Treaty with Iraq...?Follow

So when you say "focus on economic growth," are you specifically asking for a percentage of growth in the GDP or something else? Even with this slowdown economists are predicting 2-3% annual growth. Constrast that with China which grew somewhere in the 11.3% range and they are in a very real danger of runaway inflation and pollution/enviromental concerns are threatening future growth.

I'd say our economic growth was healthy prior to the housing bust, but even that, I suspect, is only going to be temporary.

As for education, short of breaking the teacher's union, I don't know how fixing the school system is possible. There is too much institutional resistance to change.

Totem

Sorry Sing, been busy with yearly license "stuff" (gah!). Your points:

remove our dependency of foreign oil (ie stop doing business with OPEC)

either get in or get out of Iraq. by this i mean we either need to totally commit to kicking the terrorists butts out of Iraq, or we need to cut back on troops to save young kids lives

focus on economic growth

get rid of that blasted worthless no child left behind and implement a much better education policy

patent system needs a complete revamp


Ok. So this is what you believe America needs to do.


When asked about Obama, you said this:




Here's the problem. The two don't match.

His stance "against corp" isn't going to result in a "focus on economic growth". The US economy grows when our businesses do well. While there are some arguments to be made to support Obama's (and really most Democrats) economic agenda, "economic growth" isn't one of them. That's like saying you'll improve your family's economic future by buying more stuff for them. You may very well improve your family's comfort level, but that's not the same as improving economic growth.

This is the deal with the Liberal position on economy. It's absolutely not about growth. It's about spending what we have to make the lives of the citizens better. That's always going to reduce economic growth since that's the cost for the benefit's you provide. Anyone who says they want to "tax the top X% to provide <somehing>", is not for economic growth.


Not sure what's wrong with the patent system that you think it needs to be revamped. People who come up with something "new" ought to be able to profit for it. Otherwise people stop coming up with new things, and our technological growth stagnates.


Being against big oil companies isn't going to end our reliance on foreign oil either. I know we've had some debates about this in the past, but can we agree that the whole "alternative fuels" thing isn't a short term solution? In the meantime, we have to power our industry (and the economy that's going to have to fund the research on those alternative fuels) with oil. Punishing the provider isn't helping matters at all. And blocking efforts by those companies to find and utilize oil reserves that aren't on foreign soil clearly is counter productive.

If you really want to "end dependence on foreign oil" that is. Because what you seem to be arguing for is doing so by ending our dependence on oil itself, as though there's no middle ground that can be reached. If you want to re-phrase that as "end dependence on oil entirely by replacing it with alternatives", then you might have a point. But then, we're again left with the short term problems, and the fact that the companies investing the most in those alternatives are the very "big oil" companies that you say Obama is "against".


Oh. So would your patent revamps include patents for new fuel alternatives and technologies? Cause I'm curious how you think that would hasten the day when we'd no longer need to burn oil for power...


Nothing you stated about Obama has any relevance to the other things you listed. However, his positions on those aren't particularly useful. While he pays the usual lip service in opposition to NCLB, he doesn't really have an alternative other then "give more money/power to the teachers unions". As though they have the right solution or something. They don't. While teachers unions do have some uses at the university level in terms of protecting unpopular speech/ideas, at the grade, middle, and high school levels, they almost universally exist purely to protect the jobs of underqualified teachers. They tend to push quantity over quality (since quantity is where they get their money and power from), which results in a reduction of education quality over time.

NCLB has its flaws, but at least it was an attempt to hold the teachers and administrations of failing schools accountable in some way. Even some of the worst complaints about it (teaching to the test for example) at least resulted in students who could pass a test. The previous system didn't even do that...


Obama's position on Iraq doesn't match your's either. He's simply stated that he'd get them out of Iraq. Period. No matter what. Of course, he also said that he'd invade Pakistan if he thought that Al-Qaeda was there, so I think we all have some idea of just how "newbie" he is to the concepts of foreign policy. He's simply parroting what he thinks will be popular. It's pretty much a crap shoot at this point as to what his actions actually would be if he were to become president.

He's the Jimmy Carter choice. And we all know how well that worked out...

I'm just voting for Obama cause he's got a good smirk going. I dig that.

Nexa

great reply. ill try to find time later tonight to respond. heading out to run errands and not sure when i will be back to post.

