All I hear is blah blah blah

cincybearcat

Purple Hawk wrote:

He has extended this nation's prosperity, addressed problems of future generations (Social security - his plan was great but fear mongers squashed that, addressing the broken UN resolutions in Iraq, and has put his entire emphasis ON national security.) I will say, he hasn't really spent our money wisely though.

The social security plan is in my opinion one of the biggest missed opportunities in a long time. People are afraid of change...so afraid that they don;t even think about how good it could have been.

That's ok, just let me continue to put money into a failed system of which I will never see a dime...that's fair i guess. Bunch of shit.

mca47

Purple Hawk wrote:

I remember Democrats saying that but opposing drilling on our own soil. Not W's fault.

But they are drilling in Alaska. It's not at the quantity they want, but then by all estimates what could be pulled out of there by the best estimates would only make us dependent for a couple months...until it ran dry. And keep in mind those are by all accounts, best estimates.
Funding to alternate energy is still to this point a joke.

fanch75

cincybearcat wrote:

The social security plan is in my opinion one of the biggest missed opportunities in a long time. People are afraid of change...so afraid that they don;t even think about how good it could have been.

That's ok, just let me continue to put money into a failed system of which I will never see a dime...that's fair i guess. Bunch of shit.

Agreed. It was politically dangerous ground, but it was actually a courageous and right thing to do. It got blocked for XY reasons. So instead, it now proceeds as a politically very safe thing, to let someone else worry about it as it begins to bankrupt.

soulsinging

Purple Hawk wrote:

I remember Democrats saying that but opposing drilling on our own soil. Not W's fault.

drilling the artic refuge is a short term, band-aid solution to a problem. even by the admin's admission it would do little to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, esp long term. why not try a real long-term solution to a problem for once?

Purple Hawk

cincybearcat wrote:

The social security plan is in my opinion one of the biggest missed opportunities in a long time. People are afraid of change...so afraid that they don;t even think about how good it could have been.

That's ok, just let me continue to put money into a failed system of which I will never see a dime...that's fair i guess. Bunch of shit.

Even on a board like this...where the tilt is obviously to the left, I bet most people would prefer Bush's SS plan.

It's beyond frustrating to me though...you have people that espouse such hatred toward the guy (W), that they automattically oppose him on every issue...regardless of the substance. then you have people on the right who are so obsessed with obtaining power (cough McCain cough) that they don't care about solving these problems. Republicans in Congress hand their chance at solving SS, and they blew it....but maybe it's b/c young people don't vote as much as old people. Either way, it sucks.

Purple Hawk

soulsinging wrote:

drilling the artic refuge is a short term, band-aid solution to a problem. even by the admin's admission it would do little to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, esp long term. why not try a real long-term solution to a problem for once?

Is a short-term solution and a long-term solution necessarily mutually exclusive? That's what I don't get about the entire argument. Again, I am biased but it's why I view the left as disingenuous. You can have a long term goal while also dealing with presant day reality. He is proposing both...short term and long term solutions...to me, that's living in reality.

soulsinging

Purple Hawk wrote:

Even on a board like this...where the tilt is obviously to the left, I bet most people would prefer Bush's SS plan.

It's beyond frustrating to me though...you have people that espouse such hatred toward the guy (W), that they automattically oppose him on every issue...regardless of the substance. then you have people on the right who are so obsessed with obtaining power (cough McCain cough) that they don't care about solving these problems. Republicans in Congress hand their chance at solving SS, and they blew it....but maybe it's b/c young people don't vote as much as old people. Either way, it sucks.

bush squandered any political capital/benefit of the doubt he ever had when he got into that mess in iraq. the opposition was steamrolled on that issue and it turned into such a clusterfuck that nobody was going to trust his judgment on anything else, and they had to stand firm to make up for their past mistakes. he blew it in 02 for himself. if he had stuck to his guns in afghanistan and tried to "spread freedom and democracy" there, we'd have a probably viable islamic democracy now, we'd all be patting him on the back, osama would have just been hung instead of hussein, and all his other policies would have been rubber stamped into approval. this was of dubya's making. he made iraq the central issue in american politics and he can pay the price for that. in the midst of a very expensive and uncertain war is not the time to be making sweeping overhauls of the nation's budget and finances.

fanch75

soulsinging wrote:

drilling the artic refuge is a short term, band-aid solution to a problem. even by the admin's admission it would do little to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, esp long term. why not try a real long-term solution to a problem for once?

Combining a short-term solution for immediate needs with a long-term search for future alternative sources is a decent plan. The oil from non-foreign sources is needed right away, and this is one source. Sure, we need to look ahead but that (the technology on a widespread scale) is years away.

Pearl Jam and toast

fanch75 wrote:

Tax deductions for health insurance premiums (for everone, not just the eeeeeeeeeeevil rich people). Seems like a very great thing to do for folks struggling to either pay their premiums through their employer, or self-employed people who get their own (expensive) policies.

I'm sure folks will knee-jerk to a reason to oppose them, however.

What he didn't mention was that middle class families with insurance over 15,000$ will be taxed which is a little fucked up I think. His healthcare plan has problems.

He said some pretty good sounding things about immigration and reducing emissions though.


