2008 Conservative Presidential Candidates

You think? How can Karl be done?

I know GB is done with him post Scooter, but him and Luntz are pretty much the last brain trusts.

I don't know that he'll hand pick the nominee, but that nominee will hire KR. Has too.

I'm not available.

Rant if I have interpreted your question correctly Karl can only be done if the baggage he would bring with him outweighs his value as a spin doctor.
Unless the dems have a spin doctor who is nearly as good as Karl I would say that his value out weighs his baggage although I would still advise a candidate to think carefully before hiring Karl .

Should it turn out that the Baggage he carries is attracting enough political hits that are doing damage the candidate faces a difficult choice.
Do you cut Karl lose or do you go into damage control and keep him ?
The old he is resigning for personal reasons wouldn't wash in this case and poor damage control has been known has been known to sink ships. Kerry response to the attacks on his war record in 2004 is an example of poor damage control.

If Nixon only taught future politicians one thing is that it is not always wise to try and contain a scandal sometimes it is better to take the hit , repair the damage and move on rather then just try and contain the damage.

posted by xpert11

I disagree with Ron’s stance on Iraq and the reasons behind 9-11. If Ron reasoning behind 9-11 is correct then how do you explain the Bali bombings? [Edited by Don W]

Crap! Everybody keeps talking about Paul’s statement and labeling it a faux pas to GOP ears. I missed it. If he blames the Nine Eleven Event on our failure to end the Israeli-Arab conflict; on our support of repressive Arab autocrats; and our physical presence in the holy sites of Arabia and Jerusalem, then you will have to ad me to Ron Paul to make it 2.

Bali only goes to show terrorism is not a monolithic organization. There are issues around the world that drive people to madness. We are on the wrong side of too many.

When it comes to Free trade Ron sends mixed signals maybe Ron leans more towards protectionism (Is that the right term ?) but fears being painted as having socialist leanings.

Since 1607 Englishmen later known as Americans have stood for free trade. Trouble is, “free trade” means one thing to buyers and another to sellers. “Free trade” means no interference with American capital working day and night to exploit 3rd world countries. Say hello Guatemala, hello Chile, hello Nicaragua, hello Cuba and so on and on. Q. How long have bananas been 49 cents a pound? That's what I paid today.

On the credit side of the ledger I was impressed by Ron’s stance on the fact that the US hasn't declared a war since World War Two . .

Since you did not mention Korea, Mr X11, let me. It’s 100% probable that NK’s Kim Il Sung, father of Kim Jong Il, acted on his own in June, 1950. The USSR was in the middle of one of its Security Council walkouts when it happened. China was represented by Taiwan’s Nationalists, another example of the US not talking to people we don’t like.

The Security Council passed several Resolutions condemning NK and authorizing member states to repel the invasion. The US was given the lead role and with our 15 coalition partners we proceeded to do just that. But no more despite MacArthur’s wish for a war with China. As a founding signatory to the UN Charter, Pres. Truman was 100% A-OK in sending the US Armed Forces. Maybe that’s what Ron said?

I also liked his comments (I'm pretty sure it was Paul who said this ) about health care when he said something along the lines of letting the market do its job. He pointed that the market has lead to people on lower incomes being able afford computers. [Edited by Don W]

I don’t blame you, X11, but what is analogous between Dell and the Mayo Clinic, for example? Or even Walter Reed? Talk about apples and oranges, this is one example for sure. And more, a critic could point out the American health care industry has been a free market since its inception. That is not the case anywhere else in the industrialized world, which fact should raise questions if we’re serious about our health care delivery in America.

It is a serious issue for real - we spend about $6,000 per year, per person on health care in the US. This is more than the total GDP per person in the lowest One Hundred Twenty-Three (123) countries. Those begin with Gabon and in descending order, end with East Timor, according to the CIA World Fact Book. And yet, the US is about 11th in longevity and 12th in infant mortality, 2 accepted quick indicators of a nation’s health care delivery system. What’s going wrong here? Did anyone mention this?

posted by RANT

A DC politico says none of this [debate posturing] matters. Wait until Karl Rove makes a move and goes with someone. It has nothing to do with that person being suddenly popular, just everyone else imploding. Who do you think KR supports? I think the freaky Marketplace walk says a lot. By the way, Ron Paul for King. [Edited by Don W]

Karl? I’m thinking 2 things. 1) KR has more baggage than you can carry on a medium length freight train. 2) He has worked too hard, too long, too successfully to be looking for more work. He’ll take a 3 months vacation then come back to K Street and join the old Abramoff firm, reconstituted.

