[iainhp]

I already stated that there were oil wars. Since it is obvious you don't believe me, Please tell us what the wars are for.

Gizmodo - Russia To Ring The Arctic With Floating Nuclear Power Stations - Nuclear

I'm not going to get into a flame war, but you specifically stated "OUR sons and daughters" so that would be US involved wars. List them all starting with the war of Independence - can you honestly say any of them were over oil? Korea? Viet Nam? WW II? Panama? Also, if we're talking about oil wars do you suddenly list an article on the Russians and nuclear power - what's that got to do with oil wars?

 

[iainhp]

Separate issue - electric cars. I read an article in today's Parade magazine. The statement in there is that the US is barely making sufficient electricity to meet current demand, and that demand is expected to rise 26% over the next 20 years. It also suggest that the Northeast and parts of the West will start to suffer from power shortages within 2 years.

I am not about to sit down and do the calculation, but if all the joules of energy used by all the automobiles in the US were suddenly required to come from our power stations, I think that would be a problem. There is no cheap solar out there today either - engineers have been working for years on trying to reduce the cost of photo voltaic cells. Etc.......

Don't get me wrong, I'm waiting for my first electric car (saw my first Tesla on a So Cal freeway yesterday), but there has to be huge infrastructure changes, and huge amounts of electrical generation added before electric cars become mainstream.

Maybe that's why those Russians Sahein was providing a link to, are building nuclear power stations like there's no tomorrow.

 

[Snugglebear]

Come on, did you really think Wagoner would say something negative? He has a parachute to catch.

He doesn't have a parachute. The majority of his pension is an unsecured cash annuity over the next 5 years or so that GM hasn't funded. If they go into Chapter 11 he won't get that, just his health benefits and whatever is left of his GM stock. You have to admit that as much as we berate the guy, he didn't take GM for a ride on the way out.

Bush was NOT responsible for the auto bailouts. He did however champion a $300+ billion dollar bailout for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Probably he stupidest thing he's ever done in his life...

Well, it did manage to break the contagion that had hit the financial markets and get people to calm down a little. I can't say I love the idea but it worked and they stand a good chance of paying back the funds over the long haul, with hefty amounts of interest. Insurance is a complex business and most insurance companies take out reinsurance on the policies they write, and those reinsurers tend to do the same, spreading the risk even further. There comes a point, though, that someone has to cough up the money, and in the worst case that becomes the government. But they will take a premium for this, as they should.

Have you? The batteries in these Toyota Prius and Honda Hybrid vehicles are more damaging to the environment than a 74 Dodge Diplomat being driven for 300,000 miles. The entire process of refining those deep cycle batteries starts in Canada, goes literally around the world twice, and then comes back to the US. The damage from the refining / manufacturing, as well as the fuel used to transport the supplies, is horrendous.

Not that I disagree that a turbo diesel will blow the pants of a current-gen hybrid, but remember battery tech is still fairly crude. Given demand and about 10 years the manufacturing, transport, and recycling will all get streamlined. Right now there are too few players chasing low-volume niche markets. Once this goes mainstream true industrial efficiencies will be realized.

There are plans for 2 photovoltaic and one solar/hotwater plant out in the middle of nowhere in CA and they are having all sorts of problems. They take up too much space and interfere with too many animal migration paths.

The problems are due to the transmission lines leading back to civilization from the desert. I don't think there were any issues or lawsuits over the generation facilities themselves. Pesky things, wires; wouldn't want some poor tortoise to crawl up a transmission tower and get electrocuted.

Separate issue - electric cars. I read an article in today's Parade magazine. The statement in there is that the US is barely making sufficient electricity to meet current demand, and that demand is expected to rise 26% over the next 20 years. It also suggest that the Northeast and parts of the West will start to suffer from power shortages within 2 years.

Here in California we've been skating on thin ice for some time. Fortunately the dot com implosion and now housing bust have taken the edge off demand. More critical, though, is the lack of grid infrastructure - if you look back through time at major regional blackouts the main issue is transmission. Typically we'll overload the main paths going up into the Pacific Northwest in the summer when it gets really hot (remember, transmission lines droop when they get hot, too, tending cause failures, and warm materials aren't as good conductors as cold) or the main path between Central Cal and SoCal. Oh, yeah, and not unusually some of these lines have to shut down due to wildfires.