Drilling in the artic is completely irrational. It's like saying "Okay, instead of working fully to break this heroin addiction I'm just gonna go to a more reliable dealer".

soulsinging

Purple Hawk wrote:

Is a short-term solution and a long-term solution necessarily mutually exclusive? That's what I don't get about the entire argument. Again, I am biased but it's why I view the left as disingenuous. You can have a long term goal while also dealing with presant day reality. He is proposing both...short term and long term solutions...to me, that's living in reality.

he is PROPOSING both. the reason the left refuses to buy it is that the administration has NEVER shown any sort of commitment to environmental issues, from day one. in fact, they've been downright hostile. im not wiling to give him any inches until he proves he is going to go the mile. and i dont trust that. if i was convinced it was a short term solution with a serious commitment to pursuing the long term one, i might be willing to go along. but i just dont see it. i see a short term solution that will most likely be followed by another short term solution (drilling more in alaska) followed by another (who's next... louisiana?).

ThumbingMyWay32

Milhouse VanHouten wrote:

The poor little lame duck. Sad, almost. He got more positive feedback from the Democrats. Dana Rohrabacher (R CA) wouldn't even applaud for the immigration section, let alone stand up like the rest of his party.

So he was receiving positive feedback from Democrats and there was some Republican dissent...

What exactly were you waiting for? Overwhelming Republican support and stauch objection from Democrats? Or do you bitch reguardless?

soulsinging

fanch75 wrote:

Combining a short-term solution for immediate needs with a long-term search for future alternative sources is a decent plan. The oil from non-foreign sources is needed right away, and this is one source. Sure, we need to look ahead but that (the technology on a widespread scale) is years away.

i recall in the 1960s people saying the same thing about humans on the moon. when the US decides to make something a priority and is willing to put its money where its mouth is, it gets done. so far, no one seems serious about that. far as im concerned that rhetoric is simply 1) a cop out for people who dont want to change the status quo (werent you all the ones saying dems were cowards about trying new things on social security?) or 2) a lack of faith in american ingenuity (arent the right supposed to be the ones who think we're the greatest, most invincible nation of all time?).

mca47

Purple Hawk wrote:

Is a short-term solution and a long-term solution necessarily mutually exclusive? That's what I don't get about the entire argument. Again, I am biased but it's why I view the left as disingenuous. You can have a long term goal while also dealing with presant day reality. He is proposing both...short term and long term solutions...to me, that's living in reality.

What has he proposed for any kind of long term solution? The 20% reduction he just came up with?
The whole Alaska thing was simply silly. Almost everyone said it was at best a short term solution, and would not even really reduce the number of barrels of foreign oil we'd bring in. I truly think you "gotta do what you gotta do" sometimes but when you constantly piss on the environment and propose this as your best solution... Give me a break.
When you chip away for something bigger and better I can see the logic. When your chipping away and have nothing to show for it, you are simply wasting time and resources.

fanch75

soulsinging wrote:

i recall in the 1960s people saying the same thing about humans on the moon. when the US decides to make something a priority and is willing to put its money where its mouth is, it gets done. so far, no one seems serious about that. far as im concerned that rhetoric is simply 1) a cop out for people who dont want to change the status quo (werent you all the ones saying dems were cowards about trying new things on social security?) or 2) a lack of faith in american ingenuity (arent the right supposed to be the ones who think we're the greatest, most invincible nation of all time?).

I agree that he's kind of thrown bones out there regarding alternative fuels, but this oil-addiction didn't start in Jan 2001 when he took office.

There needs to be real tax incentives for alternative fuel research, maybe combined with gov't grants and gov't research.

Rapunzel64

I like to see that most of you took the time to listen to the speech. There are some things that make a lot of sense. We all know that we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Let's work on doing something about it. It was a little different to see some of the straight Party lines broken. This is the only way that things will change.

soulsinging

fanch75 wrote:

There needs to be real tax incentives for alternative fuel research, maybe combined with gov't grants and gov't research.

exactly. if he was offering that, id be a-ok with artic drilling in the interim. but he's not. he's talking about artic drilling while paying lip service to empty promise about alternatives. if he shows me serious, ill take him seriously. but not until then.

mca47

fanch75 wrote:

I agree that he's kind of thrown bones out there regarding alternative fuels, but this oil-addiction didn't start in Jan 2001 when he took office.

There needs to be real tax incentives for alternative fuel research, maybe combined with gov't grants and gov't research.

I totally agree.
I, unlike many, don't JUST blame the republicans on this. I do think they have done LESS, but the dems are no saints either.
There is no question that a legit alternative fuel source is years off, but I really believe that if we gave incentive, research funding, and some serious money, it could be done in a fraction of the time.

Sadly, that's not going to happen for while.

fanch75

I'm not really sure why alternative fuels as an issue is divisive. Anyone who thinks about it for 5 seconds realizes (from any point of view, except Exxon's - unless they develope alt fuel technology!) that it is in everyone's best interest. Well, I know why - it's politics.

Terrorism could be ended overnight if we stopped using oil.

ThumbingMyWay32

What else is oil for? Mother nature gives it to us so why not use it until it's gone?

Why the hatred for oil? Everyone basically associates it with vehicles... What else is it used for? Why keep yourselves up at night over oil?

fanch75

ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:

What else is oil for? Mother nature gives it to us so why not use it until it's gone?

Why the hatred for oil? Everyone basically associates it with vehicles... What else is it used for? Why keep yourselves up at night over oil?

No hatred for oil here. The internal combustion engine gave birth to a level of comfort and ability to travel like man would have never seen without it. Everone would be walking across deserts and living in tribes if it weren't for the engine and oil.

Time changes. Right now, we buy oil and it's funding the very terrorism that we're fighting. Also, it's a finite source, and it's only wise planning to plan for oil's replacement before it runs out.

There's also the "humans are destroying the earth" folks, but I'm not on board with that. Climate change, I believe, may be occuring, but I'm not so sure to what degree man is contributing to it.