This blog will host my ramblings about life. To be a bit more specific, I'll probably focus on these subjects: music, sports, food, the everyday beauty of life, and the comedy/tragedy/absurdity of our existence. That about covers it.
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Competing Strategies
In a needed change, both candidates for president acknowledge that human-induced climate change is real, but they have different plans for addressing global warming.
For an article comparing McCain and Obama's strategies, click HERE.
6 comments:
Anonymous
said...
The solution to the energy problem should not be a one or the other.......The kitchen sink needs to be thrown at this situation! In order for this predicament to be fully addressed we need to implement both parties ideas.
Although I do feel that Obama’s percentage to reduce emissions would be great if accomplished, I feel it is way to idealistic at this time. I think McCain’s level seems to be more pragmatic. This is another example of the lofty goals of Obama……..Some of his goals, if accomplished, will seem to significantly impact the corporate and individual tax rates which will end up possibly negatively hurting the economy.
What exact goals will inflate corporate and individual tax rates? I'm curious
I ask because individual spending on gasoline is certainly hurting our individual economies and also affecting the price of food, etc., etc.
The US hit its own "peak oil" back in 1970 and has been in steep decline since, and such a fact behooves us to seriously diversify our energy sources since so much of our economy is affected by oil prices.
I agree on the need for more “Green”, and the significant impact the price of oil has on individuals and businesses. But I still see the need for fossil fuels, coal, and oil into the future (Note: I hope that I am wrong on that future need). A bad analogy, but early man used stone and wooden tools as a key facet of life for a very very long time………..Today we still used wood and stone for a wide variety of reasons – Albeit for much different applications. Nonetheless, in the future I feel we will still use our current energy tools in some way, shape, or form.
The main programs that will most likely cost us all directly / indirectly: health care, tax plan, pay as you go fiscal policy, and the energy plan.
Some thoughts on the above issues: 1) The wealthiest folks already pay the brunt of the tax burden – lowering the middle class and raising the upper class does not seem to be that significant of a net gain to pay for his programs. In addition, I would assume there are a lot of self-employed wealthy folks………..If their taxes go up, who might that ultimately be passed back to? This could possibly offset some of the gains in Obama’s tax plan. 2) Pay as you go….At this point that would seem the need to raise taxes. 3) On the energy plan, I hope his planned carbon reduction can happen……But from the start it will happen at the cost to corporations. That new burden could be passed on to the consumer. I know at the G8 Summit many countries agreed to a significant reduction in the future, but we can never get Asia to adhere too much of anything. They are behind us in environmental regulation and green companies………If other countries do not follow the reduction, American businesses could hurt if they are required to. 4) Also we need an energy plan that includes drilling and exploration now – I think not throwing the kitchen sink at the energy quandary could be a huge mistake. 5) The government already gives a lot of hand-outs to a derelict group………..I see health care for all being good, but also making that “hand” a lot bigger and costlier. How is his health care plan going to make a segment of the population accountable and deserving?????
Not to mention his plan to have a top rate education system and military………Where is the money going to come from for all these things? Everything seems way to perfect. As Ross Perot would say, “This is poppycock smoke and mirrors”. All in all, I do hope all his ideas come into reality and that I am wrong.
1) brings in Obama's tax plan, which is sort of related to his environmental platform, I guess. I like the doughnut hole approach. People who make above a quarter mil should have their taxes raised some since the Bush tax cuts siphoned much needed revenue during his term. Taxes will need to be raised to pay for our military escapades on two fronts, among domestic issues, which connects to 2).
3) Strangely enough, and this is just a factoid, I'm told that China has stricter emissions regulations on cars than we do. Go figure. If America wants to be a leader in aggressively dealing with climate change, we need to stop pussyfooting around and do something. China and India are serious problems in regard to pollution, but waiting for them is foolhardy. And many of the American businesses that are being hurt by the competition from developing nations are already being hurt regardless of these issues. An aggressive cap and trade system that uses a carrot and stick method is the smart thing to do and the right thing to do. And we need to lead by example--something America used to do, especially in regard to human rights and civil liberties.
4) Drilling and more exploration is not kitchen sink--it's business as usual. And drilling in some of those areas have a good chance of hurting tourism dollars at the expense of exploration. Instead of investing in business as usual, we need to diversify or at least let alternative energy sources get the same type of enormous subsidies and kickbacks that oil and coal and nuclear gets. Let's even the playing field.
5) My co-pays and insurance premiums have been going up for years because of people without insurance, so I already pay for uninsured folks. And Obama isn't using Billary's plan, you should note.
