How Realistic Is Obama's Call For 1 Million Plug In Hybids And Electric Cars By 2015?

He said he "hopes to see" not that he'll make it happen. From the many posts in favor of hybrids and electrics that I've seen on this site, ya'll hope the same thing, so please don't come down on this great man with a stupid argument. One can hope without it necessarily actually happening. I personally favor small torquey diesels. I hate hybrids. Plug-in electrics are OK for strictly urban commuting provided cheap electricity is made available for recharging during off-peak hours. Hybrids cannot sustain brisk acceleration for too long without switching over to pure engine power.

Anyway, not to worry too much as production of biofuels from non-food plant material is just around the corner and some of these microbial processes actually remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

— EnnNorak (View Profile)

Posted on 8/5/2008 9:26:20 PM | | Votes: 0   

I think the only way "things" are gonna work is if we can try to get everyone to understand the importance of our auto economy...a number of people probably take it for grant that cars exist, even if they are suffering from debts.

Cars have had a tremendous effect on our world, and if only every single person (at least every US resident) could get that message...I don't think all this post would get us anywhere...

— WorldofLuxury (View Profile)

Posted on 8/6/2008 3:11:17 AM | | Votes: 1   

I don't care who wins because anyone has got to be better than bush

— ILikeLambo (View Profile)

Posted on 8/6/2008 3:58:10 AM | | Votes: -4   

reminds me of Bush with all the talk of Gay marriage and Abortion.

— 0to60 (View Profile)

Posted on 8/5/2008 1:37:10 PM | | Votes: -12   

lol...actually, if you guys don't remember, Clinton himself was a persuasive talker as well; sadly, the same thing can't be said about his wife. Still, it's hard to trust another persuasive talker, and I don't know much about McCain.

This year's electiion was supposed to be easy for me...but it's not :(
But no problem! Once one of them signs a contract to support our domestic auto giants, COUNT ME IN! x]

— WorldofLuxury (View Profile)

Posted on 8/5/2008 5:22:15 PM | | Votes: -1   

Since none of the Obama's supporters have answered your question (cowardly choosing instead to anonymously deboost you instead), I will answer your question. What has Obama accomplished? NOTHING. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

— MBCLS07 (View Profile)

Posted on 8/6/2008 2:38:06 AM | | Votes: 6   

Really, what has McCain accomplished in 26 years? For awhile I supported him. In 2000 I voted for him in the primaries. He was someone to trust back then. Now he has changed all his stances and fallen in line with the "party line" and Bush. I am not saying Obama is the second coming or anything, but we can't have Bush V 2.0. We McCain taking the same stances he was in 2000 now, I don't think the election would be close, but now.....

It will be an interesting Nov.

— Targa (View Profile)

Posted on 8/6/2008 9:40:25 AM | | Votes: -2   

"we can't have Bush V 2.0"

Looks like the Obama propaganda does infact work on some people.

FYI: McCain is miles more liberal than Bush. Infact hes one of the most liberal Republicans in the Senate.

— w209w114 (View Profile)

Posted on 8/6/2008 1:42:13 PM | | Votes: 3   

Really? Well, maybe you know things I have not seen or read. How is he so different? What is he going to do to improve things that Bush has done?

Here is your chance to convince someone, cause I am on the fence.

— Targa (View Profile)

Posted on 8/6/2008 3:20:36 PM | | Votes: 0   

Cut and pasted from Wikipedia. Being a POW doesnt entitle you to be president...It can entitle you to be a little loopy...deboost away.

Sid
07 335 Sedan
Sport/Prem

Obama voted in favor of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
Obama took an active role in the Senate's drive for improved border security and immigration reform.

In 2005, he cosponsored the "Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act" introduced by Republican John McCain of Arizona.[57] He later added three amendments to the "Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act", which passed the Senate in May 2006, but failed to gain majority support in the House of Representatives.[58]
In September 2006, Obama supported a related bill, the Secure Fence Act, authorizing construction of fencing and other security improvements along the United States–Mexico border.[59] President Bush signed the Secure Fence Act into law in October 2006, calling it "an important step toward immigration reform."[60]



Partneredwith Republican Senators Richard Lugar of Indiana and Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, Obama successfully introduced two initiatives bearing his name. "Lugar–Obama" expanded the Nunn–Lugar cooperative threat reduction concept to conventional weapons, including shoulder-fired missiles and anti-personnel mines.[62] The "Coburn–Obama Transparency Act" authorized the establishment of www.USAspending.gov, a web search engine launched in December 2007 and run by the Office of Management and Budget.[63] After Illinois residents complained of waste water contamination by a neighboring nuclear plant, Obama sponsored legislation requiring plant owners to notify state and local authorities of radioactive leaks.[64] A compromise version of the bill was subsequently blocked by partisan disputes and later reintroduced.[65] In December 2006, President Bush signed into law the "Democratic Republic of the Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act," marking the first federal legislation to be enacted with Obama as its primary sponsor.[66]

In January 2007, Obama worked with Democrat Russ Feingold of Wisconsin to eliminate gifts of travel on corporate jets by lobbyists to members of Congress and require disclosure of bundled campaign contributions under the "Honest Leadership and Open Government Act," which was signed into law in September 2007.[67] He introduced S. 453, a bill to criminalize deceptive practices in federal elections, including fraudulent flyers and automated phone calls, as witnessed in the 2006 midterm elections.[68] Obama's energy initiatives scored pluses and minuses with environmentalists, who welcomed his sponsorship with McCain of a climate change bill to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by two-thirds by 2050, but were skeptical of his support for a bill promoting liquefied coal production.[69] Obama also introduced the "Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007," a bill to cap troop levels in Iraq, begin phased redeployment, and remove all combat brigades from Iraq before April 200

— asiddiqi (View Profile)

Posted on 8/7/2008 5:47:59 PM | | Votes: 1   

What you guys need is a Canadian style health care plan but without the long waiting periods for surgery in some areas. Any country wealthy enough to bail out banks is wealthy enough to pay for such a system. There are all sorts of horror stories about HMOs happy to collect premiums but making it difficult for the insured to collect proper medical services, often denying treatment with the excuse that it's still considered "experimental".

