Promote Conservation: A Short-Term Solution
 

President Bush just outlined basically some points to ease America's fuel situation:

1. Tax breaks on Hybrids and low-emission Diesels
2. Exploration and use of more US oil (including ANWR)
3. Investigate Price Gouging
4. Defer filling the Strategic Patroleum Reserve until Fall
5. Ethanol, Ethanol, and Ethanol


My take:

#1 = Good Idea, but Hybrids/Diesels are in short supply.
#2 = I have to decide on being an environmentalist with regard to the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, or perhaps the potential to cheapen our fuel. I see it as an excuse to drill up there for more profits to the oil companies.
#3 = Yeah, we saw what happened there with Katrina -- all show and no go.
#4 = So, then the prices will be high in the Fall when it's filling?
#5 = Maybe a good idea. The idea to remove a carcinogen (MTBE) from the air is good, renewable resources are good, homogenizing markets across the Country to one blend seems like a good plan, but is there enough capability right now to phase this in?

Plan B:

The President and Vice-President are both Big Oil guys. I don't trust either to manage our fuel crisis (which is what it is: a Crisis). I take back an earlier statement I made that gas prices should go higher. That will only hurt the middle- and lower-classes the most and won't quickly fix this rapidly growing problem.

We need to kick-it FDR-style:

1. Bush should hold a "Fire-Side" chat and call America to start Conserving. It's as simple as that.

2. Recognize that Oil companies are a collective Monopoly and take action as such. Open up those books and see what's going on in there.

3. Understand that our whole economy is effected by rapidly rising prices of fuel. Nearly everything you buy reached the store by Air, Land, Sea, or all of the above. Oil powers them, and the owners of these carriers have to raise prices to meet profit margins. The loss is passed onto you: the consumer.

4. Not only incentivize buyers of Hybrids/Diesels, but also the manufacturers. Maybe more will be made, and sold more cheaply.

5. Get your elected offical's attention -- on any side of the political spectrum. Simply e-mail them. You seem to have a computer, right? Congress.gov

Everyone here is already taking some sort of action by simply reading these articles and/or participating. This can be accelerated. I don't think that we can do this alone, and the government is going to have to step in.

May the discourse begin...

RH77

I say we drill in Anwar as
 

I say we drill in Anwar as well as everywhere else. If we don't use our own resources, eventually they're going to get scarce enough everywhere else in the world and we're going to have other countries invading us for our oil deposits. I know I'm pretty much alone in my stance on this issue, and I'm fine with that, so hurl your tomatos ladies and gentlemen! :)

Civilization 4
 

we could invade some more countries and use their resources. The NBC news said Venezuala had $0.12 per gallon gas... }:)

We could always nuke iran
 

We could always nuke iran and then invade with the iraqi army and use them to carry the oil on their backs across gibraltar and right to our homes...


But really though, I don't wanna mess with ANWR, just because we have resources doesn't mean we should use them. We could go back to coal if we wanted but that doesn't make coal a healthy thing to use. If we have gas and we choose not to use it, we'll just run out sooner, no biggy.

Dennis Kucinich was going to get us on 20% renewable resources by 2020 when he ran from president, but who's going to vote for him, he's a vegan and he's against the death penalty.

As usual we get idiotic
 

As usual we get idiotic ideas from Washington. Nothing like giving people tax breaks to buy more foreign cars. I don't like MY money being spent (actually I need a word worse than WASTED) that way, nor do I like it subsidizing ethanol.

Better to put on a $1 a gallon additional tax and raise it another 5 cents each month if consumption doesn't drop 10% year on year, and use the money to eliminate the budget deficit. Kills 3 birds with 1 stone, trade deficit, budget deficit, and price of oil due to drop in demand.

I thought that the real
 

I thought that the real problems lies in the fact that the oil companies stop building refiners 10 years ago because of the environmentalist and regulations. It's not that the oils not availiable it's just that the can't refine enough to keep up. Drilling in Alaska is not going to solve the problem it would take a few years to get it going.

rick
 

FYI
Shell says Ethanol is beginning its 100% phase in.
We absolutely have enough for the markets they CHOSE to stick them in RIGHT NOW. Absolutely enough capability. It's up to you to call Shell to find out whether you are in that area or not.
Of course they cannot provide the whole country with Ethanol right now. But he said every major city, yes...and yes to everywhere sometime in 2009.
Why Shell?
A)Because Shell spies on every one of thier competitors every month. Meaning they send someone to gather samples to select stations in an area for lab analysis.
He can guarantee that no matter where anyone lives in the country, Shell knows whats in the fuel. Meaning, the whole country is analyzed every four months. In some cases, shell knows better than the brand on the pump in question.

