For the Progressives in the forum ...

[NoDrama]

I want to get off foreign oil and coal as soon as possible that means transitioning away from oil(transportation) and coal(power generation).

I want to fast track nuclear power plant building, natural gas production, solar, wind.


I mean actually doing it not just shuffling are feat along like the U.S is doing now.

The US imports about 6.5 million short tons of coal per year. The State of Wyoming produces about 465 MILLION short tons of coal per year.

We don't import shit for coal, we produce about 1.2 Billion short tons per year for use here and for our Yearly Coal exportation of 15 million Short tons. So we could not import any coal at all, still have all the coal we needed for power production and still Export 9 million short tons of it every year.

We Produce 160 million barrels of oil per month of USA oil, import 50 million and export 1.8 million barrels. No doubt we import quite a bit of oil. we could sure do better there.

I agree we need more wind and solar power, but you can't go blaming foreigners for supplying us with fossil fuels when we do the majority of the supplying to ourselves.


Statistics taken from http://www.eia.doe.gov/

 

[doobnVA]

The US imports about 6.5 million short tons of coal per year. The State of Wyoming produces about 465 MILLION short tons of coal per year.

We don't import shit for coal, we produce about 1.2 Billion short tons per year for use here and for our Yearly Coal exportation of 15 million Short tons. So we could not import any coal at all, still have all the coal we needed for power production and still Export 9 million short tons of it every year.

We Produce 160 million barrels of oil per month of USA oil, import 50 million and export 1.8 million barrels. No doubt we import quite a bit of oil. we could sure do better there.

I agree we need more wind and solar power, but you can't go blaming foreigners for supplying us with fossil fuels when we do the majority of the supplying to ourselves.


Statistics taken from http://www.eia.doe.gov/

How do you get that we import 50 million barrels per month, when the website you took your statistics from says we import 12 MILLION BARRELS PER DAY? That's 360 MILLION BARRELS PER MONTH, NOT 50!!!

 

[RickWhite]

In MY progressive world, we'd have a universal health plan. We'd use RENEWABLE energy instead of fossil fuels, everyone would have an affordable college education and nobody would graduate with $100,000 dollars worth of debt. We'd build BETTER homes that last longer and aren't made from toxic materials, excess (in all things) would be discouraged and frowned upon, people would be responsible for their OWN well being and safety (no more police state), and I'd trade Hollywood to Mexico (Hey, at least the Mexicans WORK for their money, right?).

Wow, that sounds great. How would all this work? Who pays for this universal health care and how would you ensure there would be no rationing of services or decline in quality?

How do you build better homes? Can you elaborate on what materials would be used and give a cost comparison to show how this is economically feasible?

What do you mean by excess - you mean you would take peoples money if they got too rich?

If people are responsible for their own well being isn't that kind of contradictory to the concept of universal health care?

Basically, please articulate how you would accomplish all this.

 

[NoDrama]

How do you get that we import 50 million barrels per month, when the website you took your statistics from says we import 12 MILLION BARRELS PER DAY? That's 360 MILLION BARRELS PER MONTH, NOT 50!!!

thanks for calling that to my attention Doob, Yep I sure fucked that up, in my defense i had the blondest hash I ever smoked while doing this research.

We import about 10 million barrels a day, so yeah importing about 280 million per month while producing 160 million per month. Still doesn't change what i said though.

 

[PeachOibleBoiblePeach#1]

I'm curious ... If every one of your ideas regarding politics and overall government intrusion into our lives could come to fruition, what would the country look like? How would we be living environmentally, politically and economically?

1. Environment. How would we be living? What would our living space look like? What jobs would we be doing. What would our manufacturing base look like? What would we be using for energy? What would we be driving?

2. Politically. What would our tax base be? How much influence would the federal government have over our lives? Would we still be a constitutional republic?

3. Economically. What would the corporate tax rates be? Would American corporations be competitive with foreign corporations? What would happen to our unemployment rate? Would we experience shortages? Would you institute price controls to control consumption? Would we still have free markets?

Thanks in advance for answering. I'm looking forward to your answers.

we'd be living in a world full of smog and polution becase every large company would have no resposabiilty to there neighbors or community, they can also dump plenty chemicals in rivers and the waterway's with no fines. Everyone would get along because if not Big brother will throw your ass in the pen. and evryone that can afford it would be driving a Hummer,,Bullet proof

Residential taxes 0% Manufacturing 0%
Fedral taxes 0%
No need for taxes I have my guns and a hummer fully armed.
We would create jobs by Building our wepons and military systems and start a war,,Duhh!
We would mandate everyone inlist to fight our great war and if they survive they have experience to train other soon to be soldiers.
Ther would be no rules on price control if you can steal a loaf of bread from some poor slob you are a great American.
Of course there is free markets as long as you don't interfere with MINE Oh wait what is a progressive,,,Republican?