Oh, and just remember, the past few years when we've flirted with blackouts due to lack of generation capacity, one of the most commonly heard ideas is to use car engines as generators. For hybrids with more efficient generators this isn't such a bad idea - when grid demand is low overnight, charge their batteries. When they're parked during the day you can still charge them, but if demand goes high, stop charging and start the gas engine to begin feeding current back onto the grid. In essence they amount to hundreds of thousands of peak generators.

 

[82-T/A]

Not at all. You are totally misrepresenting my statements. I don't know why you have to resort to such tactics instead of having valid points and facts of your own.

I'm not resorting to tactics, I'm asking you a question.


Are you suggesting that eliminating our need for foreign oil is justification for the US Government to usurp control of private industry in order to control it?

YES or NO...

If the answer is no, then tell me what you think the justification is?

 

[82-T/A]

Separate issue - electric cars. I read an article in today's Parade magazine. The statement in there is that the US is barely making sufficient electricity to meet current demand, and that demand is expected to rise 26% over the next 20 years. It also suggest that the Northeast and parts of the West will start to suffer from power shortages within 2 years.

I am not about to sit down and do the calculation, but if all the joules of energy used by all the automobiles in the US were suddenly required to come from our power stations, I think that would be a problem. There is no cheap solar out there today either - engineers have been working for years on trying to reduce the cost of photo voltaic cells. Etc.......

The best thing to do, is for people to become "aware" of their utility bills. With electricity, there are a number of ways to reduce the consumption of electricity, which in turn reduce your cost, which in turn leaves you with more money in your pocket, which in turn reduces the demand on the power company.

Of course... (as has happened in my city) when people start to become smarter about their energy and water usage, the power and water company suddenly lose profits, so they raise their rates to compensate.

As it stands though, I would figure that the majority of homes are not energy concious. That helps ME, personally, because it means that the power company is less likely to raise the rates (which means I can continue to reduce mine and pay less), but it also means that we will continue to have a huge demand on power.

It would be in everyone's best interests though to look at their home as an expense, and think of ways to reduce that expense... tackle everything from excessive cable bills, to phone bills.

I JUST discovered that we're paying $83 dollars for our local land line?! We then pay an additional $15 dollars a month for long distance. So in total, we pay almost $100 dollars for long distance and our local phone line.

I discovered that I can get a BARE minimum phone line that gives me unlimited local calling (with all the taxes and crap) and it would cost me about $25 dollars. Then I could switch to PowerPhone or Vonage VOIP for $25 dollars (30 with tax and crap) and have all the same stuff, but now have TWO phone lines.

1 - I now will only pay $50-55 a month instead of $100
2 - I get unlimited long distance to Canada, USA, and South America
3 - I have two phone lines, a VOIP one, and a land line (in case the power goes out from a hurricane).

Little things like this.

Even calling up your cable company and telling them you want to switch and they'll credit you.

I wonder how many of you guys on here have your SAME car insurance company for the past 5-6 years or more? You're idiots if you do... (sorry).

I had Geico insurance for 10 years. Turns out, I was getting raped in the ass. I went to Progressive and they lowered my car insurance by $1,000 a year, with twice the coverage, and twice the benefits. It's not because Progressive is awesome, it's because companies usually screw their long standing customers and give discounts to their new customers.

The same thing goes with power and water.


You can get a 1.28 gpf Eco Toilet from home depot for $130 bucks, that's twice as efficient as the 3.5 gpf that you probably have in your home if it was built before 1992.

Hell, even the Lowes "Titan V" or the "Armageddon" toilet from Home Depot that has a 1.6 gpf is far superior to any toilet made back in the day. I bought the Eljer Titan V from Lowes, and quite honestly... if the entire Miami Dolphins football team took a crap in my toilet (and didn't flush), it could handle it and not get clogged. It's a real nasty thought... but it just shows how superior technology is.