Where is all the money going to come from for McCain's economic plan? Economic fundamentalism (the "free" market will fix it) doesn't work.
As the conservative satirist P. J. O'Rourke said, "The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work, and then they get elected and prove it."
It makes no logical sense to pile on more governmental regulation if one believes that American companies are already hurting – This approach will only augment more of a burden on companies. When looking at the newspaper or turning on the tube one can see that the number of lay-offs should be proof alone that stiffer carbon emissions on only US companies will not be pro-active for businesses competing within the global economy.
As far as the energy situation yes drilling / exploration in addition to conservation, as well as all of the research and funding for alternative sources is throwing the kitchen sink at the issue. We should combine the Republican and the Democratic energy plans. In a utopian society all green would be great, but the US is not ready. Not drilling now is a huge mistake………..We are one large event (Iran-Israeli War, Tropical Storm, Pakistan-India conflict, Pakistan-US, Iran-US etc.) away from $8.00 + a gallon.
There be a definite loss of tourism if gas gets to $8.00 a gallon……….We will have the: average American unable to afford to fly, bankrupt airlines, the continued demise of American Automotive Industry, much higher inflation, and much more.
According to Google, P.J O’Rourke also said, “Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys”. This statement can be clearly applied to universal (i.e. “socialized”) health care. The “government” has a difficult time over-seeing what it currently does……….Now we are adding more regulation???? Not to mention the cost.
How is the lack of governmental regulation working out for the banking, lending, and investing industries? Fannie Mae, Freddie Mack, Bear Sterns, suprime morgage foolishness, et al.? Some people don't want regulation (like McCain's head economic advisor Gramm, a guy who spent his political life in a deregulatory crusade and thinks we're in a "mental recession"), but they seem to be ok with the government bailing them out when things are going down the shitter.
You seem to put faith in the good-naturedness of companies and corporation, but I have more faith in government regulation. You're a Jeffersonian, I guess, and I'm more like John Adams. You have an mistresses we should know about? Are you a French sympathizer???
I feel that more drilling now isn't going to help us short-term or even really long-term. It's wasted R&D in my mind, and once "peak oil" hits (and it might have already done so--we'll see), it's going to be even worse.
Well, O'Rourke's teenager is probably drinking Canadian whiskey and driving a Ford that has most of its parts made in Mexico. Stupid NAFTA.
By definition, a cap and trade system on carbon emissions uses regulation to curb the amount of emissions corporations and companies emit. Both McCain and Obama say they are for cap and trade systems.
6 comments:
The solution to the energy problem should not be a one or the other.......The kitchen sink needs to be thrown at this situation! In order for this predicament to be fully addressed we need to implement both parties ideas.
Although I do feel that Obama’s percentage to reduce emissions would be great if accomplished, I feel it is way to idealistic at this time. I think McCain’s level seems to be more pragmatic. This is another example of the lofty goals of Obama……..Some of his goals, if accomplished, will seem to significantly impact the corporate and individual tax rates which will end up possibly negatively hurting the economy.
What exact goals will inflate corporate and individual tax rates? I'm curious
I ask because individual spending on gasoline is certainly hurting our individual economies and also affecting the price of food, etc., etc.
The US hit its own "peak oil" back in 1970 and has been in steep decline since, and such a fact behooves us to seriously diversify our energy sources since so much of our economy is affected by oil prices.
We need a "Green Deal."
I agree on the need for more “Green”, and the significant impact the price of oil has on individuals and businesses. But I still see the need for fossil fuels, coal, and oil into the future (Note: I hope that I am wrong on that future need). A bad analogy, but early man used stone and wooden tools as a key facet of life for a very very long time………..Today we still used wood and stone for a wide variety of reasons – Albeit for much different applications. Nonetheless, in the future I feel we will still use our current energy tools in some way, shape, or form.
The main programs that will most likely cost us all directly / indirectly: health care, tax plan, pay as you go fiscal policy, and the energy plan.
Some thoughts on the above issues:
1) The wealthiest folks already pay the brunt of the tax burden – lowering the middle class and raising the upper class does not seem to be that significant of a net gain to pay for his programs. In addition, I would assume there are a lot of self-employed wealthy folks………..If their taxes go up, who might that ultimately be passed back to? This could possibly offset some of the gains in Obama’s tax plan.
2) Pay as you go….At this point that would seem the need to raise taxes.
3) On the energy plan, I hope his planned carbon reduction can happen……But from the start it will happen at the cost to corporations. That new burden could be passed on to the consumer. I know at the G8 Summit many countries agreed to a significant reduction in the future, but we can never get Asia to adhere too much of anything. They are behind us in environmental regulation and green companies………If other countries do not follow the reduction, American businesses could hurt if they are required to.
