Sarah Palin

[BlackHorse]

The Heritage Foundation is hardly an unbiased source. It is a right wing think tank. You can cherry pick statistics to fit nearly any pre-determined conclusion. The fact is that the Middle Class people earning under $250,000 will do better under Obama's tax plan that under McCain's continuation of the Bush Tax Cuts. BTW the Upper 5% will still do better under Obama's plan then they did under Regan/Bush 41.

 

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publication...l.cfm?ID=411750

 

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/th...goes_again.html

 

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/pr...deceptions.html

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/724/

 

 

Oh good God are you kidding me!!! We have to rehash this all over again? Go back to page two and read you moron and stop wasting everyones time with this BS.

 

The top-earning 25 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $64,702) earned 68.2 percent of the nation's income, but they paid more than four out of every five dollars collected by the federal income tax (86.3 percent). The top 1 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $388,806) earned approximately 22.1 percent of the nation's income (as defined by AGI), yet paid 39.9 percent of all federal income taxes. That means the top 1 percent of tax returns paid about the same amount of federal individual income taxes as the bottom 95 percent of tax returns.

 

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

 

 

Learn something fool!! Take the liberal hand out of your sock puppet ass and learn something. I shouldn't be having to refute liberal BS that was already slam dunked on this very thread. Christ you guys are dense.

 

By the way not one of your posts disproved the fact that under our current tax code the lions share of dollars paid is already unequally levied against the middle and high income persons. A condition that would only get worse under Obamas plan.

[xr7g428]

xr7g428 I do agree with you on most of the above. The $750 Billion number isn't accurate eventhough it has been used in several of McCain's speeches. It is actually about $400 Bln. Our largest source of imported oil is Canada. Mexico and Saudi Arabia are about tied for second place. I have no problem with drilling in the USA. We currently have 68 million acres under lease to oil companies that they aren't drilling. I support a use it or lose it requirement on the leases. They shouldn't be able to tie up that oil and cheat the citizens out of the royalties that would be realized. The purpose is to keep prices high. In addition, we don't have the drilling capacity (lack of equipment) or the refining capacity for drilling to do anything to lower prices.

 

We do need to jump start research on alternatives. I believe Boone Pickins is on to something with using CNG to power cars. It needs to be encouraged as does wind and solar. McCain failed to show up for 8 votes to reauthorize tax incentives for wind and solar. These new technologies need to be nutrured. At the same time we continue to give subsidies to the big oil companies as they rake in record profits. It is the worst kind of corporate welfare. It doesn't create anything new.

 

We have historically used government to push technology when private enterprise couldn't fund the required infrastructure. We did it with the Railroads in the 1800s, with electrification in the South and West. The intervention of government opened the country. The same could be done now with alternative energy and building the required infrastructure for CNG and Hydrogen filling stations. I have no problem with nuclear power the first atomic plant is near pittsburgh. But there is a real issue of what to do with the waste. I note that France has been using nuclear for most of their electricty decades.

 

BioDiesel and even BioGasoline have great promise. If we just ran all of our school busses and mass transit on recycled vegetable oil we would save millions of gallons of petroleum. Obama is for this, McCain says he is but hasn't done anything when it comes to voting on it.

 

Jobs are created when the Middle Class is strong. The Middle Class buys the things that create jobs. The Bush tax cuts have hurt the middle to benefit the rich. Obama would try to remedy this.

 

Republicans don't win when Democrats fail either. That has been the lesson of the first 6 years of the GW Bush Presidency.

 

 

You simply cannot discuss this in terms other than Democrat talking points...You completely lose your credibility when you throw in crap like "used in McCains speeches"

 

The EIA projection for consumption is at or around 5 billion barrels per day in imported oil. They have just revised the price downward to $117 per barrel. $117 times 5 billion is $585 billion. The $750 billion number is based on $150 a barrel. Your number is based on $80 a barrel. Besides, isn't $400 billion obscene enough?