The best medicare plan the U.S. had was a few decades ago when catastrophic medical protection was part of Medicare. My father, who died in Mamaroneck NY., ran up a hospital bill in the amount of $89,000 and Uncle Sam picked up every penny of it except the $560 deductible in effect at the time. Now that is what I call a true social safety net. There is very little for a nation to gain in bankrupting the middle classes when they get sick.

— EnnNorak (View Profile)

Posted on 8/5/2008 9:38:39 PM | | Votes: -1   

Even after reading your posts I'm still voting for Obama.

— LexSucks (View Profile)

Posted on 8/5/2008 4:28:12 PM | | Votes: -7   

I know you need your Soviet healthcare plan.

Good luck if you get sick.

— EL34 (View Profile)

Posted on 8/5/2008 6:43:16 PM | | Votes: 1   

"Even after reading your posts I'm still voting for Obama."–Lexsucks

And that's why obama will probably win this election. Facts, logic, rational thought are meaningless to the avg. Obama voter who relies solely on emotion and naive, utopian dreams to make decisions. Fortunately, most responsible people grow out of this childlike stage of their lives once they have a family and a career.

— fuelfool (View Profile)

Posted on 8/6/2008 1:22:24 AM | | Votes: 11   

Lexsucks is like a stubborn little child.

Don't let facts get in your way, Lexsucks. You stay strong you dopey little Obama disciple. You vote for that trendy Barack Obama no matter what rational, logical people have to say.

— MBCLS07 (View Profile)

Posted on 8/6/2008 2:43:14 AM | | Votes: 4   

I am not sure McCain is the "logical choice" as you imply.

Someone mentioned Obama is running a campaign in secrecy, but so is McCain and he was a big one for "public financing"

McCain has changed his position on many topics, but fires scathing remarks when Obama changes his mind on anything.

McCain complained about Obama going to Europe and meeting with leaders like he was the president, but McCain was over there just a few months ago meeting with leaders.

Again, I am not sold on either, they both have done things that make me go "WTF"???? but it is going to come down to these two, so I will watch the debates, read as much as I can and vote with what I agree with the most.

The problem is we are electing politicians.... and by nature they are the people we should never elect.

— Targa (View Profile)

Posted on 8/6/2008 9:45:41 AM | | Votes: 5   

fuelfool,

“And that's why obama will probably win this election. Facts, logic, rational thought are meaningless to the avg. Obama voter who relies solely on emotion and naive, utopian dreams to make decisions. Fortunately, most responsible people grow out of this childlike stage of their lives once they have a family and a career.”

- You’ve gathered all of that about me from one sentence. I looked at the candidates and the candidate that better fits my needs is Obama. When I grow out of my "childlike stage" I’ll be sure to vote for whichever candidate that you approve of. Get a clue. That’s why we have choices.

MBCLS07,

Just because I support Obama that makes me a stubborn little child? That statement doesn’t even warrant a reply. LOL!!!

You guys are amazing. McCain = Smart Voter, Obama = Naive, stubborn, Childlike voter. If you guys really think that way then you are a bunch of serious retards. LOL!!

— LexSucks (View Profile)

Posted on 8/6/2008 10:16:46 AM | | Votes: -4   

Wow! LexSucks says "Even after reading your posts I'm still voting for Obama."

So help me understand... without talking about what Obaba says he wants to do, please list what he has done. Someone running for President should have a grand list of accomplishments to prove that he is actually capable of fulfilling his agenda.

I interview people all the time and I try to get past the BS and drill into who they are and what they can do - not what they want to do or worse, think they can do.

Could someone, LEXSUCKS, or some other koolaid drinker please help make the Obama list of accomplishments?

— cantaffordone (View Profile)

Posted on 8/6/2008 2:15:30 PM | | Votes: 2   

I shouldn't have to explain why I'm voting for Obama or even list any the reasons. Who are you that I have to justify my voting decision? I don't have to do anything but vote. And that vote is going to Obama and there isn't a thing that you can say or do that will convince me otherwise.

— LexSucks (View Profile)

Posted on 8/7/2008 12:39:16 PM | | Votes: -2   

Oh yeah, Obama supporters are "koolaid" drinkers? That statement alone puts you into the irrational category.

— LexSucks (View Profile)

Posted on 8/7/2008 12:44:43 PM | | Votes: -1   

yep, lets increase the production of plug in cars which in turn increases our monthly energy costs since we use our household electricity and we are back to square !.

lets pick our poison. fast cars that eat gas and are fun to drive or slow plug in cars that increase our expenses at home by about the same amount as the price of gas.

where do you think this tax credit will come from? our pockets. Where will the 7 billion come from? our pockets!

it really doesn't matter because most presidential candidates never do what they said they will during the election because most people never remember and no one reminds them.

to decrease the price of gas someone has to deal with the oil companies. all that oil rich land in the middle east is leased by mobil, shell, bp, etc... so the oil leaves the field and goes to the companies where they process and resell based on the supply and demand of the given day. what if they took less profit? what if they undercut the market for some time being? the land is leased for the next 300 years or when the oil ends.

the problem is not the president or the oil country, but the company in the middle which is turning record profits, I wonder why?

send all those plug in cars to china where they use more oil than any other nation. as for America lets continue driving what we want because that is freedom and the pursuit of happiness.

