're looking at 537.5 billion kilograms of compost: a bit over half a billion metric tonnes.

There is no possible way we can bury a half a billion tonnes of compost every year. There's nowhere to put it, and the long term effects (on things like groundwater, for example) would be horrendous. This is a waste disposal problem to dwarf the amount of garbage that all our cities create. (Note that it would have to be buried near where it was grown; if you have to transport it long distances, you'll more than use up all the fuel you thought you were gaining by producing ethanol in the first place.)

That's not what is actually done. It's used for a number of different things, but in practice nearly all the carbon in it eventually ends up back in the air, via direct or circuitous routes, within a year. Some of it is used for animal feed; most of it gets burned.

So basically what you end up with is burning all of the waste and put the CO2 back into the air. So not only is it inefficient, it doesn't even help the environment.

your soapbox on demos/repubs is getting sooo old. there are many demos who want higher gas mileage standards fo autos...but guess who blocked them? and ANWAR as a solution? that's the same mindset that has left our country depending on oil for our energy needs today.

I have no problem with cars that get higher mileage. But why the heck do you think they are needed if gasoline is 1.25/gallon. Why not just mandate them to be 100mpg, that'll solve it. It's feel-good legislation, thats' why I don't like it. Even the europeans aren't this stupid, they just tax the heck out of fuel and let the market place decide, as we should.

actually I''ve voted for many winners and many losers of elections. some were dems and some were not. get off your friggin' soapbox, you sound too much like limbaugh.

And you are sounding like a typical liberal democrat. I don't honestly know your party, but are you telling me you are not a liberal democrat?????? I have also voted for dems but I've learned my lesson.

I do not want democrats in office, it is no longer a serious party. There are no more scoop jackson, zell miller or probably Breaux. Poor lieberman should switch while he can, he's a dinosaur in that party. Their time went with the fall of socialism.

the chinese and indian economies help keep ours going, we're globalized remember? i recall reading on how the chinese boom has reduced our core inflation rate by about 2.5 points.

They are keeping inflation low, but we are talking about energy here...remember. You seem to think that their rising economies are having no impact here, you are wrong.

[quote]
the champion of price controls was none other than...dick nixon. so much for your party bashing...[q/]
Ford too, it was stupid then, stupid now. But the energy shortages happened under jimmah...stay focused here.

Our appetite for imported energy is based on where the most cost-effective energy is produced....period. As soon as it reaches $80/bl, then the most cost-effective may wind up being canada, or solar, or massive conservation. It's called the free market, get it.

don't you ask yourself why, if we had the scenario unfold 30 years ago of an energy crisis, we find ourselves here today with a similar scenario? it isn't because of dems or repubs, it's due to the lobbyists getting their way.

Again mavdog, if you want to do something about it, then get your congressman to vote for a 3.00 tax on gasoline. That would have solved your problem. But your party doesn't mind trying to dictate the economy, but they are too busy demagaguing to do anything useful about it.

[mavsman55]

If Liberals are the people of the free mind, the pioneers of individualism, then how come they're so obsessed about what other people think of our (their) president?

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: dude1394
I am not looking at it simplisticly. Unfortunately you are and most of the folks who put on their tin-hats and talk about the evil oil companies are. The reason that oil and fossil fuels are used for energy is..
a. It's cheap
b. It's really, really efficient
c. There is a whole hell of a lot of it.
d. It's relatively easy to produce

Even in brazil they have 95% of their electricity provided by hydro. Give the US 95% of it's electricity by hydro and there are no high prices for gasoline.

Uh, dude, generating electricity doesn’t consume gasoline, and today in America only a small percentage of power plants use oil. Natural gas, hydro and nuclear are the principle fuels.

I don’t see the oil cos. as “evil”, just that their goals aren’t the same as mine. They want to make more profit, I want to see their domination abate. Greed is not an evil, it is what powers our economic system.

Petroleum products are no more efficient than other fuels, there is a decreasing amount of known quantities, and as the search for new deposits gets harder the costs of exploration will increase.

I would have picked France to be honest, since that's a more representative industrialized country. And we know how they do it, nuclear which your party will not allow either.

I don’t have a problem with nuclear if a solution is in hand for the residual product.

Even the scales aren't comparable. Oil consumption by brazil is ~2.2 mbbls/day, the US is 10x that 19.65 mbbls/day. You are saying we are going to create 6mbbls/day of ethanol and biomass? You are nuts.

It’s difficult to say what the ultimate total amount of ethanol capacity the US has. For instance, the crop yield (and therefore the amount of ethanol yield) per acre has increased at about a 3.5% rate over the last couple of decades. Ethanol production increased 20% in just one year. The concept works, it isn’t going to be a quick change from oil but a ramp up, and we’ve already seen too much time go by without accelerating the switch away from oil. I’d say that you “are nuts” for NOT supporting a program to move away from non-renewable energy sources.

So basically what you end up with is burning all of the waste and put the CO2 back into the air. So not only is it inefficient, it doesn't even help the environment.

no, the biomass can be burned to generate energy, too. The net carbon dioxide amount put into the air is at worst zero and at best a decrease from the current burning of fossil fuels.

I have no problem with cars that get higher mileage. But why the heck do you think they are needed if gasoline is 1.25/gallon. Why not just mandate them to be 100mpg, that'll solve it. It's feel-good legislation, thats' why I don't like it. Even the europeans aren't this stupid, they just tax the heck out of fuel and let the market place decide, as we should.

increased taxes on energy and gas are regressive by nature.