If the GOP wins November 4, 2008, his speaking fee will be $200,000 but if the GOP loses as is predicted today, his fee will be $25,000. His retainer as an insider consultant will be $500,000. He won’t be doomed to live on social security, for sure.

[edit on 5/19/2007 by donwhite]

Granted he overcharged for destroying other Republicans in that Primary, but he's good at. Not Presidential advisor. Just hit man.

I'd hire him.

Don speaking in general terms governments spend as much on health care as they can responsibly afford to do so. Since the US is the worlds richest nation it stands to an extend that they would spend the most money on health care. Although the US should be spending less but that is another topic.

I think that my comparison to an air fare war may be better then the comparison to the price of computers. But it still boils down to the fact that competition lowers prices in any sector . A degree of government regulation is needed to avoid monopoly(s) but other wise the market does a great job at reducing prices particularly in countries with larger populations such as the USA.


On another note Newt is invoking the memory of Jerry as a part of the RR crusaded against freedom in America.

"I think anybody on the left who hopes that when people like Reverend Falwell disappear that the opportunity to convert all of America has gone with them fundamentally misunderstands why institutions like this were created," Gingrich said.

Gingrich also said he won't decide until October whether to run for president, and when he does, he won't subject himself to what he called "game show" debate formats for already declared candidates 18 months before the November 2008 election.

source

IMO the dems would welcome Gingrich to the race and cheer on his candidacy. McCain looks more electable and that's saying a lot.
My personal take on Gingrich is that he is an hypercritical nut job.
Gingrich is correct in his comments about the debates but I'm afraid that is lost amognst his other less then savoury views.

[edit on 19-5-2007 by xpert11]

[edit on 19-5-2007 by xpert11]

posted by xpert11

Don speaking in general terms governments spend as much on health care as they can responsibly afford to do. Since the US is the world’s richest nation it stands to reason they would spend the most money on health care. Although the US should be spending less but that is another topic. [Edited by Don W]

Reducio ad absurdum. No offence meant Mr X11, but that’s the argument you have just given. It is because it is. I agree we’re going off topic. But health care is so intertwined with politics it is very difficult to know where to draw a line. President Truman tried to imitate the Brits in 1948 by proposing a National Health Service for the US. He was instantly set upon by all the vested interests, doctors, hospitals, drug makers, insurance companies and the anti-socialists of which there are huge numbers in the US of A.

The US Government does oversee the expenditure of somewhat less than 20% of our total health care outlay. Medicare is the largest, then followed in no particular order, Medicaid, Federal employee insurance, military and dependants insurance and Veterans Administration. I guess you could add Native Americans and residents of American Soma, too.

Up through 2007, Medicare is operating in the black. It is funded by a 1.45% tax on wages matched by employers or 2.9% paid by self-employed people. Because unlike the Social Security 6.2% - also matched - there is no limit on the wage base taxed - SS is $80,000 - people like Bill Gates may well pay more in Medicare tax than any other human pays in total taxes?

Your argument fails to address the underlaying issues in health care costs in the US. Such as, I buy Torbadex ointment for my eyes and pay $45 a 3 gm tube in the US but when I bought it in Canada, it was priced at $20 a 3 gm tube. The PMA is so powerful it wrote or had written into the Medicare Part D insurance that Medicare could neither buy abroad nor bargain with the maker of proprietary Torbadex for a lower price here. By the bye, all Torbadex ointment is made in Ireland. PMA - Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association.

Similar problems exist in the case of hospitals. As part of an emergency preparedness program, hospitals are encouraged to have a large number of vacant rooms. A 400 bed hospital may actually employ only 250 beds on a day to day basis. It has come to light that overcharging is rampant. Medical doctor fees - all fees - are adjusted annually based on past billings, which explains why doctors always bill more than they are willing to accept in payment. Today’s over-billing becomes tomorrow’s approved billing. Every conceivable way to “gouge” money out of the payee is employed. And even some ill-conceived not to say illegal.

