US to open 3.9m acres in Alaska for drilling

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by LSUGradin99, Jul 17, 2008.

Page 4 of 6
  1. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    I'd hate to be an an accident with a compressed air car. And I wonder how much energy it costs to pressurize it to such a high degree.
     
    red55, Jul 21, 2008
    #31
  2. LSUAthletics

    LSUAthletics Founding Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    49
    Agreed. You can't place the blame on Pelosi because the Democrats took over 2 years ago. However, it's unfair to solely place the blame on Bush and the prior Republican controlled congress. What did Clinton do when he was president to help us rid ourselves of foreign oil? What have the democrats done except vote against drilling in Alaska twice? I think there's much blame to go around but you should at least acknowledge that the Republicans have tried to pass legislation to drill for more oil at home. Now that the matter has become urgent Democrats are still against drilling, still against nuclear power, and still against expanding coal. You tell me who you think is the better party to rid us of our dependency of foreign oil and why.

    Once again, there's plenty of blame to go around concerning the national debt. A major part of that debt, but not all, stems from fighting two wars. (Whether those wars were necessary is an entirely another debate.) Do you see the deficit getting any better ever since the Democrats took over control of congress 2 years ago? I see Bush finally trying, but unsuccessful, to curtail spending.


    Good but you'll only see those types of tax cuts initiated by Republicans.


    The main culprit for inflation is high fuel prices. Again what are Democrats doing to resolve the fuel crisis?

    I'm sure glad you like President Reagan because he's the president most responsible for balancing the budget during the Clinton administration.

    http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6107
     
    LSUAthletics, Jul 21, 2008
    #32
  3. LSUAthletics

    LSUAthletics Founding Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    49
    Or meaning we can cut spending to offset those tax cuts. Why is it that tax cuts are always blamed for the cause of deficits? Why don't we put more emphasis on out of control spending and point the blame toward both parties? I think we pay more than enough taxes.

    That's a fair statement to make but I think it must be pointed out that these Republican economic ideas are not conservative ideas. So I think it's fair to say few believe in Republican economic ideas but it's not fair to say few believe in conservative ideas.(Lower taxes and less spending.) Considering that the Democratically controlled congress has a 9% approval rating who's ideas does the country believe in?
     
    LSUAthletics, Jul 21, 2008
    #33
  4. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    Probably the democrats. Try to understand, we don't have enough oil reserves to drill to end our dependency on foreign oil. We will be buying foreign oil until it runs out. We can't frill our way out of this. They only way to cut dependence on foreign oil is to cut domestic oil consumption and the democrats are going to be better at this.

    The fact is, we should probably start preserving our remaining reserves and deplete the foreign reserves while the price is still relatively cheap. When the middle eastern oil is gone and prices are $500-$1000 a barrel, it would be nice to have a All-American reserve that could not be sold to others or diverted from US consumption.

    No, there really isn't. Clinton posted surpluses and was paying down the debt, Bush reversed this and starting spending far more while irresponsibly cutting income at the same time.

    A major part of that debt, but not all, stems from fighting two wars. (Whether those wars were necessary is an entirely another debate.)[/quote]First of all ther war expenses are NOT another debate. They are expenses this president decided not to pay for and just borrowed money. FDR paid for WWII with taxes, war bonds, rationing and other measures. Bush choose to just pass this cost on to future generations.

    Secondly, Bush has spent at a higher rate on non-military government programs than Clinton did. The immense war expenditures come on top of this primary fiscal irresponsibility.

    You see what you want to see. Wait until the democrats control both the Congress and the White House before you see any change from six years of Republican control.

    Waiting for a president that won't obstruct their bills.

    What collossal nonsense. Trying to shirk responsibility for republican budget failures is sad enough, but trying to take credit for democratic success is just absurd. Look what the numbers say about budget deficits under each president. See where the red happens?
     
    red55, Jul 21, 2008
    #34
  5. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    Of course, but this hasn't been done. Balance between taxes and spending is what I'm advocating. We have to cut the spending to match or income or we have to raise our income to pay for what we spend. Otherwise we borrow and go into debt.