 

EIA short term outlook

 

The whole "acres under lease" thing is a farce. Oil isn't evenly distributed. It does no good to drill where there is no oil. Given a choice, oil companies would like to cherry pick the acres they lease, but that is not the way it works. They want to lease one acre, and the auctions sell rights in large blocks. Any one who knows even the very least about oil or ever lived in Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, or any oil producing state knows that this argument is intended solely to deceive.

 

This is what I mean by being sort of for drilling... We sort of need to do it, but not really, cause $400 billion is less than $700 billion and there isn't an oil well on every acre of every lease.

 

I don't expect that any serious candidate for the Presidency is going to make many votes. So stop the mud slinging. Obama has an even worse record than McCain, but it means nothing.

 

Most Missed Votes

 

Missed Votes Representative

49% (233) Del. Eni Faleomavaega [D-AS] since Feb 8, 2007

35% (166) Res.Com. Luis Fortuño [R-PR] since Feb 8, 2007

25% (120) Del. Madeleine Bordallo [D-GU] since Feb 8, 2007

24% (306) Sen. Barack Obama [D-IL] since Jan 6, 2005

22% (960) Rep. Jo Ann Davis [R-VA] since Jan 3, 2001

19% (1658) Rep. Barbara Cubin [R-WY] since Jan 4, 1995

19% (84) Rep. Jackie Speier [D-CA] since Apr 10, 2008

18% (738) Sen. John McCain [R-AZ] since Feb 4, 1993

18% (427) Rep. Bobby Jindal [R-LA] since Jan 4, 2005

14% (1000) Rep. Julia Carson [D-IN] since Jan 21, 1997

14% (586) Sen. John Kerry [D-MA] since Feb 4, 1993

14% (1309) Rep. Bobby Rush [D-IL] since Jan 5, 1993

14% (1284) Rep. Donald Young [R-AK] since Jan 5, 1993

12% (57) Del. Donna Christensen [D-VI] since Feb 8, 2007

Mean: 0.03; Standard Deviation: 0.02;

 

Bottom line, slinging mud and disparaging EITHER ONE of the candidates is not useful.

 

Where does Obama propose to put nuclear waste? I actually read the USGS survey of Yucca mountain and it seems about as safe as any other place. Here is a link: US Geological Service survey of Yucca Mountain

 

I am concerned that Obama's real opinion is that we can't use nuclear power until we can magically make it risk free: never. Do you believe his support is genuine?

 

I do believe that Pickens is on the right path, but I also believe that the way to use natural gasoline is by reforming it into gasoline (GTL). Common sense tells me it will cost less to process the fuel than to build a new infrastructure, and retro fit the cars. I am concerned about the required redundancy of wind power. It makes great sense until the wind doesn't blow where you need it to. I have read that you need to build twice the power you need in order to be able to offset periods of no wind in some places.

 

Where do you propose we get hydrogen, and how do you propose we use it? Is there a part of Obama's plan that discusses this? I haven't seen anything on it.

 

Using recycled vegetable oil is a great idea, but in many areas the available supply has already been consumed by other users. Like ethanol, we have to be careful that we don't create another problem as a component of the solution.

 

That thing about jobs being created by a strong middle class sounds great, but I don't think you have the sequence quite right. It

is the jobs that create the middle class. It seems to me that most of the middle class spending goes to WalMart and China.

[Len_A]

Oh good God are you kidding me!!! We have to rehash this all over again? Go back to page two and read you moron and stop wasting everyones time with this BS.

 

 

 

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

 

 

Learn something fool!! Take the liberal hand out of your sock puppet ass and learn something. I shouldn't be having to refute liberal BS that was already slam dunked on this very thread. Christ you guys are dense.

 

By the way not one of your posts disproved the fact that under our current tax code the lions share of dollars paid is already unequally levied against the middle and high income persons. A condition that would only get worse under Obamas plan.

