The Electoral Map of 18-29 Year Olds
- Thread starter HotShotX
- Start date
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='bmulligan']Or until youngins' become mature enough to realize their neighbors and their government can't solve all their problems. If the shit gets too bad, we might have to grow up sooner than expected.[/QUOTE]
The past 8 years have taught people not to trust government - that government is secretive, power hungry, tyrannical, tortuous, inept at handling national security, inept at handling war, inept at being fiscally responsible, inept at protecting citizens during natural disasters, inept at protecting citizen's civil rights, etc.
People know government can't solve their problems. That's the reason they voted these Republican dumb
s out in the first place.
The past 8 years have taught people not to trust government - that government is secretive, power hungry, tyrannical, tortuous, inept at handling national security, inept at handling war, inept at being fiscally responsible, inept at protecting citizens during natural disasters, inept at protecting citizen's civil rights, etc.
People know government can't solve their problems. That's the reason they voted these Republican dumb
s out in the first place.
nathansu
Banned
[quote name='bmulligan']Or until youngins' become mature enough to realize their neighbors and their government can't solve all their problems. If the shit gets too bad, we might have to grow up sooner than expected.[/quote]
Or you grow up and still notice that modern "conservatism" is based on principles of ignorance.
See : California and all of the east coast.
Or you grow up and still notice that modern "conservatism" is based on principles of ignorance.
See : California and all of the east coast.
cochesecochese
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 14 (100%)
[quote name='mykevermin']The past 8 years have taught people not to trust government - that government is secretive, power hungry, tyrannical, tortuous, inept at handling national security, inept at handling war, inept at being fiscally responsible, inept at protecting citizens during natural disasters, inept at protecting citizen's civil rights, etc.[/quote]
'Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision he makes and should just support that, you know, and be faithful in what happens.'
'Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision he makes and should just support that, you know, and be faithful in what happens.'
cochesecochese
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 14 (100%)
[quote name='bmulligan']Or until youngins' become mature enough to realize their neighbors and their government can't solve all their problems. If the shit gets too bad, we might have to grow up sooner than expected.[/quote]
How old are you?
How old are you?
HowStern
CAGiversary!
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']poll those people in 20 years and im sure the map will be drastically different. most youngins are liberal.[/quote]
Because that's how young people grew up in this day and age. They will grow up into their 40's, 50's, etc with these beliefs.
Just like the older conservatives now. They grew up with those beliefs. Because back 50 years ago everything was more conservative.
Because that's how young people grew up in this day and age. They will grow up into their 40's, 50's, etc with these beliefs.
Just like the older conservatives now. They grew up with those beliefs. Because back 50 years ago everything was more conservative.
Exactly, I don't think a lot of people will change their views. People may get more centrist, but people on the left aren't going to flip flop views to the right or vice versa. Extreme views on either side sometimes get toned down as one ages, but people don't flip flop totally. At least not in any great number.
I'll be leaving that age group next week, and if anything I've gotten more liberal over the years, but not by much. My views on most issues have been pretty consistent.
I'll be leaving that age group next week, and if anything I've gotten more liberal over the years, but not by much. My views on most issues have been pretty consistent.
Last edited by a moderator:
Dead of Knight
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
Lulz. However, I heard from multiple youngins in my classes that they voted a straight Republican ticket except for Obama.
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
I got addicted to Limbaugh at an early age. As I've aged, I've become more Libertarian. Is that becoming more extreme or mellowing out?
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
^ me too (save for the libertarian bit). I read and loved both of Limbaugh's books when I was in 7th-8th grade many moons ago.
Must be a KY thing.
Must be a KY thing.
niceguyshawne
CAGiversary!
I discovered Limbaugh in high school during the Bush 41 years and just went back to listening to him in the past year or so. Either I have mellowed in the past 20 years or he has gone ing nuts.
Most of his stuff could pass for comedy rather than social commentary.
ing nuts.Most of his stuff could pass for comedy rather than social commentary.
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='mykevermin']^ me too (save for the libertarian bit). I read and loved both of Limbaugh's books when I was in 7th-8th grade many moons ago.[/QUOTE]
Wow, dirty little secret, eh?
Wow, dirty little secret, eh?
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='mykevermin']^ me too (save for the libertarian bit). I read and loved both of Limbaugh's books when I was in 7th-8th grade many moons ago.
Must be a KY thing.[/quote]
Nope. I listened to Limbaugh while I lived in Missouri. My dad let me listen to KZIM when I played hooky in high school.
To Niceguyshawne: Limbaugh has changed with the party and has become an open water carrier for it. Since the Republican party is a party of Big Government along with the Dems, Limbaugh's rationalizations for preferring Republicans over Democrats strain logic on a daily basis.
I prefer Morning Joe to Limbaugh nowadays. Joe actually admitted on Colbert weeks before the election that McCain was going to lose. Of course, I think that is the last thing I liked coming out of Joe's mouth.
Must be a KY thing.[/quote]
Nope. I listened to Limbaugh while I lived in Missouri. My dad let me listen to KZIM when I played hooky in high school.
To Niceguyshawne: Limbaugh has changed with the party and has become an open water carrier for it. Since the Republican party is a party of Big Government along with the Dems, Limbaugh's rationalizations for preferring Republicans over Democrats strain logic on a daily basis.
I prefer Morning Joe to Limbaugh nowadays. Joe actually admitted on Colbert weeks before the election that McCain was going to lose. Of course, I think that is the last thing I liked coming out of Joe's mouth.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='elprincipe']Wow, dirty little secret, eh? [/QUOTE]
Ha. Yeah, was 13 years old, read both of his books, and loved his late night tv show during the "America Under Seige" days (I think that's what he called the early days of the Clinton administration).
When I was 13, I didn't want anybody taking the hard earned money I got from my parents in the form of an allowance. :lol:
[/QUOTE]Ha. Yeah, was 13 years old, read both of his books, and loved his late night tv show during the "America Under Seige" days (I think that's what he called the early days of the Clinton administration).
When I was 13, I didn't want anybody taking the hard earned money I got from my parents in the form of an allowance. :lol:
[quote name='mykevermin']The past 8 years have taught people not to trust government - that government is secretive, power hungry, tyrannical, tortuous, inept at handling national security, inept at handling war, inept at being fiscally responsible, inept at protecting citizens during natural disasters, inept at protecting citizen's civil rights, etc.
People know government can't solve their problems. That's the reason they voted these Republican dumbs out in the first place.[/quote]
I'm not so sure about this one, both parties lately have gotten really bad on the big government front. Plenty of people still believe the government will solve all their problems, the proof is which can be found in the fact that they overwhelmingly elected a guy who included this as the cornerstone of his platform. The government should only exist to protect my property and my rights, and preform functions that the private sector could not effectively do on their own ie: Mint Money, etc.