I think that my comparison to an air fare war may be better then the comparison to the price of computers. But it still boils down to the fact that competition lowers prices in any sector.

Would that it were so. Examples of real, genuine competition in the United States are so rare that I’m at a temporary loss to identify one that I can use to be pleasantly agreeable. It is not good manners to take issue with every offer of your debating partner. The only competition here is how to keep out your competitors. By reason of our supercilious devotion to the 50 state concept of governance, we have made it possible for the big guys to control all of the important aspects of our lives.

It is much more difficult to control a Federal agency than it is to control 50 state agencies charged with the same category of oversight or regulation. The best example of this is the difference in prices of inter-state phone rates versus intra-state phone bills. The former is always lower than the latter. Why is that? Not to worry, the Republicans have almost neutered all the old line regulatory bodies and have dumped the very excellent bureaucrats accumulated over the years sine 1933, when it all began. Bush43 prefers the FEMA Ken Brown types, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld’s of the GOP panorama of stars. .

As a New Socialist, I now advocate the proper role of government is to assure a level playing field. And to forbid monopoly or grants of exclusive franchises. For example, there are 3 cable tv giants in America. But each has a monopoly on the cities it serves. Hence, no competition, in part due to the ease with which local regulators can be co-opted. Everyone worships at the idol of competition except the competitors.

A degree of government regulation is needed to avoid monopoly(s) but other wise the market does a great job at reducing prices particularly in countries with larger populations such as the USA.

Dream on, Mr X11. See my above. Sears bought K-mart. Wal-Mart forces its suppliers to move to China, India, Bangladesh or Malaysia . 30 years ago it was Mexican maquiladoras but now that is not far enough to get the cheapest wages in the world. And the worst working conditions.
And the fewest environmental protection rules. Last year Wal-Mart passed the $275 b. gross income mark. How many countries in this world have a lower GDP than Wal-Mart? What’s up here?

On another note Newt is invoking the memory of Jerry . . Gingrich also said he won't decide until October whether to run and when he does, he won't subject himself to what he called "game show" debate formats for candidates 18 months before the November 4, 2008 election.

Then he won’t “float.” As stupid and contrived as they are, American’s love the debates. It's a 'Survivors Game' show that will run until November 2008. And then the world will end. Maybe.

IMO the Dems would welcome Gingrich to the race and cheer on his candidacy. McCain looks more electable and that's saying a lot. My personal take on Gingrich is that he is a hypercritical nut job. Gingrich is correct in his comments about the debates but I'm afraid that is lost amongst his other less savory views.

Geez. And I was just beginning to look with approval on the Reformed Newt. Post Rupert Murdoch. How can you predict anything, anymore?

[edit on 5/20/2007 by donwhite]

All the bashes of Socialism have yet to cotton on that the US embraced socialism but the US practices corporate Socialism . Corporations get government hand outs and anti free market practices are permitted.

A free market does not require the existence of competition, however it does require that there are no barriers to new market entrants. Hence, in the lack of coercive barriers it is generally understood that competition flourishes in a free market environment.

source

Now I'm not a huge fan of regulating business but I do think think the means needs to be put in place to ensure that new competitors can enter the market and that one company doesn't have a monopoly.

A degree of regulation is needed to ensure that the Free Market can operate. If US politicians oppose such measures then they oppose a Free Market economy. You see It seems clear that a lot of the private sector in the US would struggle without handouts and the anti Free Market Practices.

So in a genuine Free Market economy American Farmers , defence contractors, Drug company's and so on would all end up in the same boat as the US Auto industry. The IT sector would be less effected because it is an evolving industry which is connected with innovation and now to a lesser extend plenty of new players.

Corporate Socialism is a case you scratch my back and I will scratch your back. The hard working low - middle income Americans are the victims in this charade they miss out on the chance of having more affordable health care and a more affordable living in general.

[edit on 20-5-2007 by xpert11]

Originally posted by xpert11
IMO the dems would welcome Gingrich to the race and cheer on his candidacy.

Downballot Dems are salivating for Rudy. No idea who the Presidential candidates want. It probably depends. Hillary probably wants to go up against Rudy. That makes her the conservative from NY that looks good in a dress. As for Barack, probably Newt. Family values debate would go far. Edwards/Richardson don't care as long as it's not Ron Paul. I'd vote for Ron Paul and that's saying a lot.