Go take your head out of your ass. Most working people, white collar and blue collar alike, could give a fuck about the "tax burden" of the wealthiest 1/2% of the population. Back in 2001, McCain ripped on Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy. Now he has his right wing minions like your sorry ass being apologists and excuse-makers for the wealthy. Let them trickle down on your head. If they can afford the higher "tax burden", then G*d damn it, they should pay it and shut the fuck up. The bedrock principle of the graduated income tax system.

 

NYC Mayor Micheal Bloomberg, yesterday on "Meet the Press", put it really well:

...I think everybody understands we like to have lower taxes. But if we want services, we're going to have to pay for them. And the worst thing we're doing is to do the worst--take the services but not have us pay for them.

[napfirst]

Go take your head out of your ass. Most working people, white collar and blue collar alike, could give a fuck about the "tax burden" of the wealthiest 1/2% of the population. Back in 2001, McCain ripped on Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy. Now he has his right wing minions like your sorry ass being apologists and excuse-makers for the wealthy. Let them trickle down on your head. If they can afford the higher "tax burden", then G*d damn it, they should pay it and shut the fuck up. The bedrock principle of the graduated income tax system.

 

NYC Mayor Micheal Bloomberg, yesterday on "Meet the Press", put it really well:

Why so much anger.....do you beat your wife?

[Len_A]

Why so much anger.....do you beat your wife?

only at checkers.

[napfirst]

only at checkers.

just checking.........you seem upset

[BlackHorse]

Go take your head out of your ass. Most working people, white collar and blue collar alike, could give a fuck about the "tax burden" of the wealthiest 1/2% of the population. Back in 2001, McCain ripped on Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy. Now he has his right wing minions like your sorry ass being apologists and excuse-makers for the wealthy. Let them trickle down on your head. If they can afford the higher "tax burden", then G*d damn it, they should pay it and shut the fuck up. The bedrock principle of the graduated income tax system.

 

NYC Mayor Micheal Bloomberg, yesterday on "Meet the Press", put it really well:

 

Read it again moron. Read it slowly. Try to put aside your petty class, race, social and religous divisions that you liberals love to divide everyone into.

 

The top-earning 25 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $64,702) earned 68.2 percent of the nation's income, but they paid more than four out of every five dollars collected by the federal income tax (86.3 percent).

 

Last time I checked people making 64 thousand a year were not considered wealthy in this country. Hell I'm working class myself. I just haven't been taught to hate and despise the rich as you have. Pathetic fool.

[Mark B. Morrow]

just checking.........you seem upset

 

 

You think Len seems upset, Blackhorse sounds like he's going to burst a blood vessel.

[napfirst]

You think Len seems upset, Blackhorse sounds like he's going to burst a blood vessel.

I think Blackhorse is doing an excellent job......right now he's kicking your ass and Len's and Edstock...hell he got Len so upset I was concerned for his family's safety......

[Len_A]

I think Blackhorse is doing an excellent job......right now he's kicking your ass and Len's and Edstock...hell he got Len so upset I was concerned for his family's safety......

Damn, you're funny. Not. Hang on to your day job. A comedian, you ain't.

[napfirst]

Damn, you're funny. Not. Hang on to your day job. A comedian, you ain't.

most liberals don't appreciate a good sense of humor......they're are always mad....feel cheated..... discriminated against...... neglected.....just overall not very happy people....you fit the mold well...

[Len_A]

Read it again moron. Read it slowly. Try to put aside your petty class, race, social and religous divisions that you liberals love to divide everyone into.

 

The top-earning 25 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $64,702) earned 68.2 percent of the nation's income, but they paid more than four out of every five dollars collected by the federal income tax (86.3 percent).

 

Last time I checked people making 64 thousand a year were not considered wealthy in this country. Hell I'm working class myself. I just haven't been taught to hate and despise the rich as you have. Pathetic fool.

Who said anything, other than a tax cut, about anyone under $250,000 a year, birdbrain? Typical Republican, try to obfuscate a point about raising taxes on the wealthy, by bringing up decidedly middle class income levels. BTW, American Heritage Dictionary definition of obfuscate: To make so confused or opaque as to be difficult to perceive or understand.

