Tax, tax, tax... thats the plan

[SteamWake]

Originally Posted by Wall Street Journal

A senior administration official said the president will not explicitly call for a cap on carbon emissions or a carbon tax. In that sense, he may be laying the political groundwork for a less ambitious bill funding clean energy research and development.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...LEFTTopStories

[Zachstar]

We need massive funds for development of solar and algae based biofuels. No I am not naive enough to think it will do more than put a dent in coal use but solar is most effective in summer in the blazing sun meaning it gives our EXPENSIVE and aging power grid system a bit of a reprieve in danger areas.

The energy crisis in California at the turn threatened to destabilize the economy. We cant afford not to have massive funds for development

[tater]

Originally Posted by Zachstar

We need massive funds for development of solar and algae based biofuels. No I am not naive enough to think it will do more than put a dent in coal use but solar is most effective in summer in the blazing sun meaning it gives our EXPENSIVE and aging power grid system a bit of a reprieve in danger areas.

The energy crisis in California at the turn threatened to destabilize the economy. We cant afford not to have massive funds for development

We don't need massive government funds, if it's cost effective, it's cost effective. Sort of like recycled materials—they are only useful when they are competitive with "virgin" stuff.

What we need are more nuclear plants.

You like to ask for massive taxpayer subsidy. Just curious, how many hundred grand a year do you pay in income taxes?

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by tater

We don't need massive government funds, if it's cost effective, it's cost effective. Sort of like recycled materials—they are only useful when they are competitive with "virgin" stuff.

What we need are more nuclear plants.

Thank god those nuclear plants don't cost the governement a dime

[gimpy117]

Good! its about time we made some money so we don't have to keep paying the middle east for fuel, or giving money to BP just for them to cause huge disasters.

And what happens when we start to run out of Viable oil wells? we need a backup unless we want to go back to the stone age.

Funny how the republican party....the same party how started one of the most expensive wars in history are suddenly worried about fiscal responsibility! I guess when it fits your agenda you are all for it!

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

Funny how the republican party....the same party how started one of the most expensive wars in history are suddenly worried about fiscal responsibility! I guess when it fits your agenda you are all for it!

That's one of the reasons I am now a Recovering Republican.

[tater]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

Good! its about time we made some money so we don't have to keep paying the middle east for fuel, or giving money to BP just for them to cause huge disasters.

And what happens when we start to run out of Viable oil wells? we need a backup unless we want to go back to the stone age.

Funny how the republican party....the same party how started one of the most expensive wars in history are suddenly worried about fiscal responsibility! I guess when it fits your agenda you are all for it!

As a point of information, demonstrate that the war is even "one of" the most expensive in history.

Raw dollars is not an acceptable answer. % of GDP per year would be best.

WW2 was around 15.5% of US GDP (239% of federal expenditures—deficit to pay for it, basically).

Viet Nam was 1.8% of GDP (36.7% of fed expenses)

Iraq? 1.1% of GDP (18.3% of fed expenses) (as of 2007) That had 450B, and the new total is over 700B. Even doubled it's not the most expensive, however. Not even close to WW2 in constant dollars. It's in fact not even close in actual dollars. (ww2 cost the US 288B, which is 3.6 trillion in 2010 dollars)

EDIT: if you divide 700 B$ by 7 years (2003-2010), you get 100B$ a year. (you need to make sure that you only count costs above and beyond the normal expenditure of the military) That's about 0.71% of annual GDP. Total annual US tax revenues are typically on the order of 20% of GDP.

[August]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

Funny how the republican party....the same party how started one of the most expensive wars in history...

Answer Tater then explain how spending less money would not increase our casualty rate. Doesn't sound to responsible to me, fiscally or otherwise.

And what happens when we start to run out of Viable oil wells? we need a backup unless we want to go back to the stone age.

Oh c'mon, Stone Age? Seems to me we managed fairly well before the age of oil without resorting to living in caves.

[ryanglavin]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

And what happens when we start to run out of Viable oil wells? we need a backup unless we want to go back to the stone age.

Stone age? Ahem, I don't think our nation started in the stone age. not one bit.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Zachstar

We need massive funds for development of solar and algae based biofuels. No I am not naive enough to think it will do more than put a dent in coal use but solar is most effective in summer in the blazing sun meaning it gives our EXPENSIVE and aging power grid system a bit of a reprieve in danger areas.

I really hate getting on your case every time we talk about this, ZS. But think about it, man. If those were such good alternatives, don't you think somebody would have capitalized on them by now?

Let me put it another way; do you remember what happened last time we bought the whole "green energy/biofuel" bit?

I don't want to sound condescending or harsh or anything, but think about how this stuff works, boss. It's great that you're concerned and I hope you never lose your enthusiasm for this kind of stuff, but it isn't as easy as just saying "x should do y".

When you create a tax-based revenue source for something that seems like a good idea, there will be people looking to obtain some of that revenue. It won't be people like you or me,who are concerned but not involved, it will be established interests who are in the best position to take advantage. Naturally their interest is not in actually making the thing work, but in the bottom line. When you give them handouts you're actually impeding technological development buy giving industry an easy out. Why develop an effective biofuel or other energy source when the state will give you a handout for making corn-ethanol? Why pay for expensive R&D when the state will do the work for you? Why try to give people what they want and will pay for when you can easily co-opt an agency that will simply take their money? Where's the incentive? Perversely enough, that's how it usually works.

The energy crisis in California at the turn threatened to destabilize the economy. We cant afford not to have massive funds for development

Again, I would like for you to really think about this. It wasn't just California who deregulated energy, it was everyone, and not everyone had such severe or lasting problems. California didn't have an energy crisis because its energy industry was different or worse. It didn't have less access to resources. The only thing that set it apart was that, unlike most states, it tried to retain control. The measures implemented by people who listened to people like you actually messed things up more than they helped. Ask McBee, this is one of his personal bugbears.