US Presidential Election 2008 Thread

[Patroklos]

1) Obama has proposed opening up the stratetic oil reserve.

Only after he opposed it.

What ever happened to drilling/supply increases will have no effect?

Conservation. For example, he's pointed out that if American's properly inflate their tires and tune their cars, this will save more oil NOW than offshore drilling will produce later. McCain is attempting to ridicule this (I guess because he's now on the payroll of Big Oil companies and doesn't want Americans to conserve.)

This is not a policy Z, people have been shouting this to American's (and everyone) for decades. No amount of Obamaspeak is going to change this and other American habits, it has NOTHING to do with the government and who runs it.

3) $1,000 tax rebates to Americans, paid for by a windfall profits tax on oil companies.

I will let the other thread speak for this one.

McCain has no short-term suggestions.

Sure he does, in that we can start building nukes and drilling now.

Obama's energy policy (his, as his drilling and SOR are McCain's) amounts to wait for unproven technology to work itself out, if it works out, and do nothing at all right now.

[Ramo]

Of cours McCain's nuclear policy and Obama's lack there of will probably be more effective enviromentally than any cap and trade anyway.

How exactly do you think a massive nuclear expansion becomes affordable in a world without cap and trade. Do you think McCain wants the government to build them himself (which would be expensive as hell)? Sounds like one of those nefarious pinkocommies...

[Patroklos]

Cap and trade is energy policy, obviously. What would you describe it as?

It is enviromental policy, it has nothing to do with energy beyond the emissions energy production creates along with a thousand other industries.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Re: Re: US Presidential Election 2008 Thread

Originally posted by Zkribbler
So...a willingness to enter into a compromise is now a flip flop?

Where exactly does he say he wants to release oil from the strategic reserve as part of a compromise? Especially since McCain is against doing such thing.

[q=Ramo]And lest we forget, McCain flip-flopped on offshore drilling only a couple months ago.[/q]

[q=Imran Siddiqui]Let's just call them both flip-floppers and stop trying to treat the term like it has any meaning in this Presidential election cycle.[/q]

[Ramo]

Right...

[Imran Siddiqui]

I guess because he's now on the payroll of Big Oil companies

Obama has taken about $400,000 from Big Oil. Is he on the payroll as well?

This is back in March, when the total was lower, but:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_oil_spill.html

In a new ad, Obama says, "I don’t take money from oil companies."

Technically, that's true, since a law that has been on the books for more than a century prohibits corporations from giving money directly to any federal candidate. But that doesn’t distinguish Obama from his rivals in the race.

We find the statement misleading:

- Obama has accepted more than $213,000 from individuals who work for companies in the oil and gas industry and their spouses.

- Two of Obama's bundlers are top executives at oil companies and are listed on his Web site as raising between $50,000 and $100,000 for the presidential hopeful.

And this was currently:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_overstatement.html

Obama released a TV spot saying McCain's campaign got $2 million from "Big Oil" while McCain proposed "another $4 billion in tax breaks" for the industry.

The truth is that McCain's campaign has received $1.33 million from individuals employed in the oil and gas industry, not $2 million. Obama himself has received nearly $400,000, according to the most authoritative figures available. We find the $2 million figure is based on a mistaken calculation.

Furthermore, McCain is not proposing new tax breaks specifically targeted to the oil industry. He's proposing a general reduction in the corporate income tax rate, which Democrats figure would benefit the five largest oil and gas companies by $3.8 billion.

[Patroklos]

How exactly do you think a massive nuclear expansion becomes affordable in a world without cap and trade. Is your boy willing to do something pinko socialist like having a government-owned energy sector?

Nukes have FAR fewer emissions than most other major energy sources. So if his energy policy is to build nuclear power instead of coal plants, emissions will be drastically decreased per capita (as population rises).

Right...

It is good to have the ability to laugh at yourself

What does cap and trade regulate Ramo?

How exactly do you think a massive nuclear expansion becomes affordable in a world without cap and trade.

Why don't you ask the companies trying to build them all over the country. Hell, they are about to break ground on two reators here this year. They have been trying to do so for six years. They are so confident in their profitability they are starting constuction before they are fully approved.