 

[doobnVA]

Wow, that sounds great. How would all this work? Who pays for this universal health care and how would you ensure there would be no rationing of services or decline in quality?

How do you build better homes? Can you elaborate on what materials would be used and give a cost comparison to show how this is economically feasible?

What do you mean by excess - you mean you would take peoples money if they got too rich?

If people are responsible for their own well being isn't that kind of contradictory to the concept of universal health care?

Basically, please articulate how you would accomplish all this.

I thought this was a "what's your fantasy" type deal, not "give us an economic model and projections into 2025" type deal.


By "excess" I mean CONSUMPTION. People buy too much shit, and most of it they don't even need and can't afford anyway.

well-being and safety is what I said, I also specified (no police state) in parenthesis. Obviously this is relating to LAW enforcement, not health (health is not the same as well-being).

Who pays for universal health care? everyone pays.

I'd build the homes from cannabis hemp. Very low cost to grow, easily renewable, environmentally friendly, etc.


The rest, I don't care about, because I know you're not really interested anyway. You're just looking for reasons to pick on me, which is fine. Go right ahead. People in my society would be HAPPY, and that's what matters most.

 

[doobnVA]

thanks for calling that to my attention Doob, Yep I sure fucked that up, in my defense i had the blondest hash I ever smoked while doing this research.

We import about 10 million barrels a day, so yeah importing about 280 million per month while producing 160 million per month. Still doesn't change what i said though.

Haha, I didn't realize I got so riled up over that. Must have been near bedtime while the kids were driving me crazy.

 

[Leothwyn]

By "excess" I mean CONSUMPTION. People buy too much shit, and most of it they don't even need and can't afford anyway.

I'm no economist, so don't know how feasible this really is... but I've always liked the idea of JUST having sales tax. Get rid of almost every other one (or ALL of the others) - no more income tax especially. Consume more, pay more taxes.
I'm sure it would have to be pretty high - 20%, or more?

 

[RickWhite]

I thought this was a "what's your fantasy" type deal, not "give us an economic model and projections into 2025" type deal.


By "excess" I mean CONSUMPTION. People buy too much shit, and most of it they don't even need and can't afford anyway.

well-being and safety is what I said, I also specified (no police state) in parenthesis. Obviously this is relating to LAW enforcement, not health (health is not the same as well-being).

Who pays for universal health care? everyone pays.

I'd build the homes from cannabis hemp. Very low cost to grow, easily renewable, environmentally friendly, etc.


The rest, I don't care about, because I know you're not really interested anyway. You're just looking for reasons to pick on me, which is fine. Go right ahead. People in my society would be HAPPY, and that's what matters most.

So in other words you don't have a real answer to any of the OP's questions. Just an FYI, consumption is perhaps the most important driving force of our economy. Economists look at Christmas spending as a major economic indicator. And I don't think all hemp houses would work too well - kind of a fire hazard.

I'm not trying to pick on you but don't you think you would be better off discussing something you understand - maybe video games or something.

 

[natrone23]

I'm not trying to pick on you but don't you think you would be better off discussing something you understand - maybe video games or something.

Rick stick to what your good at hanging drywall and fixing A/C's

 

[doobnVA]

So in other words you don't have a real answer to any of the OP's questions. Just an FYI, consumption is perhaps the most important driving force of our economy. Economists look at Christmas spending as a major economic indicator. And I don't think all hemp houses would work too well - kind of a fire hazard.

I'm not trying to pick on you but don't you think you would be better off discussing something you understand - maybe video games or something.

yes, you are trying to pick on me. Fortunately, I'm not easily insulted.

Hemp can be used to make very strong plastic. Henry Ford made a car out of hemp. Wood and paper are fire hazards, no? But houses are constructed using those materials, are they not? What about the paint on your walls? The varnish on your hardwood floors? All flammable. All fire hazards. NEXT!

Spending is an economic indicator, but consuming more than you produce restricts growth. Overconsumption + underproduction = BAD news. I'm sure your economists would agree.

What the OP asked for is ridiculous. None of us work for the congressional budget office, so we can't say how our ideas would affect the budget or whether they would cost less than the system we currently have. She basically asked for an economic model and some long term predictions that none of us could ever supply. Not to mention that it was a loaded question to begin with. Quite clear that she wasn't REALLY interested in progressive ideals at all.

