why blame anyone for wanting to USE energy?
IMO we should rather blame those in authority who prevent production of energy….such as the bankrupt US government printing more and more worth-less dollars to loan to Germany ($1.2 Billion) to research solar and to send $s to Brazil so that foreign nation can develop their offshore oil & gas industry to sell to the USA……while refusing permits for Americans to drill and produce domestic oil & gas for our own use.
(IMO, God filled earth with sources of energy for mankind to USE for good…..and using energy to produce food and other needs for a world in need is “good” in my book)
^^ I think you can be a good steward while also increasing production. I agree that we should be more responsible with our actions, universally speaking even, but we shouldn’t hamper that ability with foolhardy politics and egregious and possibly unethical speculation practices and the like.
Look, I think it’s one thing if you gamble on stocks and such and gamble that a company, a textile or what ever will increase or decrease in value. It’s another to actually steer where you want that rate to be. Just my opinion on the matter.
But I do agree with disgusted too.
^ and you remember the high unemployment, supremely high taxes, very high inflation and very high unhappiness too, among other things. And, yes, after Reagan things did become rosy and people became confident and happy with where things were going and home ownership soared too. Why? Because tax rates were slashed, businesses boomed and as a result the unemployment rate virtually flat-lined, the pay increased as did available money, cost of products and property decreased while ownership increased, etc. It was good times. That’s why people could afford 2nd and 3rd vehicles and larger homes… and why the gov’t had more revenue to spend on roads and such… as well as waste on increased spending and entitlements.
Wars are wars and sometimes unavoidable and/or necessary, but at least the cold war went off without a missile fire. I’ll take that over Nam, Iraq, Afganistan, Desert Storm, etc. Plus, that larger and more important Cold War was far more important than most wars… as it halted what would be the biggest evil of the day and pushed our technology greatly forward. But I understand your point. Yet I think that’s less important than the fact that Reagan failed to rain in spending and failed to decrease entitlements. That’s a couple faults I’d levy on him. The “wars” premises is only a small part of that failure to rain in spending, btw.
And some of those 5000 sq ft houses 50 miles from where they work or even a decent size city or town was a steal then and is worth massively more today then it was then. And places, like Cartersville, GA; Valrico, FL; Brandon, FL; etc., where this happened are all now flourishing cities of residence, business and industry. So I would question your point for being short sighted.
Or would you also blame the frontiersmen for venturing across the nation, risking their lives, to vie for a better, richer life in a mostly uncivilized land… and manufactured what was the richest and one of the most influential states, the great state of California, along the way and all that goes with it? Let’s not forget that it also led to the transcontinental rail, etc.
I’m sure your point is more based on the premise of pollution and such… but show me a car in the 70s and 80s that wasn’t a tank and a polluter? SUVs didn’t really rise to supremacy until post Reagan, btw. But it was the surge in tech research that led to more fuel efficiency as well as lighter cars using different types of metals and such. Just saying.
I appreciate thoughtful posts such as DjG’s …
my post said ZERO about “exploiting” God’s earth resources…..age 78 all my life I supported the old-fashioned Conservation principles…I live on farmland…
today I found 11 page printout and 17 page printout articles in Foreign Policy (links on www.realclearpolitics.com) but I don’t want to use that much paper and ink…..about the “Food Wars” coming and actually in progress in this world…..the competition for land, for water, for grains and the eco-nuts taking food grains for “green fuels”….while millions of humans starve all over Earth….
Bible says a day is coming when one loaf of bread will cost one day’s wages……the idiotic policies of the “greenies” will IMO be what brings that scarce food plague…….
Exxon is now trying to tout oil shale- can you say “Valdez”? If oil companies had NOT been subsidized by taxpayers for the last 40 years and actually paid fair market value for the TAXPAYERS oil they’ve been selling us, there would BE NO NATIONAL DEBT! Ad in if we’d rescinded the 1872 Mining Act in 1952 and gone to leasing hard rock minerals- taxes could have been reduced to maximum of 10% and we’d STILL run surpluses!!
