PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues New Contract for American 2008 version


bkkcoh
04-30-2008, 08:27 AM
Link (http://www.chronwatch-america.com/articles/2839/1/A-New-quotContract-With-Americaquot/Page1.html)

Balanced Budget Amendment

The original balanced budget amendment was a great idea and one that should be held over from the original Contract. We desperately need to commit to a balanced budget and learn to live within our means as a nation instead of borrowing against the future of our children.

Health Care

We need to understand that health care is a business and that the more regulation we impose on it, the more expensive it becomes. Deregulate the health care business, and prices will come down. The market will make the adjustments as it always does. We need to have a health care climate that keeps states from prohibiting coverage. A great example is obstetric care. If one is a 50-year-old woman and don’t intend on having any more children (or she is anatomically prevented from it happening), then she ought to be able to buy a policy that does not cover any type of obstetric care, just gynecological care. That way she is not subsidizing all of the young mothers in our society. Conversely, if one is 25 and keeps healthy, he should be able to buy a policy that only covers catastrophic care. That way he only pays for the coverage he wants or needs. This type of targeted coverage allows one to have more choices as one's life and needs change. Limit the frivolous lawsuits brought upon the judicial system by people seeking a quick buck, and it will cut down the costs of doing business and thus the premiums as well.

Energy Security

This may be the most important part of the new Contract. We have all felt how energy issues can affect our lives, and we need to have a proactive plan to deal with these issues. Any 21st century energy policy should automatically include three components: 1) Drilling and finding all sources of oil, gas, and related products within our own borders first. We should seek first to be independent. This means drilling in ANWR, off the Outer Continental Shelf, in the Dakotas, off the Gulf Coast of Florida, and in the Arctic Circle; 2) We should be committed nationally to finding and developing alternative fuel sources that a) aren’t counterproductive like ethanol, and b) Don’t cause problems in other sectors of society like food shortages. No, I’m not talking about ridiculous wind farms. I’m talking about true alternative ways of creating gas and oil; 3) We should formulate a long-term strategy to convert old electrical power plant to nuclear and to build new nuclear capabilities. Nuclear power is clean and efficient, and we know how to manage nuclear waste much better now than we did 30 years ago. If it’s good for North Korea, China, Germany, and France, it’s definitely good for us. Developing plans for this three-pronged strategy will help us be independent of oil produced by terrorist states and better ensure our security for generations to come.

Immigration

Much about immigration has been discussed in recent months due to the strain that illegal immigrations put on our society. Is it fair that some people have to wait in line and go through the legal immigration process? Yes, it is fair. We cannot anymore have undocumented illegal immigration because it poses a severe security risk in addition to saddling the American people with things like free health care, food stamps, and other benefits that were and are targeted at legal citizens who are paying for them. Illegal immigration to the United States is not a right. It is a privilege, and there should be certain requirements prior to anyone coming across our borders including learning English first, being able to be economically self-sufficient, etc. Any real enforcement of our border laws should first include a real, identifiable border that is locked down. This means building a wall. This is the first wave of defense against terrorism at home, and it must be built.

Political Accountability

There has been a wave of political corruption on both sides of the aisle that has left much of the American public with a sour taste in its mouths. Americans are increasingly cynical about the ability of someone to go to Congress and do the people’s work. Instead, politicians become beholden to the big money special interests that put them there to begin with. It happens at all levels of government, but the incumbent in Washington can rake in the money and benefits by being there just a few short years. One proposal to end the corruption is term limits, which I’m all in favor of. Make the terms of all representatives and senators 4 years instead of 2 or 6. Have a limit of 2 terms without the possibility of returning in the future. It’s good for the president, and it would be good for Congress as well. Since representatives and senators are sent by the states, each state should have an independent, non-partisan commission that watches over the workings and activities of the legislative branch in Washington to make sure that people are not getting “in bed” with the big money spenders in Washington an elsewhere. Change congressional pay so that representatives don’t have these ridiculous staffs with fancy offices and such. Give each congressman $1 million annually to pay for all offices, staff, stamps, travel etc. Disallow any travel paid for by boosters and supporters. Prevent the president from selling out rooms in the White House to people like Charlie Tree for $250k per weekend like Clinton did. Let the representatives manage this money, but don’t give them any more. No bonuses for being Speaker of the House or Majority Leader, etc. Make it a privilege to serve rather than a perk to be enjoyed. Make House and Senate leaders ride coach like everyone else does when they get on a plane. No military rides or special flights.