    Sure they are. They damn sure ain't liberal or moderate ideas. The republican party has backed George Bush and his neocons every step of the way and still are doing so. The conservatives may have abandoned the principles they once held, but they are still conservative, still republican, and still responsible for republican policies.
     
    red55, Jul 21, 2008
    #35
  6. LSUAthletics

    LSUAthletics Founding Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    49
    So you think the Democrats are better able to handle the crisis for this reason alone? Why do you think the Democrats are better at cutting our dependence on foreign oil considering their unwillingness to expand nuclear and coal? Other alternative energy is way down the road. More domestic drilling will decrease our dependence on foreign oil while we focus on nuclear, cleaner burning coal, and other alternative fuels. What is the democratic plan of getting us out of this mess?

    Hopefully by this time the US will have vastly expanded nuclear energy and increased coal exploration.

    As if the Democrats have been trying to cut entitlement programs and other non-military while the Republicans shot them down. They are both to blame.

    I didn't say the war expenses were not a part of this debate. I said the decision to go to war was another debate.

    I agree Bush spent too much on non-military programs.

    The last I checked it's Congress that spends the money. Why should we have to wait until there's a Democratic president to go along? Where's the evidence of the Congress being more fiscally responsible outside of trying to cut funds for our troops?

    What non-military government spending cut bills are you referring to?

    Why not try and dispute the main two arguments the article makes? One of which was the vast military buildup during the Reagan years that led to the end of the cold war. This enabled Clinton to cut military spending thus reducing the deficit.
     
    LSUAthletics, Jul 21, 2008
    #36
  7. LSUAthletics

    LSUAthletics Founding Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    49
    So which one are you for?

    Non-military government increased spending is not part of the conservative philosophy. If a Republican is for increased non-military government spending then that's a moderate or liberal Republican my friend. That's certainly not a conservative.
     
    LSUAthletics, Jul 21, 2008
    #37
  8. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    Did you even read my post? I said that Democrats are focusing on cutting domestic consumption instead of increasing domestic production.

    We know where the coal is and it won't replace gasoline and neither will nuclear. It's transportation expenses that are impossible to replace. The only solution is to reduce consumption.

    Nope. "No Child Left Behind" has been a HUGE unfunded mandate and is a Republican plan. You can't redirect the blame when it is this big and this obvious.

    Veto and threat of veto.

    The ones waiting for a Democratic President to be presented.

    We know where the coal is and it won't replace gasoline and neither will nuclear. It's transportation expenses that are impossible to replace. The only solution is to reduce consumption.

    Nope. "No Child Left Behind" has been a HUGE unfunded mandate and is a Republican plan. You can't redirect the blame when it is this big and this obvious.

    Veto and threat of veto.

    That is just an assumption and you can assume it if you like. I posted actual numbers showing the amounts of deficit spending that each President allowed on his watch. Objective facts.
     
    red55, Jul 21, 2008
    #38
  9. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    As I stated earlier, I am for finding a proper balance. It will take both measures, applied smartly, to fix the problem. Some programs can't be cut and must be paid for with taxes. Others are optional and can be cut to reduce taxes. The waste, such as pork barrel set-asides, must be eliminated. But we first must cut programs to balance the budget before we can start cutting the taxes.

    What on God's Green Earth is a liberal Republican? You can't just reject the neo-conservatives and paint them as moderates or liberals just because they were failures. They are conservatives and have had the backing of the entire republican party for seven years. If the democrats must acknowledge failed liberals like Ralph Nader and Jimmy Carter, the republicans must accept failed conservatives.
     
    red55, Jul 21, 2008
    #39
  10. LSUAthletics

    LSUAthletics Founding Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    49
    I don't have time to read all your post so the answer is no. I assume you already stated how the Democrats are focusing on cutting consumption?

    In the short term yes but eventually we must come up with an alternative to the gas engine.

    This was a bi-partisan bill signed by Bush. (87 for, 10 against.) Back to my initial point. Both parties can be blamed for the run up in government spending. I think 6 democrats voted against this bill. You chose a very poor example for trying to prove democrats are trying to curtail spending.
    http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00371

    A threat of a veto has never stopped the democrats from passing a bill. If the democrats wanted to pass a bill to cut non-military government spending then they would do so. If Bushed vetoed it it would give them something to campaign on.

    The ones not be presented by a democratically controlled congress.

    The only solution for cars for the short term. What about utilities and everything else? What is the Democratic plan?

    OK, you choose to not dispute the merit of those arguments in the article. Fine.
     
    LSUAthletics, Jul 21, 2008
    #40
Page 4 of 6

Share This Page