People know government can't solve their problems. That's the reason they voted these Republican dumb
s out in the first place.[/quote]I'm not so sure about this one, both parties lately have gotten really bad on the big government front. Plenty of people still believe the government will solve all their problems, the proof is which can be found in the fact that they overwhelmingly elected a guy who included this as the cornerstone of his platform. The government should only exist to protect my property and my rights, and preform functions that the private sector could not effectively do on their own ie: Mint Money, etc.
Access_Denied
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 89 (100%)
[quote name='HowStern']Because that's how young people grew up in this day and age. They will grow up into their 40's, 50's, etc with these beliefs.
Just like the older conservatives now. They grew up with those beliefs. Because back 50 years ago everything was more conservative.[/QUOTE]
And by then, the old will support democrats, and the young will support republicans.
Just like the older conservatives now. They grew up with those beliefs. Because back 50 years ago everything was more conservative.[/QUOTE]
And by then, the old will support democrats, and the young will support republicans.
Mechafenris
CAGiversary!
[quote name='spmahn']I'm not so sure about this one, both parties lately have gotten really bad on the big government front. Plenty of people still believe the government will solve all their problems, the proof is which can be found in the fact that they overwhelmingly elected a guy who included this as the cornerstone of his platform. The government should only exist to protect my property and my rights, and preform functions that the private sector could not effectively do on their own ie: Mint Money, etc.[/quote]
Indeed. Very well put. It's becoming more of a "one-party" system these days... The only differentiating factors are "scary" issues, but even then, those are simply polarizing rather than substantive. The current parties have seen what good old fashioned fearmongering can do to the generally poorly public-educated masses, and they've taken that ball and ran with it. Thanks to that, the messes we've found ourselves in are returning to haunt us, with our own collective sheep-like mentalities asking out loud "which of you will give me the most " and voila! The major parties wet themselves with glee... sickening. NEVER TRUST THE GOVERNMENT. It's been a mantra for centuries, but people STILL fall for it. It's like an ongoing 419 scam.
I am reminded of a Reagan quote from ages ago. When asked why he left the democratic party he replied "I didn't leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left me." More and more people are feeling that way. It'll be interesting to see how long it'll take for an actual thinking majority to realize this and we can get off the teeter-totter of "throwing the bums out, replacing them with the other bums" every few years.
Of course I'm old... so that makes me untrustworthy. I was in college when Limbaugh first hit the airwaves, so I align myself more philosophically with the late, great, William F. Buckley, Jr. and the always insightful Thomas Sowell. (and more recently interested in what John McWhorter has to say.) I'm old school free market, with an emphasis on State's rights and personal responsibility. I am, and never will be a cheerleader for Lincoln's federalism legacy.
Speaking of which, Limbaugh hasn't been close to the true conservative ideal in decades. He's become what the Olbermanns and Matthews of the press are... mouthpieces and cheerleaders for their party of choice. I don't doubt originally Matthews and Olbermann were less pedantically cheerleading a party in their early days... (well, Olbermann was a sportscaster... but now he's just as much of a blowhard as O'Reilly and Hannity...etc.) It's all a system set up to pander to the fears and prejudices of the electorate as a whole... with sound-bytes and ADHD inducing policy discussions that give you no insight into the real motivation behind candidate A or B... and no one is willing to learn more about it.... preferring the pablum of these pundits as the sole source of their information. No person/party/philosophy fully encompasses a person's complex ideas about how things are or should be, so before we go a-labeling... we should first figure out what it is we _really_ believe, rather than what we've been _told_ to believe. In the end, an informed electorate is the biggest fear politicians have. Let's scare the hell out of them.
Indeed. Very well put. It's becoming more of a "one-party" system these days... The only differentiating factors are "scary" issues, but even then, those are simply polarizing rather than substantive. The current parties have seen what good old fashioned fearmongering can do to the generally poorly public-educated masses, and they've taken that ball and ran with it. Thanks to that, the messes we've found ourselves in are returning to haunt us, with our own collective sheep-like mentalities asking out loud "which of you will give me the most " and voila! The major parties wet themselves with glee... sickening. NEVER TRUST THE GOVERNMENT. It's been a mantra for centuries, but people STILL fall for it. It's like an ongoing 419 scam.
I am reminded of a Reagan quote from ages ago. When asked why he left the democratic party he replied "I didn't leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left me." More and more people are feeling that way. It'll be interesting to see how long it'll take for an actual thinking majority to realize this and we can get off the teeter-totter of "throwing the bums out, replacing them with the other bums" every few years.
Of course I'm old... so that makes me untrustworthy.
I was in college when Limbaugh first hit the airwaves, so I align myself more philosophically with the late, great, William F. Buckley, Jr. and the always insightful Thomas Sowell. (and more recently interested in what John McWhorter has to say.) I'm old school free market, with an emphasis on State's rights and personal responsibility. I am, and never will be a cheerleader for Lincoln's federalism legacy. Speaking of which, Limbaugh hasn't been close to the true conservative ideal in decades. He's become what the Olbermanns and Matthews of the press are... mouthpieces and cheerleaders for their party of choice. I don't doubt originally Matthews and Olbermann were less pedantically cheerleading a party in their early days... (well, Olbermann was a sportscaster... but now he's just as much of a blowhard as O'Reilly and Hannity...etc.) It's all a system set up to pander to the fears and prejudices of the electorate as a whole... with sound-bytes and ADHD inducing policy discussions that give you no insight into the real motivation behind candidate A or B... and no one is willing to learn more about it.... preferring the pablum of these pundits as the sole source of their information. No person/party/philosophy fully encompasses a person's complex ideas about how things are or should be, so before we go a-labeling... we should first figure out what it is we _really_ believe, rather than what we've been _told_ to believe. In the end, an informed electorate is the biggest fear politicians have. Let's scare the hell out of them.
[quote name='Mechafenris']
...Of course I'm old... so that makes me untrustworthy. I was in college when Limbaugh first hit the airwaves, so I align myself more philosophically with the late, great, William F. Buckley, Jr. and the always insightful Thomas Sowell... [/QUOTE]
And I thought I was the only old man in this forum.
...Of course I'm old... so that makes me untrustworthy.
I was in college when Limbaugh first hit the airwaves, so I align myself more philosophically with the late, great, William F. Buckley, Jr. and the always insightful Thomas Sowell... [/QUOTE]And I thought I was the only old man in this forum.
speedracer
Banned
[quote name='spmahn']I'm not so sure about this one, both parties lately have gotten really bad on the big government front.[/QUOTE]
I'm curious what Democrats have done in the last 16 years that deserves the "big government" tag. They talk a good game, but all I can think of to support that claim is the new GI Bill which is ridiculously overdue... and ... ?