Economic Prosperity

The future of our country depends on our economy. The global economy, in which are THE major player, must work efficiently. We have to stop devaluing our own dollar to make China’s goods cheap. We have to realize that we cannot finance our own prosperity by cheapening imported goods. We also cannot manage tariffs the way we have done in the past. This means that we need to eliminate tariffs and stop protecting U.S. companies. Let them survive on their own and sink or swim on their own merits. On the flip side, we need to demand that other countries with whom we trade should necessarily open their ports and allow our goods to flow freely without tariffs as well. I believe it’s a concept called free and fair trade. If countries won’t do it our way, then we won’t do it with them at all. We have enough economic clout to make this happen. Remember, we are the world’s lone superpower, and that’s worth something out there.

Taxation

In order to compete in the 21st century global economy, the United States needs radically to change its tax structure from one based on income to one based on consumption. The FairTax is the way to go. All the benefits of the FairTax are delineated on the website at http://www.fairtax.org. The basic benefits of the FairTax would allow us to attract investment back into the United States and to remove the tax code from being manipulated by Congress to help any one particular group. Flat sales taxes, in lieu of income taxes, have been proven to work in other countries and they would be extremely beneficial to our economy and to the economies of the world as well. Enact the Fairtax; it is freedom-based and fair to all.

The Environment

Environmental issues have taken front seat in many elections over the last decade, and the environment will continue to be a large issue that is interrelated to many other issues, especially economic ones. Conservation and technology are the keys to the environment in the coming decades. We have plenty of oil and related products available to us without paying terrorist countries for them. Environmental whacko types don’t want to consider using safe drilling methods. They would rather us go back to the gathering and Stone Age methods of survival. Horse and buggy transportation sounds good to them. It’s a sort of Unabomber meets the coffee house community type thing. Environmental radicalism is the new home of the old Communist Party, and it is alive and well, continuing to tell lies about the environment so as to scare Americans into changing their lives. What we need in the New Contract is to denounce global warming as a myth (which it is, according to proven science). There is no such thing as man-made climate change. We can’t make or stop hurricanes and tornadoes, and we cannot alter weather patterns with our behavior. What we can and should do is be good stewards of God’s creation. That is significantly different from imposing undue regulation on ourselves in order to assuage our environmental guilt. We need to strive for clean emissions but not to the point where we wreck our economy. We need to find more efficient ways to manage oil and gas operations without castigating and hindering oil companies as “evil.” Becoming energy independent would go a long way in this regard. Being a good steward means proper management, not draconian cuts in usage or radical, almost unhinged decision making with regard to things like ethanol. The environment is resilient, and we are not even close to understanding it all. To think that all truths about the ecosystem are within our grasp is to have adopted a level of pride and arrogance that is beyond help. We need to step back and move slowly on environmental issues. All of the doomsday predictions of Ted Danson and his ilk haven’t come true because they were not based on truth. It was all a big scare. Algore’s global warming garbage has been repudiated by many scientists as bogus, including the founder of the Weather Channel. I’d trust him over a group of politicians from the United Nations any day of the week and twice on Sundays. We need common sense approaches to the environment, realizing that less really is more so much of the time.



Granted I don't agree with all of the tidbits in all of the groups and the devil would be in the details. But all of those ideas are very sound in nature.

