libertarian leaning Supreme Court justicesGood luck finding those... unless "only corporations, not citizens, should have rights" is libertarian, in which case the current group is spot-on.
Exactly. Ron Paul would be a great president as he would be forced to do only do the things that a president is ALLOWED by law to do. And at those few things that the President is allowed to do, Ron Paul's policies seem pretty good. Like I said, I dont agree with alot of Paul's stances, but the stances that he has that mesh with executive powers seem pretty darn ok to me. I agree, Citizens United was a horrible ruling, IMO.
libertarian leaning Supreme Court justicesGood luck finding those... unless "only corporations, not citizens, should have rights" is libertarian, in which case the current group is spot-on.This is actually one of my big problems with the practical effects of libertarianism. The ideology is often used to remove protections that the corporatists find problematic, but rarely to remove restrictions on actual citizens.
Despite the good intentions of many libertarians, they get used as cover by the cynical rich.Small government rhetoric leads to tax cuts, less regulation of the powerful, but no less control over the citizenry.
I agree insofar that alot of Republican politicians have used libertarian ideology to give corporations more rights while somehow forgetting them when it comes to the population. That being said, I still see Ron Paul as being the only current candidate that just would not use the Patriot Act, would actually pull US troops out of other countries, and so on. As for his economic policies and such, he could make suggestions to congress, but it would ultimately be up to them. The only policies he could personally make alone that affected the economy would be pursuing war (I dont believe he would), enacting or rescinding executive orders, (rescinding alot of them would be a good thing IMO), and creating or disbanding Executive depts. (alot of these need to go, as well)
Can we have simplified tax codes so that the IRS is unnecessary?
Can we shrink or eliminate any of the other "Administrations" or "Bureaus"? Can we fairly asses our entitlement (I hate that phrase btw) programs to make sure they help people without making people dependant on them to survive? Can we have gov't programs that empower people to do for themselves? Can we have a strong military that can defend us without policing the Earth? Can we say that if you are born in America, you get the same inherent rights and priveledges regardless of mindset, preference, religion or color? Can a person live his life and be left the *f* alone by his gov't no matter what his occupation is, as long as he pays taxes and doesn't break the law?
EDIT: When the answer to these is yes we can, that is what I call conservativism.
In constitutional theory, only Congress can declare war, so that shouldn't be up to him.
I do agree with RP on the wars. I do think he's more isolationist than it's healthy or really possible for a superpower to be. There has to be a line between empire and isolation.I'm not sure about Executive departments. They're under executive control, but aren't they actually created by congress? I know they're funded by Congress.
He also gets judicial appointments, Supreme Court and otherwise. This would probably be where the worst long-term effects would be, in terms of allowing state and corporate abuse.
Well that and he could only possibly win in such strange Tea Party Republican wave that they would definitely be able to totally screw over the economy...
True, only Congress can declare war, a fact that every president since FDR has forgotten, ( I believe the War Powers Resolution to be unconstitutional because it allows Presidents to pursue war for up to 90 days.)However, a President can easily end war. Ron Paul is not an isolationist, hes a non-interventionist. There is a difference.
Executive departments may be (I do not know to tell you the truth) created by congress, but they can definitly can be ended by the president.
Judicial appointments must be approved by Congress. But you are right, that could be a concern. To me, ending the wars that breed terrorism and limiting executive power would be worth the off-chance that another insane justice is appointed. I dont think that a Ron Paul presidency is as far fetched as some people may think. He gotten some pretty good reviews from the Huffington Post, Jon Stewert, Bill Maher and others which is pretty surprising. That wont help (in fact, it'll hurt) in the primary, but it very well could in the GE.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can we have simplified tax codes so that the IRS is unnecessary?