[quote name='Mechafenris']It's becoming more of a "one-party" system these days... The only differentiating factors are "scary" issues, but even then, those are simply polarizing rather than substantive.[/quote]
I can't see it like that no matter how I turn it around and upside down. The two parties see economics in vastly different terms, their social positions are about as different as can be. How do you support that conclusion?
It wasn't their support of labor, Reagan was a bona fide union buster.
It wasn't their economic policy, they'd been doing it that way for 50 years.
It wasn't their social policy, the progressive movement and the Dems were virtually synonymous for at least 20 years, probably longer to be honest.
Is there something else?
I've talked to a couple of pseudo-libertarians since the election, and they're all saying pretty much the same thing as was posted here. We have a party that has virtually smashed the other, differing significantly with their opponents on most significant issues. Where's the reality here? It's like libertarians are all regressing to some fantasy world where everyone thinks like them despite the fact that the country has just given the Democrats probably the greatest grip on power that we'll see any party get for a generation.
And *they're* the uninformed ones.
Earth to libertarians. You hitched your horse to scumbag religionists that hijacked your agenda, dragged it through the mud, and now you're reaping the harvest you sowed with the devil. All the faux distancing from the party system in the world isn't going to change the fact that your policy could not be implemented through your coalition and now you're going back to the wilderness. You have no one to blame but yourselves.
I'm curious what Democrats have done in the last 16 years that deserves the "big government" tag. They talk a good game, but all I can think of to support that claim is the new GI Bill which is ridiculously overdue... and ... ?
[quote name='Mechafenris']It's becoming more of a "one-party" system these days... The only differentiating factors are "scary" issues, but even then, those are simply polarizing rather than substantive.[/quote]
I can't see it like that no matter how I turn it around and upside down. The two parties see economics in vastly different terms, their social positions are about as different as can be. How do you support that conclusion?
I just saw the first national campaign I've ever seen in which one of the candidate's whole position was a turn from fear politics and he mopped the floor with the other guy. I mean really, does our current climate hold a candle to the Daisy ads? I don't get it.
You know, Reagan was always great with the one liners. I wonder exactly which part of the old party he agreed with and they changed?
It wasn't their support of labor, Reagan was a bona fide union buster.
It wasn't their economic policy, they'd been doing it that way for 50 years.
It wasn't their social policy, the progressive movement and the Dems were virtually synonymous for at least 20 years, probably longer to be honest.
Is there something else?
Which is why the Democrats now hold more seats in the House *AND* Senate than the Republicans ever got after the Republican Revolution and subsequent elections. How do you support this assertion??
What exactly do you want, other than someone who thinks just like you?
I've talked to a couple of pseudo-libertarians since the election, and they're all saying pretty much the same thing as was posted here. We have a party that has virtually smashed the other, differing significantly with their opponents on most significant issues. Where's the reality here? It's like libertarians are all regressing to some fantasy world where everyone thinks like them despite the fact that the country has just given the Democrats probably the greatest grip on power that we'll see any party get for a generation.
And *they're* the uninformed ones.
Earth to libertarians. You hitched your horse to scumbag religionists that hijacked your agenda, dragged it through the mud, and now you're reaping the harvest you sowed with the devil. All the faux distancing from the party system in the world isn't going to change the fact that your policy could not be implemented through your coalition and now you're going back to the wilderness. You have no one to blame but yourselves.
[quote name='speedracer']
I can't see it like that no matter how I turn it around and upside down. The two parties see economics in vastly different terms, their social positions are about as different as can be.
How do you support that conclusion?
[/QUOTE]
I agree 100%.
As for how libertarians support that conclusion, it's that the care about little other than having as small of government as possible and as low of taxes as possible, so they don't bother looking at the other differences between the democratic and republican parties.
Both support way more government than they want, so they just say it's a one party system as neither remotely fits their view of how the government should work.
That said, I just laugh it off as the libertarian approach to government will never be remotely relevant in our increasingly global society.
I can't see it like that no matter how I turn it around and upside down. The two parties see economics in vastly different terms, their social positions are about as different as can be.
How do you support that conclusion?
[/QUOTE]
I agree 100%.
As for how libertarians support that conclusion, it's that the care about little other than having as small of government as possible and as low of taxes as possible, so they don't bother looking at the other differences between the democratic and republican parties.
Both support way more government than they want, so they just say it's a one party system as neither remotely fits their view of how the government should work.
That said, I just laugh it off as the libertarian approach to government will never be remotely relevant in our increasingly global society.
SoonerMatt
CAGiversary!
I effing lol'd at a blue Texas. Maybe in Austin, San Antonio, and parts of the DFW metro, but come on.
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='dmaul1114']That said, I just laugh it off as the libertarian approach to government will never be remotely relevant in our increasingly global society.[/quote]
That's true. Far too many people prefer to suckle.
That's true. Far too many people prefer to suckle.
[quote name='javeryh']Doesn't anyone vote for the issues? Shouldn't you vote for whoever you think has the best plan for the country no matter the affiliation with a particular party?[/QUOTE]
Who here has said otherwise? The libertarians don't vote, vote for their party candidate or write someone in. I voted for Obama as his policies most closely meshed with my ideals.
We were just discussing how it's silly to say we have a one party system when there are a lot of differences between democrats and republicans that libertarians ignore since they both support big government. It's not a 1 party system. It's a 2 party system where both parties fundamentally disagree with the libertarian view on the size and role of government. It sucks for them, but it doesn't mean there are no substantive differences between the two parties.
Who here has said otherwise? The libertarians don't vote, vote for their party candidate or write someone in. I voted for Obama as his policies most closely meshed with my ideals.
We were just discussing how it's silly to say we have a one party system when there are a lot of differences between democrats and republicans that libertarians ignore since they both support big government. It's not a 1 party system. It's a 2 party system where both parties fundamentally disagree with the libertarian view on the size and role of government. It sucks for them, but it doesn't mean there are no substantive differences between the two parties.
Last edited by a moderator:
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='dmaul1114']Who here has said otherwise? The libertarians don't vote, vote for their party candidate or right someone in. I voted for Obama as his policies most closely meshed with my ideals.
We were just discussing how it's silly to say we have a one party system when there are a lot of differences between democrats and republicans that libertarians ignore since they both support big government.[/quote]
I voted for Obama.
I don't particularly like the thought of a bigger government, but I prefer a government spending hundreds of billions on renewable energy instead of picking a third war with Russia.
I recognize that the government is going to continue to grow. It might as well grow in the most peaceful direction as possible.