Aren't they?

oldandslow
04-30-2008, 09:16 AM
An environmentalist's response...

1. Balanced budget -you bet. Cut govt spending in every sector, including corporate welfare. No taxpayer money for stadiums, walmarts, etc.

2. Health care - I have no idea what this guy is talking about - except with tort reform. Deregulate what??? I can buy insurance now the way he is describing it. In fact I choose to be on a policy with a very large deductable because insurance, imo, is for catastrophic events, not for fixing a hang nail or common cold.

3. Energy security - to be blunt, this guy doesn't have a clue as to what he is talking about. The US peaked in oil discover in the 1940's and peaked in production in 1975. Anwr, ND, etc, even if we had the tech to get to all of it and it had a sufficient return on investment wouldn't supply the nation's needs very long. Imo, we will one day drill there. That will be unfortunate, but so be it. The question is however, where the hell are ya gonna drill when that runs out?

Ethanol should go away. He is right about that.

Wind energy and solar energy is where the future is however. Period. You can put a wind/solar setup on your home for around 25,000 and never pay an electric bill again. Hell that's less than you pay for an SUV. Mine is going up this summer, btw.

4. Taxes - It's always best to tax the poor at the same rate you tax the rich. Hell, it's their own fault their poor and if we can make 'em even poorer, so much the better.

5. His environmental rants are ignorant. Period. You want to live in a pollution filled world? Why?

banyon
04-30-2008, 09:19 AM
Who's supposed to guarantee this contract? Republicans? Why would you trust the same people that just broke the prior contract to make good on this one?

Oh, and 80% of it is terrible. I agree with all of oldandslow's points.

mlyonsd
04-30-2008, 09:24 AM
Wind energy and solar energy is where the future is however. Period. You can put a wind/solar setup on your home for around 25,000 and never pay an electric bill again. Hell that's less than you pay for an SUV. Mine is going up this summer, btw.



Now it'll be easy to figure out which house to TP. :)

bkkcoh
04-30-2008, 10:48 AM
...Wind energy and solar energy is where the future is however. Period. You can put a wind/solar setup on your home for around 25,000 and never pay an electric bill again. Hell that's less than you pay for an SUV. Mine is going up this summer, btw.

..

How must sustained wind and/or hours of sun does it take in order to supply electricity for the average 2000 - 2500 square foot house?

How feasible is it to put windmills into neighborhoods? How far can the windmills be from the sub-divisions in which they would supply power.

Who's supposed to guarantee this contract? Republicans? Why would you trust the same people that just broke the prior contract to make good on this one?

Oh, and 80% of it is terrible. I agree with all of oldandslow's points.

Why would you say 80% of it is terrible?

I am not saying anyone is going to guarantee the contract, something similar could be said for the democrats also. So throw politics out the window. This is the problem. When someone on either side of the political fence proposes something, it doesn't help to just oppose the idea(s) because the idea was from the other side. Does it? There are decent ideas coming from both parties, but the execution of the idea is what needs to be hashed out and a compromised on.

I realize that I an not living in an ideal world either, but the partisan tactics by both partied isn't helping anyone and is total BS.

Have we gone too far to be able to go back? I am not sure, but I am hoping that we haven't.

banyon
04-30-2008, 10:49 AM
How must sustained wind and/or hours of sun does it take in order to supply electricity for the average 2000 - 2500 square foot house?

How feasible is it to put windmills into neighborhoods? How far can the windmills be from the sub-divisions in which they would supply power.

Based on the fact that our local high school is considering getting one, I think the feasibility & efficiency is increasing.

But then again, we have more wind than most places.

Radar Chief
04-30-2008, 10:51 AM
Based on the fact that our local high school is considering getting one, I think the feasibility & efficiency is increasing.

But then again, we have more wind than most places.