McCain looks more electable and that's saying a lot.

Clear your cache. McCain hasn't looked electable since SC seven years ago. He's ancient, tired and souless.



[edit on 20-5-2007 by RANT]

posted by xpert11

All the bashers of socialism have yet to cotton on that the US embraced socialism but the US practices corporate Socialism . [Edited by Don W]

Actually, unless you are thinking of Social Security as evidence of the Americans adopting “socialism” how does that square with von Bismark (1889) being the first to promulgate social security as national policy? Many anti-socialism critics recite TVA - Tennessee Valley Authority - and the Columbia River Valley as 2 examples of socialism. I have neither the time nor inclination to argue contra here, but believe me, if that is all the socialism there is in the US, the capitalist should sleep easy.

Other New Deal programs were also painted with the “socialism” label. FDR was born to wealth - the tea trade via Clipper ships - and died a modestly rich capitalist. See Hyde Park on the Hudson River. But let me furnish a real life example: FHA. The Federal Housing Administration. First, the FHA established uniform building codes around the nation. But that sneaky FDR did that on the Que-tee. FHA offered lender insured 80% home loans when the rule of the day was limited to 50% loans. This reduction in down payment requirements expanded the available buyers.

More: If the buyer defaulted on the loan, the FHA would reimburse the lender. So where did this money come from? The US Government? Au contraire. Buyers were assessed an extra one half of one percent interest on the loan. They paid 4.5% for a 4% loan they could not have obtained at any percent without the FHA guarantee. That extra money went into a Trust Fund to pay defaulted home loans.
Cost to the US Government? Negligible. (Administrative costs only.)
Value to the home construction industry and to lenders? Huge!
Benefit to the common people? Outstanding!

The external source author advances a controversial proposition:

A free market does not require the existence of competition, however it does require that there are no barriers to new market entrants. Hence, in the lack of coercive barriers it is generally understood that competition flourishes in a free market environment.

First Mr X11, this writer offers “A free market does not require the existence of competition . . “ I don’t like this definition. Yes, I know his next words are modifiers of his first words. This writing style sounds like the author suffers either from fuzzy thinking or he is using intentionally obtuse language, possibly to advance an unstated agenda. If the former, then his conclusions are called into question, if the latter, I prefer to ignore him. Maybe he works for Fox News?

Next I ask what is “ . . the lack of coercive barriers . . “ pray tell. What is not having a forceful obstacle mean? Do we have to use double-speak in anything economic? How many double negatives can one man use? This external source is too much for me. I’m getting a headache just trying to fathom what he is saying. He sounds Orwellian. And I don’t mean to insult George Orwell either, a man time has proved was remarkably prescient.

Corporate Socialism is a “you scratch my back and I will scratch your back” case. Hard working low to middle income Americans are the victims in this charade . . they miss the chance of having more affordable health care and a more desirable living standard in general. I'm not a huge fan of regulating business but I do think [evenly enforced regulations] need to be in place to ensure new competitors can enter the market and that one company doesn't have a monopoly . . it seems clear a lot of the private sector in the US would struggle without handouts and the anti Free Market Practices. [Edited by Don W]

Private socialism (for poor) bad, corporate socialism (for R&Fs) good. And on that closing remark, you and I agree completely, Mr X11.

(Let’s hope we are not defining fascism).

[edit on 5/20/2007 by donwhite]

Keep going with this. I'm gonna grab some pop corn.

posted by Justin Oldham
Keep going with this. I'm gonna grab some pop corn.

TVA - The Tennessee Valley Authority

One of the first enactments of the New Deal, first passed into law during that hiatus between January 3, 1933, when the newly elected Democratically controlled Congress was sworn into office, and March 4, 1933, when the new president was sworn in - this prior to the adoption of the 20th Amendment which moved the president’s inauguration day to January 20 beginning in 1936. The law was vetoed by President Hoover. The TVA bill was enacted again after FDR took office and of course, he signed it into law.

The Tennessee River was first known as the Cherokee River before Andrew Jackson was President. It forms near Knoxville in far eastern Tennessee and winds through much of central Tennessee dipping down into northern Alabama and then flows northward until it empties into the Ohio River near Paducah in Kentucky. Near the end of its run, the Tennessee River lays only a few miles west of the Cumberland River which winds its way around Nashville before also emptying into the Ohio but east of Paducah.