If Obama can end both wars and roll out something like the Pickens' Plan in 8 years, I could be satisfied.
We were just discussing how it's silly to say we have a one party system when there are a lot of differences between democrats and republicans that libertarians ignore since they both support big government.[/quote]
I voted for Obama.
I don't particularly like the thought of a bigger government, but I prefer a government spending hundreds of billions on renewable energy instead of picking a third war with Russia.
I recognize that the government is going to continue to grow. It might as well grow in the most peaceful direction as possible.
If Obama can end both wars and roll out something like the Pickens' Plan in 8 years, I could be satisfied.
[quote name='dmaul1114']Who here has said otherwise? The libertarians don't vote, vote for their party candidate or write someone in. I voted for Obama as his policies most closely meshed with my ideals.
We were just discussing how it's silly to say we have a one party system when there are a lot of differences between democrats and republicans that libertarians ignore since they both support big government. It's not a 1 party system. It's a 2 party system where both parties fundamentally disagree with the libertarian view on the size and role of government. It sucks for them, but it doesn't mean there are no substantive differences between the two parties.[/QUOTE]
I don't think a two-party system "sucks". Could one imagine how divided our country would be if we had three to five viable candidates for president? The country would end up electing a president that received 25% or less of the vote. Its already bad enough when 46% of the country does not like a president elect before he or she steps into the white house, but imagine if they stepped in with 80% of the country not liking them. And on top of that those 80% divided into groups of 2 to 4 different parties.
We were just discussing how it's silly to say we have a one party system when there are a lot of differences between democrats and republicans that libertarians ignore since they both support big government. It's not a 1 party system. It's a 2 party system where both parties fundamentally disagree with the libertarian view on the size and role of government. It sucks for them, but it doesn't mean there are no substantive differences between the two parties.[/QUOTE]
I don't think a two-party system "sucks". Could one imagine how divided our country would be if we had three to five viable candidates for president? The country would end up electing a president that received 25% or less of the vote. Its already bad enough when 46% of the country does not like a president elect before he or she steps into the white house, but imagine if they stepped in with 80% of the country not liking them. And on top of that those 80% divided into groups of 2 to 4 different parties.
[quote name='gareman']I don't think a two-party system "sucks". Could one imagine how divided our country would be if we had three to five viable candidates for president? The country would end up electing a president that received 25% or less of the vote. Its already bad enough when 46% of the country does not like a president elect before he or she steps into the white house, but imagine if they stepped in with 80% of the country not liking them. And on top of that those 80% divided into groups of 2 to 4 different parties.[/QUOTE]
I agree. I just meant it sucks for the people who don't identify with either of the parties as they are left out and can't be very enthused about the US political system. But I think it's a good thing to only have 2 viable parties most of the time for the reasons you list.
I agree. I just meant it sucks for the people who don't identify with either of the parties as they are left out and can't be very enthused about the US political system. But I think it's a good thing to only have 2 viable parties most of the time for the reasons you list.
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='Koggit']Can we stop pretending Picken's Plan is anything close to a good idea? Please?[/quote]
Which part do you disagree with? The massive handouts to wind farm owners or the idea of permanently displacing fossil fuel energy with green energy?
Here's a dirty little secret:
It costs $13 to produce 1 MWh with coal. Supposedly, it costs $18 to produce 1 MWh with wind BEFORE the $20/MWh federal credit.
Which part do you disagree with? The massive handouts to wind farm owners or the idea of permanently displacing fossil fuel energy with green energy?
Here's a dirty little secret:
It costs $13 to produce 1 MWh with coal. Supposedly, it costs $18 to produce 1 MWh with wind BEFORE the $20/MWh federal credit.
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='gareman']I don't think a two-party system "sucks". Could one imagine how divided our country would be if we had three to five viable candidates for president? The country would end up electing a president that received 25% or less of the vote. Its already bad enough when 46% of the country does not like a president elect before he or she steps into the white house, but imagine if they stepped in with 80% of the country not liking them. And on top of that those 80% divided into groups of 2 to 4 different parties.[/QUOTE]
So you are in support of people voting for the lesser of two evils? That's how a majority votes in this country. I think that's sad. Wouldn't you prefer no parties to the two crappy ones we have now?
So you are in support of people voting for the lesser of two evils? That's how a majority votes in this country. I think that's sad. Wouldn't you prefer no parties to the two crappy ones we have now?
Mechafenris
CAGiversary!
[quote name='speedracer']I'm curious what Democrats have done in the last 16 years that deserves the "big government" tag. They talk a good game, but all I can think of to support that claim is the new GI Bill which is ridiculously overdue... and ... ?[/quote]
Easy. DMCA, Nancy Pelosi giving subsidies to salmon farmers so they "won't fish" because they "can't fish" (rather than doing what most people do when their job is downsized. FIND A NEW ONE.) Pro IP Act (which is bipartisan, but the dems could've defeated that expansive growth of the Justice Dept...) Big government doesn't mean every time we say it "an expansion of the size of government", because the Feds can take power without costing all that much. Cementing federal control _IS_ big government. That's just off the top of my head... If I sat down, I could think of most of them without a history book, I suppose. Aggregious usurpation of power is easy to remember.... no matter which party did it.
Don't pretend this shift to the Democrats is somehow new or revolutionary. History has taught us that these things happen ALL the time and have done so in many cases during America's past. People get fed up with a party in power, because they get drunk with said power, special interests, and scandals, and they vote them out. The difference is merely the date. It took how long for voters to give a Republican Majority in Congress in 1994? I think in the age of the internet, those timeframes are going to shorten.
FF to 2008: A "perfect storm" of economic stupidity came home to roost, and the Republicans shouldered most of the blame that should've gone across the aisle as well. I hold both parties responsible for this mess, and I am not favoring one over another. Since the Democrats were in a majority for a short time, they're getting a free pass this cycle. (Yes, I know not a filibuster proof majority, but they controlled what went out of committee.) The fact that not ALL incumbents were ousted in this cycle shows that people are Pavlovian in their programmed responses to abuse of power. I'd be surprised if the Dems keep that lead in the next 2 year cycle. People are short on patience, as a rule. Unless some miracles occur, we're going to see a shift away from the majority again... It may be a shift back below a filibuster proof majority... but it'll happen in a cycle or two. Then we'll be having this same discussion. They're already greasing the press with "it isn't going to be easy... give 'em 2 or 3 years..." etc. etc. I enjoy the complicity of the press in shaping how people are told to think.
Might I suggest you read some Jefferson, Thomas Sowell, and the like so you can get a perspective on Libertarians other than what you think you know? Name me one Libertarian candidate for President (besides Bob Barr) and you'll see why it's a long road forward before we get past the morons who believe the 2-Party system isn't broken. Perot wasn't a libertarian.