Only since you showed up. ;)

banyon
04-30-2008, 10:52 AM
Only since you showed up. ;)

ARGGGH!! PERSONAL ATTACK, PERSONAL ATTACK, I WILL ASSASSINATE YOU!!! :D

Baby Lee
04-30-2008, 11:22 AM
The sky is the limit in the field of increasing energy efficiency, though the sky is the limit on the cost as well. Our best fission only extracts a miniscule percent of energy extant in matter [think about it, matter has energy stored in it to the tune of it's mass times the speed of light [a pretty big number] squared, the sun passes more energy right by us every day than we've consumed in human history.

Calcountry
04-30-2008, 11:38 AM
An environmentalist's response...

1. Balanced budget -you bet. Cut govt spending in every sector, including corporate welfare. No taxpayer money for stadiums, walmarts, etc.

2. Health care - I have no idea what this guy is talking about - except with tort reform. Deregulate what??? I can buy insurance now the way he is describing it. In fact I choose to be on a policy with a very large deductable because insurance, imo, is for catastrophic events, not for fixing a hang nail or common cold.

3. Energy security - to be blunt, this guy doesn't have a clue as to what he is talking about. The US peaked in oil discover in the 1940's and peaked in production in 1975. Anwr, ND, etc, even if we had the tech to get to all of it and it had a sufficient return on investment wouldn't supply the nation's needs very long. Imo, we will one day drill there. That will be unfortunate, but so be it. The question is however, where the hell are ya gonna drill when that runs out?

Ethanol should go away. He is right about that.

Wind energy and solar energy is where the future is however. Period. You can put a wind/solar setup on your home for around 25,000 and never pay an electric bill again. Hell that's less than you pay for an SUV. Mine is going up this summer, btw.

4. Taxes - It's always best to tax the poor at the same rate you tax the rich. Hell, it's their own fault their poor and if we can make 'em even poorer, so much the better.

5. His environmental rants are ignorant. Period. You want to live in a pollution filled world? Why?
Dude, they use to say we were going to run out of oil back in the 70's. Well, it is a good 30 years later, and there are more cars in the world than ever, and YET the oil still flows.

Perhaps we had more oil than they were letting on back in the 70's?

There is so dang much oil that I doubt the world will exhaust it by the time I die. In the mean time, it is very expensive so I am doing everything I can to use as little of it as possible. Gee, if only we would have drilled for the shit when Bush first became president, then that schmuck Shoomer couldn't stand up there and say, "even if we drilled for it, it will be at least 10 years before we could see any of it on the market". What a bunch of shit. The stuff should be flowing freely right now.

In the mean time, I am all for higher gas taxes provided the money is pre appropriated to a state road and infrastructure agency. That means, the gas stations pays the money to the road agency directly and only they can disburse the funds for road and bridge maintenance.

If a surplus developed, an oversight committee could lower the taxes accordingly, or even give rebates on drivers registration fees or something.

oldandslow
04-30-2008, 11:46 AM
[QUOTE=bkkcoh;4727771]How must sustained wind and/or hours of sun does it take in order to supply electricity for the average 2000 - 2500 square foot house?

How feasible is it to put windmills into neighborhoods? How far can the windmills be from the sub-divisions in which they would supply power.


My house is 2000 square feet more or less. We use (avg) between 1800 and 2000 k per month. The system we are putting in supplies between 2500 - and 2750 k. We will sell back the over production to Clay County Rural Electric for 3.7 cents per. In essence, the electric company will be sending me a check for 20 bucks a month and I will have all the electricity I need.

It is very feasible to put a 3-5 large windmills in each neighborhood and have the people live off them. I don't think you understand how much electricity some of the big windmills produce.

Btw - mylonsd - when it is finished, I will have you come over for a peek if your interested.

oldandslow
04-30-2008, 11:47 AM
Dude, they use to say we were going to run out of oil back in the 70's. Well, it is a good 30 years later, and there are more cars in the world than ever, and YET the oil still flows.