 

[NoDrama]

Rick stick to what your good at hanging drywall and fixing A/C's

Your giving him too much credit, I doubt he can hang dry wall.

 

[ViRedd]

yes, you are trying to pick on me. Fortunately, I'm not easily insulted.

Hemp can be used to make very strong plastic. Henry Ford made a car out of hemp. Wood and paper are fire hazards, no? But houses are constructed using those materials, are they not? What about the paint on your walls? The varnish on your hardwood floors? All flammable. All fire hazards. NEXT!

Spending is an economic indicator, but consuming more than you produce restricts growth. Overconsumption + underproduction = BAD news. I'm sure your economists would agree.

What the OP asked for is ridiculous. None of us work for the congressional budget office, so we can't say how our ideas would affect the budget or whether they would cost less than the system we currently have. She basically asked for an economic model and some long term predictions that none of us could ever supply. Not to mention that it was a loaded question to begin with. Quite clear that she wasn't REALLY interested in progressive ideals at all.

And here we have the crux of the matter, and the purpose of starting this thread.

The Progressives through out history come up with these whacky ideas without really knowing what the consequences will be.

For example, you guys espouse turning over our fuel supplies to windmills and corn without thinking about how much land or other resources it would take to build enough windmills to get the job done, or how many people starve because of our food into fuel policies. How can anyone take you guys seriously on resolving our energy policies until you start talking about building nuclear plants to run our cities and using natural gas to run our cars?

You want to limit consumption and yet somehow retain liberty at the same time. Only the force of govenment, through laws and regulations can limit consumption. Government is force and nothing else.

You want to limit executive pay without thinking about WHY the executive is paid so highly.

You want government run health care for all, but don't think about the rationing, or the reduction in, or destruction of, break-through technology that would result.

You want an even higher tax rate, not to mention retaining our present progressive income tax, without considering the blow to incentives, job creation, and economic liberty it would cause. Have you ever considered that in a truly free society, it is none of government's business how much money the citizen makes, how he/she makes it, or how he/she spends it, providing the rights of another are not violated in the process? What part of freedom frightens you?

You speak out against excess, so I guess you would limit housing to a certain square footage, automobiles to a certain size, the number of cars per family to a certain number too? Would your controls on excess apply to savings accounts and other asset acquisitions also? Would I have to sell my $40,000 stereo system and apply those funds to someone else's health care? I mean, if I choose to have a $40,000 stereo system and drive an old car in order to afford that stereo system, is that anyone's business other than my own?

You call for better construction methods on housing. What's wrong with using a renewable resource ... like WOOD? I know that here in California, aluminum was tried as a framing material on certain housing projects, but that seems to have fallen by the wayside. The market dictates that until a better material than wood comes along, wood construction is the way to go.

I could go on and on with this stuff, but the point has been made.

Is government always the answer? Why?

Honestly, I think a lot of you guys who claim to be Progressives have misnamed yourselves. You describe yourselves to be Progressives, but in actuality, after reading your responses, you are Libertarian-lites.

Obama is a Progressive. Lyndon Johnson was a Progressive, Jimmy Carter is a Progressive. FDR was a Progressive, Woodrow Wilson was a Progressive. Teddy Roosevelt was a Progressive. Do you think these folks moved the country toward freedom and liberty, or away from freedom and liberty?

If given the chance, where would you like to lead the country?

 

[doobnVA]

First, you don't "consume" a house or a car. did I not clearly state that I think people buy too much junk? How much trash do we generate daily? Do you have any idea? Do you care? People throw away things because they are useless to THEM, when someone else could use them. go take a look at your local landfill and you'll see what I mean. All of our major "holidays" revolve around consuming as much crap as humanly possible in one day. Christmas, Thanksgiving - both MAJOR generators of garbage. Do kids really need 25 new toys every year? What do you think happens to the old toys so you can make room for the new toys?

Individually packaged "serving size" food = more trash, simply because it's "convenient". Who cares about the inconvenience to the planet, we won't live long enough to see its demise anyway, right?

Wood may be renewable, but those trees also help us BREATHE and remove CO2 from the air, not to mention that it takes YEARS for trees to mature to the point that they can be cut down for wood.

when did I say I want a higher tax rate? Oh, I didn't. No idea where you pulled that from (thin air comes to mind, though).

Yeah, the happiness of people is a really "wacky" idea, isn't it? It's about as far out in left field as you can get. Silly me, for ever insinuating that people should be happy.

 

[RickWhite]

And here we have the crux of the matter, and the purpose of starting this thread.

The Progressives through out history come up with these wacky ideas without really knowing what the consequences will be.