— charlik05 (View Profile)

Posted on 8/5/2008 1:50:19 PM | | Votes: 2   

I'm not quite understanding how cutting the profits of refiners will help the situation. Exxon Mobile's Q2 earnings were $11.6 billion on $138 billion in revenue. Yeah, it's a lot monetarily, but that's only an 8.4% net margin...nothing to launch fireworks over. What do you want them to do? Sell less? The price will go up. Undercut the market? Good, then people start buying Hummers again and once they can't sustain the market cut, the price returns to normal, and will actual probably be inflated, and we are back to square 1...or square -1 as they case would be.

Leave the companies alone, it's very hard to artificially mess with economics. The change has to come from the consumers. We ultimately have the power to control oil prices, most people just don't realize that.

The ebb and flow of the economy and consumer habits got us into this mess and only time and consumer response will get us out. Hey, the fed left overnight rates at 2% today and the Dow is up almost 300 points, but guess what? The economy is still in the sh*tter! All this political banter, unrealistic goals, and government intervention are nothing more than false positives piled on top of false positives. It will get worse before it gets better. Just wait until people start defaulting on prime mortgages, jumbo mortgages, and consumer credit card debt...

— NARunner (View Profile)

Posted on 8/5/2008 3:23:59 PM | | Votes: 6   

Did you read it?
$4 billion in tax credits to American automakers to retool plants for the production of plug-in hybrid cars capable of 150 miles to the gallon.
?A $7,000 tax credit for consumers who buy early model plug-in vehicles. ?
Half of all cars purchased by the federal government will be plug-in hybrids or all-electric by 2012.

— 0to60 (View Profile)

Posted on 8/5/2008 1:40:58 PM | | Votes: 0   

Yes, but those are in his "plan" that is a lot of "hope" and not much more. Those won't ever come to reality. It's a case of promises and hopes that never come true once in office.

— IVANURI97 (View Profile)

Posted on 8/5/2008 1:48:57 PM | | Votes: 3   

nah this one can though the free mkt wants it. I live in NYC and there a lot of people with spare change here and I can see the drop in SUV's on the road especially new ones even in affluent neighborhoods instead of a Escalade people are just getting Mercedes and BMW cars the Lexus LS hybrid is also kind of popular too. Even is people can afford it they just dont want to pay $100 for gas just off principle.

— Bighead255 (View Profile)

Posted on 8/5/2008 1:56:23 PM | | Votes: -1   

bighead, you're talking about a niche market. You think a few rich businessmen in NYC (or NYC in general) are a microcosm of the entire motoring public? If you do, you are mighty jaded. Maybe if they actually looked at the window sticker they would see that their S550 gets about the same gas mileage as their Escalade.

When you start telling me that those bankers are hopping into hybrid civics, then I'll believe there is a change happening.

— NARunner (View Profile)

Posted on 8/5/2008 3:31:58 PM | | Votes: 3   

No EL34, it is wonderful that those of us who love cars can still drive German machines. High-speed autobahns are a wonderful thing as they save a lot of time getting from A to B and time is the most valuable asset one can have. There is no greater thief than one who steals your time.

— EnnNorak (View Profile)

Posted on 8/5/2008 9:43:42 PM | | Votes: 4   

Amen, amen, amen. When did we become a country of "we can't?" Why not try? Even if we fail, we'll be freer of foreign oil for the effort and whatever level of success we achieve. As for increasing our electric bills as a cost of saving at the gas pump...good! We need to be investing in modern nuclear and solar energy. Nuclear energy alone could handle all of our electricity needs within a short period of time if we'd just make the investment NOW.

For those of you regurgitating the line that Obama doesn't have a plan, you couldn't be more wrong, and if you would take a moment to look around, you'd easily find it. Whether you agree with it or not is another thing, but saying he doesn't have a plan is propagating a lie.

— finishline (View Profile)

Posted on 8/5/2008 2:40:11 PM | | Votes: 2   

I call it the swiss cheese plan...looks good, but has a lot of holes.

— NARunner (View Profile)

Posted on 8/5/2008 3:34:30 PM | | Votes: 5   

I can agree with both of you. Guess thats politics for you. I think our two current presidential options suck!

— 0to60 (View Profile)

Posted on 8/5/2008 3:55:24 PM | | Votes: 3   

Finishline

"obama does have a plan, if you would take a moment to look around" are you being sarcastic, because that sounds pretty funny. Obama stated that Mcain is in the pockets of big oil, meanwhile in 2005, Mcain voted against a bill to give tax breaks to large oil companies, while obama voted for it. A bit hypocrytical.

— CommonSense01 (View Profile)

Posted on 8/5/2008 4:38:32 PM | | Votes: 7   

Commonsense01, how does your comment have anything to do with Obama having a plan? I'm not blind or biased. BOTH candidates have benefited largely from contributions from oil companies. McCain has benefited MORE, but they both have benefited. But how does that in ANY WAY say anything about Obama having a plan?

— finishline (View Profile)

Posted on 8/5/2008 5:50:36 PM | | Votes: 1   

I'm with you finishline - all we have to do is to substitute the alternative energies you mention for about 10% of our energy demand that is currently satisfied by oil and you will see a 20 to 30% drop in the price of oil due to the supply and demand equation for oil. If you do some math, you will see that the consumer still gains even if these alternative energies cost more initially.

— EnnNorak (View Profile)

Posted on 8/5/2008 9:50:07 PM | | Votes: 1   

Obama's "plan" fails to address the mid-term. The transition to some as-yet-to-be-discovered new energy source isn't going to happen overnight. In the meantime, we need to drill domestically, increase the number of nuclear power facilities and further develop solar and wind technology—which is precisely what McCain's plan calls for. Obama's plan provides no solutions to address the energy crises until new alternative sources of energy are invented, which could be decades away. Unless of course, you count inflating tires as a solution. I don't, and neither should any rational thinking person. Obama's plan is a recipe for economic disaster. Sadly, I'm not convinced Obama truly cares if the U.S. remains the most prosperous nation in the world.