Perhaps we had more oil than they were letting on back in the 70's?

There is so dang much oil that I doubt the world will exhaust it by the time I die. In the mean time, it is very expensive so I am doing everything I can to use as little of it as possible. Gee, if only we would have drilled for the shit when Bush first became president, then that schmuck Shoomer couldn't stand up there and say, "even if we drilled for it, it will be at least 10 years before we could see any of it on the market". What a bunch of shit. The stuff should be flowing freely right now.

In the mean time, I am all for higher gas taxes provided the money is pre appropriated to a state road and infrastructure agency. That means, the gas stations pays the money to the road agency directly and only they can disburse the funds for road and bridge maintenance.

If a surplus developed, an oversight committee could lower the taxes accordingly, or even give rebates on drivers registration fees or something.

You really have no idea what you are talking about. We peaked in oil production in the 70's and have been importing since. Before 1975 we utilized our own oil - not so much now. Read some oil history and get back to me.

banyon
04-30-2008, 11:58 AM
Why would you say 80% of it is terrible?

I am not saying anyone is going to guarantee the contract, something similar could be said for the democrats also. So throw politics out the window. This is the problem. When someone on either side of the political fence proposes something, it doesn't help to just oppose the idea(s) because the idea was from the other side. Does it? There are decent ideas coming from both parties, but the execution of the idea is what needs to be hashed out and a compromised on.

I realize that I an not living in an ideal world either, but the partisan tactics by both partied isn't helping anyone and is total BS.

Have we gone too far to be able to go back? I am not sure, but I am hoping that we haven't.

After re-review, there are 8 planks. I disagree strongly with 4 of them, and mildly with another. I concur on immigration, balanced budget, and political accountability (to a point, though I am against term limits absent further controls to prevent a revolving door of "super-lobbyists"). So I guess it is only 63% crappy. :thumb:

bkkcoh
04-30-2008, 12:29 PM
You really have no idea what you are talking about. We peaked in oil production in the 70's and have been importing since. Before 1975 we utilized our own oil - not so much now. Read some oil history and get back to me.


Link (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/03/070319-oil-drilling.html)



Some of the world's largest—but hardest to reach—oil
reserves could be tapped with the help of a little-known scientific
field called rock physics, a Canadian scientist says.

The reserves, located north of Edmonton, Alberta, are so immense that they put Canada second only to Saudi Arabia among the world's oil-rich nations (see map of Alberta).

But the reserves contain only "heavy oil," which is extremely difficult to extract.

"Imagine taking a pile of sand, mixing it with peanut butter, and trying to get the peanut butter out," Douglas Schmitt, a geophysicist at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, said earlier this month at a meeting of the American Physical Society.

Currently the easiest way to extract the oil is to scoop up the top layers of earth in giant strip mines.

"You dig it out and put it in something like a big washing machine to separate the oil from the sand," Schmitt said.

Going deeper requires drilling, but conventional drilling techniques don't work because of the oil's thick, viscous consistency.

To make the oil less viscous, production crews commonly heat it by injecting steam into the underlying rock.

For this to be feasible, the steam must be used as efficiently as possible.

That, Schmitt says, is where rock physics comes into play, allowing scientists to chart the process with seismic mapping.

"This could be the next phase of petroleum engineering," Schmitt said.

"Instead of simply making guesses, we should be able to track where the fluids are coming from."

Oil's Seismic Signature

Seismic mapping has long been used to study underground rock in the search for potential oil-bearing formations.

To make these maps, geologists set off small explosions or use mechanical thumpers to vibrate on the surface, and then use instruments to observe how the seismic waves are scattered by underlying rocks.

Rock physics can extend the technique's usefulness by studying how porous rocks conduct seismic waves when fluids are added or removed from them, Schmitt said.

His studies have shown it's possible to map exactly what parts of the rock are being penetrated by steam—and where the largest oil reserves remain in any given rock layer.