For example, you guys espouse turning over our fuel supplies to windmills and corn without thinking about how much land or other resources it would take to build enough windmills to get the job done, or how many people starve because of our food into fuel policies. How can anyone take you guys seriously on resolving our energy policies until you start talking about building nuclear plants to run our cities and using natural gas to run our cars?

You want to limit consumption and yet somehow retain liberty at the same time. Only the force of government, through laws and regulations can limit consumption. Government is force and nothing else.

You want to limit executive pay without thinking about WHY the executive is paid so highly.

You want government run health care for all, but don't think about the rationing, or the reduction in, or destruction of, break-through technology that would result.

You want an even higher tax rate, not to mention retaining our present progressive income tax, without considering the blow to incentives, job creation, and economic liberty it would cause. Have you ever considered that in a truly free society, it is none of government's business how much money the citizen makes, how he/she makes it, or how he/she spends it, providing the rights of another are not violated in the process? What part of freedom frightens you?

You speak out against excess, so I guess you would limit housing to a certain square footage, automobiles to a certain size, the number of cars per family to a certain number too? Would your controls on excess apply to savings accounts and other asset acquisitions also? Would I have to sell my $40,000 stereo system and apply those funds to someone else's health care? I mean, if I choose to have a $40,000 stereo system and drive an old car in order to afford that stereo system, is that anyone's business other than my own?

You call for better construction methods on housing. What's wrong with using a renewable resource ... like WOOD? I know that here in California, aluminum was tried as a framing material on certain housing projects, but that seems to have fallen by the wayside. The market dictates that until a better material than wood comes along, wood construction is the way to go.

I could go on and on with this stuff, but the point has been made.

Is government always the answer? Why?

Honestly, I think a lot of you guys who claim to be Progressives have misnamed yourselves. You describe yourselves to be Progressives, but in actuality, after reading your responses, you are Libertarian-lites.

Obama is a Progressive. Lyndon Johnson was a Progressive, Jimmy Carter is a Progressive. FDR was a Progressive, Woodrow Wilson was a Progressive. Teddy Roosevelt was a Progressive. Do you think these folks moved the country toward freedom and liberty, or away from freedom and liberty?

If given the chance, where would you like to lead the country?

Very well put. Too bad they will never get it. Socrates taught that a wise man is one who realizes how little he knows. You and I understand this notion and they do not. We understand that society exists in a delicate balance. They will continue to think its OK to haphazardly monkey with it.

Liberalism or "progressive thinking" is not a philosophy, it is a religion. They will never consider our arguments because to them they are heresy. Likewise, facts are unimportant - only their dogma matters. Why do you think you never hear an intelligent, well thought out and well articulated argument from the Left? No, they have their dogmatic talking points and anyone with a contrary view is a bigot, homophobe, xenophobe, misogynist or simply a liar.

Nobody is going to say "you are right, I haven't really thought my positions through very well." That just isn't going to happen - but good luck trying.

 

[ilkhan]

Vi, ever read 1984?
That should answer your questions.
Only with really cool anti-depresants to make sure everyone gets to work on time.

 

[ViRedd]

Rick & Ilkhan ...

You guys are exactly right. I started this thread just to see if any of the Progressives who post here have taken a look down the road that leads to their ultimate "solution" for the betterment of Mankind. What we've discovered so far is, not only do they have no solution, they can't even see the road. What they revolve around is what they FEEL is "fair," "compassionate," and "good for the planet," and in the process, they are enslaving us all. As Hayek said, socialism truly is the Road to Serfdom.

 

[ViRedd]

And to date, not one Progressive has given his/her vision of the ultimate ends they are striving for. No surprise here.

 

[MexicanWarlord420]

And to date, not one Progressive has given his/her vision of the ultimate ends they are striving for. No surprise here.

Dude this is a POT forum. You're mad at us smokers for being intellectually lazy?

 

[towlie]

None of us work for the congressional budget office, so we can't say how our ideas would affect the budget or whether they would cost less than the system we currently have.

Lol. I thought the same thing when I read those lame questions. Of course the antithesis would be:

1. According to a recent Harvard study, 45,000 Americans die each year from lack of health insurance. As a country, what level should we strive for?

2. The United States enjoys the largest economic inequality in the industrialized world where the wealthiest 1% of the population enjoys more than the bottom 95%. What is a fair spectrum of wealth distribution we should strive for in our tax code?

Etc, etc.

Everyone knows liberty & equality are a game of give & take... Why doesn't anyone want to answer your questions ViRedd? I don't know... Maybe because they're so fucking banal?