 

Just in case it's too big a word for your handicapped intellect to understand. Oh, and it's "religious", not "religous".

[Len_A]

most liberals don't appreciate a good sense of humor......they're are always mad....feel cheated..... discriminated against...... neglected.....just overall not very happy people....you fit the mold well...

Damn, and here I thought answering your post:

 

QUOTE (napfirst @ Sep 22 2008, 09:07 PM) Why so much anger.....do you beat your wife?

 

(of which I fail to see any humor in)

 

with "only at checkers" showed some semblance of a sense of humor.

[BlackHorse]

Damn, you're funny. Not. Hang on to your day job. A comedian, you ain't.

 

Ain't is not a word Len. This is what happens when liberals take over our schools. Additionally it's obvious by your response that you realized how very wrong you are on the subject of tax burden and the best you could come up with was a lame attempt at a joke with poor grammar.

[napfirst]

Damn, and here I thought answering your post:

 

 

 

(of which I fail to see any humor in)

 

with "only at checkers" showed some semblance of a sense of humor.

your wife still supporting you?

[BlackHorse]

Who said anything, other than a tax cut, about anyone under $250,000 a year, birdbrain? Typical Republican, try to obfuscate a point about raising taxes on the wealthy, by bringing up decidedly middle class income levels. BTW, American Heritage Dictionary definition of obfuscate: To make so confused or opaque as to be difficult to perceive or understand.

 

Just in case it's too big a word for your handicapped intellect to understand. Oh, and it's "religious", not "religous".

 

Both candidates are proposing a "middle class tax cut". Weather or not that will actually happen remains to be seen. Every election both parties promise a middle class tax cut. I was simply pointing out that your typical liberal "eat the rich" attitude is based on ignorance. Yes in fact the rich do pay far more in taxes proportionally speaking. Barracks plan is to add to their burden under the guise of giving it to the rest of us. Have you ever asked yourself why if he wants to give you and me a tax break does he need to take it from someone else? Just give the middle class a tax cut and be done with it. Why does he have to rob Peter to pay Paul. Why do you think it's ok? Did rich people do something to you that you are entitled to their money? Or are you just a lazy ass that doesn't want to earn his own way and has no problem with the government just giving you something you didn't actually work for? Frankly if the price to pay to get a middle class tax cut is that those who make more that 250 grand a year have to pay up to 66% in tax rates then I don't want it and if you were worth a shit as a man you wouldn't either.

[fmccap]

I think we need to wake up to the two current parties. Every thread it's this side, that side. In the mean time a little is taken away from both sides as we continue on in it.

 

One thing I think we can all agree on is that we all could handle our own responsibilitise , right? If not you have been totally had by the system.

 

I'm sure that I, my buddy Nap, Len, Blackhorse, Methos and Ima could all get along if we went out and had a good time. If not I don't think it would be that we hate each other(as the two parties want), we would just have different interests(which is normal human behavior) and would leave each other alone(LIVE AND LET LIVE).

 

No matter what party or gender or race we are, I think we need government out of our lives and we would be much happier.

[Len_A]

Ain't is not a word Len. This is what happens when liberals take over our schools. Additionally it's obvious by your response that you realized how very wrong you are on the subject of tax burden and the best you could come up with was a lame attempt at a joke with poor grammar.

Yep, 100% "liberal" business education, courtesy of a Jesuit education. If you can't handle a joke, that's your problem.

 

your wife still supporting you?

Another low attempt at humor on your part. Your question is supposed to be funny why?

Edited September 23, 2008 by Len_A

[RangerM]

your wife still supporting you?

 

Come on, Nap. A person who is truly confident in his views doesn't need to resort to personal attacks.

 

Even though I disagree with Len in this matter, and knowing what I know of Len's situation, you should back off that kind of thing.

 

An apology would also be appropriate here.

 

Spirited debate is one thing, but this thread is going downhill fast.