The basin drained by the Tennessee had suffered from many generations of abusive agricultural practices. The soil was primarily tilled by small farmers, planting money crops like tobacco, corn and cotton year after year, until the soil was depleted of essential minerals, it was exhausted.

In the 1930s, demographers pointed to the Tennessee Valley as the poorest region in the eastern United States. The New Deal planners chose this regions as its worst case scenario to show what state planning could accomplish. State planning in Germany was all the rage in the early 1930s. Plans were laid to erect a series of low dams along the whole course of the river, to achieve the following goals;
1) flood control and navigation of the waterways
2) electric power generation
3) recreational faculties and
4) rehabilitation of the region both agriculturally and economically

Let me fast forward to 1942, when the surplus of electric power in the TVA system made possible the important Manhattan Project. The making of the atomic bomb required purified uranium processed at a new secret city named Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The refining process - as well as another similar project at the Columbia River’s secret city, Hanford, WA - used 10% of all the electric power in the United States. I have argued neither the Germans nor the Japanese could have “developed” a nuclear bomb because neither had that much excess electricity. No other country anywhere had that much surplus electric power. This was a welcome but unforseen consequence of the New Deal. Other methods are now in use to refine uranium ore which sharply reduces the amount of electricity required.

Allied with on-site instructions offered by the County Agent Program of the Dept of Agriculture, the entire region has been restored to high levels of agricultural productively. Federal price floors for farm commodities have assisted the region’s transformation into one of the most prosperous in the eastern United States.

TVA worked then and it works today. Thank You, FDR and New Deal. And the country did not go socialist or fascist, thank you, it went smart!

[edit on 5/20/2007 by donwhite]

Unlike many Americans I'm not paranoid about Socialism and I don't equate socialism with Social Security. The US isnt a Socialist nation in the traditional sense that wealth is redistributing evenly amongst the population with high income earners paying a very high tax rate. Instead under the US model of Socialism wealth is redistributed to various business interests. So hard working Americans see there tax dollars go to business interests rather then in there own pocket.

Enforcing codes building and creating a trust fund is one thing. Giving billions of dollars to oil company's is nothing more then corporate welfare and the tax payer sees no benefit what so ever in return.
Present day first home buyer schemes are worth looking at in terms of the subject matter. They work fairly well the risk is that you drive up house prices further. The grant is given to the consumer rather then the builders. So in other words the building industry still has to offer competitive prices and products.


Aspect of the US Agriculture industry also gets billions of dollars of hand outs which leads to an indirect form of price fixing. NZ farmers have operated in the Free Market for twenty years and it hasn't done them any harm.

The same theme can be be applied to any other US industry's that receive hand outs . While various private sector interests get hand outs from the US government and anti Free Market practices they don't have to adjust to peoples demands or make there products better and cheaper .

I think the author point was that one company should be able to dominate the market but they shouldn't be able to prevent a competitor from entering the market and challenging there dominance. An example would be US drug company's they currently dominate the market but they should face competition from Canadian imports. Sorry about the source I was posting after 1am.

Corporate Socialism is the worst kind of Socialism it screws over the majority of the Americans and benefits a very small minority of the population. Corporate Socialism has played a big part in US politicians doing what the lobbyists tell them to do rather then what is in the best interests of the American people.

If a Republican candidate genuinely wanted to inherit the Reagan legacy he/she would know in there heart and there head that Corporate Socialism has to be given the boot.

Hang on a sec while I lower the blast doors on my secret bunker. Don's response should be noteable.

Intercom: "Secured Site One is in lockdown."

*sirens*

*rrrrrrr-click*

*sirens*

posted by xpert11

Unlike many Americans I'm not paranoid about socialism and I don't equate socialism with Social Security. The US isn’t a socialist nation in the traditional sense . . under the US model wealth is redistributed to various business interests . . hard working Americans see their tax dollars go to business interests [ExxonMobil, Wal-Mart, Halliburton, Lockheed-Martin, etc] rather then into their own pockets. Giving billions of dollars to oil company's is nothing more then corporate welfare . . first home buyer schemes are worth looking at . . The grant is given to the consumer rather then the builders.