[Ramo]

Nukes have FAR fewer emissions than most other major energy sources. So if his energy policy is to build nuclear power instead of coal plants, emissions will be drastically decreased per capita (as population rises).

Duh. Once again, my question is how do you get the capital for a massive expansion in nuclear power together without cap and trade?

[Patroklos]

Duh. Once again, my question is how do you get the capital for a massive expansion in nuclear power together without cap and trade?

I DanS'ed you.

Again, ask the companies clamoring for the approval to build for decades.

[Ramo]

Why don't you ask the companies trying to build them all over the country. Hell, they are about to break ground on two reators here this year. They have been trying to do so for six years. They are so confident in their profitability they are starting constuction before they are fully approved.

The lifetime cost of new generating capacity in the United States was estimated in 2006 by the U.S. government: wind cost was estimated at $55.80 per MWh, coal (cheap in the U.S.) at $53.10, natural gas at $52.50 and nuclear at $59.30. However, the "total overnight cost" for new nuclear was assumed to be $1,984 per kWe[30] — as seen above in Capital Costs, this figure is subject to debate. Also, carbon taxes and backup power costs were not considered.[33]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_new_nuclear_power_plants

Once more, how do you afford a massive increase in nuclear power without cap and trade? I'm not talking about a couple plants here and there. What about the initial capital?

[Patroklos]

Once more, how do you afford a massive increase in nuclear power without cap and trade? I'm not talking about a couple plants here and there. What about the initial capital?

Again, since companies are in fact doing it, it is in fact possible. Ask them. You have just slammed into a hard fact Ramo, the plants are being build without cap in trade, so it is in fact possible. Accept it and move on.

And for your note, just because one is more expensive does not mean it is not unaffordable.

[Ramo]

A couple. We're talking about a massive expansion. The economics simply don't jive with what your gut seems to be telling you...

[Ramo]

And for your note, just because one is more expensive does not mean it is not unaffordable.

Whatever increase in nuclear capacity is going on right now, I'd bet that the increase in coal capacity is much larger. You seem to be transfixed on peripheral ****, rather than the economy as a whole.

[Patroklos]

A couple. We're talking about a massive expansion. The economics simply don't jive with what your gut seems to be telling you...

The economics jive just fine, as many private companies are proving right now. We could accelerate the process by deregulating our reactionary post 3MI policies, that decrease in application and construction time might be enough to drastically reduce prices alone without a cent of public money spent.

Of course there is nothing wrong with spending public money, we do it for the other energy sectors as it is.

Whatever increase in nuclear capacity is going on right now, I'd bet that the increase in coal capacity is much larger. You seem to be transfixed on peripheral ****, rather than the economy as a whole.

You are confusing me with Obama and alternative fuels.

I, like McCain, favor nuclear expansion, clean coal, and increased drilling. I want to see this candle burned from a dozen ends.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Patroklos
You are confusing me with Obama and alternative fuels.

I, like McCain, favor nuclear expansion, clean coal, and increased drilling. I want to see this candle burned from a dozen ends.

Uh.. McCain is also in favor of alternative energy, proposing tax credits for them. As it says on his site:

To develop these and other sources of renewable energy will require that we rationalize the current patchwork of temporary tax credits that provide commercial feasibility. John McCain believes in an even-handed system of tax credits that will remain in place until the market transforms sufficiently to the point where renewable energy no longer merits the taxpayers' dollars.

And in his Lexington Project speech:

At this moment, some of the best minds in our country are also at work discovering or perfecting alternative technologies. They are not tilting at windmills -- they're building them. They are capturing the boundless powers of the sun, the tides, the mighty rivers, and the warmth of the Earth itself. Yet for all the good work of entrepreneurs and inventors in finding cleaner and better technologies, the fundamental incentives of the market are still on the side of carbon-based energy.

Even with oil running at about 140 dollars per barrel, these new alternatives have yet to take the place of oil in our economy for two basic reasons: our infrastructure is outdated and our production capacity has been constrained. And this has to change as we can make the great turn away from fossil fuels. To lead in this effort, our government must strike at the source of the problem -- with reforms that only Congress can enact and the president can sign.