Being against big oil companies isn't going to end our reliance on foreign oil either. I know we've had some debates about this in the past, but can we agree that the whole "alternative fuels" thing isn't a short term solution? In the meantime, we have to power our industry (and the economy that's going to have to fund the research on those alternative fuels) with oil. Punishing the provider isn't helping matters at all. And blocking efforts by those companies to find and utilize oil reserves that aren't on foreign soil clearly is counter productive.

If you really want to "end dependence on foreign oil" that is. Because what you seem to be arguing for is doing so by ending our dependence on oil itself, as though there's no middle ground that can be reached. If you want to re-phrase that as "end dependence on oil entirely by replacing it with alternatives", then you might have a point. But then, we're again left with the short term problems, and the fact that the companies investing the most in those alternatives are the very "big oil" companies that you say Obama is "against".

no you do not have to completely replace oil as a power source, but there are alternatives that can reduce if not eliminate our dependency on foreign oil and cut our dealings with OPEC.

just take Brazil as a perfect example. they did not replace fossil fuels entirely with bio fuels, but they have cut their import of fossil fuels to next to nill by passing a few laws that make bio-fuels a viable option for the consumer.

by supporting the production and development of alternative fuels, something that we both agree will NOT happen in the next 5 or even 10 years, instead of cutting funding for that type of research is a step in the right direction.

*side note* FYI the law in Brazil that made bio-fuels is that every fuel station must provide every type of fuel. this made it easy for the consumer to be able to make the choice and to have simple and easy access to the supply of fuel they choose for their transportation.

as for patent reform. yes i agree the innovators should have a right to make money off of their creation, but as like the founders of this great nation it should not be a life or beyond right and should after a short time (5 - 25 years depending on the type of invention) become public domain.

as it stands today there are several types of patents that last 70 years and can be extended beyond that. that is 100% against the founding fathers ideas and is nothing but corp. greed at its best.

also he never said he would declare war or would invade iran as pointed out above. i do agree however that his experience in foreign policy has a lot to be desired, but what he has said is still far better then clinton.

But the problem is that this isn't what's actually proposed when folks on the Left talk about "advancing alternative energy sources". It's a huge sham. While I'm sure they'd like to do that, what they actually do is raise taxes on the current energy infrastructure. Presumably, the idea is that if they make the burning of fossil fuels expensive enough, it'll make the alternatives more viable.

The problem is that the costs ultimately just get passed on to the consumer. Also, the very industries they're trying to "punish" for using the evil oil and coal and whatnot are the same ones that put by far the most research funding into the very alternatives that they politicians and activists claim they wanted in the first place.

Similar deal in play with the whole "end dependence on foreign oil". Great tagline, but as I pointed out, what they're really doing is making it virtually impossible to do just that until said alternatives appear, which they're also making harder to do because they're punishing the people who are working on the technology.

Obama does have some slightly variant positions on this, but not significantly so. He's basically just parroting some great sounding rhetoric that anyone who's been paying attention for the last 20 years or so knows isn't really about generating solutions, but cashing in on the environmental activists' hatred for the energy industries.



Yes. While cutting down (slash and burn even!) about 20% of the entire worlds rainforests. They've reduced a purely political problem by creating an environmental one. At what point did ending reliance on foreign oil become less important then the environmental impact of the power generation methodology in use?

Sorry. I happen to think Brazil is a horrible example. While pursuing bio-fuels is a great idea, their method was not the right way to do it and produced far more negative effect globally then it fixed. The US can do something similar by converting existing farmland into bio-fuel production. And that's certainly a viable thing to do.

Again. I'll point out that it's the "big oil" companies that are doing this. So when you are "against big oil", everything you do against them is also hurting the research and development of bio-fuels. Ultimately, the biggest problem with activism in this area (most area's I'd argue) is that they tend to be more strongly motivated by dislike of an industry or group rather then desire for a viable solution. Presesnt environmentalists with a solution that punishes companies they don't like but ultimately hurts the environment and almost all of them will go for that and not even realize that they're not really following what is supposed to be their own "cause".