— fuelfool (View Profile)

Posted on 8/6/2008 2:20:52 AM | | Votes: 6   

Finishline and ennNorak

i was about to write a responce but the post above mine, by fuelfool, covered it perfectly. Im all for alternative energies and i love the plan Obama has about creating a whole new "green collar" economy but you cannot just snap your fingers and make it happen. There has to be a transition period for all development, testing and emplying this eco-freindly infrastructure. The fact that we havent build nuclear plants in more than decades is insane,its one of the cleanest and highest yielding energy sources available to us. How can you be against that?

— CommonSense01 (View Profile)

Posted on 8/6/2008 2:01:46 PM | | Votes: 3   

Gramm is a bright guy. Not a great speaker, but a bright guy. If you took your own advice, you would see McCain also enlisted the economic advice of some of the smartest economists and savviest business executives in the country.

BTW, how is he going to fund the $4b tax credit to automakers and $7,000 per early model electric car sold? What does early model mean? The first 100? Is this a baseball game where the first 100 get a free hat? Or is it something more meaningful, like the first 25% of owners. That would be another $1.4b in taxes lost by the government that they'd have to get back. How will they do that? It'll come out of your pocket buddy. So you can pay extra taxes and a premium on new technology and maybe recoup 25% through a $7,000 tax credit! Now THAT'S brilliant economics! Who's his advisor? Oprah?

This is all "fad" politics anyway. What will Obama do when the next American crisis pops up in the future for which he is ill-prepared and underexperienced? After he sh*ts his pants and cries for a little while, I mean...

— NARunner (View Profile)

Posted on 8/5/2008 3:58:01 PM | | Votes: 2   

OK so we have 2 choices spend money on war or new technology which one would you rather. Technology we have a cleaner more peaceful earth. Our energy policy heavily influences our foreign policy which forces us to get in bed with countries we dont really want to, and in case you havent notice we pay for that. check cost of both Iraq wars for a reference incase you forgot. This is the same foreign policy that is the main source of terrorism againist Americans both domestically and when we're abroad. So which one really works out cheaper. Even if we spend $300 billion on new technologies it would still work out cheaper than the Iraq war alone not to mention the never ending "war on terror"

— Bighead255 (View Profile)

Posted on 8/5/2008 5:41:52 PM | | Votes: -3   

there is one reason why I don't like McCain and that is because he is showing that he does not think that all people are equal by not letting homosexuals marry. We are all equal and we should all be able to make our own choices, that includes being able to marry whoever we want whether they be male, female black, white, asian or even green with pink spots for all I care.

So I would prefer Obama even if his goals seem a little farfetched. Chevy will be bringing out the Volt, Toyota and Lexus are both bringing out new prius models and Honda has the Civic Hybrid.

The German cars aren't that bad either because they are making small diesels that are getting more and more efficient

— ILikeLambo (View Profile)

Posted on 8/6/2008 4:18:47 AM | | Votes: -2   

ILikeLambo,

While I agree with you, your argument is completely irrelevant to this discussion.

Bighead,

The obvious answer is spend money on new technology, but we are already spending money on the war. Listen, I've struggled with the idea of the war and I still can't decide if it was a good idea or a bad idea. What I do know is that if we left well enough alone like all you Democrats love to do and, God forbid, something terrible (more terrible than what was already happening) happened to the Iraqi people or to the US as a result of Saddam's regime, you and all your Dem buddies would have been the first ones to jump up and say "we should have nipped this in the bud and stepped in and reformed that country a long time ago". I feel like most of the "good" decisions in this country are made in hindsight. For once, we didn't make a decision in hindsight and now everyone is up in arms over it. Look what happened when we ignored Al Qaeda for years...they finally flew planes into World Trade Center. All of a sudden eveyone said "why didn't we take care of this years ago?".

What I do know is that whoever becomes president and inherits these wars has to know what they are doing from a military standpoint. McCain, as a former navy pilot and POW, knows about war...strategy, execution, and exiting. Obama, whose military experience is limited to 3 or 4 games of Risk and a "saving face" trip to the Middle East, has no idea what he's doing so he says "I'll bring our troops home in 3 months" and everyone goes bananas over it because none of us idiots know what its like to plan and execute a war and neither does he.

And I have news for you, terrorism against the US stems from our wealth and freedom as a nation, not from Bush's foreign policy. Bush merely became a poster boy for terrorist groups to hate on.

— NARunner (View Profile)

Posted on 8/6/2008 9:42:27 AM | | Votes: 5   

I didnt say Bush's foreign policy I said US. Democrat and Republican, and in honesty neither Obama or McCain will change it because its bigger than both of them, but the need to secure resources for their country is what leads to policies. So they are created for the most part with the best of intentions but I feel as though the more we can rely on ourselves and not need to take from anyone both "friend" or foe the better.

— Bighead255 (View Profile)

Posted on 8/6/2008 11:18:09 AM | | Votes: 1   

The reason I posted that is because if people aren't complaining about not having equal rights we can all unite and face whatever problem comes up next. Obama has the African American vote, the gay and lesbian vote, plus everyone else who likes him.

It is very possible to get that many cars on the road but if people want to support it and do it, that's a completely different bucket of fish.

I'm sorry if I didn't make myself very clear in my first post.

— ILikeLambo (View Profile)

Posted on 8/7/2008 5:27:08 AM | | Votes: 1   

last I checked your boy Bush was the one who pushed it through. there is a lot of blame to go around with that debacle

— Bighead255 (View Profile)

Posted on 8/5/2008 2:02:43 PM | | Votes: -3   

And your boy Obama (assuming based on your choice of words) voted for it and backed it so who can grow lots & lots of Guvmint subsidized corn? Right, Illinois, his home state.

