The major objection of most Republicans to these plans has never been “We don’t want everybody to have health coverage,” or “we don’t want people to affordable energy” — despite what Democrats say. The objection has always been, “To make these things affordable for the ‘target population,’ we would have to tax everyone else to the point where it wouldn’t be worth it.”

Because the Democrats always argue that people are “entitled” to these things, they skirt the issue of where the funds will come from.

The bad news is, if Dems fail to recapture the government and we keep on doing what we’re doing, we will still end up with all this wonderful technology, sure. In the long run that will be the same.

The difference is, instead of being the ones who invent and develop it and sell it to the rest of the world, like we have with so many other things, we’ll be buying it from someone else, at whatever price they name. The Apollo Alliance will have been another squandered opportunity on the road to becoming a once-great, has-been country.

I exluded R&D.

But if you are under the impression that our entitlement programs are lean and mean, I wouldn’t know what to say to you. My contention is there is a lot of fat that can be trimmed. Someone’s ox is gonna be gored. But if your telling me the system is unchangeable because it is basically a workfare social program in conservative clothing(and democrat) then there is gonna have to be alot more of it in the alternative energy field. Either that , or we’re gonna be grinding wheat in windmills.

Lets ask it another way. Are you sure you know better than the leaders of both parties? I mean corprate welfare sounds bad ‘corporately’ but when you look at each case separately, 9 times out of 10 you can find a practical reason (jobs creation, public housing, inner city investment, disease cures) why its been done. You yourself are saying all these other ‘practical’ reasons are bad (for corporate welfare) but mine, R & D, is good.

Dugger

corporate welfare

It doesn’t mater how much you tax a business. It will always be passed on to the consumer (i.e. you and me). Raising corporate taxes raises prices and reduces consumer spending which leads to unemployment. There is no free lunch.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/10/14/16367/267

You are too seasoned to ask; “if that is such a brilliant idea, why hasn t it been before?”

Unenlightened self-interested corruption (Both Parties) that seeks cover of dark for it’s success. You really have to ask?

Getting the pork addicts off their fix of easy votes and money ;that’s a little tougher. But it has to be done.

Dugger

Dugger

How to pay?

We could start with corporate welfare through tax loopholes that in 2000 totalled 445 Billion Dollars. Probably 50% higher than that now. I’m not talking tax breaks for Rand D and such, I’m talking the ‘wink-wink’ breaks written into the code on purpose.

http://www.ctj.org/html/hemenu.htm

Good point. The recent increase in oil prices have probably made the ’shale’ program much closer to being economically viable. Thre’s a huge untapped potential there (heretofore too costly to pursue).

Dugger

This article from National Geographic should provide some needed perspective to this discussion.

This one is even better, and actually the article I was looking for. I subscribe to the dead tree version and read it there, and picked the wrong article out of the google search. But give this article a read. It offers what I think is a very level-headed description of the challenges faced with finding alternatives to fossil fuels. Shorter answer to the questions from them, it ain’t going to happen any time soon!

Just like stating how great it would be to spend billions on research and this and that great program, the idea or desirability of achieving energy independence is not the real intellctual challenge here, you understand. That’s not a break through. Energy independence?!! Now why didn’t we think of that! And, I could have had a V-8! Anybody can state platitudes (like the all new 2008 Gore Hydro-mobile) . The challenge is to come up with a viable, affordable, realistic, sustainbale energy program that doesn’t wreck the current economy and substantially reduce our standard of living. And before you tell me all of these great ideas, keep in mind the people in industy are also smart and they just love to make money – and they would with a useable no-energy mobile. They just haven’t been able to do it. The hybrid cars are a good start – maybe – but as I write this Toyota is recalling theirs and there are reports that they actually save very little gas.

Dugger

We’ve tried time and time and time and time and time and time…whew…again to become energy independent, but in each and every case, people like you come running out of the woodwork telling us we “can’t do this” or “we shouldn’t do that” blah blah blah pure T-BS and in most cases out and out lies.

Dems and RINO’s have time and again stopped any efforts for us to become energy independent. Yet somehow it’s us who need to “piss or get off the pot.”

You are funny, I’ll give you that.

Time to piss or get off the pot, boys.

They’re simply trying to recycle-repackage-resell tired, worn-out, lame, and generally unrealistic and unworkable policies which have been rejected time and time again by the American people.

But it doesn’t stop em though, bless their hearts…

Universal Health Care
Universal College Education
Increased Airport/Seaport/Nuke Reactor Security
Fixing Social Security
Increasing Medicare
Increasing Welfare
Increasing Public Housing
Updated Mass Transportation, including Aamtrack and Local Busses
Energy Independence
Increase Veteran’s Benefits
Environmental Protections
Updated Voting Technology

Whew… Did I leave anything out? Now I know Paris & Bill make a LOT, but with that list we’re going to need to go back to 90-95% tax rates. Is that REALLY what Dems are proposing?