Anyway, I'm totally rambling... and totally off topic... but yeah, GM can go to hell...

 

[the4x4pig]

Gm has lost me as a customer, as will Chrysler if they continue down the same path. I am just bewildered with the damage that has occurred to this country in just the last few months. Makes you wonder if we will ever recover.

 

[Carpe Diem]

BTW, I don't want the federal government run _any_ business, the automobile industry in particular.
[/I]

:agree:

The federal government can't even run their own business effeciently, or corruption free. Why should any American agree (with their votes) to support any bureaucrat who doesn't object and fight against fed's meddling in private business?

South Carolina's Christopher had it right.

 

[sahein]

I'm not resorting to tactics, I'm asking you a question.


Are you suggesting that eliminating our need for foreign oil is justification for the US Government to usurp control of private industry in order to control it?

YES or NO...

If the answer is no, then tell me what you think the justification is?

It is a leading question because you wrongly assume that I believe there is an usurpation. Either yes or no would be incorrect. I am, however, suggesting that the quest for oil in unstable regions results in huge monetary pressure, the results of which are not always favorable or therefore not in our best interest. These huge pressures and demands sometimes result in conflict.

Now it is my turn to question. What evidence or facts do you have that there has been a usurpation by the U.S. Government (We The People), for the illegal control of private industry?

 

[GS Stage 1]

Of course... (as has happened in my city) when people start to become smarter about their energy and water usage, the power and water company suddenly lose profits, so they raise their rates to compensate.

There is the systemic problem with government, and why the founding fathers tried their best to keep it as small as possible. Because absolute power corrupts absolutely. As soon as the government entity becomes existent, it will do everything in its power to keep the same level of power.

Unlike the rest of us, when things get tough we down size, conserve, etc; government just makes “adjustments” to its revenue stream to maintain the status quo. I just spent about 2 hours drafting a contesting letter to my local county assessor’s office. They RAISED the “value” of my home by over $30,000 in a DECLINNING MARKET. And this is not a strange situation with some new home that had not been assessed before. They had no reason to do this, other than the county is running out of money. So instead of trimming overhead, services, POWER STRUCTURE, they just “adjust” the housing basis to acquire more revenue to replace everything they have been loosing due to loss of sales tax, real estate tax, DMV tax, etc. This “adjustment” that they made to my home translates into about $300 of additional property tax per year. Take that times 100,000 households in my county and you can see what they are doing. What you have to remember is that government grows on PROJECTED income. So when the housing market shut down, their projections came in light. Imagine if you or I spent money on our “projected” income, how long would we last?

This is at the core of what my fears are with the nationalization of the automotive industry. You have to remember that there are HUNDREDS of new bureaucratic positions that have been created to service the new “government control” being exercised. The same thing with the banking/wall street/insurance industry. These are all new giant jaugurnaught government power structures. Can you really expect any of them to go quietly into the night, after the dust settles?

 

[sahein]

There is the systemic problem with government, and why the founding fathers tried their best to keep it as small as possible. Because absolute power corrupts absolutely. As soon as the government entity becomes existent, it will do everything in its power to keep the same level of power.

Unlike the rest of us, when things get tough we down size, conserve, etc; government just makes “adjustments” to its revenue stream to maintain the status quo. I just spent about 2 hours drafting a contesting letter to my local county assessor’s office. They RAISED the “value” of my home by over $30,000 in a DECLINNING MARKET. And this is not a strange situation with some new home that had not been assessed before. They had no reason to do this, other than the county is running out of money. So instead of trimming overhead, services, POWER STRUCTURE, they just “adjust” the housing basis to acquire more revenue to replace everything they have been loosing due to loss of sales tax, real estate tax, DMV tax, etc. This “adjustment” that they made to my home translates into about $300 of additional property tax per year. Take that times 100,000 households in my county and you can see what they are doing. What you have to remember is that government grows on PROJECTED income. So when the housing market shut down, their projections came in light. Imagine if you or I spent money on our “projected” income, how long would we last?