[stephenhawkings]

9 pages of crap on some chick no one heard of a month ago!

sounds like we aren't being conservative with our bloggin/commentin!

[Len_A]

Both candidates are proposing a "middle class tax cut". Weather or not that will actually happen remains to be seen. Every election both parties promise a middle class tax cut. I was simply pointing out that your typical liberal "eat the rich" attitude is based on ignorance. Yes in fact the rich do pay far more in taxes proportionally speaking. Barracks plan is to add to their burden under the guise of giving it to the rest of us. Have you ever asked yourself why if he wants to give you and me a tax break does he need to take it from someone else? Just give the middle class a tax cut and be done with it. Why does he have to rob Peter to pay Paul. Why do you think it's ok? Did rich people do something to you that you are entitled to their money? Or are you just a lazy ass that doesn't want to earn his own way and has no problem with the government just giving you something you didn't actually work for? Frankly if the price to pay to get a middle class tax cut is that those who make more that 250 grand a year have to pay up to 66% in tax rates then I don't want it and if you were worth a shit as a man you wouldn't either.

"if the price to pay to get a middle class tax cut is that those who make more that 250 grand a year have to pay up to 66% in tax rates then I don't want it and if you were worth a shit as a man you wouldn't either." Spare me the low brow, bullshit macho rhetoric, and while we're at it, stop with the knew jerk, GOP obfuscation. There is nothing in Obama's proposal that calls for a 66% top tax rate. The current top marginal tax rate, paid by the top 1% of incomes, is 35%, and is set to expire in 2010. All Obama called for was rolling the tax cut back a year early, raising the top tax rate, again paid by only the top 1%, to 39.6%. And that's the top marginal rate, which is on the amount of income over $336,551. The federal tax rate on the $336,551 is currently now, and under Obama's proposal, no where near the top two marginal rates of 33% and 35%. Currently, the tax on $336,551 is around $98,000 total. The current 35% marginal rate is on the amount over $336,551. So, it goes back up to 39.6%. That sure as hell isn't 66%.

[Len_A]

Come on, Nap. A person who is truly confident in his views doesn't need to resort to personal attacks.

 

Even though I disagree with Len in this matter, and knowing what I know of Len's situation, you should back off that kind of thing.

 

An apology would also be appropriate here.

 

Spirited debate is one thing, but this thread is going downhill fast.

I'm not sweating it, RangerM. I do appreciate your post, though.

[BlackHorse]

"if the price to pay to get a middle class tax cut is that those who make more that 250 grand a year have to pay up to 66% in tax rates then I don't want it and if you were worth a shit as a man you wouldn't either." Spare me the low brow, bullshit macho rhetoric, and while we're at it, stop with the knew jerk, GOP obfuscation. There is nothing in Obama's proposal that calls for a 66% top tax rate. The current top marginal tax rate, paid by the top 1% of incomes, is 35%, and is set to expire in 2010. All Obama called for was rolling the tax cut back a year early, raising the top tax rate, again paid by only the top 1%, to 39.6%. And that's the top marginal rate, which is on the amount of income over $336,551. The federal tax rate on the $336,551 is currently now, and under Obama's proposal, no where near the top two marginal rates of 33% and 35%. Currently, the tax on $336,551 is around $98,000 total. The current 35% marginal rate is on the amount over $336,551. So, it goes back up to 39.6%. That sure as hell isn't 66%.

 

Do you have any idea what you're talking about. Those figures you just quoted, all that 35% this and 33% that is just income tax. That doesn't include your state tax, proptery tax, utilties tax, sales tax, ad valorem tax, gas tax and the myriad of other little taxes here and there that they stick us for Len. Think about what your saying before you post. The average American, that's you and me, already pays right at 50% of our income to the government in one form or another because of all the additional tax that we pay. So yes, under Barracks plan in some areas where there is high local tax, those people making over 250 grand a year could end up paying two thirds of every dollar they make to the government. Last I checked that's 66%.

 

 

"We take the tax gut they're getting and we give it to the middle class." Joe Biden

 

What tax cut Joe? They already pay more than I do.