Destroying all natural values for poor land use planning in California was the model for disaster- that driving 50 miles to work in an SUV thing- and prime agricultural land became shopping centers and ever larger “ticky-tacky” houses. At least the Daly City model after WW II did build compressed communities with more rational sized houses.
Dj and disgusted, there is a HUGE difference between USE of resources and ABUSE of resources. I started working for conservation and rational land use, in 1963, when my car at that time was getting over 30 mpg, and gas was REALLY cheap. It was the realization that ALL natural resources are finite. That includes “renewables” such as trees, that take 70 to 600 years to reach maturity and be “replaced” or truly “sustained yield”.
Resource use is a very complex issue, and a nation that thinks ESPN covering poker makes it a “sport”, is not likely to follow the logic, science, or common sense of it.
Actually, during the 70’s and 80’s they had some cars getting up near 50 miles/gallon - the tiny little 4 cylinder tin cans. It was OPEC quadrupling the price of oil that drove people to them.
Reagan’s “miracle”, IMO, was mostly OPEC’s resolve cracking, the price of oil falling precipitously, and Reagan’s massive deficit spending stimulating the economy.
Reagan’s policies essentially laid the ground-work (and in some cases poured the cement) for all the problems we have today.
^’76 Honda Civics, five models over 53 miles per gallon. Cleaning up exhaust emissions had only minor impact on mileage and performance. “OPEC” is also a mythical demon, standing in front of the curtain, that the REAL cartel- Chevron, Shell, Exxon, Conoco, stand behind, chuckling.
disgustedtaxpayer about 13 years ago
why blame anyone for wanting to USE energy? IMO we should rather blame those in authority who prevent production of energy….such as the bankrupt US government printing more and more worth-less dollars to loan to Germany ($1.2 Billion) to research solar and to send $s to Brazil so that foreign nation can develop their offshore oil & gas industry to sell to the USA……while refusing permits for Americans to drill and produce domestic oil & gas for our own use.
(IMO, God filled earth with sources of energy for mankind to USE for good…..and using energy to produce food and other needs for a world in need is “good” in my book)
Odon Premium Member about 13 years ago
And the speculators who are currently and unnecessarily running up the prices are good folks also…?
Bluejayz about 13 years ago
^^ uh, Disgusting, I think we are supposed to be good stewards of the land and its inhabitants, not the biggest exploiters possible.
DjGuardian about 13 years ago
^^ I think you can be a good steward while also increasing production. I agree that we should be more responsible with our actions, universally speaking even, but we shouldn’t hamper that ability with foolhardy politics and egregious and possibly unethical speculation practices and the like.
Look, I think it’s one thing if you gamble on stocks and such and gamble that a company, a textile or what ever will increase or decrease in value. It’s another to actually steer where you want that rate to be. Just my opinion on the matter.
But I do agree with disgusted too.
^ and you remember the high unemployment, supremely high taxes, very high inflation and very high unhappiness too, among other things. And, yes, after Reagan things did become rosy and people became confident and happy with where things were going and home ownership soared too. Why? Because tax rates were slashed, businesses boomed and as a result the unemployment rate virtually flat-lined, the pay increased as did available money, cost of products and property decreased while ownership increased, etc. It was good times. That’s why people could afford 2nd and 3rd vehicles and larger homes… and why the gov’t had more revenue to spend on roads and such… as well as waste on increased spending and entitlements.
Wars are wars and sometimes unavoidable and/or necessary, but at least the cold war went off without a missile fire. I’ll take that over Nam, Iraq, Afganistan, Desert Storm, etc. Plus, that larger and more important Cold War was far more important than most wars… as it halted what would be the biggest evil of the day and pushed our technology greatly forward. But I understand your point. Yet I think that’s less important than the fact that Reagan failed to rain in spending and failed to decrease entitlements. That’s a couple faults I’d levy on him. The “wars” premises is only a small part of that failure to rain in spending, btw.