It's amazing how people only learn of and then speak of the part that they bother to find out about (or hear from their favorite biased "news" source).

I do not claim to know everything by saying that, but I'm telling you Obama people, winning an election based 90% on the campaign slogan "Bush sucked" is pretty weak.

Neither Obama nor McCain should be telling us what we should drive. Let the markets decide (like thay are already starting to do). Trust me, if someone builds a compelling hybrid/electric/flux capacitored car, people would build it and people would buy it.

We don't need no stinkin' government subsidies.
Just look at how poorly they're working with corn farming.

— 09CTSVforMe (View Profile)

Posted on 8/5/2008 4:16:16 PM | | Votes: 7   

ok that was wrong of him I dont believe in handouts for citzens or bailouts corporations even though I'm a Democrat.

— Bighead255 (View Profile)

Posted on 8/5/2008 6:01:16 PM | | Votes: 0   

They are both politicians, there for, they are both liars. The question is which is the lesser of the two evils? Even though McCain is very experienced, he is hard headed in a lot of issues that are out of pace with the average American. Obama is not as experienced and may not know how to handle situations as they arise. I am now 33 years old and ever since I was 18 both parties were going to do something or another about healthcare here in the US. Let's see... that was 15 years ago, and still it has not been fixed or created or whatever, but every politician claims they will do something about it.

Money to help an industry get more technology is fine to me, whoever it comes from. I say this because about 10 years ago, Toyota received and still does receive money from the Japanese government to help in R&D. In Germany, they also get government money to help in R&D.... hmmm makes one wonder why American companies seem behind. A lot I am sure has to do with the unions sucking them dry. Hard to spend on R&D when an outside group keeps making ridiculous demands and threaten to not work if their high demands are not met.

I think any idea that either one of the guys makes is mainly pie in the sky, pure campaign rhetoric!

— atomicbri (View Profile)

Posted on 8/6/2008 8:03:41 AM | | Votes: 2   

Yea we should for now but that's not a long term solution. We need other options as well. Solar is moving in the right direction as is maybe natural gas or hydrogen etc... Things that are plentiful everywhere and not costly

— 0to60 (View Profile)

Posted on 8/5/2008 4:06:08 PM | | Votes: 4   

Drilling isn't the end all be all, but demand through oil is skyrocketing. We should be increasing our supply.

— HSCenterconsole (View Profile)

Posted on 8/5/2008 4:17:45 PM | | Votes: 7   

What about the 68 million acres the Oil companies already have leases on state side? Why are they not 'drilling here and drilling now' there??? A bunch of lemmings I swear. Notice how every day you see more Oil company adds. They are spending tons to sway public opinion. And that money isn't going into your piddly 401k!!! It goes to the those that own the lions share of the company. They are speculation are raping the people. And you think they will sell new oil state side? It will sell on a global free market. It is in the oil industry's interest.

McCain = Latest tool of Oil Co.

— asiddiqi (View Profile)

Posted on 8/7/2008 6:03:40 PM | | Votes: 0   

Asiddiqi, the only "lemming" here is you. Your argument regarding the "68 million acres" already under lease to oil companies is nothing but a disingenuous democratic party talking point that has already been thoroughly debunked. The oil isn't there! It's offshore, in north Alaska and in the Bakken oil shale formation. The real question is, why does the Democratic party bemoan our dependence on foreign oil, but then obstruct all efforts to do anything about it? I'll be awaiting your answer. Hopefully you can do better than Obama's suggestion that we inflate our tires.

— fuelfool (View Profile)

Posted on 8/8/2008 11:29:20 PM | | Votes: 1   

Actually, the only problem with electricity in the US is that the Government has massively overregulated nuclear generation. We should be decades ahead in this area, but somehow it is France that produces so much electricity via nuclear generation that they actually export it!

I'll have to refresh my memory on hydrogen production, but isn't it rather inefficient to mass produce? What I mean is, how much energy is used to produce it vs. captured for consupmtion?

Like making ethanol out of corn instead of sugar (or just buying it from Brazil who already does just that)?

— 09CTSVforMe (View Profile)

Posted on 8/5/2008 4:21:08 PM | | Votes: 5   

Have you heard of Nuclear plants?
Have you heard of Hydroieletric dams?
Have you heard of Windmills?
Have you heard of coal powered plants?
Have you end of Natural gas plants?
They are all used to generate electricity in the US.

— AdmiralT20 (View Profile)

Posted on 8/5/2008 4:57:44 PM | | Votes: 4   

you have to take it slow on the conservatives they think slow they arent progressive. LOL

— Bighead255 (View Profile)

Posted on 8/5/2008 5:52:57 PM | | Votes: 1   

Bighead255, I agree and its rediculous. I cant believe Bush still has supporters. Its like republicans vote for a party and thats it. No matter how bad the person is, they will support it because its republican. Political parties are crazy and it forces people to choose a side. I would love to see someone just stand up for what is right and true, not caring about what a political party thinks overall about the situation and just be real! Back to this Obama thing, if this can help the US automakers get ahead a little and actually lead an initiative, create and or save some american jobs and maybe even make us a class leader in something in the automotive world again, I am all for it! I hope it happens. I have not researched McCain's plans regarding this so I cant comment on which is better.

— 0to60 (View Profile)

Posted on 8/6/2008 10:51:19 AM | | Votes: 4   

I don't think it boils down to "can't" but more of a question of "want". A politician awanting to be elected Prez sure wants it, but do a million Americans want it? Obviously not yet...maybe by then we will. Either way, I doubt it will be because of him.