Re: As usual we get idiotic
 

Ha, "Foreign".

Not all hybrids are foreign. At home in Kansas City, they make the Ford Escape and Mercury Mariner Hybrids. Some of the other statements so far were jokes, but you seem to be serious, and thus I must respectfully respond in disagreement.

Where was GM, Ford and Chrysler in the early 70's during the gas crisis? Where were they in the mid-80's when the small economy car market heated up? Where were they in the 90's when reliabilty was a priority? Where have they been this decade? Answer: asleep at the wheel, and slept-in. Meanwhile across the globe, Honda and Toyota set their alarms and woke up early, started to figure out what we needed better than our own CEOs did. Domestic execs' pure arrogance thought that people would only buy American, and soon, imports started eating away at their sales. In each decade respectively, the "Big 2" from Japan introduced:

70's: The Honda CVCC and Toyota Corona which increase in sales
80's: Honda Civic, CRX, Accord; Toyota Tercel, MR2, Camry: gaining momentum based on reliability and efficiency
90's: The 2 Build plants in the U.S., Camry becomes the best selling car in the U.S. followed by the Accord (which still stands). Reliability is key. 100,000 miles is no longer the end of a car's useable lifetime.
00's: Having efficiency on the front burner for many years, Honda introduces the first Hybrid: the Insight, shortly followed by the Toyota Pruis, and Civic Hybrid and the Accord Hybrid that's faster than the standard V-6. Then America caught up, late as usual, and with a small SUV. The problem: we haven't caught back up and earned the trust back of the public. Statistics show it, and it's sad.

Wouldn't it be nice if we came up with the Civic, or the first hybrid? What happened?

70's: Our Big 3 continue to build huge gas guzzlers despite the gas crisis.
80's: Chrysler goes bankrupt, and has the gov't bail them out. Small cars started appearing in the late 80's. The Taurus saves Ford, and GM makes it by people hanging-on.
90's: Smaller American cars lacked the reliability and efficiency of Japanese imports, people figured it out in droves and started buying other brands (myself included -- being from, and having lived in Northeastern Ohio at that time, buying a "Foreign" car was cause for treason. Someone knew someone that worked at the Big 3, so you didn't dare buy anything but). But I was the first in my family to buy an import: a '96 Civic DX Coupe. Cheap, dependable, efficient, safe. Was I going to buy a Cavalier? I already went down the GM road and they failed me 3 times. Honda/Acura is now 4-0 for me and I consider the switch of the best decisions I made. My first Civic was even made in Ohio: Marysville, near Columbus. But some argue that the profits go elsewhere. I'd rather keep the potential repair or replacement money in my bank account to buy some other stuff later instead of an engine re-build, for example. Much Independent research proves it.

SO

Chevy, the "American Revolution" has a Daewoo in it's lineup (Aveo)
Ford builds a lot of cars in Mexico.
And Chrysler isn't American anymore: it's German.
It's a world market, so I don't buy the "profits" nor "foreign" arguement.

If we give money to GM to develop a hybrid, what will happen?
If we give money to Honda to improve their hybrids, how do you think that will solve our gas problem? We learn from our History.

RH77

In all fairness, it should
 

In all fairness, it should be pointed out that Lexus, I think it is (toyota senior) is building a v8 sedan with terrible gas mileage, but those hybrid engines create torque, so it's faster than otherwise. The hybrid revolution might give is better technology to solve our issues but if attitudes don't change we might as well be driving the same old big honky tonk trucks with a different brand slapped on them.

I can see it now...
 

I can see it now... The Hummer H8 hybrid...

www.hummerh8.com saw this on Edmunds

Re: In all fairness, it should
 

True dat. But the domestic market really banked on the SUV craze. One V-8 sedan from Lexus probably pollutes less than a Suburban.

For Future reference:

Parent Brand vs. Luxury Spin-off Brand

Honda - Acura
Toyota - Lexus
Nissan - Infiniti

RH77

hybrid
 

Yeah, but...Ford didn't come up with their own technology, they bought the patent off of Toyota. Toyota has become very 'green' in the past two years, and they are rolling out new hybrid platforms built for performance too, but...