 

Personally I thought he came off as angry and full of it, but that's just me. See for yourself Len what the man said. It's not rhetoric, it's not BS, it's what the man said. When are you guys actually going to learn something before you start this nonsense?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoLT0EwI_4U...feature=related

Edited September 23, 2008 by BlackHorse

[fmccap]

"if the price to pay to get a middle class tax cut is that those who make more that 250 grand a year have to pay up to 66% in tax rates then I don't want it and if you were worth a shit as a man you wouldn't either." Spare me the low brow, bullshit macho rhetoric, and while we're at it, stop with the knew jerk, GOP obfuscation. There is nothing in Obama's proposal that calls for a 66% top tax rate. The current top marginal tax rate, paid by the top 1% of incomes, is 35%, and is set to expire in 2010. All Obama called for was rolling the tax cut back a year early, raising the top tax rate, again paid by only the top 1%, to 39.6%. And that's the top marginal rate, which is on the amount of income over $336,551. The federal tax rate on the $336,551 is currently now, and under Obama's proposal, no where near the top two marginal rates of 33% and 35%. Currently, the tax on $336,551 is around $98,000 total. The current 35% marginal rate is on the amount over $336,551. So, it goes back up to 39.6%. That sure as hell isn't 66%.

Didn't the average person pay basically no taxes until around the 40's? In this countries lifetime that is what the last 25%? First thing we should ask ourselves is, considering we are the high majority, is why we are paying so much to begin with in such a short time.

[Mark B. Morrow]

You simply cannot discuss this in terms other than Democrat talking points...You completely lose your credibility when you throw in crap like "used in McCains speeches"

 

With all due respect xr7g428, I was merely pointing out that McCain's number as used in his speeches is incorrect. It is not my credibility but McCain's that is at issue. In addition he has used the $750 Billion number stating that we are sending this amount to people who don't like the USA. Last I checked, Canada and Mexico were not our enemies. It is another case of Mccain misstating the facts to enflame the public. This has been reviewed by several of the factcheck organizations

 

The EIA projection for consumption is at or around 5 billion barrels per day in imported oil. They have just revised the price downward to $117 per barrel. $117 times 5 billion is $585 billion. The $750 billion number is based on $150 a barrel. Your number is based on $80 a barrel. Besides, isn't $400 billion obscene enough?

 

EIA short term outlook

 

It is 5 Million bpd not 5 Billion

 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/basics/quickoil.html

 

Yes I agree that even $400 billion per year is too much. Hence my support for Boone Pickins' CNG proposal. See the chart above stating that 70% of our oil consumption is for vehicles.

 

The whole "acres under lease" thing is a farce. Oil isn't evenly distributed. It does no good to drill where there is no oil. Given a choice, oil companies would like to cherry pick the acres they lease, but that is not the way it works. They want to lease one acre, and the auctions sell rights in large blocks. Any one who knows even the very least about oil or ever lived in Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, or any oil producing state knows that this argument is intended solely to deceive.

 

This is what I mean by being sort of for drilling... We sort of need to do it, but not really, cause $400 billion is less than $700 billion and there isn't an oil well on every acre of every lease.

 

I certainly understand that every acre isn't going to produce oil. The fact is that much of it hasn't been explored. If in fact some of the leases are not worth exploring then the Oil Companies should not have any problem with "use it or lose it". You also ignored the issue of the lack of drilling equipment or refining capacity.

 

I don't expect that any serious candidate for the Presidency is going to make many votes. So stop the mud slinging. Obama has an even worse record than McCain, but it means nothing.