We CAN run 100% on whichever technology you pick. We just don't necessarily WANT to.

— 09CTSVforMe (View Profile)

Posted on 8/5/2008 4:23:57 PM | | Votes: 6   

"1961 - man on moon in 9 years. Sure, no sweat."

- I do not believe that we sent a man to the moon. Humans are a progressive bunch, if we sent a man to the moon in the sixties, then today (over 40years later) we should be having daily flights to the moon. But instead we have not gone back. Hmmmmm.

If you can't make it fake it. Every time I see the old "footage" of the moonwalks it looks like one of those 1960's SCI-FI movies. Not believable at all.

Now watch everybody call me a fool.

— LexSucks (View Profile)

Posted on 8/5/2008 4:36:22 PM | | Votes: -10   

Oh yeah, And the Atomic Bomb was originally devised by the Germans.

— LexSucks (View Profile)

Posted on 8/5/2008 4:48:04 PM | | Votes: 1   

LexSucks, it was the Democrats that dropped 2 atomic bombs onto the Japanese.

President Harry Truman.

And then Truman started the Korean war.

And then President Johnson started the Vietnam war.

The WTC were first attacked when President Clinton was in office.

— EL34 (View Profile)

Posted on 8/5/2008 5:31:06 PM | | Votes: 4   

LexSucks, didn't see your crazy post about the USA not landing on the moon.

Dude, it's well documented and the Russians believe we landed on the moon.

Also why don't we go back? Because it would cost billions and we've already been there and done that.

Have you heard the F-117 Stealth Fighter is already retired? It's retired because the plane is that old and it's replacement will be a remote controlled stealth fighter with no pilot.

juinor, you heard it here first!

— EL34 (View Profile)

Posted on 8/5/2008 6:41:56 PM | | Votes: 0   

I completely agree with you. It turned out to be a very good discussion

— Porschefan2 (View Profile)

Posted on 8/5/2008 7:55:03 PM | | Votes: 3   

In my line of business which is real estate if I was to say that to anyone they could contact the California Department of Real Estate or the Housing of Urban Development and I could lose my license and go to jail for discrimination.

— EL34 (View Profile)

Posted on 8/5/2008 5:24:08 PM | | Votes: -2   

Why is it that liberals always resort to identity politics? Whether it's race, gender or age, liberal bigots constantly make these superficial qualities an issue. What happened to judging people based on their character,actions and accomplishments? I guess you don't want to go there, given the fact that Obama is a bigoted (called his white grandmother a "typical white person"), race-obsessed, condescending, arrogant "community organizer" who has accomplished absolutely nothing in his completey undistinguished career.

— fuelfool (View Profile)

Posted on 8/6/2008 1:49:44 AM | | Votes: 3   

the ignorance starts

— Bighead255 (View Profile)

Posted on 8/5/2008 5:48:47 PM | | Votes: -1   

Oh yeah, Obama is good friends with Bill Ayers.

Bill Ayres a member of the radical domestic terroist group called the Weather Underground bombed the Pentagon.

Look it up!

— EL34 (View Profile)

Posted on 8/5/2008 6:29:27 PM | | Votes: -1   

Comments like this do nothing to help the cause. There are countless reasons not to vote for Obama without resorting to these types of arguments. The fact that Obama is for higher taxes, more gov't spending, race-based policy, open borders, higher gas prices, and completely ridiculous ideas regarding energy are but a few of the many legitimate reasons not to vote for the arrogant, substance-lacking fraud.

— fuelfool (View Profile)

Posted on 8/6/2008 1:44:22 AM | | Votes: 9   

The same person who created OSAMA created OBAMA.
Zbig Zbrenski

— wbradd3797 (View Profile)

Posted on 8/6/2008 1:09:34 PM | | Votes: -1   

Amen I was dreaming of a Ron Paul/Dennis Kucinich ticket but God knows the corporate media was having none of that.

— Bighead255 (View Profile)

Posted on 8/5/2008 5:57:31 PM | | Votes: 2   

I agree 100%

— outdoorsman (View Profile)

Posted on 8/5/2008 6:26:34 PM | | Votes: 4   

Many of us are in the same boat. I've given it a lot of thought and have arrived at the following conclusion. Neither candidate is good for the country. It comes down to who will cause the least damage. It makes me cringe to say it, but the answer is McCain. As a republican (in name only, of course), he will help keep the democratic congress in check. He is also more likely to appoint a constitutionalist judge to the supreme court. Obama, on the other hand, will team with an equally liberal congress to wreak havoc on the country with his socialist, tax-increasing ideas.

— fuelfool (View Profile)

Posted on 8/6/2008 1:39:03 AM | | Votes: 7   

Don't be silly. You must have faith. Obama's comprehensive Jiffy Lube sponsored energy plan is two-fold. He'll harness the power of rainbows to supply most of our energy needs. The rest will be covered by the power of hope he has instilled in all of us.

— fuelfool (View Profile)

Posted on 8/6/2008 1:32:55 AM | | Votes: 2   

EL34

Are you done flooding the forum?

— ILikeLambo (View Profile)

Posted on 8/6/2008 4:47:00 AM | | Votes: 4   

The whole point of the plugins is that you use them during the day and plug them in at night when electricity demand is off peak. Most people don't drive at 3am.

— 800over (View Profile)

Posted on 8/6/2008 10:30:20 AM | | Votes: 2   

Wow. I hope you're ready to hand more of your paycheck to the gov't to support all that new spending you're calling for. Forgive me, but I think working the first 6 months out of the year for the gov't, instead of my family is more than enough already. I don't like Obama or McCain, but the truth is, McCain's energy plan calls for many of those things you mentioned—wind, solar, domestic drilling, nuclear and new energy development. Or you can vote for Obama and his Jiffy Lube sponsored energy plan.Admittedly, that's just to buy time until he single-handedly developes a way to harness the power of rainbows to power our cars.