I need to pick on Toyota for a second. I went to their Truck plant (TMMI) in Indiana, and I came with a host of questions for them concerning their new, bigger, bolder ~ Texas Styled...Toyota truck.

From what I can see, it doesn't get significantly better gas mileage than any other truck made in the United States. It has gained hundreds of pounds, more horsepower, and mpg hasn't improved from the previous model.

His answer was that as many car models age, their subsequent models have more demanded in these various fields: safety, strength, and accessories. The negative effect is of course weight. So I asked him what Toyota is doing to try and save weight in their vehicles. He didn't have an answer...(he might have had a valid excuse by being the a tour guide for the factory) So from what I get from that is Toyota has no plan on making their trucks, SUV’s, and minivans any more fuel efficient than the owners accept. (Economics - going for profit)

So then a huge question popped in my head...
Does Toyota really care for the environment? This little rule from the government is pissing me off.

From the Sierra club
https://www.sierraclub.org/globalwarming/cleancars/cafe/index.asp

"CAFE is a fleet-wide average standard. It is currently set at 27.5 mpg for cars and 20.7 mpg for light trucks (the standards have been stagnant for almost a decade.) In any given model year it requires that the average for an automaker's entire fleet meet its goals. Manufacturers can still make vehicles that get less than the standards, as long as they balance them with more efficient vehicles."

So basically, what I am getting at is that Toyota can get away with selling their great Prius, and then cash in on their larger vehicles, which have been selling very well in the past years. So by selling a couple Hybrids here and there at what they call a slight gain...they can sell a Truck/SUV/Minivan at a much higher profit margin while still getting by the lax rules of the CAFE...I know Toyota can do better, that's if they wanted to.

---- I realize that most compaines' vehicles do grow by age; it is kind of like evolution I suppose. But I think that the fuel economy standards should be forced upward. It has not been growing at the rate, in fact for American Auto makers; the fuel economy is nearly as meager as it was 20-25 years ago dispite all the technology improvements...

V-8
 

We need to compare apples to apples...Here is a look at all SUV's and more of a "real world" mpg rating...of how people really drive. There really is no point of comparing SUV's to sedans.

Lets go to an Un-biased resource. (Consumer Reports 2006 car issue)
Please see for yourself.

https://img19.imageshack.us/img19/163...6sss9yk.th.jpg

https://img96.imageshack.us/img96/660...7sss1dg.th.jpg

It is really depressing, no automaker is really going for fuel economy in that class. Above 20 mpg combined is only acheived by the hybrids. The one that was first in the class what the lexus 330h at a cool 50k (5k more than lexus 330) you wont see any savings from 18 mpg from the lexus 330 to the 23 mpg of the hybrid version.

A couple of points on the
 

A couple of points on the previous comments:

The only reason to drill in ANWR is North Slope depletion. The Alaskan pipeline is running way below capacity, and they want to fill it back up. Of course in the absolute sense this is a lot of oil, but relative to the problem it's tiny and mainly a distraction from real issues.

I don't think the lack of new refineries has much to do with environmental restrictions. Back in the 70's, they had these huge incentives to build refineries, so lots and lots were built. But they were cheap and inefficient, so they died off over time. BTW, this was why diesel was so cheap compared to gas... it was easy to refine, so it was attractive to quick-and-dirty tax break refineries.

As those refineries died off, the already-profitable ones upgraded to meet demand. Then the oil companies started combining, and started seeing the value in shorting the market. This really accelerated in the late 90's. For example, there are memos describing how to keep minor California refinery Powerine out of business (not that they would have come back, it's just the disturbing tactics they were gearing up for). Then there was the time Shell decided to shut its Bakersfield refinery, saying it was unprofitable. Later memos showed it was easily its most profitable refinery. Under extreme pressure they sold it to Flying J instead.

You don't need a true monopoly or explicit collusion to manipulate markets. I think big oil is set to do to the nation this summer what Enron did to Grandma Millie back in '01.

Re: As usual we get idiotic
 

Hybrids aren't the answer, IMO. I think they are a big waste of moneyy regardless of who pays the bill. GM could build a 60 mpg highway Saturn pretty easily if they felt like it just by cutting the 2.4L Ecotec in 1/2 for a 2 cyl 1.2L motor putting out 70hp. Paying $5000 or $10000 extra for a hybrid is bad enough let alone expecting me (via the government) to chip in on everybody's car, too.