This is at the core of what my fears are with the nationalization of the automotive industry. You have to remember that there are HUNDREDS of new bureaucratic positions that have been created to service the new “government control” being exercised. The same thing with the banking/wall street/insurance industry. These are all new giant jaugurnaught government power structures. Can you really expect any of them to go quietly into the night, after the dust settles?

The government is US "We The People". This is the basis of the Constitution. When you are against the government, you are against yourself. The problem is not the Government, but the abuse thereof.

 

[82-T/A]

It is a leading question because you wrongly assume that I believe there is an usurpation. Either yes or no would be incorrect. I am, however, suggesting that the quest for oil in unstable regions results in huge monetary pressure, the results of which are not always favorable or therefore not in our best interest. These huge pressures and demands sometimes result in conflict.

I'm not leading into anything. I am conservative, but I'm not on some sort of Republican agenda. I agree that alternatives to getting oil in unstable regions are a positive and something we should be actively seeking. I WHOLE HEARTEDLY support drilling for oil in Anwar (if you want to get into an environmental debate, I'd be happy to take you on). I do not however, support off-shore drilling near the coast of Florida. There are ALREADY several hundred drilling areas that are available for lease presently in the gulf (not immediately off shore). The reason why no one drills there is because the oil is not profitable when the commodity is trading at under $50 a barrel. It's for this same reason why Hugo Chavez is quickly losing popularity in Venezuela right now, where as before (when it was well over $50 a barrel) he was widely popular. Their country is going heavily into debt right now and there's significantly less work available.

Where we get oil from exists as the cheapest supply of oil right now (although we could almost completely eliminate our Russia or middle east supply with oil from Anwar).

There's no pressure, demands, or pending war if we were to drill in Anwar. The underground pockets with which we would drill are already feeding the underground fields that Canada is pulling from.

Now it is my turn to question. What evidence or facts do you have that there has been a usurpation by the U.S. Government (We The People), for the illegal control of private industry?

What evidence and facts do I have? The debt for equity program that the auto task force has been pushing.

Here is from the UAW website:


"MARCH 16, 2009: Advisers to GM bondholders say they presented a framework plan to President Obama’s autos task force and GM that provides the company’s best chance for an out-of-court restructuring. They say the plan for a debt-to-equity exchange is consistent with U.S. government restructuring requirements."

GM’s Wagoner quits under U.S. pressure as 2nd bailout nears | 1853 Chairman

There are other links, but I figured one from the UAW would meet your bias requirements.

Obama's Auto Task Force have REQUESTED a "debt-to-equity" exchange. This isn't hear-say, this is fact... this is what gives the US government a 50% ownership stake in the corporation. This debt to equity exchange, more specifically... means trading the debt for OWNERSHIP of the company through corporate shares. When you own shares of General Motors (or any stock for that matter), you are entitled to a VOTE (one per share) for a variety of things. These include firing or hiring members of the board of directors, executives, and direction of the company as they are presented to the board. Since GM will have 50% ownership (under the plan PROPOSED by the requirements set forth by the auto task force), that means they will have the MAJORITY voting by the board of directors. This means they can (and have said that they will) seat their own board members.

This is speculative, but it ALSO means they will have control on the direction of the company... IE: choose to make fuel efficient cars, and eliminate cars they don't like. (They meaning the White House).

Now, you're referring to this as illegal, NO ONE SAID this was illegal. It is however Socialism in it's most purest evil form. I mean, that's not up for discussion, it simply is... and I for one will NOT support this. Hence my former statement that I hope GM fails miserably, and this becomes an example to all future socialist presidents that medling in the private sector simply doesn't work.

As much as a I hate to admit it... had Hilary become president, I don't think the government would be taking ownership of GM...

The government is US "We The People". This is the basis of the Constitution. When you are against the government, you are against yourself. The problem is not the Government, but the abuse thereof.

I did NOT vote for this. And I guarantee that if this auto bailout had been presented in an emergency ballot, I guarantee it would have failed. I can also guarantee to you that had it specified (government will take 50% ownership in GM) that that would also have been rejected as well. The government is not "We The People". I get the impression that you equate socialistic viewpoints with being the people's government. The United States started out as a Democratic Republic. A small federal government who's sole purpose was protection for the city-states.