— fuelfool (View Profile)

Posted on 8/6/2008 1:28:43 AM | | Votes: 6   

Sometimes when I see people spell Iraq "I-R-A-C", I get nervous too.

— NARunner (View Profile)

Posted on 8/6/2008 9:56:52 AM | | Votes: 2   

40 years ago we had Great Big Station Wagons with 440, 429 and 427 Big Blocks The SUV was the replacement

— bfghemicuda (View Profile)

Posted on 8/6/2008 11:37:13 AM | | Votes: 1   

Plus, Obama doesn't look like the other guys on our currency :)

— kut17 (View Profile)

Posted on 8/6/2008 12:35:27 AM | | Votes: 0   

"Plus, Obama doesn't look like the other guys on our currency :)"

Funny, because of your last abhorrent comment, the ethos of your argument went just as fast as the 89 octane many Supercharged Range Rover owners sadly have reduced themselves to filling their truck with.

You've managed to lessen your comment to the same level of knowledge a dog shows when barking at it's reflection. You should be proud, because that takes real All-American skill.

— Dreamweaver (View Profile)

Posted on 8/6/2008 2:40:36 AM | | Votes: 1   

Dreamweaver, you ignorant putz. That "abhorrent comment" is a quote from Barack Obama taken from a recent, race-baiting speech of his in which he disgustingly and hypocritically injected the issue of race into the campaign.

Suffice it to say, the "ethos of your argument" is non-existent. You should be proud, because that takes real anti-american skill. I'm sure Kut17 would like an apology for the missplaced insults. I'll be waiting for an apology from you for insulting the intelligence of everyone on this site.

— MBCLS07 (View Profile)

Posted on 8/6/2008 3:24:31 AM | | Votes: 2   

Why is DreamWeaver getting boosted for not being on top of his politics? Is it because he used big vocabulary words? Kut's quote was taken directly from Obama's mouth.

"People have a tough time voting for me because I don't look like all the other guys on the currency".

-1 for Barack.

-1 for DreamWeaver for being ignorant and bombastic (See, I can do it too. +1 for me?)

— NARunner (View Profile)

Posted on 8/6/2008 12:53:28 PM | | Votes: 4   

Alright, someone give Dreamweaver his rabies medicine. If you had watched the news at all, you would have seen Obama say "They're going to try and scare you by saying, well, he doesn't look like any other presidents on the dollar bills...." It's on every five minutes, just turn on a news station. What's really funny about that is that no one ever said that. Obama came up with that which is why some people believe he is playing the race card to get more votes. and sympathy. That just shows you the true character of Barack Obama.

— kut17 (View Profile)

Posted on 8/7/2008 12:28:15 AM | | Votes: 2   

If you did the math, that $15b a month ($180b per year) represents roughly 15% of the personal federal income tax collected last year ($1.15 trillion). That means less than 4% of your income is going toward fighting the war. The other 85% of your taxes (say you're rich, that's the other 21%+ of your income based on a 25% effective tax rate) is going to fund other projects and programs. I'm not defending the war, I'm just saying do the math...is that 3%+ of your income (less than half of FICA withholdings) really breaking your bank account? And 85% of taxes collected are NOT used to fund the war...I would say that's a pretty sizable percentage. Don't act like we're working solely to fund the war.

And, again, it's IRAQ with a "Q", not a "C". IRAC looks like a bad chevy model you drove back in the 80's.

— NARunner (View Profile)

Posted on 8/6/2008 1:19:47 PM | | Votes: -2   

I'm sorry, but your comment and your math does not make much sense.

— vladyxa (View Profile)

Posted on 8/6/2008 3:36:40 PM | | Votes: 1   

Yeah I guess I made it more complex than it needed to be. Bottom line, 15% of our federal income taxes go toward funding the war...which means the other 85% are not. Let's not act like we pay taxes solely because we're at war. If that were the case, more than half of our tax dollars would be tied up in the Middle East and that just isn't the case.

— NARunner (View Profile)

Posted on 8/6/2008 3:49:06 PM | | Votes: 1   

How is the Federal Reserve a scam again?

— NARunner (View Profile)

Posted on 8/6/2008 1:22:00 PM | | Votes: 2   

go to freedocumentaries.org trust me no matter what side of the aisle your on you'll learn something that pisses you off

— Bighead255 (View Profile)

Posted on 8/6/2008 2:28:28 PM | | Votes: 0   

http://www.youtube.com watch Zeitgeist - The Movie Federal Reserve

— Bighead255 (View Profile)

Posted on 8/6/2008 2:49:24 PM | | Votes: 0   

Fair enough, but I don't want to watch a conspiracy theory documentary, I just want to hear what wbradd has to say.

— NARunner (View Profile)

Posted on 8/6/2008 2:51:53 PM | | Votes: 0   

LOL sorry thought you wanted to know about the fed Ill mind my business but still the more you know about the IRS and the Fed the more pissed you get democrat or republican. i went to college as a business major actually went to the Fed and you know what it was all bullshit branch of government my ass

— Bighead255 (View Profile)

Posted on 8/6/2008 2:56:09 PM | | Votes: 0   

Maybe I'm missing the "fraud" here, but it makes perfect sense to me that our money supply is based on credit. How do you propose the fed issue money? Just give cash away to the banks? Then what happens when they need to reduce the money in circulation to fight inflation and rising prices? Ask for it back? The fed can't give away money just like banks can't give away money to us as consumers. If that happened, inflation would jump to 25% annually. Interest is what keeps prices in check. Higher interest rates discourage consumers from taking loans and spending, demand for goods declines, and prices decline.