Just raise the price of gasoline and diesel via tax to where the alternative fuels are profitable, and to where conservation is just common sense, and keep the pressure on for continued improvement. Consumption will drop as a result, and so will the price of oil, and the trade deficit, and the budget deficit with them. Even pollution levels would drop in time. I can't imagine a 1.2L motor putting out the same pollution per mile as a 2.4L, let alone the cars people are buying (25% V8's).

Re: I thought that the real
 

Hasn't it been more like 30 years since the last refinery was built in the united states?

I totally agree with this.

I just can't get on board with this line of thought. People asking for a raise in taxes? Ouch! While I commend that it would be an across-the-board tax hike instead of selective taxing (i.e. - picking on the "rich"), just saying "let's raise taxes" leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I think we should let good old free market supply and demand determine what the prices should be instead of hiking (through taxes) or dropping (through subsidies) the price of fuel.

Agree/Disagree
 

The best selling vehicle in the U.S. is the Ford F-150. More of those are sold here every year than anything else, including passenger cars. It's been that way for years. So, despite their green attitude, Toyota's also a company that strives for profits. My theory is that they are trying to tap into that F-150 market.

There are all kinds of cars around Europe with this size of engine. The excuse for engine size was that we have long expanses of highway where higher speeds are required. In Scotland, I had no problem keeping a Ford Fiesta Ghia 1.3L up to speed on their "Interstate" equivalents. Here in the U.S., the 1.0L 3-cylinder Geo Metro was the closest thing we got, and the Ford Festiva was a competitor. Somehow they disappeared. Maybe gas prices weren't a problem then, so they don't make an engine that small here now. Honda even ticks me off with engine size - the new Fit could've easy had a smaller engine (as the rest of the world), but no, we get the plumped-up version. I think it takes a shift in thinking of the general public. But how does that happen?

The refinery answers are plausible, but how do the oil companies seem to keep up with the demand and still make BILLIONS in profit? Seems strange to me.

RH77

Re: Agree/Disagree
 

I had a Fiat 850 spyder (45 hp) that would do 75.
I had a Toyota Corolla with a 1136 cc motor (63 hp) that would do 90
My detuned Saturn has no problem doing 75, never tried to go faster.

I see no reason for the big motors for daily driving except as status symbols. Back then gas was expensive as compared to my income. Thats why I bought cars that didn't suck huge amounts of fuel. If gas was expensive again, people would opt for efficient cars. Why let OPEC and the oil companies collect the money. Just tax it to decrease demand. We can't borrow $800 billion more per year from China and OPEC forever. We need to eliminate the budget and trade deficits before they cause a total financial collapse.

Re: I thought that the real
 

The sad thing is that while the US citizens are nto asking for a tax hike, they are also not asking for an 8 trillion dollar debt.

This may age me a bit, but I remember when I was in 8th grade and Ross Perot was running for president (the first time). His platform was balancing the budget. Back then everyone was so aghast at the fact that the national deficit was at 4 trillion dollars.

I don't know how we managed to doubt it in a little over 10 years, but we did. As a 14 year old I couldn't believe how much 4 trillion dollars was. As a 27 year old I can't begin to fathom how much 8 trillion is.

We can raise gas taxes, but if anyone expects the government to actually use the money on anything other than a new program or another war, you're out of your mind. The government has cared so little about the deficit for the last while that there is no reason to suddenly care about it now.

LOL... I just remembered something else. When I was voting in 2000 I told my friend's parents that i was voting for Al Gore. He laughed at me and said, "oh, I guess you WANT to pay $3/gallon for gasoline then, eh?" Apparently Gore wanted to pay off part of the decifit by raising gas prices.

IMHO there is no salvation for this country and it's horrible spending tactics. We keep sweeping our trash under the rug hoping that no one will see it, but the pile of trash just keeps getting bigger and bigger.

I don't know what the solution is, but I have a feeling that this oil crisis is just a symptom of the problem and not really the problem itself. Band-aiding this one issue is not going to cure the disease.

The debt is now closer to $9
 

The debt is now closer to $9 trillion. I can't even conceptualize that much money, let alone OWEING it. Like in 1979, 20% interest rates will result and cure this country of its desire to have more and more debt. What's the interest on $9 trillion at 20%? The answer is that its triple the bloated defense budget. The rest of the world, notably China, are just setting us up for the end of the empire, when they decide not to lend us any more money, fattening us up like cows before the slaughter.