Since we're having fun... Earth to Democrats. You have no more excuses. If change doesn't occur, well... be prepared to pack your bags like the Republicans are now.
I for one am interested to see how the Democrats, drunk with power, are going to make things better this time around. They've had the power before but they squandered it. Just like the Republicans. I have little faith that anything will be "better" under the Democrats, because the only real answer is LESS, not MORE government. Yet people have missed that key fact for many years. We're going to get more government... it's the status quo with a new mascot.
Easy. DMCA, Nancy Pelosi giving subsidies to salmon farmers so they "won't fish" because they "can't fish" (rather than doing what most people do when their job is downsized. FIND A NEW ONE.) Pro IP Act (which is bipartisan, but the dems could've defeated that expansive growth of the Justice Dept...) Big government doesn't mean every time we say it "an expansion of the size of government", because the Feds can take power without costing all that much. Cementing federal control _IS_ big government. That's just off the top of my head... If I sat down, I could think of most of them without a history book, I suppose. Aggregious usurpation of power is easy to remember.... no matter which party did it.
The Dems want to bail out GM, and yes it was proposed initially by McCain. The Dems wanted more loans to go to "less fortunate" folk who couldn't otherwise qualify (see 1999 NYT article praising the Clinton admins pressure of Fannie/Freddie to do just that... and lo, we collect the subprime mess.) Need I go on? Just because the fingerpointing worked doesn't mean the blame isn't enough to go around to both "parties".
Not quite, but it certainly doesn't stray far from it. The only thing missing was a Willie Horton ad and this campaign would be status Quo. Just because Obama used his speeches to scare people, and not his TV ads, doesn't make him less of a fearmonger than Hillary, McCain or whoever else you can remember from this campaign.
Obama's got the "Reaganesque" one-liner down pat. I've not seen a Demcorat pull that off in decades. But let's see.... Obama just supported (and got passed before the election go underway full steam) an initiative to remove secret ballots in Union votes. Big Labor thank-you? I think so. Sounds like Big Labor wants to exclude dissent. The only difference between Big Labor and the mob is the quality of their suits. Let's not move this away from the discussion at hand... but it's been that way for decades, and since labor laws now favor the worker rather than the company in most cases... their obsolescence is not exaggerated... except when they screw their membership over and piss away millions. Your "ideal" democratic party isn't even close to any of those statements, neither now nor in the dim past. You have to reach back a LONG way to find those planks in the platform, and back then the Democrats were the Republicans and vice-versa. It's all about what you choose to ignore. And it seems that people today can ignore a whole bunch of stuff to make the parties look "different". The democratic party isn't the populist/progressive they paint themselves to be... and riding the coattails of the 1964 civil rights act and the New Deal is getting pretty old... The democrats are just as manipulated by big business as big labor... it just depends on when you hold a spotlight to them...
The same way I support the "Reagan Revolution" and the landslides he achieved. People were SO fed up with how Carter mishandled the country that THE OTHER guy was a viable choice. Being old enough to remember the oil embargo means being old enough to remember what the 70's were like for us. That other guy, the Republican, happened to be Reagan. This time around, people were so blindly obedient to their particular presidential candidate that we saw another of the "coattails" syndrome like in the old days of our once 2 party system. Obama got the same popular vote that Clinton did when he won... roughly. And this election mirrors the last Bush wins in terms of vote count. The Electoral College does not a landslide make... Unless you're Reagan... which gave one state or two to Carter... and only one state to Mondale.
Don't pretend this shift to the Democrats is somehow new or revolutionary. History has taught us that these things happen ALL the time and have done so in many cases during America's past. People get fed up with a party in power, because they get drunk with said power, special interests, and scandals, and they vote them out. The difference is merely the date. It took how long for voters to give a Republican Majority in Congress in 1994? I think in the age of the internet, those timeframes are going to shorten.
FF to 2008: A "perfect storm" of economic stupidity came home to roost, and the Republicans shouldered most of the blame that should've gone across the aisle as well. I hold both parties responsible for this mess, and I am not favoring one over another. Since the Democrats were in a majority for a short time, they're getting a free pass this cycle. (Yes, I know not a filibuster proof majority, but they controlled what went out of committee.) The fact that not ALL incumbents were ousted in this cycle shows that people are Pavlovian in their programmed responses to abuse of power. I'd be surprised if the Dems keep that lead in the next 2 year cycle. People are short on patience, as a rule. Unless some miracles occur, we're going to see a shift away from the majority again... It may be a shift back below a filibuster proof majority... but it'll happen in a cycle or two. Then we'll be having this same discussion. They're already greasing the press with "it isn't going to be easy... give 'em 2 or 3 years..." etc. etc. I enjoy the complicity of the press in shaping how people are told to think.
Why do you assume that my political views mean that I am unsatisfied with anyone who isn't a clone of me? Your bias towards libertarian leaning people is showing. You are a sore "winner". I want a government that the Founders envisioned. Small, focused, and Constitutional. I want a State government that doesn't pretend to have all the answers, and we... as Americans take some personal responsibility and stop foisting our power back to the government...
Might I suggest you read some Jefferson, Thomas Sowell, and the like so you can get a perspective on Libertarians other than what you think you know? Name me one Libertarian candidate for President (besides Bob Barr) and you'll see why it's a long road forward before we get past the morons who believe the 2-Party system isn't broken. Perot wasn't a libertarian.
You seem very bitter when you talk about Libertarians. How can you be? You won. You got what you wanted. You said so yourself. So now the dissenting political views are full of "stupid" people? Just because you know some people who espouse the ideals of the Founders and choose to practice the same old same old, doesn't mean everyone who claims to be Libertarian or Independent does as well. The funny thing is, Dems nor Repubs are even close to my philosophy. When Libertarians hold to their true philosophy, they are aligned with the true ideal of conservatism and what the Founders meant by "power to the people".
Since we're having fun... Earth to Democrats. You have no more excuses. If change doesn't occur, well... be prepared to pack your bags like the Republicans are now.
I for one am interested to see how the Democrats, drunk with power, are going to make things better this time around. They've had the power before but they squandered it. Just like the Republicans. I have little faith that anything will be "better" under the Democrats, because the only real answer is LESS, not MORE government. Yet people have missed that key fact for many years. We're going to get more government... it's the status quo with a new mascot.
[quote name='elprincipe']So you are in support of people voting for the lesser of two evils? That's how a majority votes in this country. I think that's sad. Wouldn't you prefer no parties to the two crappy ones we have now?[/QUOTE]
No parties would be ideal, but it's too late for that. No parties would force people to vote for candidates on their stances on issues, rather than just their party. While also not dividing the country along party lines.