The US Agriculture industry also gets billions of dollars of handouts which leads to an indirect form of price fixing. NZ farmers have operated in the Free Market for twenty years and it hasn't done them any harm.

This reminds me of my favorite rant. Methanol. Methanol contains about 26,000 btu per gallon. Gasoline contains about 34,000 btu per gallon. The internal combustion engine is a heat converting device. It turns latent heat in fuel into rotary motion. For as long as I’ve lived, I’ve read that an IC engine is 25% efficient, that is, 75% of the latent heat in gasoline is lost via the exhaust pipe, the cooling radiator, by heating the air around it and a small amount radiates away. All things being equal, it takes 30% more methanol to move a car than it takes in gasoline.

Methanol is derived from plants. We drink some of it in beer, wine and distilled liquors. In the right proportions, it makes you feel good. A bit more and you get drowsy. Keep going and you will “pass out” or become unconscious. Get your blood alcohol rating to .5% or more and you will die. Nature makes most of us throw-up before taking that no-return trip to Valhalla!

Converting plants into useful quantities of methanol consumes more than the 26,000 btu's per gallon, so that methanol is a net loser even before it is mixed with your gasoline thereby reducing the heat content of the fuel you buy. See Note below.

Archer Daniel Midland advertises every day how it is big into the methanol business, which is mainly due to former Senator Bob Dole, who was often jokingly referred to as the Senator from ADM, and not from Kansas. Because methanol does burn clean, it stands to reason if add 15% of it to your gasoline making gasohol, your emissions of all kinds will be lowered 15%. 30 years ago, before we had the 30 odd different blends of gasoline by refiners, this was a good idea. A temporary fix. To get good emissions today, we do not need methanol. But Senator Dole managed to get a rider on a law that requires the use of methanol under some circumstances.

Americans pay farmers to grow corn. There is a lot of btu’s consumed in preparing ground, planting, fertilizing, harvesting, storing, shipping and processing raw corn - or any plant. The process of making methanol is still the old fashioned way it was done up in the Tennessee hills, on Thunder Road, it is distilled. More energy consumed. Then it joins the refining process and so on. Net outcome? More btu’s go into making a gallon of methanol than the methanol itself contains. Americans are forced to pay for methanol used in cars at least 3 times, once when its grown, again when it is processed - ADM gets subsidies - and last when they buy it.

But I digress.

Any US industry that receives hand outs is anti Free Market . . to the extent of the hand-out, the industry is relieved of the constraints otherwise put on the industry by the Free Market. It is anti-competitive.

If a Republican candidate genuinely wanted to inherit the Reagan legacy he or she would know in their [Goldwater] heart of hearts as well as in their heads that Corporate Socialism has to be given the boot. [But who will send me campaign money without end?]

To DW: I think the author’s point was that one company should be able to dominate the market but they shouldn't be able to prevent a competitor from entering the market . . Sorry about the source I was posting after 1am.“ [Thanks, I agree. And for sure, no apology needed.] [Edited by Don W]

Good clarification Mr X11. I hope I can be as responsive.


Foot Note: Ethanol is used in racing cars because it will not pre-ignite or cause “spark knock.” Gasoline will spark knock which limits the compression ratio an engine can be operated at safely. To get more power in race cars nitroglycerine is added to the methanol.

See Post following for chemical clarification.

[edit on 5/21/2007 by donwhite]

Originally posted by donwhite
Methanol is derived from plants. We drink some of it in beer, wine and distilled liquors. In the right proportions, it makes you feel good. A bit more and you get drowsy. Keep going and you will “pass out” or become unconscious. Get your blood alcohol rating to .5% or more and you will die. Nature makes most of us throw-up before taking that no-return trip to Valhalla!

I think you're mixing up methanol and ethanol a bit. Ethanol is drinking alcohol. Methanol (wood alcohol) is quite toxic to the liver since it tends to turn it into formaldehyde and formic acid. You'd die far before getting to the BAC you could with ethanol.

Both should be about equally useful for fuels, but it's mainly ethanol that'd being talked about and made from corn.