'
 

Heard all of our bigtime neighbors like China INVEST in the USA. The US has money to spend because they create it. And inflation goes up to reflect that. Also, whomever may be loaning money to us, they are reaping HUGE profits from us paying the interest.

They are investing in
 

They are investing in KILLING us. They have annihalated our manufacturing base. Once they get to where they can build Airplanes, Autos, and Caterpillar type equipment for export, what will there be left here?

Then they shut off the credit, and we are done. We are done because we are so deep in debt, that when the rates rise, there will be no way we can even pay the interest, let alone pay back the loans to reduce the debt. End result will be the U.S. goes bankrupt, IMO. China, Russia and OPEC get to decide when.

Re: I thought that the real
 

I must disagree with you - believe it or not, we the people hold the power to turn this all around through voting. It's just as much our fault for not voting these big spenders out as it is for them doing the spending. I love America and wish to see it succeed for long years, and I think it's going to take what's happening to get people to wake up and take the power back away from the huge government and chop big parts off to minimize the government, then we can run the country as the people want it. It sickens me to see how many things big government has it's hands in where it doesn't belong (can you tell yet that I'm a huge proponent for pivatization? :p).

Unfortunately this is true. We need to actually CUT spending, instead of cutting "spending increases."

Re: I thought that the real
 

The unfortunate reality is that when you vote you can either vote in a party that spends a lot, or a party that spends a lot more.

IMO the only way to solve this problem is at the legislative level, which would require a Congress who was 1) not crooked, and 2) not getting paid tons of money to remain crooked.

These guys are never going to change the system, and they are the only ones with the real power to do so. They just make too much money and get too much power.

I'm pretty certain that the people wanted to vote in a president with a conservative fiscal policy, but they got Bush instead. He has outspent any Democratic president even, and that's not even including the cost of the war.

I honestly have no idea how giving the people the vote is going to make a difference when they only get to choose between a bunch of evil white guys.

Re: I thought that the real
 

I completely agree with you about presidential voting, but I'm talking more about voting at the local levels. Don't like how things are running? See where your state representative stands on important issues to you. Write him/her and tell them you'll be more than happy to fire them this November if they don't change their ways. It's an off year election this year, and all of our senators and reps should be on the hot seat! If I'm not mistaken, Jim Matheson is your rep Matt...he's a pretty good guy but you should check out his site to see what platform he's standing on and what issues are important to him.

Re: I thought that the real
 

And it will be even longer. I recently heard a radio quote that "no business wants to make a $5 billion gamble on developing a new refinery with such uncertainty in the gasoline market."

That sounds like a catch 22 to me. The gas market is uncertain because of supply issues that would be addressed by new refineries.

Besides, we now annually donate $14 billion in tax money to big oil in subsidies, royalty waivers and drilling incentives. After over $50 billion in profits last year I would think money shouldn't be the issue. But wait, big oil <strong>owns</strong> our government: atleast the legislative and executive branches anyway. They can gouge us with impunity.

I agree with the conservation idea but it's up to us consumers.

Re: I thought that the real
 

utah politics are funny. It's the only state they can call as being Republican before the votes even come in, and yet the capital city (Salt Lake City) is run by a Democrat who ensures that the city is in line with the Kyoto Protocol.

I think over 90% of the state government is Republican, and over 95% of the state government belongs to the dominant religion here. They of course wait for the go-ahead from their religous leaders before they vote. Utah is the closest thing to a theocractic state that we'll ever see in America.

I'm going to have to look into my representative and see what they stand for. In the end it's still the two-party system, which is inherently inefficient and breeds corruption.

Re: I thought that the real
 

Well of course the state representatives are going to be bowing to the LDS's, because that's the MO of a rep - to represent the wants and desires of the majority of the population. The US house is designed to squash the minority in every possible way. The senate is where everyone is on a level playing field.

I actually think that efficiency breeds corruption. If things are way too easy to pass through the legislative bodies, who knows where we'd be as a country. I think that in my lifetime we will see the rise of a third party (libertarians, woohoo!) and the death of one of the major parties. You'll never see for very long more than two parties competing at the national level...only during a transition time.

Perot, Gubment, and Debt
 

I was about the same age when Perot ran to balance the budget. In science class at that time, they taught that 1 Billion current dollars could buy a house and car for every American. Now, 9 TRILLION bucks? Wasn't the budget balanced 7 years ago? I understand some events happened in late 2001 that changed some things, but the corruption is rampant, and Halliburton probably is getting most of that. We need to audit ourselves.

