Energy Politics

7:29 pm EST May 7th, 2007 | Politics | 12 Comments

Sen. Obama came out with an energy plan today, and its good and all but like other pols I am not hearing the decisive strategy against fossil fuels I think will save America. We need something like the Manhattan Project or the Apollo Project that clearly states that we will find a fuel alternative and we will move the heavens to make it happen. We spend money, lives, pervert our nation’s original intent in order to get oil cheap. It is ridiculous.

Related Posts

  • No Related Post
«
»

12 Responses to “Energy Politics”

  1. fd10801 says:
    May 7, 2007 at 7:38 pm

    We need a President who can do “nuclear”; not just say it!

    President Carter couldn’t say “nuclear”, and he worked with Adm. Rickover!

  2. SaveFarris says:
    May 7, 2007 at 8:33 pm

    Energy independence by more government spending on health care? Um… no.

    How about directing those funds towards building more refineries?

  3. Oliver says:
    May 7, 2007 at 9:16 pm

    Who said anything about spending money on health care? Can you read at all?

    I said: “We need something … that we will find a fuel alternative and we will move the heavens to make it happen”

    HOW IN GOD’S NAME DID YOU GET “HEALTH CARE” OUT OF THAT?

  4. C.S.Strowbridge says:
    May 8, 2007 at 4:37 am

    “How about directing those funds towards building more refineries?”

    How about letting the oil companies making record profits build the refineries.

    Meanwhile, we can kill all their subsidies and help fund energy efficiency and oil independence projects.

    After all, the goal isn’t cheap gas, it’s using less gas.

  5. SaveFarris says:
    May 8, 2007 at 8:35 am

    Who said anything about spending money on health care?

    Obama. Did you read what you linked to?!? Bullet Point #3 my friend.

  6. dave says:
    May 8, 2007 at 11:45 am

    We don’t need a Manhattan or Apollo project. The technology already exists. Rent “Who killed the Electric Car?”

  7. C.S.Strowbridge says:
    May 9, 2007 at 1:35 am

    “Obama. Did you read what you linked to?!? Bullet Point #3 my friend.”

    Two points:

    1.) OW complained about a lack of a central plan for Oil independence in Obama’s plan, (and all politicians plans so far). Therefore, your complaint was, at best, unfocused.

    2.) Any chance you are going to respond to my post? Or are you going to ignore the real issue with the energy plan?

  8. SaveFarris says:
    May 9, 2007 at 11:11 am

    I wasn’t complaining about Oliver, at first. I was commenting on Obama’s plan itself. I certainly didn’t realize that talking about Obama’s plan would be OT in a post about Obama’s plan. My apoligies.

    As for your contribution, I’d take your “less gas” goal more seriously if your side (if not you specifically) wasn’t so up in arms about current gas prices. The ONLY way to reach your “less gas” goal is for gas to price itself out of the market. You should be doing cartwheels over recent prices.

  9. C.S.Strowbridge says:
    May 9, 2007 at 9:22 pm

    “I certainly didn’t realize that talking about Obama’s plan would be OT in a post about Obama’s plan. My apoligies.”

    Did you miss this part?

    “Therefore, your complaint was, at best, unfocused.”

    “As for your contribution, I’d take your “less gas” goal more seriously if your side (if not you specifically) wasn’t so up in arms about current gas prices.”

    It’s not gas prices by themselves that’s the problem. It’s gas prices plus record profit for an industry that the Bush administration has strong ties to.

  10. SaveFarris says:
    May 10, 2007 at 11:16 am

    “Strong Ties”? Geez, if having strong ties were proof enough of criminal mischief, then why no fuss over Harry Reid’s land deal, Pelosi’s land deal, DiFi’s appropriations, or the Clinton China connections?

    So somebody, maybe even somebody who works for the President knows, is making money. If the Goverment wasn’t making 3X as much in profit from gas taxes, I might be just as worked up as you.

  11. Mike says:
    May 10, 2007 at 6:27 pm

    Thanks, SaveFarris.

    “Obama would encourage automakers to make fuel-efficient hybrid vehicles by helping the companies shoulder the health care costs of their retirees. Domestic automakers will get health care assistance in exchange for investing 50 percent of the savings into technology to produce more fuel-efficient vehicles.”

    That’s probably the dumbest idea I’ve read in a long time.

    If the Big 3 automakers are going to be able to shoulder the legacy cost of retiree benefits, then they need to become profitable first. Pouring government money into Big 3 health insurance costs will only make unions demand more health insurance coverage, because the government is paying for it.

  12. midderpidge says:
    June 10, 2008 at 12:29 pm

    Yeah, it’s a job saving measure more than a fuel efficiency matter.