This could allow production crews to target precisely the right areas without wasting time and costly steam on regions that have already been depleted.

Not all energy experts see heavy oils as a solution to the world's energy problems, however.

To turn the oil into gasoline, hydrogen must be used to combine the oil with natural gas, points out David Goodstein, author of Out of Gas: The End of the Age of Oil.

"It's very difficult and will always be limited," Goodstein said of the process.

But he applauds efforts to wring more oil from Canada's sandy deposits.

Only a mix of technologies can slake the world's energy thirst, he notes.

"We have to try everything we possibly can," he said.



This is from National Geographic, I would consider a nuetral source, wouldn't you?

oldandslow
04-30-2008, 12:47 PM
Link (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/03/070319-oil-drilling.html)





This is from National Geographic, I would consider a nuetral source, wouldn't you?

Agreed.

Look at the estimated return on investment. The cost to remove some of those tar sands are extremely high i.e. - we are not going to go to an era of cheap oil again.

Further, even if the estimates of the amount of oil in Canada is correct, India and China are competing for those same stocks.

Look, I am not saying we are "running out of oil" tomorrow. I am saying that we have reached peak on light, sweet crude and the oil we are going to have to extract now is much dirtier and much more expensive.

bkkcoh
04-30-2008, 12:54 PM
Agreed.

Look at the estimated return on investment. The cost to remove some of those tar sands are extremely high i.e. - we are not going to go to an era of cheap oil again.

Further, even if the estimates of the amount of oil in Canada is correct, India and China are competing for those same stocks.

Look, I am not saying we are "running out of oil" tomorrow. I am saying that we have reached peak on light, sweet crude and the oil we are going to have to extract now is much dirtier and much more expensive.


But with oil prijected to $200 barrel, when will it become cost-effective?

I am sure that the oil reserves that were capped when oil was $10 a barrel would be cost effective to start back up. Drilling technologies have improved a great deal in the last 20 years.

Why isn't that a possible option?

oldandslow
04-30-2008, 01:59 PM
But with oil prijected to $200 barrel, when will it become cost-effective?

I am sure that the oil reserves that were capped when oil was $10 a barrel would be cost effective to start back up. Drilling technologies have improved a great deal in the last 20 years.

Why isn't that a possible option?

You are misunderstanding me...with some of those projects it takes more energy to get the "oil" out of the ground than the "oil" produces - therefore they will never be cost effective.

It is one of my major arguments against corn ethanol. The return energy on energy invested is very close - so it makes no sense to do it.

Unless tech is created to bring the cost down - we are screwed.

Baby Lee
04-30-2008, 03:20 PM
But with oil prijected to $200 barrel, when will it become cost-effective?

I am sure that the oil reserves that were capped when oil was $10 a barrel would be cost effective to start back up. Drilling technologies have improved a great deal in the last 20 years.

Why isn't that a possible option?

o&s hints at it, so I'll spell it out.
If Oil goes up, energy prices go up, and the cost of running machinery to extract Oil goes up, and viola, it's more expensive to extract Oil, whatever the medium.

bkkcoh
05-01-2008, 06:55 AM
You are misunderstanding me...with some of those projects it takes more energy to get the "oil" out of the ground than the "oil" produces - therefore they will never be cost effective.

It is one of my major arguments against corn ethanol. The return energy on energy invested is very close - so it makes no sense to do it.

Unless tech is created to bring the cost down - we are screwed.

But yet people think ethanol is a good idea also.

But isn't that a terrible cycle, until we start processing the oil, we won't get better ways to process the oil? :hmmm:

oldandslow
05-01-2008, 09:01 AM
But yet people think ethanol is a good idea also.

But isn't that a terrible cycle, until we start processing the oil, we won't get better ways to process the oil? :hmmm:

Without govt welfare to the industry, there would be no ethanol.

On the second point - there really is no way to cost effectively get to much of the oil that is left in the world. Period.