Yes, I'm one of those people who screwed everything up back in 2000. I was all for growing the 3rd party base, to hopefully get at least a few percentage points to get more funding and grow a 3rd party slowly over time. It was more on principle and I knew he wouldn't win, but Nader got my vote, and thus stole it away from Mr. Lockbox. I won't nor haven't made that mistake since. Not after 9/11, the War, Katrina, the Deficit, and gas crunch (ad infinitum). All of which were/are handled very badly, IMO. We need to clean house (ha, literally) and get some fresh -- eh, hold-on...sneezing (democratic), excuse me -- fresh faces in Congress. Must be the smog or allergies or something. Isn't our Government worse now that it has been in years, maybe 25-30? Sorry, not the place to discuss this, but It must be said to an audience, willing or not.

RH77

Quote:I must disagree with
 

Our elections have questionable legitamacy.

Excerpt:
1. 80% of all votes in America are counted by Diebold and ES&S.

2. There is no federal agency with regulatory authority or oversight of the US voting machine industry.

3. The vice-president of Diebold and the president of ES&S are brothers.

4. The chairman and CEO of Diebold is a major Bush campaign organizer and donor who wrote in 2003 that he was “committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year.”

We have no viable third party. The democrats and republicans have both been shutting third parties out of debates since the 1990s, effectively preventing them from any exposure to the mass public. Ross Perot scared the **** out of both parties in 1992, and that is when they decided to put a stop to that. Nader has covered this so eloquently in his recent books.

Essentially, we have a choice between:

1) A party that is moderate right on economic issues, moderately authoritarian on social issues, fiscally liberal, pro war (democrats)
2) A party that is moderate right on economic issues, extremely authoritarian on social issues, extremely fiscally liberal, very pro war (republicans)

Both parties refuse to promote real methods to decrease oil use such as electric vehicles, mass transit, and high speed electric rail, and instead promote measures like ethanol from corn that won't make a dent in oil consumption. Both parties support a bloated defense budget where 25% of spending is completely unaccounted for as admitted by the DoD's own accountants, both parties support NAFTA/WTO, both parties support an unconstitutional Homeland Security Department, both parties support an unconstitutional war on drugs, both parties widely supported an unconstitutional war in Iraq, both parties support burying nuclear waste on public land, both parties support continuing the $200 billion in taxpayer dollars each year spent on corporate welfare. Both parties hold national bonds, and are profiting off of national debt interest and thus have an incentive to drive the debt up to increase their wealth.

When it comes to it, there really isn't any difference. We have a bloated windbag like Ted Kennedy and a dog like Hitlery Klinton from the Democrats who wish nothing more than to instill a nanny government, and fascists like Condoleeza Rice, John McCain, and Dick Cheney on the side of the Republicans.

If I had my way, Congress would have three or four major parties. Perhaps the greens and libertarians could replace the democrats and republicans respectively, and a few more parties could be formed and have major positions in government. But we don't live in an ideal world.

You know what's interesting about governemnt?

1) Defense spending; $450 billion a year, $110 billion goes completely unaccounted for, and a large portion of the rest soaked up as corporate profit and corporate welfare
2) War on Drugs; unconstitutional, $40 billion a year
3) Homeland Security Department; unconstitutional, $50 billion a year
4) National Debt Interest; $300 billion a year
5) Corporate welfare handouts; $200 billion a year(according to Public citizen)
6) War in Iraq; unconstitutional, $80 billion a year

We could GUT the hell out of the federal budget before we touched any major social spending. Many of the items above overlap, yes, but we're looking at a minimum of $400 billion of our federal discretionary budget that could be cut.

We need a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. If I were a politician, my goal would be to pay off the national debt with any budget surplus gotten from the cuts while spending some on ramping up alternative energy, then afterwards giving a HUGE taxcut starting from the bottom up. It would go to the poor and middle class, not the rich.


My own personal politics are somewhere between a liberarian and a green, if you didn't notice by now. I'm a registered libertarian. I'm quite pleased with most of their platform, but disatissfied with their positions on the environment and unions. I'm disattisfied with the greens when it comes to spending and taxes, and especially dislike the positions many greens hold in regards to firearms(Dare I say it is unconstitutional to regulate this issue?), but also fasvorable of much of their platform.