Can we shrink or eliminate any of the other "Administrations" or "Bureaus"? Can we fairly asses our entitlement (I hate that phrase btw) programs to make sure they help people without making people dependant on them to survive? Can we have gov't programs that empower people to do for themselves? Can we have a strong military that can defend us without policing the Earth? Can we say that if you are born in America, you get the same inherent rights and priveledges regardless of mindset, preference, religion or color? Can a person live his life and be left the *f* alone by his gov't no matter what his occupation is, as long as he pays taxes and doesn't break the law?EDIT: When the answer to these is yes we can, that is what I call conservativism.
Question 1: No. The IRS is going to be necessary to some extent no matter how simple the tax code is. The basic fact that someone has to collect those taxes and verify the correct amount was paid means that the IRS will exist as long as taxes do in the USA. Also the IRS is already dangerously understaffed.
Question 2: Perhaps you should ask, "what are the staffing levels we have currently to what is needed to actually do the job that this Bureau is supposed to do?" I think if you do ask this question and then look at the current staffing levels you'll see that in reality most these agencies don't have fat to trim... in fact they are woefully malnourished and understaffed as well. This has been a huge problem for the FDA -- they don't have enough inspectors to actually inspect all the food preparation and farms that they are supposed to, let alone actually watch and review drug studies before allowing drugs on the market: This is why they allow the companies involved to run the tests (or pay for "third parties" to run the tests) and simply pass along according to what is found.
Question 3: Which entitlement programs? Most are actually under state control.
Question 4: Ah, but if we empower them then what are they doing? This actually gets back to the conservative 'individualism' idea -- the problem with individualism is the number of individuals that get it wrong. How are we going to 'empower people'? Are we going to create jobs for them? We can you know -- instead of giving business cuts we could spend the money to have the people rebuild our infrastructure (roads, water lines, gas lines, bridges and what not) -- unfortunately this would mean more government employees... which is a bigger government.
Question 5: Maybe but not until the economy is pulled out of the global market -- and that will be messy. The military only protects our commercial interests abroad. It's rather complicated honestly since we allowed ourselves to be roped into international agreements (something G. Washington advised against)... however perhaps it really will be impossible to not have some attachment to the world at large.
Question 6: Sure we can say that -- but without something backing it up what's to stop people from ignoring it? Prop 8 and the like only work if they are forced to work, otherwise bigots will be bigots.
Question 7: No. If pimping is illegal we can't leave it allow can we? And how can we be sure he's treated humanely if we don't ask from time to time? We also need to be sure that he's 'empowered' so it's not like we can do that without asking how he is right? And honestly where is the government bothering you if you are paying your taxes and not breaking the law?
In constitutional theory, only Congress can declare war, so that shouldn't be up to him.
I do agree with RP on the wars. I do think he's more isolationist than it's healthy or really possible for a superpower to be. There has to be a line between empire and isolation.I'm not sure about Executive departments. They're under executive control, but aren't they actually created by congress? I know they're funded by Congress.
He also gets judicial appointments, Supreme Court and otherwise. This would probably be where the worst long-term effects would be, in terms of allowing state and corporate abuse.
Well that and he could only possibly win in such strange Tea Party Republican wave that they would definitely be able to totally screw over the economy...
True, only Congress can declare war, a fact that every president since FDR has forgotten, ( I believe the War Powers Resolution to be unconstitutional because it allows Presidents to pursue war for up to 90 days.)However, a President can easily end war. Ron Paul is not an isolationist, hes a non-interventionist. There is a difference.
Executive departments may be (I do not know to tell you the truth) created by congress, but they can definitly can be ended by the president.
Judicial appointments must be approved by Congress. But you are right, that could be a concern. To me, ending the wars that breed terrorism and limiting executive power would be worth the off-chance that another insane justice is appointed. I dont think that a Ron Paul presidency is as far fetched as some people may think. He gotten some pretty good reviews from the Huffington Post, Jon Stewert, Bill Maher and others which is pretty surprising. That wont help (in fact, it'll hurt) in the primary, but it very well could in the GE.