Thanks, D77, for setting me straight on that. This is not the first time I have mixed the two. Well, in writing, not in drinking. The outcome to the US taxpayer remains the same. I have not mentioned the extra costs incurred having to keep seperate storage facilities for ethanol and ethanol mixed with gasoline. Additionally, certain plastics used in car engines are more susceptible to deterioiratoin in the presence of ethanol. And etc


[edit on 5/21/2007 by donwhite]

Justin I hope that your bunker is well stocked with popcorn you could be in there for a while.

While I am all for the US government funding the development of alternative energy sources in public - private relationships but that's about as far as the American tax payer money needs to go.

A Republican candidate should (but wont ) aim to create a situation in the future where there are two or three alternative fuels competing in the market place. Now onto Don point the manufactures and supplies of the components that are used to make alternative fuels don't need tax payer handouts. In the case of Ethanol without handouts the farmers would simply adjust the amount of corn they grow to meet the demands of the Ethanol.

If alternative fuels are to succeed they have to be cheaper to buy at the pump and the vehicles need to be more fuel efficient then there petrol counterparts. People wont pay money for and use alternative fuels unless it is cheaper to do so and better products are on offer. Should the US develop alternative fuels and the vehicles that run on the fuels in the Free Market opportunities to export the vehicles to other markets.

At best giving alternative fuel makers corporate welfare would be a waste of Americans hard earned tax payer dollars at worst it would be bad economics. Other markets wont want to buy poor products that are little or no better then the current ones little alone Americans. When there is less demand due to poor products and perhaps a lack of marketing the amount of tax payer dollars being poured into corporate welfare will only increase.

I will leave the environmental aspects of alternative fuels for another thread.

[edit on 21-5-2007 by xpert11]

[edit on 21-5-2007 by xpert11]

*Knock on re-finished wood*

You guys don't need my help. Every conservative candidate needs to have this talk with "somebody." I only wish that the Dems and Republicans could be as rational as we are here.

posted by xpert11

Justin I hope that your bunker is well stocked with popcorn you could be in there for a while. Should the US develop alternative fuels and the vehicles that run on the fuels in the Free Market opportunities to export the vehicles to other markets. [Edited by Don W]

America export cars? That would be a first! With 45,000 miles of interstate highways and 2 million miles of paved roads of first class standards, our cars are too large, too heavy, too fuel hungry for the 3rd world. South Korea is beating Japan in Tokyo. China is about to jump into auto production in a big way. I believe 30% of content of Ford and GM is made outside the US, Canada and Mexico.

Daimler Benz had big plans to enter the US market, bought Chrysler for $26 b. and after 10 years has pushed it off on willing investors for $7 b. Say hello US Bankruptcy Court. $18 b. in unfunded pension plans will be “donated” to the US Treasury. Which will then make Chrysler worth about $10 b. so the investors can do the dirty work and collect 40% profit for a small amount of work and hardly any risk. Your congressman has participated in this scam on the taxpayers, I’ll bet. Talk about Free Markets! Come soon Sweet Jesus!

US car makers sell cars abroad. Not likely. The only issue is how long will Ford and GM last in Century21? Oh, if you meant sell Hondas and Toyota abroad, assembled in the US, then yes, that is a real possibility.

While I am all for the US government funding the development of alternative energy sources in public - private relationships but that's about as far as the American tax payer money needs to go.

Free market? Going to Heaven! Free market? What’s that mean? How can we have a free market when the US taxpayers are paying for research and development of products? Would that be only a Half Free Market? To be honest, I mean. Free market advocates seem perfectly willing to make the market NOT free by accepting government subsidies and rules to keep out competitors.

Maybe “free market” is a joke that we have not yet heard the punch line? I’ve never met a socialist who was not in favor of a free market, if it was free. But I’ve never seen a real-life free market. They talk the talk, but never walk the walk. Socialism for the rich, market economics for the poor.

Let private enterprise remain private for God’s sake (if not our own), but let it do some enterprising, if it has not forgotten what the entrepreneural spirit looks like.

That is the joke. And it’s on us.

[edit on 5/22/2007 by donwhite]

As you may know, Bill Richardson tossed his hat in to the Presidential ring yesteday. My sense of the thing is that he is angling for the vice Presidency, but I'll have more to say about that in other threads. The question that should be asked now is, how will the conservative camp deal wit this? None of the GOP contenders would seem to be positioned to be VP material. What say you all?