4) Also we need an energy plan that includes drilling and exploration now – I think not throwing the kitchen sink at the energy quandary could be a huge mistake.
5) The government already gives a lot of hand-outs to a derelict group………..I see health care for all being good, but also making that “hand” a lot bigger and costlier. How is his health care plan going to make a segment of the population accountable and deserving?????
Not to mention his plan to have a top rate education system and military………Where is the money going to come from for all these things? Everything seems way to perfect. As Ross Perot would say, “This is poppycock smoke and mirrors”. All in all, I do hope all his ideas come into reality and that I am wrong.
1) brings in Obama's tax plan, which is sort of related to his environmental platform, I guess. I like the doughnut hole approach. People who make above a quarter mil should have their taxes raised some since the Bush tax cuts siphoned much needed revenue during his term. Taxes will need to be raised to pay for our military escapades on two fronts, among domestic issues, which connects to 2).
3) Strangely enough, and this is just a factoid, I'm told that China has stricter emissions regulations on cars than we do. Go figure. If America wants to be a leader in aggressively dealing with climate change, we need to stop pussyfooting around and do something. China and India are serious problems in regard to pollution, but waiting for them is foolhardy. And many of the American businesses that are being hurt by the competition from developing nations are already being hurt regardless of these issues. An aggressive cap and trade system that uses a carrot and stick method is the smart thing to do and the right thing to do. And we need to lead by example--something America used to do, especially in regard to human rights and civil liberties.
4) Drilling and more exploration is not kitchen sink--it's business as usual. And drilling in some of those areas have a good chance of hurting tourism dollars at the expense of exploration. Instead of investing in business as usual, we need to diversify or at least let alternative energy sources get the same type of enormous subsidies and kickbacks that oil and coal and nuclear gets. Let's even the playing field.
5) My co-pays and insurance premiums have been going up for years because of people without insurance, so I already pay for uninsured folks. And Obama isn't using Billary's plan, you should note.
Where is all the money going to come from for McCain's economic plan? Economic fundamentalism (the "free" market will fix it) doesn't work.
As the conservative satirist P. J. O'Rourke said, "The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work, and then they get elected and prove it."
It makes no logical sense to pile on more governmental regulation if one believes that American companies are already hurting – This approach will only augment more of a burden on companies. When looking at the newspaper or turning on the tube one can see that the number of lay-offs should be proof alone that stiffer carbon emissions on only US companies will not be pro-active for businesses competing within the global economy.
As far as the energy situation yes drilling / exploration in addition to conservation, as well as all of the research and funding for alternative sources is throwing the kitchen sink at the issue. We should combine the Republican and the Democratic energy plans. In a utopian society all green would be great, but the US is not ready. Not drilling now is a huge mistake………..We are one large event (Iran-Israeli War, Tropical Storm, Pakistan-India conflict, Pakistan-US, Iran-US etc.) away from $8.00 + a gallon.
There be a definite loss of tourism if gas gets to $8.00 a gallon……….We will have the: average American unable to afford to fly, bankrupt airlines, the continued demise of American Automotive Industry, much higher inflation, and much more.
According to Google, P.J O’Rourke also said, “Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys”. This statement can be clearly applied to universal (i.e. “socialized”) health care. The “government” has a difficult time over-seeing what it currently does……….Now we are adding more regulation???? Not to mention the cost.
How is the lack of governmental regulation working out for the banking, lending, and investing industries? Fannie Mae, Freddie Mack, Bear Sterns, suprime morgage foolishness, et al.? Some people don't want regulation (like McCain's head economic advisor Gramm, a guy who spent his political life in a deregulatory crusade and thinks we're in a "mental recession"), but they seem to be ok with the government bailing them out when things are going down the shitter.
You seem to put faith in the good-naturedness of companies and corporation, but I have more faith in government regulation. You're a Jeffersonian, I guess, and I'm more like John Adams. You have an mistresses we should know about? Are you a French sympathizer???
I feel that more drilling now isn't going to help us short-term or even really long-term. It's wasted R&D in my mind, and once "peak oil" hits (and it might have already done so--we'll see), it's going to be even worse.
Well, O'Rourke's teenager is probably drinking Canadian whiskey and driving a Ford that has most of its parts made in Mexico. Stupid NAFTA.
By definition, a cap and trade system on carbon emissions uses regulation to curb the amount of emissions corporations and companies emit. Both McCain and Obama say they are for cap and trade systems.
Post a Comment