That has grown significantly over the past 232 years...

 

[GS Stage 1]

The government is US "We The People". This is the basis of the Constitution. When you are against the government, you are against yourself. The problem is not the Government, but the abuse thereof.

Really? I guess you would be correct as long as the actions being taken by said government are truly “of the people, by the people, for the people”.

Given the road “we” are going down, then the next election cycle will tell the tale if your evaluation is accurate or not.

And I don’t really see where you alleging that I am an anarchist is really a very constructive criticism. I laid out just one very specific example of why the founding fathers believed in LIMITED GOVERNMENT and why that philosophy is so applicable to the situation at hand. And the best you can do is flame a personal accusation against me? I would assume that a well-educated US citizen and voter would have a much more constructive and rational response to alleviate my genuine concerns that our supposedly representative government may be overstepping their mandate.

 

[iainhp]

http://http://islandturtle.blogspot.com/2009/05/white-house-uses-strong-arm-tactics-to.html

Yesterday (May 1) on Detroit’s Frank Beckman’s morning talk show (WJR), bankruptcy attorney Tom Lauria made the incendiary accusation that the members of the White House had threatened to use the “the full force of the White House Press Corps to destroy” his client’s reputation if it didn’t acquiesce to highly unfavorable terms of the government’s proposed Chrysler restructuring plan. Because of the strongarm tactics, Lauria’s client dropped its opposition.

 

[82-T/A]

Island Turtle: White House uses strong arm tactics to extort concessions from lenders

This link works.

 

[iainhp]

Whoops, sorry about the link. Thanks for fixing it.

 

[duckSol]

http://http://islandturtle.blogspot.com/2009/05/white-house-uses-strong-arm-tactics-to.html

Yesterday (May 1) on Detroit’s Frank Beckman’s morning talk show (WJR), bankruptcy attorney Tom Lauria made the incendiary accusation that the members of the White House had threatened to use the “the full force of the White House Press Corps to destroy” his client’s reputation if it didn’t acquiesce to highly unfavorable terms of the government’s proposed Chrysler restructuring plan. Because of the strongarm tactics, Lauria’s client dropped its opposition.

The news of strongarm tactics is what enraged shareholders at the BOA meeting in Charlotte last week. Then as the market ticked up, analylists speculated the evil fund managers were driving the rally as a hedge against pressure on bond holders to capitulate at the behest of the White House.

On thursday the chatter on XM even on CNBC was the strong arm tactics and the coverage was very negative to the Administration.

Island Turtle: White House uses strong arm tactics to extort concessions from lenders

This link works.

That is tame compared to the after hours rants on the street blogs :lol:

 

[82-T/A]

The news of strongarm tactics is what enraged shareholders at the BOA meeting in Charlotte last week. Then as the market ticked up, analylists speculated the evil fund managers were driving the rally as a hedge against pressure on bond holders to capitulate at the behest of the White House.

On thursday the chatter on XM even on CNBC was the strong arm tactics and the coverage was very negative to the Administration.



That is tame compared to the after hours rants on the street blogs :lol:

Honestly, these strong arm tactics, or at least the indications of them have been muted, at best. I haven't really heard much about them at ALL on the local or national news stations. I don't really have much time to watch news, but I do go to CNN.com and FoxNews.com, and I haven't really seen much with respect to this.

As a matter of fact, the only places that I've seen this have been on MarketWatch.com (absolutely EXCELLENT financial web site for anyone who cares).

I had suspected this was the case as I did hear rumors that the banks were being encouraged not to pay it off that quickly... that it was in their "best interest" to retain the debt.

I really don't think Obama can hide behind the media much longer. Once the media finally latches onto something, they go full force... but it takes anything short of a smack in the station owner's face before they sometimes do it.