Part of the problem is the president has no power to end wars either... so he's stuck until congress pulls out.
Silly little fact I know, but as long as Congress keeps it going and pays for it the president is stuck in a position of saying, "This is what is needed for the war you have going." To which Congress moans, "This is your war end it!" Except he can't... Congress has to.
And in Afghanistan and such it's not a war -- it's a pre-approved defense of the USA under the patriot act... which keeps getting extended.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure how entitlement program make people dependent on them. SS and Medicare are what are usually called entitlement programs. Pretty much everyone over 65 is dependent on Medicare, since private healthcare would be unaffordable at that age, unless you're still working at a good job. Which isn't possible for everyone indefinitely.
More retired people have at least some income beside SS so some might be able to survive without it, but very many do not. Or don't have enough.
For most American families, it would mean a return to multigenerational households as your parents move in with you when they reach retirement age. But it would be far more horrific than that implies, because the last time Americans typically lived in multigenerational households, old people rarely lived past 75 or 80, and there was little that could be done for them medically.
Now, with current technologies at current prices, families would be forced into making the impossible choice between seeing their entire life's earnings being sucked up by their parents health care costs, or putting their parents out on an ice floe.
No American family should have to choose between keeping grandma alive or letting junior go to college, but that is exactly what would happen if we killed social security and medicaid.
Counter points
Question 1: We have a treasury dept already.
Question 2: Or better yet, ask can they be rolled into others with similar function. I think DEA and ATF can be roleld into the FBI.To your point about the FDA, they should actually be borken up into Food Admin and Drug admin. With some of the things being added to food, it seems like its worthy of it's own study.
Question 3: That's a good question. Unemployment benefits and welfare would be the ones I'm talking about. When it's more beneficial to stay on unemployment than get a job, there's a problem. When a person on welfare can't get even so much as a part time job without losing all assitance, there's a problem. Medicare and Social Security are in large used as intended, I believe.
Question 4: Empowered to make more money and therefore pay more taxes.
I could spout the "get out of business' way" here, but it's treated as a black and white issue. I think things can be done or not done to encourage business development without letting things go to s!@$.
Question 5: I don't think the global economy is the problem. It's that we depend on other countries for key things. If we generated them here, that would cease. This covers manufacturing and oil. I think we could leave the UN as well, and be fine. Other than that, I agree with the sentiment as far as human rights violations and things like that.
Question 6: We don't need sweeping anti-bigotry laws, we just need gender-specific, racial etc. verbiage removed from existing laws.
Question 7: Patriot Act, the TSA, etc.
Question 3: That's a good question. Unemployment benefits and welfare would be the ones I'm talking about. When it's more beneficial to stay on unemployment than get a job, there's a problem. When a person on welfare can't get even so much as a part time job without losing all assitance, there's a problem. Medicare and Social Security are in large used as intended, I believe.
Question 4: Empowered to make more money and therefore pay more taxes.
I could spout the "get out of business' way" here, but it's treated as a black and white issue. I think things can be done or not done to encourage business development without letting things go to s@@#.
Question 5: I don't think the global economy is the problem. It's that we depend on other countries for key things. If we generated them here, that would cease. This covers manufacturing and oil. I think we could leave the UN as well, and be fine. Other than that, I agree with the sentiment as far as human rights violations and things like that.
The problem is that these three things are tied together.
What makes small businesses flourish is two things: a powerful social safety net that ensures failing with your small business won't stick you in poverty for good, and plenty of money flow throughout the classes.
The problem with your third is that things such as unemployment benefits and welfare help the economy, not hurt it, because it ensures a greater flow of cash through the lower class. There are currently two problems with Medicare: the first is rising costs of medicine due to the US's private only system (which is a tremendous failure), and the second is in the tax cap.