I also don't think people should necessarily vote for the lesser of two evils, they should vote for the candidate of their choice. But I think it's a good thing that we only have to relevant parties. There's too much partisan bickering already (this forum is largely unreadable at times because of it), it would be a disaster if there 4 or 5 parties with roughly equal support. Congress already can't get much done just split two ways.
No parties would be ideal, but it's too late for that. No parties would force people to vote for candidates on their stances on issues, rather than just their party. While also not dividing the country along party lines.
I also don't think people should necessarily vote for the lesser of two evils, they should vote for the candidate of their choice. But I think it's a good thing that we only have to relevant parties. There's too much partisan bickering already (this forum is largely unreadable at times because of it), it would be a disaster if there 4 or 5 parties with roughly equal support. Congress already can't get much done just split two ways.
Mechafenris
CAGiversary!
[quote name='dmaul1114']I agree 100%.
As for how libertarians support that conclusion, it's that the care about little other than having as small of government as possible and as low of taxes as possible, so they don't bother looking at the other differences between the democratic and republican parties. [/quote]
That's a gross oversimplification. It's just as ludicrous to say that Democrats hate business. Blanket statements don't work. Read some of the Founders' writings. You'll see how wrong both parties have gotten it and through complicity, we allowed it to happen.
As for how libertarians support that conclusion, it's that the care about little other than having as small of government as possible and as low of taxes as possible, so they don't bother looking at the other differences between the democratic and republican parties. [/quote]
That's a gross oversimplification. It's just as ludicrous to say that Democrats hate business. Blanket statements don't work. Read some of the Founders' writings. You'll see how wrong both parties have gotten it and through complicity, we allowed it to happen.
All most libertarians want is a government that is outlined in the Constitution. It's not hard to see we don't have that. It's not "an excuse" when we say it's a one-party system. And it's not "our view"... it's the Founders view.
Just because it's commonplace doesn't mean a lean, constitutional government can't work in a "global" society. You seem to want to throw in the towel and head towards the ideal of Old Europe... making a true "Nanny State" that clothes, feeds, and buries you when and how they see fit. Read the Constitution and you can see how the Founders viewed Old Europe. (That and the Declaration of Independence....)
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='dmaul1114']No parties would be ideal, but it's too late for that. No parties would force people to vote for candidates on their stances on issues, rather than just their party. While also not dividing the country along party lines.[/QUOTE]
Why give up so easily on the founding ideals of our country? There is no need for political parties, which simply allow for the interests of that party to be pitted against the interests of the country in the minds of politicians. I think the only reason we have the current system is people accept it.
Why give up so easily on the founding ideals of our country? There is no need for political parties, which simply allow for the interests of that party to be pitted against the interests of the country in the minds of politicians. I think the only reason we have the current system is people accept it.
Those are mostly points I don't waste time arguing with libertarians on, as it's just a fundamental disagreement and not worth wasting time on as neither of us will give an inch. I have my view on how government and society should work and you have yours and neither of us is flexible in that view. But what the hell.
I don't want a nanny state, I just accept that we need a strong federal government, military etc. to exist in the global society. That public education is a must, that the government is the best to deal with road systems and other infrastructure etc. From the "welfare" angle, I simply think the government has to play a role in helping the less fortunate as human beings are self interested, and in a capitalist society especially, the private sector would never do enough (myself included) for the poor, the disabled, the elderly etc.
We don't need a nanny state, but the government should do what it can to help its citizens help themselves, and to take care of those who truly can't help themselves. But, conversely, there needs to be strict limits to aid to people who can work and take care of themselves. Help them pay for education if they're poor etc., but we shouldn't give handouts to the lazy etc.
But I know you'll disagree with all of that, so that's as far as I'll go with this topic.
I don't want a nanny state, I just accept that we need a strong federal government, military etc. to exist in the global society. That public education is a must, that the government is the best to deal with road systems and other infrastructure etc. From the "welfare" angle, I simply think the government has to play a role in helping the less fortunate as human beings are self interested, and in a capitalist society especially, the private sector would never do enough (myself included) for the poor, the disabled, the elderly etc.
We don't need a nanny state, but the government should do what it can to help its citizens help themselves, and to take care of those who truly can't help themselves. But, conversely, there needs to be strict limits to aid to people who can work and take care of themselves. Help them pay for education if they're poor etc., but we shouldn't give handouts to the lazy etc.
But I know you'll disagree with all of that, so that's as far as I'll go with this topic.
[quote name='elprincipe']Why give up so easily on the founding ideals of our country? There is no need for political parties, which simply allow for the interests of that party to be pitted against the interests of the country in the minds of politicians. I think the only reason we have the current system is people accept it.[/QUOTE]
Founding ideals? Those didn't last very long. Right after Washington it was the Federalist Adams battling against the Republican Jefferson in the next two elections.
The party system is just engrained in US politics--and in politics in most democratic societies. It's not giving up easily, just realizing that's the way it's pretty much always been and I just don't see it being possible to change.
Founding ideals? Those didn't last very long. Right after Washington it was the Federalist Adams battling against the Republican Jefferson in the next two elections.
The party system is just engrained in US politics--and in politics in most democratic societies. It's not giving up easily, just realizing that's the way it's pretty much always been and I just don't see it being possible to change.
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Supposedly, it costs $18 to produce 1 MWh with wind BEFORE the $20/MWh federal credit.[/QUOTE]
Sauce?
Wind-generated power is sold for well over $20/MWh after subsidies, so I have a pretty hard time believing the $18 figure. I'm willing to be that only includes maintenance costs, not land or infrastructure. I bet that coal figure, by contrast, includes everything.
Pickens' Plan is really just a "Make T. Boone Pickens Even Richer" plan... he invested a shit-ton into wind and now he wants the government to make his pipe dream profitable, so he throws millions at an advertising campaign to trick Americans into asking their politicians to make him richer... that's my problem with it, really.
The real solution is not so simple as "Uncle Sam, please throw money at my wind investment." The real solution will require primarily nuclear and solar, with hydro and geothermal where applicable. Clean coal for less dense areas. Wind where applicable (in America, hardly anywhere).
Sauce?
Wind-generated power is sold for well over $20/MWh after subsidies, so I have a pretty hard time believing the $18 figure. I'm willing to be that only includes maintenance costs, not land or infrastructure. I bet that coal figure, by contrast, includes everything.
Pickens' Plan is really just a "Make T. Boone Pickens Even Richer" plan... he invested a shit-ton into wind and now he wants the government to make his pipe dream profitable, so he throws millions at an advertising campaign to trick Americans into asking their politicians to make him richer... that's my problem with it, really.