 

[duckSol]

Search the boldface

I will advertise the thread I started 82,

http://www.solsticeforum.com/forum/f11/break-even-not-robust-56134/

Star Parker - Welcome to the new capitalism

You have to read what I leave with intensity, I may be speaking in tounges like'
googlespeak or worse, Yiddish :lol:

 

[sahein]

I'm not leading into anything. I am conservative, but I'm not on some sort of Republican agenda. I agree that alternatives to getting oil in unstable regions are a positive and something we should be actively seeking. I WHOLE HEARTEDLY support drilling for oil in Anwar (if you want to get into an environmental debate, I'd be happy to take you on). I do not however, support off-shore drilling near the coast of Florida. There are ALREADY several hundred drilling areas that are available for lease presently in the gulf (not immediately off shore). The reason why no one drills there is because the oil is not profitable when the commodity is trading at under $50 a barrel. It's for this same reason why Hugo Chavez is quickly losing popularity in Venezuela right now, where as before (when it was well over $50 a barrel) he was widely popular. Their country is going heavily into debt right now and there's significantly less work available.

Where we get oil from exists as the cheapest supply of oil right now (although we could almost completely eliminate our Russia or middle east supply with oil from Anwar).

There's no pressure, demands, or pending war if we were to drill in Anwar. The underground pockets with which we would drill are already feeding the underground fields that Canada is pulling from.







What evidence and facts do I have? The debt for equity program that the auto task force has been pushing.

Here is from the UAW website:


"MARCH 16, 2009: Advisers to GM bondholders say they presented a framework plan to President Obama’s autos task force and GM that provides the company’s best chance for an out-of-court restructuring. They say the plan for a debt-to-equity exchange is consistent with U.S. government restructuring requirements."

GM’s Wagoner quits under U.S. pressure as 2nd bailout nears | 1853 Chairman

There are other links, but I figured one from the UAW would meet your bias requirements.

Obama's Auto Task Force have REQUESTED a "debt-to-equity" exchange. This isn't hear-say, this is fact... this is what gives the US government a 50% ownership stake in the corporation. This debt to equity exchange, more specifically... means trading the debt for OWNERSHIP of the company through corporate shares. When you own shares of General Motors (or any stock for that matter), you are entitled to a VOTE (one per share) for a variety of things. These include firing or hiring members of the board of directors, executives, and direction of the company as they are presented to the board. Since GM will have 50% ownership (under the plan PROPOSED by the requirements set forth by the auto task force), that means they will have the MAJORITY voting by the board of directors. This means they can (and have said that they will) seat their own board members.

This is speculative, but it ALSO means they will have control on the direction of the company... IE: choose to make fuel efficient cars, and eliminate cars they don't like. (They meaning the White House).

Now, you're referring to this as illegal, NO ONE SAID this was illegal. It is however Socialism in it's most purest evil form. I mean, that's not up for discussion, it simply is... and I for one will NOT support this. Hence my former statement that I hope GM fails miserably, and this becomes an example to all future socialist presidents that medling in the private sector simply doesn't work.

As much as a I hate to admit it... had Hilary become president, I don't think the government would be taking ownership of GM...





I did NOT vote for this. And I guarantee that if this auto bailout had been presented in an emergency ballot, I guarantee it would have failed. I can also guarantee to you that had it specified (government will take 50% ownership in GM) that that would also have been rejected as well. The government is not "We The People". I get the impression that you equate socialistic viewpoints with being the people's government. The United States started out as a Democratic Republic. A small federal government who's sole purpose was protection for the city-states.

That has grown significantly over the past 232 years...

Do you believe that there should have been no pressure applied to the CEO of a corporation that lost 95% of its value? Why would applying pressure to succeed be considered as a hostile government takeover in lite of the fact that GM requested the loan and agreed to the terms?

Frank Beckman is another media clown like Rush, has zero credibility and is not a reliable source of factual information.

Socialism is brother caring for brother, it is not communism. Remember the song "He ain't heavy, He's my brother? HOLLIES - HE AIN'T HEAVY, HE'S MY BROTHER LYRICS If you don't want socialism, you don't want your social security, medicare, retirement benefits, help from family, etc. A job is also social.

Do you really desire to be anti-social and go it alone with nobody's help? Is this the direction that you want to take the country and the world?

 

[GreyFox]

....How revealing...and really quite sad.