The tax cap leads back to small businesses - namely, an increasing build up of wealth amongst the upper class. The problem is that the super wealthy don't spend money like others do. There is a soft cap on how much money can be spent on luxury goods and essentials, and when you have increasing amounts of money over that cap, there's an overflow that leads to money stagnation.
You are worried that having welfare is better then having a job. I think the bigger worry is that investing into capital gains is better then investing into job creation - and that the people making this decision are the ones with all the cash.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can we have a strong military that can defend us without policing the Earth?
No. Its only real purpose is to police the earth. So long as it is strong it will do so because it has no other reason to exist and it will need to justify its existence to the taxpayers.
Furthermore it can only exist in a form made to be used in some far off foreign land - there is no other job that it can fulfill because no other reasonable job exists. How do you place an order for new armoured fighting vehicles when there is no known threat for them to be compared against? What speed should they be designed to have to do battle with a non existent enemy? DO you tell the designers that it is meant to operate in the Colorado River Valley and do battle with a resurgent Amerindian threat? How long before these specifications reach the general public?
America has no natural enemies - it borders only two nation states and both have such small armies that they are literally incapable of invading the US. If either tried they'd run out of troops to garrison their conquests after a few hundred miles - an American citizen militia would simply toss them back out.
America's enemies in the world are all, rightly or wrongly, made by America. Almost every last one of them can be traced to activities taken by America in some foreign place and those that believed that America had come to this place to oppress them.
If the weapon exists then its wielders will advocate for its use and eventually it will find receptive ears and its use will always be in some foreign land because there is no defensive role for it to fulfill...no enemy for it to defend against.
Question 5: I don't think the global economy is the problem. It's that we depend on other countries for key things. If we generated them here, that would cease. This covers manufacturing and oil.
Less then you think. Americans tend to believe that they get their oil from the middle east - they pretty much don't. Its pretty broad but world oil flows are basically America gets its oil from Canada and Venezuela, European oil comes from Russia and the rest of the world, but mainly India, China and Japan, get their oil from the Middle East.
In any case trade is always a two way street...they need to sell to you as much as you need to buy from them. The U.S. Army is not required to keep this trade going - it'd happen whether or not the U.S. Army existed. Only a tiny handful of countries are capable of sending their army halfway across the planet and yet the trade flows continue nonetheless.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
America has no natural enemies - it borders only two nation states and both have such small armies that they are literally incapable of invading the US. If either tried they'd run out of troops to garrison their conquests after a few hundred miles - an American citizen militia would simply toss them back out.
A very angry Canadian once told me that the US wouldn't win if we invaded Canada. Naturally I scoffed at this suggestion, but he made a compelling argument that before we got thirty miles beyond the border (and had thus overrun 50% of the Canadian population) they would have blown up all their bridges, airfields and oil refineries. So we wouldn't get anything of significant value when we invaded.
It almost broke my heart to explain to him that when someone commits suicide in response to your attack, and thus you can't defeat them, that's not actually "losing."
Part of the problem is the president has no power to end wars either... so he's stuck until congress pulls out.
Silly little fact I know, but as long as Congress keeps it going and pays for it the president is stuck in a position of saying, "This is what is needed for the war you have going." To which Congress moans, "This is your war end it!" Except he can't... Congress has to.And in Afghanistan and such it's not a war -- it's a pre-approved defense of the USA under the patriot act... which keeps getting extended.
I thought, that as commander-in-chief, the president could actually make the call to withdraw all troops from the front. If congress never declares war, why are they the ones that end it?
Are you seriously suggesting that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act could be harmlessly abolished?
I dunno what that specificly is...is this a GOTCHA! moment?
My suggestion is only that instead of saying if youre white you get this, if your black you get that, if your gay you can't have this or do that...everything should just be hinged on being an American citizen. Special exceptions for every little possible difference is the wrong way to handle it, imho.