The real solution is not so simple as "Uncle Sam, please throw money at my wind investment." The real solution will require primarily nuclear and solar, with hydro and geothermal where applicable. Clean coal for less dense areas. Wind where applicable (in America, hardly anywhere).
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='dmaul1114']Founding ideals? Those didn't last very long. Right after Washington it was the Federalist Adams battling against the Republican Jefferson in the next two elections.
The party system is just engrained in US politics--and in politics in most democratic societies. It's not giving up easily, just realizing that's the way it's pretty much always been and I just don't see it being possible to change.[/QUOTE]
I'm well aware of the history. Many democratic societies have more than two major or influential parties. (Just to name a few: Canada, Germany, United Kingdom) It's not too big of a stretch to hope that the new political world ushered in by the new media and new fundraising (all made possible by our friend the Internet -- now watch the established parties try to take it down) will continue the decline and eventually kill the inherently flawed party system.
The party system is just engrained in US politics--and in politics in most democratic societies. It's not giving up easily, just realizing that's the way it's pretty much always been and I just don't see it being possible to change.[/QUOTE]
I'm well aware of the history. Many democratic societies have more than two major or influential parties. (Just to name a few: Canada, Germany, United Kingdom) It's not too big of a stretch to hope that the new political world ushered in by the new media and new fundraising (all made possible by our friend the Internet -- now watch the established parties try to take it down) will continue the decline and eventually kill the inherently flawed party system.
speedracer
Banned
[quote name='Mechafenris']Easy. DMCA,[/quote]
Whoa there stud. The DMCA, while bad, was also the same bill that contained the Safe Harbor provision that has been instrumental to the social internet growth.
I'm just so twisted upside down and backwards now.
I cut out a bunch of self indulgent rambling. Moving on...
No, what you mean to say is that when the Republicans are in power, they should be doing it the way *YOU* want. And when the Dems are in power, they should be doing it the way *YOU* want.
Um, no.
Heck, maybe I am a sore loser. Maybe I'm crazy for saying the Democrats should rule as if they have crushing majorities in all three legislative branches. Rule as if over 7 million more people voted for their presidential candidate. Rule as if they won states south of the mason dixon. Rule as if they have near filibuster proof majorities.
You know, rule as if the people have given them majorities for a reason.
The tyranny will always win. Always. The delusion is entirely yours. Meanwhile, you fantasize about a freedom and liberty and capitalism that could never exist and carry water for corporatists that still can't believe you let them rob you blind.
You show me a libertarian in a position of power that didn't sell out the second they hit power, and I'll produce the easter bunny. Jefferson, the libertarian's libertarian... that bought the louisiana territory without asking congress, not only opening the purse strings without authority or permission, but vastly expanding the power of the executive. The rhetoric and reality just won't collide for libertarians.
Oh, right, according to libertarians he's squandered it. Right right. How quaint.
And this is why I can't stand libertarians. They see the world around them and they find a way to delude themselves enough to think they're relevant. I don't get it.
Whoa there stud. The DMCA, while bad, was also the same bill that contained the Safe Harbor provision that has been instrumental to the social internet growth.
Yes, I hate *insertporkprojecthere* too, but let's not miss the forest through the trees.
Uh, not exactly into high impact bills, huh? I mean, we're talking about relatively obscure pieces of legislation here. Sure, it's a dog, but in the great scheme of the great wide world.. the PRO IP act is the one you hang your hat on after such strong comments in your first post??
The Republicans have held the executive branch for 20 of the last 28 years, and Congress for 12 of the last 14. It makes sense to me to appropriate that venom based on earning it, rather than socializing it (haha).
That is a very long debate with excellent points on both sides. Distilling it down like that is unfair.. what did you call it? Something about a stupid electorate or something to that effect.
Oh please, that's a trashy argument. The financiers of the world couldn't wait to introduce tranches and get it rubber stamped with a AAA rating, gladly peddling garbage as long as they got their fat bonus for making their numbers. The banking issue wasn't a break down of legislation, it was a break down of capitalism, plain and simple.
So privatize the political gains, socialize the political losses, eh?
lulz. Raise your hand if you were scared by the rhetoric of Obama? Anyone? Anyone at all? Give me a break.
Right, after dropping a bomb like that, we don't want to get bogged down in your wild accusations. I've been a union member and steward for the CWA. Don't fling poo at the wall and hope it sticks if you aren't going to be honest about the very debatable issues surrounding balloting of a private organization. Oh wait, that's right. You're telling a private organization how it should do business. We're against that, right?
I'm just so twisted upside down and backwards now.
I cut out a bunch of self indulgent rambling. Moving on...
Bush has fundamentally changed this country through two of the most razor thin margins in history. What on earth makes you think that Obama doesn't have at least the same tail wind? Or given that a whole slew on incoming freshmen legislators owe their seats to him? The libertarians/Republicans asserted brutal control through the raw political power of Tom Delay and George Bush paired with the politics of fear honed to a fine edge. And they still never got to where Obama and the Dems are now in terms of numbers.
No, what you mean to say is that when the Republicans are in power, they should be doing it the way *YOU* want. And when the Dems are in power, they should be doing it the way *YOU* want.
Um, no.
Mmmmk.
Small like Jefferson that hated corporations, or small like Norquist that wants to intentionally bankrupt the American government?
Heck, maybe I am a sore loser. Maybe I'm crazy for saying the Democrats should rule as if they have crushing majorities in all three legislative branches. Rule as if over 7 million more people voted for their presidential candidate. Rule as if they won states south of the mason dixon. Rule as if they have near filibuster proof majorities.
You know, rule as if the people have given them majorities for a reason.
You misunderstand my perspective on libertarianism. It's not that I don't understand it. It's that I don't understand how you continue to live under the delusion. Your whole argument is that libertarianism isn't working and OH MY GOD WHY IS THAT IT MUST BE SHEEPLE AND SOWELL IS GOD AND I HEART RON PAUL.
The tyranny will always win. Always. The delusion is entirely yours. Meanwhile, you fantasize about a freedom and liberty and capitalism that could never exist and carry water for corporatists that still can't believe you let them rob you blind.
And this is the fault of liberals.Name me one Libertarian candidate for President (besides Bob Barr) and you'll see why it's a long road forward before we get past the morons who believe the 2-Party system isn't broken. Perot wasn't a libertarian.
Ah, but there's the sleight of hand. Show me a libertarian that has held true to their philosophy.
You show me a libertarian in a position of power that didn't sell out the second they hit power, and I'll produce the easter bunny. Jefferson, the libertarian's libertarian... that bought the louisiana territory without asking congress, not only opening the purse strings without authority or permission, but vastly expanding the power of the executive. The rhetoric and reality just won't collide for libertarians.