 

Most Missed Votes

 

Missed Votes Representative

49% (233) Del. Eni Faleomavaega [D-AS] since Feb 8, 2007

35% (166) Res.Com. Luis Fortuño [R-PR] since Feb 8, 2007

25% (120) Del. Madeleine Bordallo [D-GU] since Feb 8, 2007

24% (306) Sen. Barack Obama [D-IL] since Jan 6, 2005

22% (960) Rep. Jo Ann Davis [R-VA] since Jan 3, 2001

19% (1658) Rep. Barbara Cubin [R-WY] since Jan 4, 1995

19% (84) Rep. Jackie Speier [D-CA] since Apr 10, 2008

18% (738) Sen. John McCain [R-AZ] since Feb 4, 1993

18% (427) Rep. Bobby Jindal [R-LA] since Jan 4, 2005

14% (1000) Rep. Julia Carson [D-IN] since Jan 21, 1997

14% (586) Sen. John Kerry [D-MA] since Feb 4, 1993

14% (1309) Rep. Bobby Rush [D-IL] since Jan 5, 1993

14% (1284) Rep. Donald Young [R-AK] since Jan 5, 1993

12% (57) Del. Donna Christensen [D-VI] since Feb 8, 2007

Mean: 0.03; Standard Deviation: 0.02;

 

Bottom line, slinging mud and disparaging EITHER ONE of the candidates is not useful.

 

Your list is misleading since it averages McCain's missed vote percentage back to 1993 which includes several non-election years. Here is an idea compare the missed votes in this election cycle. http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/senate/vote-missers/

 

Out of 643 votes in the 110th Congress McCain missed 64.1% Obama 45.9%

 

My point is that there were 8 votes to reauthorize the alternative energy tax credits and McCain missed them all. If it is such an important part of his plan for the future couldn't he make one vote?

 

Where does Obama propose to put nuclear waste? I actually read the USGS survey of Yucca mountain and it seems about as safe as any other place. Here is a link: US Geological Service survey of Yucca Mountain

 

McCain is all for Yucca Mountain except when he is campaigning in Nevada. http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/may/2...out-face-yucca/

One of the major issues with the Yucca plan is the requirement to transport the waste from all over the country.

Obama is against the Yucca Mt. plan http://obama.senate.gov/press/071031-obama_time_to_e/

 

I am concerned that Obama's real opinion is that we can't use nuclear power until we can magically make it risk free: never. Do you believe his support is genuine?

 

I do believe that Pickens is on the right path, but I also believe that the way to use natural gasoline is by reforming it into gasoline (GTL). Common sense tells me it will cost less to process the fuel than to build a new infrastructure, and retro fit the cars. I am concerned about the required redundancy of wind power. It makes great sense until the wind doesn't blow where you need it to. I have read that you need to build twice the power you need in order to be able to offset periods of no wind in some places.

 

I don't know much about GTL but what little I have read indicates that there is no large scale conversion infrastructure and the end price per gallon would be higher. On the other hand, CNG vehicle conversion technology exists now and is not very expensive. The availability of Natural Gas lines is plentyful and the work necessary to add CNG to fueling stations would seem to be less expensive than GTL. The present Per Gallon Conversion price of CNG is reported to be between $1.50-$2.25. Large scale availability and competition may drive this down.

 

Where do you propose we get hydrogen, and how do you propose we use it? Is there a part of Obama's plan that discusses this? I haven't seen anything on it.

 

Both Obama and Mccain support Hydrogen as an alternative. It is part of Obama's 10 year/150 Bln alternative energy plan.

 

Using recycled vegetable oil is a great idea, but in many areas the available supply has already been consumed by other users. Like ethanol, we have to be careful that we don't create another problem as a component of the solution.

 

That thing about jobs being created by a strong middle class sounds great, but I don't think you have the sequence quite right. It

is the jobs that create the middle class. It seems to me that most of the middle class spending goes to WalMart and China.

 

Increasing spendable income in the middle class is more efficient than increases for the wealthy. Look at the history. When Henry Ford started the $5 a day wage his product became available to a much wider audience. This was repeated in the early 1950s and 1960s a strong middle class drove the economy and the wealthy benefited as well as the middle. An upward flood works much better than a trickle down. It is the middle class by and large that buys Fords and Chevys, not the wealthy. The Middle Class buys moderately priced housing. The middle class invests in America not overseas.