Question 5: I don't think the global economy is the problem. It's that we depend on other countries for key things. If we generated them here, that would cease. This covers manufacturing and oil.Less then you think. Americans tend to believe that they get their oil from the middle east - they pretty much don't. Its pretty broad but world oil flows are basically America gets its oil from Canada and Venezuela, European oil comes from Russia and the rest of the world, but mainly India, China and Japan, get their oil from the Middle East.
In any case trade is always a two way street...they need to sell to you as much as you need to buy from them. The U.S. Army is not required to keep this trade going - it'd happen whether or not the U.S. Army existed. Only a tiny handful of countries are capable of sending their army halfway across the planet and yet the trade flows continue nonetheless.
This isnt a hate the A-rabs idea. We have the resources here, but we choose not to drill for them, and import oil instead. We can still import oil from countries to help out their economies, but lets do that less and drill our own and export it more. We need more of a handle on the price of oil.
interesting points
This, if true, is not even remotely an ideal situation. If we visibly maintain a strong military force, that should be deterrent enough, except for those that use terrorist tactics. Walk softly and carry a big stick, as it were.
At least, that's how it should be.
Hmmm
Unemployment moeny comes from the gov't, which is generated through taxes and such. It's given to people who qualify, and taxed as income. They spend it, and taxes are pulled again.
The same money just gets recycled, there's no real help here. It's not being made to work to generate wealth for the individual or help him out other than cover what he needs exactly at that moment. Him simply spending the same money over and over does nothing for the economy. He needs to build up new money and inject that into the economy, right? That's growth.
Unemployment moeny comes from the gov't, which is generated through taxes and such. It's given to people who qualify, and taxed as income. They spend it, and taxes are pulled again.
The same money just gets recycled, there's no real help here. It's not being made to work to generate wealth for the individual or help him out other than cover what he needs exactly at that moment. Him simply spending the same money over and over does nothing for the economy. He needs to build up new money and inject that into the economy, right? That's growth.
Injecting "new money" into the economy is most certainly not growth. Increased production is growth. Which is why we want to put people back to work. If you're saying unemployment doesn't accomplish that directly, you're sorta right in that it doesn't put the recipient back to work. However, the money still gets spent, meaning increased demand, which can help put people back to work. It can also cause inflation, but that's the balancing act.
You do realize that unemployment benefits run out after a set amount of time, right? And then there is the fact that you also have to interview to get them. And sometimes that can take a couple months.
Where I live at, unemployment pays you roughly 75% of what you were making. It doesn't include healthcare. And they only cover you for six months.
Where I live, unemployment caps out at $245 a week -- less than minimum wage. That won't even keep a roof over my head, let alone act as an incentive to remain unemployed.
Not too mention, unemployment money certainly helps the people who receive it. They can continue to pay their mortgage, their rent, their bills, eat, etc while looking for another job. Without some source of income, it's amazing how fast you can blow through any savings you might have. In a period of sustained high unemployment it's not just a matter of going out and grabbing a job whenever you decide to stop being lazy.
Helping people?
You naive, condescending bleeding heart. ;-)
Here I believe the most unemployment you can get is 60% of your salary, but you can have it for 99 weeks, currently. There are exceptions for disabilty and such.
Unemployment moeny comes from the gov't, which is generated through taxes and such. It's given to people who qualify, and taxed as income. They spend it, and taxes are pulled again.
The same money just gets recycled, there's no real help here. It's not being made to work to generate wealth for the individual or help him out other than cover what he needs exactly at that moment. Him simply spending the same money over and over does nothing for the economy. He needs to build up new money and inject that into the economy, right? That's growth.Injecting "new money" into the economy is most certainly not growth. Increased production is growth. Which is why we want to put people back to work. If you're saying unemployment doesn't accomplish that directly, you're sorta right in that it doesn't put the recipient back to work. However, the money still gets spent, meaning increased demand, which can help put people back to work. It can also cause inflation, but that's the balancing act.
