birdog1960

"the comfort of the rich depends on an abundant supply of the poor" voltaire, taken from the comments on the piece.

didn't you see mr smith goes to washington? and there's a good number of "everymen" in the house...until they lose or retire and cash in as lobbyists. but seriously who's more likely to fund unprofitable innovations?

it's a commonly made threat but is it real? i saw some numbers on the number of practicing physicians that feel financially set to retire. it was surprisingly low. seems the only one making 15% a year on investments in recent times is romney.

the more i thought about this article the more i thought of the criticism of liberals "thinking they know what's best for everyone". this guy, conrad is saying super wealth more than pays for itself through innovation. but only innovation deemed worthy by the super wealthy and by extension, only innovation that makes the wealthy wealthier. so if this were the only funding for innovation, things that weren't wealth producing would have little chance for innovation. conrad actually uses fast food as an innovation that helped society! geez, we're so grateful. this is the antithesis of the liberal vision...the super wealthy knowing whats best for everyone (based solely on benefit to themselves) and actually being able to decide.. if you're really comfortable with that then, by all means, cast that romney vote,or even 2 or 3.

based on a book by an uber wealthy protege of romney at bain. based on this interview, the obama campaign should buy every independent voter a copy and send it to them "from mitt".

more than likely, your or my agreement or disagreement will be inconsequential

i know he's from brookings but this guy quotes keynes...that surprised me as did his choice of quotation itself. many interesting points here especially "currently privately administered (medicare) programs add cost...and premium support is not warranted. there's no question that payment should be outcome rather than volume based. the trick is convincing the public that more is not always better and is sometimes worse. witness the outrage at the evidence based recommendations to decrease mammography screening and the ultimate acquiescence of the medical groups making them. this will be the hardest problem to solve but the most important. i've spent hours counseling patients on why a particular test is ill advised or potentially harmful. they nod their heads, voice their understanding and then say, "yeah, but i want it anyway". will legislators have the balls to back up doctors who appropriately say "no"? unfortunately i don't see either party doing it. the advisory panel was the most benign route to get there but has been soundly vilified to the point where almost everyone refers to it as a death panel. i'm hopeful but not optimistic.

or all the easy pickings are gone. it's cost prohibitive to get to the other stuff and they're not certain they can get it at all or if it's there in estimated quantities. either way, it's not an immediate or even near term answer to our dependence on foreign oil. if it were, we wouldn't care about iran except in regard to the israeli's(who would also become much less important). but you keep believing it's a question of our will to get at these resources. it serves your argument much better than the countless more plausible explanations.

just take a look at t. bone pickens article linked to yahoo finance today.(can't get the lnky thingy to work today). he says the dems and repubs are equally to blame and doesn't even mention environmentalist. he does mention, the koch bros though. so we would be energy independent if it were not for the environmentalists? really? edit: t. boone: freudian slip

never raced anybody there. have read the times for different vehicles. have discussed racing my wife - 6 speed g35 against 5 speed turbo legacy gt there but she makes the point rightfully, that one of us would probably leave transmission parts on the track 9and the subie would probably win). now i have done the richard petty experience on the oval in a busch car and that was awesome.

my point is that there aren't to many 1/4 mile tracks in daily driving. windy roads are much more common. but to each his own...and if you're looking for somewhere to race the 1/4 bristol dragway (at bristol motor speedway) does street fights 2x/week for about $10. that's where published numbers meet reality. :thumbsup:very cool

except when you try to turn at high speed and go sideways instead of on track. both the wrx and the genesis coupe will likely destroy a mustang or a charger on a windy road or track other than a drag strip. with the wrx, i think it would lose even in the 1/4 mile but i'd have to look it up. not that anybody here would ever go full out on a windy road or 1/4 mile straight.

you tell me. i have theories but this question is crucial to your argument not mine. if it's easily doable, why hasn't it been done or even sold as an option?

my answer: because we haven't and are no where near becoming independent despite the obvious multiple benefits to becoming independent. Because even our leaders who have much to gain in making such an announcement have not made it. because the stock market certainly doesn't reflect that imminent eventuality. because i've seen no prominent experts in the field make such a prediction, to the contrary most think we're far off. because one of the biggest cheerleaders and optimist for energy independence, bush, announced much more modest expectations. because our foreign policy vis a vis the middle east still reflects an expected long term future need for imported oil.

do you ever calibrate your tv? ever played with contrast and brightness? i have a pretty cutting edge projector and it gets no where near absolute black or absolute white. i keep waitng for the next change in technology to inch closer to that ideal but never expect them to actually achieve it. same goes for most things in life. there are very few absolutes.

and where in that quote does it say anything about drilling or further exploration except to point out that he was pro oil exploration? it speculates that he might not have thought energy independence imminent and his "oil addiction" speech confirms it.

insightful and well put. i can't claim that it doesn't happen on the dem side but in general, i think the motives (if not the ultimate actions) are more transparent. i can't think of an analagous example to west virginia going republican in a presidential election, on the dem side.

i never speculated that bush wouldn't expand drilling...i corrected you when you proposed that was my meaning the first time. it's not "changing the subject" to add cogent points to a discussion.

you accuse me of making stuff up and write a post where the only thing you say to advance your argument is a restatement of a previous post (insults don't count). where are your citations on your assertion that we can be energy independent? do you refute bush' timetable? how are his remarks not salient to the discussion? how is the economy not intimately related to energy policy? and why is pointing out that your argument, if true and provable, would radically change the american political landscape overnight not applicable to the argument? these are not strawmen. these are valid points advancing my argument and lessening yours. ah, a particularly vivid example of insult as argument (3rd's don't really compare)...what, in his description of fascism do you disagree with specifically? yet, you were able to discern my meaning. i'm not sure i can say the same about your post.

there seems to be at least some disagreement on the application of the labels...seems not everyone agrees what label goes where.

by when? if this were true, then we could pump our way out of the hole with little difficulty and very quickly. how much would 800+ billion barrels of oil bring even in the face of an oil glut? if this was plausible and the case was made to the american public convincingly, no pol opposing it would stand a chance of being elected. i haven't heard the argument made in any of the elections (other than drill baby drill). when has romney conjectured anything remotely similar? no experts i've heard concluded that failed legislation on drilling or pipelines would have resulted in anything nearing energy independence. the wealth that this would bring and the expense saved would be enormous (and i suppose in some ways a disincentive as the price of oil would plummet). cite some credible experts who give a time frame for energy independence using the estimates your argument relies on. even bush' "addiction to oil" speech only estimated a decrease of 75% imported oil by 2025 (through "new technologies" and almost nobody believed him.

yes, and the devil is in the details. there's nothing simple about it. so we're in unfathomable debt (partly due to 2 continuing wars), in a very slowly recovering recession that many claimed was nearly a depression, lost our triple a credit rating and you're saying there's a simple solution in turning on a spigot. geez, you're the messiah we've all been waiting for. why didn't anyone think of this before? not even the most ardent oilman or conservative oil crony has made such a claim.

empire is your word, too. they've proven their ability to lead/mislead the populace on several occasions. remember when a majority of americans believed that iraq was involved in 9/11? i'd think they'd have a better chance with proletarian arabs than their ruthless, calculating dictators.

that's fracking incredible. no i don't think bush kept us from drilling. i'll bet he was aware of these estimates and still didn't feel oil independence was happening in the forseeable future.

ok....one more try. subie wrx. test drove one recently. blazing fast and turns on rails. a bit boy racerish for a newly minted advanced degreed scholar but loads of fun and better than average reliability. tried to get my wife to buy it but the 2 tone racing seats killed the deal.