And some of those 5000 sq ft houses 50 miles from where they work or even a decent size city or town was a steal then and is worth massively more today then it was then. And places, like Cartersville, GA; Valrico, FL; Brandon, FL; etc., where this happened are all now flourishing cities of residence, business and industry. So I would question your point for being short sighted.
Or would you also blame the frontiersmen for venturing across the nation, risking their lives, to vie for a better, richer life in a mostly uncivilized land… and manufactured what was the richest and one of the most influential states, the great state of California, along the way and all that goes with it? Let’s not forget that it also led to the transcontinental rail, etc.
I’m sure your point is more based on the premise of pollution and such… but show me a car in the 70s and 80s that wasn’t a tank and a polluter? SUVs didn’t really rise to supremacy until post Reagan, btw. But it was the surge in tech research that led to more fuel efficiency as well as lighter cars using different types of metals and such. Just saying.
disgustedtaxpayer about 13 years ago
I appreciate thoughtful posts such as DjG’s … my post said ZERO about “exploiting” God’s earth resources…..age 78 all my life I supported the old-fashioned Conservation principles…I live on farmland…
today I found 11 page printout and 17 page printout articles in Foreign Policy (links on www.realclearpolitics.com) but I don’t want to use that much paper and ink…..about the “Food Wars” coming and actually in progress in this world…..the competition for land, for water, for grains and the eco-nuts taking food grains for “green fuels”….while millions of humans starve all over Earth….
Bible says a day is coming when one loaf of bread will cost one day’s wages……the idiotic policies of the “greenies” will IMO be what brings that scarce food plague…….
Dtroutma about 13 years ago
Exxon is now trying to tout oil shale- can you say “Valdez”? If oil companies had NOT been subsidized by taxpayers for the last 40 years and actually paid fair market value for the TAXPAYERS oil they’ve been selling us, there would BE NO NATIONAL DEBT! Ad in if we’d rescinded the 1872 Mining Act in 1952 and gone to leasing hard rock minerals- taxes could have been reduced to maximum of 10% and we’d STILL run surpluses!!
Destroying all natural values for poor land use planning in California was the model for disaster- that driving 50 miles to work in an SUV thing- and prime agricultural land became shopping centers and ever larger “ticky-tacky” houses. At least the Daly City model after WW II did build compressed communities with more rational sized houses.
Dj and disgusted, there is a HUGE difference between USE of resources and ABUSE of resources. I started working for conservation and rational land use, in 1963, when my car at that time was getting over 30 mpg, and gas was REALLY cheap. It was the realization that ALL natural resources are finite. That includes “renewables” such as trees, that take 70 to 600 years to reach maturity and be “replaced” or truly “sustained yield”.
Resource use is a very complex issue, and a nation that thinks ESPN covering poker makes it a “sport”, is not likely to follow the logic, science, or common sense of it.
CorosiveFrog Premium Member about 13 years ago
” there is a HUGE difference between USE of resources and ABUSE of resources”
+2!
People think they are entitled to waste, now. Remember how people saved every ressource during WW2!
When more energy is available, people just use more of it.
meetinthemiddle about 13 years ago
Actually, during the 70’s and 80’s they had some cars getting up near 50 miles/gallon - the tiny little 4 cylinder tin cans. It was OPEC quadrupling the price of oil that drove people to them.
Reagan’s “miracle”, IMO, was mostly OPEC’s resolve cracking, the price of oil falling precipitously, and Reagan’s massive deficit spending stimulating the economy.
Reagan’s policies essentially laid the ground-work (and in some cases poured the cement) for all the problems we have today.
Dtroutma about 13 years ago
^’76 Honda Civics, five models over 53 miles per gallon. Cleaning up exhaust emissions had only minor impact on mileage and performance. “OPEC” is also a mythical demon, standing in front of the curtain, that the REAL cartel- Chevron, Shell, Exxon, Conoco, stand behind, chuckling.