But not as much gets spent as if he was working, right? If he knows for the mean time that's all he's gonna get, a smart guy is going to spend only what he has too, and save the rest if he has enough to do so. SO rent, food, bills get paid while other purchases that would normally made are put on hold until actual employment is secured.
So the people who own property he's renting and people in food retail make money off of him, and utility companies, but no one else does.Non essentials sales suffer then those companies have to cut people or go out of business...
You do realize that unemployment benefits run out after a set amount of time, right? And then there is the fact that you also have to interview to get them. And sometimes that can take a couple months.
Where I live at, unemployment pays you roughly 75% of what you were making. It doesn't include healthcare. And they only cover you for six months.
Where I live, unemployment caps out at $245 a week -- less than minimum wage. That won't even keep a roof over my head, let alone act as an incentive to remain unemployed.
I find it very telling that those you espouse the view that being on unemployment is an incentive to not working, really have no clue what happens when on unemployment. It's almost as big a myth as Saint Reagan.
I also love the myth that being on welfare is also an incentive for not working. In the late 80's and on through the 90's, where I lived at, if you were on welfare you also had to go through job training. This was under democrats. It paid off because people were getting and staying off welfare. It helped the economy and kept the unemployment rate at a lower level. But now that republicans have control, they have cut the program and the state is seeing more people on welfare and a higher unemployment rate at almost twice what it used to be.
Well if you made 50k a year, got fired, and could get 30-35k a year unemployment for almost 2 years, how quickly would you be motivated to look for work? I'll be honest, it wouldn't be a top priority till around week 80 or so if it were me.
Putting people on unemployment is a band-aid at best, not a fix. How do you get people who run businesses to hire more workers? How do you actually create real jobs?
Well if you made 50k a year, got fired, and could get 30-35k a year unemployment for almost 2 years, how quickly would you be motivated to look for work? I'll be honest, it wouldn't be a top priority till around week 80 or so if it were me.
Putting people on unemployment is a band-aid at best, not a fix. How do you get people who run businesses to hire more workers? How do you actually create real jobs?
I was very motivated to find a new job and quickly -- 30~35k a year didn't pay for insurance and didn't cover all my bills. Thanks to having savings built up it did help carry us until I got a new job. Also the longer you are unemployed the less employable you are -- I ended up cutting out early for less money simply because it got me a job and shows I wanted to work instead of simply collect (something that looks good to employers).
Unemployment isn't supposed to be as long term as it has been recently. The easiest means of creating jobs in such a situation for a government is to simply put people to work building roads, and the like. However that of course means bigger government as they work.
Unemployment isn't supposed to be as long term as it has been recently. The easiest means of creating jobs in such a situation for a government is to simply put people to work building roads, and the like. However that of course means bigger government as they work.
But infrastructure built by the government isn't an investment, remember? It's just more government waste. I hear you can't even drive on the roads.
Unemployment isn't supposed to be as long term as it has been recently. The easiest means of creating jobs in such a situation for a government is to simply put people to work building roads, and the like. However that of course means bigger government as they work.But infrastructure built by the government isn't an investment, remember? It's just more government waste. I hear you can't even drive on the roads.
Not at all, but it doesn't put nearly as many people back to work as it did in the past, what with all of the mechanization that has occurred, just like most other labor fields.
Not at all, but it doesn't put nearly as many people back to work as it did in the past, what with all of the mechanization that has occurred, just like most other labor fields.
Certainly.
Putting aside my sarcasm for a second, government-induced production just seems preferable to the alternative, which right now seems to be no production at all. :(
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well if you made 50k a year, got fired, and could get 30-35k a year unemployment for almost 2 years, how quickly would you be motivated to look for work? I'll be honest, it wouldn't be a top priority till around week 80 or so if it were me.
That depends a lot on what your living expenses are. If you earn 50k a year and spend 51k a year, as many Americans do, then living on 35k a year for two years will leave you $192k in the hole.