I think you have to purchase and sell securities to control the money supply, why? One, because there is a time value of money. And two, the fed doesn't receive any government aid. The interest it earns on loans to member banks funds its operations and excess revenue is given to the US Treasury. It's not like Ben Bernankeand the member banks that own stock in the Fed are getting fat bonus checks at the end of the year.

And the whole history of the Fed and the conspiracy behind the run on banks in 1907 is BS. It's 2008 and there was a run on IndyMac bank just last month. The panic of 1907 wasn't caused by rumors started by JP Morgan. Did it ever occur to anyone that the panic of 1907 might have also been caused by the two stock market crashes, the failure of Knickerbocker Trust Bank and the failure of the National Bank of North America within 6 months? And why did those banks fail? Nope, not because of JP Morgan's rumors and the conspiracy to form a central bank! They failed because the bank owners used (stole) their customers' deposits as "loans" from the bank and perpetrated speculative schemes like hostile purchases of other companies. When the bank owners lost all of the deposits in failed takeover attempts, the banks didn't have enough money to reimburse depositors. Boom, insolvency. That's why the Fed maintains minimum reserve requirements now.

The only reason something like that wouldn't happen again is because we have the federal reserve and their discount window to maintain liquidity in the financial system. If you have a better solution to the problem please share it.

— NARunner (View Profile)

Posted on 8/6/2008 4:26:47 PM | | Votes: 0   

NARunner
The Federal Reserve is a private corporation ran by a cartel of families that goes back further than 1903. It is no more Federal than Federal Express.
Your right our money is based on DEBT. When banks need money they ask the fed to print and then the Fed tells the Treasury to print that money. The money they asked for is then added to the national debt it’s called “fractional debt based banking”.
As for removing money in circulation (DEFLATION) there is so much out there we would never known when and how much was removed as all monies are checked for counterfeiting and ware.

When you can print your own money of course you don’t need government aid. All excess are profits to the cartel involved, nothing is returned to the U.S. Treasury.
Also all of the mortgages that we take out that goes through the Fed and is added to the national debt. Check out the Grace Commission report from 1984 0% of federal Income tax goes to run the U.S. it goes to pay the interest on money printed and borrowed. Why would the GOV. pay interest to them selves if they where the one controlling it? They wouldn’t, that means somebody is taking a profit.

The families own a shit load of stuff the De Rothschild’s are worth around 20 Trillion dollars and growing. They along with the Rockefellers are the owners of the U.S.

I believe our currency should be backed buy precious metals. As the Constitution stipulates.

As for the stock market crash that happened because people where buying stocks on margin. So they where borrowing 100% of the money they invested in the stock market, so the banks colluded and had a margin call so every one had to sell there stocks and of course they are now worthless and they owe all this money to the banks. As the banks that colluded had no problems they turned around and bought up the country.

So if we no longer had the FED think of what you could do with that money. Start a business that would pay state taxes and hire people that would put a serious dent in poverty. The time has come the FED MUST GO.

— wbradd3797 (View Profile)

Posted on 8/6/2008 5:43:38 PM | | Votes: 1   

Come on, dude, seriously? You really buy into that bullsh*t? Where is the basis of fact behind all that? So there are a handful of men and families that have more money than most country's annual GDP and they are so powerful that they can assassinate a president and make billions of dollars in ANNUAL income without anyone knowing? And NO ONE has ever dared to report on it because they are afraid for their lives? No one has ever investigated the situation and notified the public that the Fed LIES to us and says that excess revenue is given to the Treasury when it's really given to the Rockefellers and the Rothschilds? And the Treasury doesn't mind? Are the Fed's independent auditors who report to the federal government on an annual basis in on the gag too?

Sounds to me like some moron twisted a few words, maybe made some sh*t up, and filled in some gaps that he didn't understand and somehow other morons just like him bought into it. Use your brain, guy.

Do you also believe that 9/11 was orchestrated by the US government? And we never landed on the moon?

Read the websites below, I pray they will bring you back down to earth. Like most conspiracy theories with no factual basis, this one has gained steam in the face of our current economic condition because of people like you and bighead who swallow this nonsense hook, line, and sinker. It's sad really.

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Embassy/1154/flaherty.html
http://www.amateureconomists.com/blogs/2008/07/23/conspiracy-theories-and-the-federal-reserve-say-what/

— NARunner (View Profile)

Posted on 8/6/2008 9:54:35 PM | | Votes: 0   

Exactly. You don't promote the coffee boy to CEO no matter how great he makes the coffee taste. Even if you disagree with some of McCain's policies, Obama is still our coffee boy. He makes everything sound good and look good, but at the end of the day he doesn't have the slightest clue on HOW to get it done. Maybe another 8 years would give him time to experience more, learn more, and do more, but his time is not now.

I see that Obama has a lot of goals, but I don't really see a detailed plan...a plan requires a HOW, more importantly, a feasible HOW. In politics, government, and business, there is always sacrifice. We can't have our cake and eat it, too. The fact that so many American people portray Barack Obama as the candidate who will allow us to have our cake and eat it too worries me a hell of a lot.

— NARunner (View Profile)

Posted on 8/6/2008 3:00:48 PM | | Votes: 1   

the people who want to have their cake and eat it too scare me also. i think thats the problem regardless of party too many of us are too afraid to suffer for a bit. but suffering for a cause great goal makes you stronger. Sunshine everyday without rain leads to a desert I think that people on the left are saying we are willing to suffer right now to get a better world if that means we cant enjoy our 0-60 in 4.1 secs cars or hanging out with our friends in a Escalade so be it. if that means we have to drive around in a ugly a$$ Prius until some1 comes up with a hybrid that goes as fast as a GT2 so be it.

— Bighead255 (View Profile)

Posted on 8/6/2008 3:37:47 PM | | Votes: 2