Most certainly.
The Republicans didn't squander power. They have fundamentally changed this country. Where the heck you been living?
Oh, right, according to libertarians he's squandered it. Right right. How quaint.
The people have voted for more government. Obama hasn't been sneaky about it. The Dems haven't fundamentally changed message.
And this is why I can't stand libertarians. They see the world around them and they find a way to delude themselves enough to think they're relevant. I don't get it.
Last edited by a moderator:
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='Koggit']Sauce?
Wind-generated power is sold for well over $20/MWh after subsidies, so I have a pretty hard time believing the $18 figure. I'm willing to be that only includes maintenance costs, not land or infrastructure. I bet that coal figure, by contrast, includes everything.
Pickens' Plan is really just a "Make T. Boone Pickens Even Richer" plan... he invested a shit-ton into wind and now he wants the government to make his pipe dream profitable, so he throws millions at an advertising campaign to trick Americans into asking their politicians to make him richer... that's my problem with it, really.
The real solution is not so simple as "Uncle Sam, please throw money at my wind investment." The real solution will require primarily nuclear and solar, with hydro and geothermal where applicable. Clean coal for less dense areas. Wind where applicable (in America, hardly anywhere).[/quote]
Sauce? Yes, my dad does drink a lot. However, he has worked for a power company for 30 years. Even though he remains an union worker, his circle of associates would be people who know the exact cost of producing electricity.
The conversation he had with a plant manager was regarding Missouri's legislation requiring alternative energy. The plant manager is gungho for wind power as long as the federal subsidy stays in place. -$2/MWh after a subsidy sounds specious, but the federal government can produce enough money out of thin air to make it happen.
Regarding what other power companies pay for electricity, the sky is the limit since deregulation in the mid to late 90s. Some companies have paid over $100 per MWh.
Regarding the Pickens' Plan, it is a hustle. I don't particularly like it, but I don't see better alternatives without drawbacks.
Nuclear: It is safe as long as you can contain the waste. Ahh! There's the rub. Nobody wants to contain the waste. Also, reactors designed to operate for only 30-40 years are being pushed to 50-60+ years. Decommissioning a reactor takes longer than it can be operated. One good accident and a continent is inhabitable or an ocean can't be fished from or traveled across. For all the good nuclear power can be, that radiation boogeyman will be its wingman.
Solar: It is awesome, but too expensive. Over 20 years, the cost per kWh is 40 cents. The average customer pays 10 cents per kWh. Sure, the panels can last for 80 years. Sure, the system retains its value and can be resold to offset almost all of the cost. Sure, going intergrid tie-in reduces the cost and maintenance of the system by 20%. But ... people don't care. They want a five year payback.
Hydro: Great if you're near a river and aren't a fish. That and failure of a dam makes for a spectacular disaster of Biblical proportions.
Geothermal: It works everywhere IF you can dig a hole deep enough. Commercially, it is completely untested. Residentially, I can't get people like my dad to admit it was a good idea to install a geothermal system.
Clean coal: Um, yeah. The equipment to "clean" coal adds $50 per MWh. Now, $13 per MWh costs the consumer 10 cents per kWh. $63 per MWh won't cost the consumer 48 cents per kWh, but it sure isn't going to cost the consumer 9 cents per kWh.
...
Like you said, there isn't a single solution to future energy production. Every idea has drawbacks. Some of those drawbacks should disqualify that type of energy production. However, the government representatives are going to do what they always do: look at who contributed the most to their campaigns, give handouts to their cronies or contributors and tax us or saddle us with the debt. Pickens is first in the line with his hand out.
Wind-generated power is sold for well over $20/MWh after subsidies, so I have a pretty hard time believing the $18 figure. I'm willing to be that only includes maintenance costs, not land or infrastructure. I bet that coal figure, by contrast, includes everything.
Pickens' Plan is really just a "Make T. Boone Pickens Even Richer" plan... he invested a shit-ton into wind and now he wants the government to make his pipe dream profitable, so he throws millions at an advertising campaign to trick Americans into asking their politicians to make him richer... that's my problem with it, really.
The real solution is not so simple as "Uncle Sam, please throw money at my wind investment." The real solution will require primarily nuclear and solar, with hydro and geothermal where applicable. Clean coal for less dense areas. Wind where applicable (in America, hardly anywhere).[/quote]
Sauce? Yes, my dad does drink a lot. However, he has worked for a power company for 30 years. Even though he remains an union worker, his circle of associates would be people who know the exact cost of producing electricity.
The conversation he had with a plant manager was regarding Missouri's legislation requiring alternative energy. The plant manager is gungho for wind power as long as the federal subsidy stays in place. -$2/MWh after a subsidy sounds specious, but the federal government can produce enough money out of thin air to make it happen.
Regarding what other power companies pay for electricity, the sky is the limit since deregulation in the mid to late 90s. Some companies have paid over $100 per MWh.
Regarding the Pickens' Plan, it is a hustle. I don't particularly like it, but I don't see better alternatives without drawbacks.
Nuclear: It is safe as long as you can contain the waste. Ahh! There's the rub. Nobody wants to contain the waste. Also, reactors designed to operate for only 30-40 years are being pushed to 50-60+ years. Decommissioning a reactor takes longer than it can be operated. One good accident and a continent is inhabitable or an ocean can't be fished from or traveled across. For all the good nuclear power can be, that radiation boogeyman will be its wingman.
Solar: It is awesome, but too expensive. Over 20 years, the cost per kWh is 40 cents. The average customer pays 10 cents per kWh. Sure, the panels can last for 80 years. Sure, the system retains its value and can be resold to offset almost all of the cost. Sure, going intergrid tie-in reduces the cost and maintenance of the system by 20%. But ... people don't care. They want a five year payback.
Hydro: Great if you're near a river and aren't a fish. That and failure of a dam makes for a spectacular disaster of Biblical proportions.
Geothermal: It works everywhere IF you can dig a hole deep enough. Commercially, it is completely untested. Residentially, I can't get people like my dad to admit it was a good idea to install a geothermal system.
Clean coal: Um, yeah. The equipment to "clean" coal adds $50 per MWh. Now, $13 per MWh costs the consumer 10 cents per kWh. $63 per MWh won't cost the consumer 48 cents per kWh, but it sure isn't going to cost the consumer 9 cents per kWh.
...
Like you said, there isn't a single solution to future energy production. Every idea has drawbacks. Some of those drawbacks should disqualify that type of energy production. However, the government representatives are going to do what they always do: look at who contributed the most to their campaigns, give handouts to their cronies or contributors and tax us or saddle us with the debt. Pickens is first in the line with his hand out.
bread's done