Yes. But ultimately, cutting the funds available for said research is *exactly* what folks like Obama's agenda will result in. Note I said "funds", not "funding" for a reason. See. They like "funding", because that means that the government is doing it and not private industry. So they'll tax the very money that would have been used to fund private research into those alternatives (arguably far more effectively btw) and then spend *some* of that money on public research into the same alternatives (some of them anyway). Oh. And they'll spend some on bike paths, parks, and whatever else they think is kinda environmentally "friendly", but that has nothing at all to do with generating the very solution that they told everyone was the thing they were trying to do.



Um... That's how patents work now. Depending on the specific industry, most patents last 20 years or less. In many fields, that's barely enough time to do the R&D on the patent required to bring a viable product to market and make their money back.

Many Liberals want to shorten patent lifetimes even more, despite the well documented fact that patent life (within a reasonable range) is directly proportional to R&D expenditures, and therefore ultimately to the rate at which new technologies enter the market. Right now we're at the very short end of what is viable in terms of patent law. But many want to shorten it further. Why you ask? For a couple reasons. Firstly, it gets them votes. Remember, it's the whole "we hate industry" argument. Many people will support anyone with an agenda that they see as punishing big business for being successful. Secondly, it makes public solutions more viable. This is seen a lot in the pharmaceutical industry, where the Left has a vested interest in getting generic brand medicines on the market as fast as possible so that they can provide those to the public and reduce the costs of socialized medicine. This in turn makes said medical care proposals more palatable to the public and makes it easier for them to push said agenda.


And if it means that future advances in the field occur more slowly? They don't care about that. Remember. Liberal political agendas are almost always based around the principle of providing benefits today at the cost of tomorrow. So if it means that our grandchildren wont benefit from the new breakthroughs that would have occurred if they'd let the industries do what they do best, that's an acceptable price. Cause your yet un-born grandchildren can't vote in this years election, right?



You're mixing up "patents" with "copyright". A copyright lasts for the authors life +70 years (and can last for less time depending on other conditions). Patents last for 20 years for a product. Drug patents gain an additional +5 years for each renewal (a new version of the drug). Design patents last for 14 years.

Isn't that short enough?



I don't think he would either. The point wasn't exactly what he said, but that he said it the way he said it at all. Yes. We're all aware that he was referring to operating some sort of special ops strike (as Joph pointed out). But he should have either avoided committing to *any* specific action (ie: "we wouldn't leave any option off the table, but would consider carefully before acting"), or you give specific examples that you know can't be interpreted into something bigger or broader (ie: "We might consider some sort of special operations action if it appeared to be the only option"). He blundered his answer by presenting a pretty broad "we will act" answer to the question. Um... He's locked himself in (will, instead of may/might), and left the action broad (act).


Foreign policy isn't just about knowing what to do in a given situation. It's also knowing what to say and not say. That was a relatively simple question and he flubbed it. Badly.

The fact is that Obama has *zero* executive experience at any level of government. He also has very little experience at all at the federal level (less then a full term in the Senate). That's kind of a problem...

Because nothing makes environmental activists happier than nuclear power and liquified coal

Lol. Um... Sure.

Odd, then that in his Energy policy page he doesn't mention nuclear energy once...

If you go hunting around the web though, you'll find lots of people criticizing him because he once hinted that he might not oppose nuclear power, a position that he's apparently tried hard to distance himself from. Point being that while he may himself think nuclear power is a viable alternative energy source, he knows that his constituents don't like it and that he can't possibly win over Liberal voters if nuclear energy is on his agenda.

So yeah. It's not popular, so he's not pursuing it. Amazing how that happens, huh?


And the coal thing? Yeah. What a shocker! He's kinda stuck on this one because he was a big supporter of energy plans that brought funds into the Illinois coal industry (ie: bringing the bacon to his home state). He's on record in the Senate supporting it, so he's put the best face on it he can. You'll note that it's downplayed in his energy platform though, spending paragraph after paragraph talking about biofuels and cap and trade systems (and how he'll use the revenue from said systems to do such relevant energy things as provide jobs to needy inner city folks). Yet only two paragraphs even mention coal...


Those two things are hardly center points of his energy platform Joph, and it was misleading for you to even imply that they were.

hmmm not sure what the term is, but digital rights... i am anti DRM and the like. patents on software for excess time is NOT in the public best interest.

i am for FAIR patents, i am against the abuse that is "portraide" by the media. most of that "info" is presented by the media. yeah yeah i know bad stuff from the media especially us media as it is all about the hype and ratings not the facts or the newsworthy data.

