"I would guess as the Welfare State has expanded."<br><br>IF it has ... it has more for the CORPORATE interests than the individual. and you can bail out millions of people for what it take to say bail out many businesses... the S&L bailout of the 1980s costs us nearly $3 Trillion !!<br>divide that by 1000 we could give 3 Billion people $1000 each... <br>divide $3 trillion by 300 million - the population of the US... you could give every citizen $10,000 !! I don't think the Govt has Ever done that.<br><br>The welfare state applies to a small number... and compared to corporate welfare - it's trivial.<br><br>David (OFI)
Loc: the rock of the port by the je...
are you kidding<br>he's a MacOS genius by now<br><br>his daughter or relative runs many FOX cartoons, namely Family guy<br>well, produces it me thinks<br><br>and broke ranks with the Clintons aeons ago<br>don't quote me on that<br><br>the cops hate him because he's by the book and on time<br>all the time<br><br>what's that thing... oh yeah<br>composure, something we've been lacking (leadership spokesmanwise) for how long?<br><br>Nature is always ready to humble us. Actually every day.
_-_-_-_------_--everyonewantsto say they don't count. Hugh?
Definition of insanity:<br><br>"I ask you to join with me to call on every candidate at every level to accept this challenge for America to be run on 100% zero carbon electricity in ten years." (the actual quote from Gore's speech)<br><br>We're seeing here in Kansas that the math doesn't add up for wind and solar development to take place fast enough even to replace the increased future demand, so add to that the current demand and the impossibility is greatly magnified.<br><br>In addition to that, we need to consider that the development of alternative energy sources will be held up in court by the environmentalists, who will not want birds to be killed by wind generators or fish to be held up by dams built for hydroelectric generation, and of course they will still be hard at work stopping the further development of nuclear power. Does anyone realize how expensive electricity will have to become if we abandon coal, which is by far the cheapest source for producing electric power?<br><br>This can't really be compare this to something like the space race in the 1960s, since the American people were not asked to give up their standard of living to accomplish the goal of manned moon landings, interstate highways, a chicken in every pot...<br><br>And speaking of the nation pulling together to accomplish difficult goals, how about working together to achieve a goal of more domestic oil and natural gas production as well as a great effort to speed up the development of technology which allows us to burn our cheapest and most available source of electric generation, coal, in an ever cleaner manner. Saying these things will take time or that it's not enough, are not reasons to oppose this, since the same arguments apply for the development of alternative energy (it takes time and it's not enough). Let's work on developing both, since non-renewable sources, will, by definition, eventually run out, and then we will have developed alternative sources of energy to the point it can replace the resources which no longer exist. And let me put my Andy Rooney hat on: has anyone else ever noticed that the prediction of when fossil fuels run out on us is continually being pushed further into the future? I know when I was a kid there were numerous predictions of fossil fuels running out by the end of the 20th century. Who are the experts who make these decisions, anyway? And why is it always only ten or twenty years until the ultimate demise of humanity and the planet Earth? And are they still "experts" when all their predictions are ridiculously wrong? And where are all these sick people from carbon emissions? I thought the average lifespan had gone up considerably in recent decades? [globalrolf takes off Andy Rooney hat]<br><br>And by the way, glad to be back with all you forum folks, even if only momentarily.<br><br>GBR (OFI)
the folks who jump on Al Gore for a plan that is a bit outrageous to see to fruition are the same folks who likely voted for Bush who brought us No Child Left Behind and it's even more outrageous goals (e.g., All students will graduate from high school). NCLB is real.<br><br><br>--<br>[color:red] Kansas Jayhawks -- 2008 National Champions </font color=red>
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>And where are all these sick people from carbon emissions? <p><hr></blockquote><p>Around 150,000 Americans will die of lung cancer this year.<br>Around 130,000 Americans will die of a chronic respiratory disease this year.<br><br>Do 10% of them die because of breathing in carbon particulates? Anyone's guess but that might be a good guess. A much bigger drop in those numbers would occur if we all quit smoking but power plants and breathing exhaust does its damage.<br><br>Where are these people? The chronic respiratory disease patient is usually in a hospital bed for at least two years sucking on an oxygen tank. The same for the lung cancer patients but for a much shorter time.<br><br>I agree with all the rest of your blurb, the environmentalists will get in the way of wind and nuclear. But we need to get off coal and oil. It's killing us and our wallet.<br><br>
Globalrolf, it is always good to see you in the political forum. You are possibly the most respectful participant here.<br><br>Anyhow, on to the response. I understand your points well, but did you read some of the discussion earlier in this thread? Outside of Nantucket Sound, I have not heard of a single Nimby-minded environmentalist poseur stopping wind power developments anywhere. I could understand if there was a plan to put on in a major migratory bird route, but those are normally ruled out during the feasibility phase to ensure that they don't run afoul (pun not intended) of the Endangered Species Act.<br><br>What puzzles me always is the idea that we somehow need to lower our standard of living in order to take advantage of renewable energy. Where does this idea come from? There is an understandable cost of transitioning from one type of power plant to another, but that's what our utility bills pay for. People are already looking toward alternatives as energy (either in the home or for transportation) becomes more expensive. They are saving money and adding value to their own homes. I have yet to see an explanation as to how those people are lowering their standard of living.<br><br>What is most frustrating from a policy standpoint is how easy of an answer alternative energy is to our needs. It's come down in price enough to be much cheaper than nuclear and arguably cheaper than coal minus subsidies and adding health benefits. It's easily scalable. It can be added as needed with incremental investment.<br><br>What is the downside you are talking about?<br><br>-- Cee Bee Double-U
Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.
All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.