They are keeping inflation low, but we are talking about energy here...remember. You seem to think that their rising economies are having no impact here, you are wrong.

that was not the point of my mentioning these economies, it was to emphasize their integration with our economy. Their increased consumption of oil is the principle reason the costs are higher.

the champion of price controls was none other than...dick nixon. so much for your party bashing...[q/]
Ford too, it was stupid then, stupid now. But the energy shortages happened under jimmah...stay focused here.

No, the “focus” was about your rants on the dems and your mentioning of price controls by the dems. Repubs did it too.

Our appetite for imported energy is based on where the most cost-effective energy is produced....period. As soon as it reaches $80/bl, then the most cost-effective may wind up being canada, or solar, or massive conservation. It's called the free market, get it.

the “free market” isn’t so free when you see what tax benefits/subsidies/welfare are reaped by the oil producers.

Again mavdog, if you want to do something about it, then get your congressman to vote for a 3.00 tax on gasoline. That would have solved your problem. But your party doesn't mind trying to dictate the economy, but they are too busy demagaguing to do anything useful about it.

First, a higher tax on gas is regressive. Second, it will negatively impact our economy, look at what the retailers are yelling to wall street about their sales, the higher price of gas is affecting the mass’ spending.

we need leadership to take us toward self sufficiency in energy. We aren't seeing it.

[dude1394]

Okay...I'm trying to find out what in the world you are talking about since you are not providing any data. So brazil has 30% of their energy needs feed by renewables. As I mentioned 95% (although this link says 83%) of their electricity is hydro.

ELECTRICITY
Brazilian Electricity Consumption and Generation, 1980-2002 graph. Having problems contact our National Energy Information Center on 202-586-8800 for help.Brazil is the third largest producer and consumer of electricity in the Western Hemisphere, behind the United States and Canada. As of December 2002, Brazil had an installed generation capacity of 76.2 GW, a 3.6% increase year-on-year. Hydroelectricity accounted for 83% of Brazil’s installed capacity in 2002, with an absolute year-on-year increase of 1.48 GW

Here is their energy consumption chart. As you can see, not exactly an oil free society coming on line anytime soon. In addition if you read this Brazils goals are to increase oil production significantly. I don't see where the utopia is.



By the way for all energy buggs these sites are pretty cool.

It's really all a pipe dream mavie. Coal, oil, gas, hyrdrocarbons are here to stay until we can either get fusion or solar cost-effective. No amount of government wasting of dollars is going to change it.

Even National Geographic gets it

NationalGeorgraphic

National Geographic Looks At Future Power
July 25, 2005 07:00 AM - Michael G. Richard, Ottawa

future-energy-01.jpgMichael Parfit is the author of this very interesting National Geographic article about the different sources of energy that could help us deal (partly) with global warming and peak oil (which they wrote about in their June 2004 issue). "It's time to step up the search for the next great fuel for the hungry engine of humankind. Is there such a fuel? The short answer is no. [...] The long answer about our next fuel is not so grim, however. In fact, plenty of contenders for the energy crown now held by fossil fuels are already at hand: wind, solar, [biomass,] even nuclear, to name a few. But the successor will have to be a congress, not a king. Virtually every energy expert I met did something unexpected: He pushed not just his own specialty but everyone else's too."

Until the price of energy gets high enough to make these other sources cost-effective it just is not going to happen. No matter how many laws we pass or how much taxpayer money we spend.

[Drbio]

Another fact filled bitchslap....at this point, we've lost count.

ouch.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: dude1394
Okay...I'm trying to find out what in the world you are talking about since you are not providing any data. So brazil has 30% of their energy needs feed by renewables. As I mentioned 95% (although this link says 83%) of their electricity is hydro.

Clearly you do not understand the energy sources of power generation. The electricity generated in the US doesn't consume oil, it is coal. hydro and gas. Why you continue to harp on electricity production while my point is relatting to oil is a good question.

The "data" is simple and undeniable. We are importing more oil than we ever have, consuming more oil than we ever have. The US has NOT had leadership that steers our country away from its dependence on imported oil, when (as I illustrated by Brazil) it is possible to have a national policy which does turn the tide by using our own resources. Ethanol will not totally replace gas, but it can provide sufficient amounts of fuel to lower our consumption of gas, thereby lowering our appetite for crude oil.

Corn and other crops can be used to stem the tide, its cleaner burning, more efficient and most importantly...it's renewable, and easily found.

Of course, we can continue to give tax breaks to oil cos. and say (as you do) "there's nothing that will replace oil", and guess what? We'll be in the same situation tomorrow that we find ourselves in today. That's called a lack of vision and kleadership, and we've suffered through that for too long already.

Until the price of energy gets high enough to make these other sources cost-effective it just is not going to happen. No matter how many laws we pass or how much taxpayer money we spend.

you mean that "taxpayer money" that is going to the oil companies? the recent budget has MORE subsidies to the oil business.

many technologies are cost effective when economies of scale are applied. Until we have a national policy that promotes alternatives, these economies will not be acheived.

As it is, we have an administration that has been in office for 5 years and the net bottom line is we have made NO progress in containing the oil problem of too little supply for the demand. Remember the Cheney Energy Task Force? Just what was the affect? All we can see is higher costs for oil and consequently higher prices for gas. Explain how anyone can defend this administration when their efforts seem to have benefitted the producers rather than the american consumer?