Or do they oppose them because they don't want those companies to be the ones making money off the new technology?

no it is not that, it is just that i do not trust them to bring that new technology to the market. from what little i have seen for a large part they (the oil companies) tend to buy up alternative fuel technologies and then they seem to go away never to hit the market for you and me. i do not trust them to do any kind of honest R&D when it comes to anything that will cut into their profit of oil.

Are they trying to make a profit? Of course! That's not a crime. Jacking up prices? Not really. The oil industry on average has a pretty middle of the road net profit ratio. That's the ratio between their costs and their profits. In other words, they aren't really ripping you off.

Um... But if you want to reduce the cost at the pump (for example), then perhaps reducing the restrictions on building new refineries might just help? The major reason gasoline costs as much as it does in the US is due to the fact that our refinery capacity hasn't really grown for the last 30 years. Oil prices can be anything, but that's always going to hurt the end consumer.

hold up. look at the "disaters" in the oil company and then compare that with gas prices within hours. their is an oil spill gas prices jump 5 - 30% for what? nothing. so they lost a few thousand or even a few tens of thousands of gal. or crude. that is NOT enough oil loss to jack up the cost of fuel by that amount. been going on at least since the Valdeeze(sp?) in the 90s. ever since, and perhaps ever further back, anytime there is an "emergency" in the oil community it = immidiate gas price hikes at the pump.

im sorry but the gas that is in the ground was there yesterday and did not cost any more today then it did yesterday. the gas station (a lot of them corp. owned by the big oil companies) already had their shipment yet the price at the pump will jump $0.10 - $0.50 when their is a spill, or a lost shipment, etc...

that is flat out greed end of story.

FYI the cost to refine 1 gal. of crude into gas = roughly $0.50 per gal. today with the increase of crude that is now closer to $1.00 per gal. taxes do not equal $2.00 - $3.00 per gal. the profit margin of gas has increased more then it should since 2000 or even earlier 1998 or so when i first started to mention the excessive speed at which gas was going up.

oh and how do i know the cost of producing oil, simple my uncle worked for Shell until he retired a few years ago as one of their engineers at a refinery in TX.



the cost of meds for my child vs the cost of meds for children of the 80s has more then increased compared with cost of living increases. just like medical care as you point out.

both are a problem. one is a problem of corp. greed and patents, the other is again corp. greed and stupid legal ******** from the idiots who allowed their cases to go to court for things that should not of gone to court for the most part.

do not get me wrong. negligence is bad and those negligent should pay the price, but most medical professionals who are sued for negligence are found to be NOT negligent and only doing their job to the best of their ability and to that of the system limitations. thus waisting a lot of money and jacking up the price of insurance to the point it is no longer affordable to have insurance for a family, let alone for a single person unless the company you work for pays the majority of it for you.

You are a very, very slow study.You're great at Googling when it'll 'prove' your point. You're extremely poor at reading the obvious when it doesn't mesh with what you already decided.

My info was to go to the Issues page and click on the PDFs for expanded policies.

Obama believes that there is a place for nuclear power in the US. He also (rightfully) states that before we can proceed, we need to address waste management, security and public transparancy. He says that nuclear is obviously not the sole solution but it can (and should) be part of our nation's overall shift in energy policy.

I won't bother trying to refute Gbaji's accusations that Obama's interest in coal technology is strictly due to the Illinois coal industry. Gbaji is, as usual, using his own conjecture in place of fact and I won't waste the time arguing against an opinion born purely from his own bias.

Illinois has been host to some important research into alternative energy and Obama has worked hard to get funding to these projects. Argonne National Laboratory is researching safe nuclear waste disposal. Mattoon, Illinois was selected for the FutureGen coal project. Unfortunately, both of these projects are seeing themselves gutted -- Argonne due to budget cuts and FutureGen due to a petulant Dept of Energy which wanted to host in Texas rather than the more suitable site chosen by the FutureGen Energy Alliance. I believe that Obama will make a priority of resotring these projects and others like them.

Gbaji can dismiss these projects as "pork" (you can call any state project pork if you want) but they have much greater potential payoff than most things regarded as such.

For the record, I'm pretty much down with McCain on alternative energy as well. He recognizes the value of nuclear power and also realizes that drilling ANWR would make an insignificant impact in our foreign oil dependence.