I'm guessing from the fact that you don't think shaving $15k off your budget would be a big deal that you are unmarried and don't have kids. The median household budget in America is about $30k. The median income is about $50k.
If you're the head of a single income family, which describes a lot of blue collar working class men, and your income drops from $50k to $30k, your quality of life takes a huge hit. You're still getting by, you can still afford housing, health care, food, transportation and child care -- which are the things accounted for in the average family budget -- but you can no longer afford anything but the basics. You're not going to spend the next two years sitting on your duff waiting for the bennies to run out, because scraping by and having nothing for yourself at the end of the day is not a good life.
Putting people on unemployment is a band-aid at best, not a fix. How do you get people who run businesses to hire more workers? How do you actually create real jobs?
The government puts a lot of people to work, they start buying stuff, that causes companies to hire more people, and the system bootstraps itself back into functioning. Once labor shortages start becoming an issue, you cut back on the government jobs.
America has no natural enemies - it borders only two nation states and both have such small armies that they are literally incapable of invading the US. If either tried they'd run out of troops to garrison their conquests after a few hundred miles - an American citizen militia would simply toss them back out.A very angry Canadian once told me that the US wouldn't win if we invaded Canada. Naturally I scoffed at this suggestion, but he made a compelling argument that before we got thirty miles beyond the border (and had thus overrun 50% of the Canadian population) they would have blown up all their bridges, airfields and oil refineries. So we wouldn't get anything of significant value when we invaded.
It almost broke my heart to explain to him that when someone commits suicide in response to your attack, and thus you can't defeat them, that's not actually "losing."
That's not how we work. They'd have to cause an international incident or attack us in some way, and then we'd go after them and their resources.
Unless they were using civilians to bomb their bridges and such, I'm pretty sure we could remove their ability to do anything militarily in hours.Of course the idea of Canada provoking anyone is silly. They're some of the most laid back people in the world.
bugleyman
** spoiler omitted **
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Man, the USA should invade the USA, then they could win the hearts and minds of the people by building roads and bridges.
Man, the USA should invade the USA, then they could win the hearts and minds of the people by building roads and bridges.
They have a pretty strong army, though. Wouldn't be easy.
This isnt a hate the A-rabs idea. We have the resources here, but we choose not to drill for them, and import oil instead. We can still import oil from countries to help out their economies, but lets do that less and drill our own and export it more. We need more of a handle on the price of oil.
One catch is that you doing drilling won't actually do much in terms of effecting the price unless there is some kind of radical change in technology that really impacts yields. While America gets its oil mainly from Canada the actual price of oil is set by world wide demand for the resource. The underlying idea is that Canada sells to the U.S. simply because that is easier...but we could sell to Japan or China at least hypothetically if there where some kind significant incentive to do so - such as a major difference in prices.
Consider that this applies to Texico et al. as well. You could open up the Alaska Wildlife Preserve but that'd not make oil much cheaper for the average American because the average American is in direct competition with the average Japanese or Spanish person for the oil and its the people of the world bidding on oil that sets the price. If Texico drilled in the Alaska Wildlife Preserve they'd still be willing to sell to China if China was willing to pay more for the oil.
In fact its probable that any oil America gets out of the Alaskan Wildlife Preserve would not flow into America in large part. The natural direction for such oil is probably Japan. Japan is badly situated in terms of importing oil and needs to pay a slight premium because they are not really very close to any huge oil reserve. The result is that Alaskan oil, being pretty much equidistant from both Japan and the West Coast has an incentive to head for Japan to pick up that premium. Hence the whole scenario is fantastic for Texico (or whatever major American multinationals start drilling in Alaska) but not really either here or there for the Average American.
Good for Alaska as well since oil companies pay a lot more in taxes and royalties then Polar bears. Hence replacing Polar Bears with oil corporations makes good fiscal sense.
That said this can be a false dichotomy. Indonesia has extremely stringent environmental regulations on foreign companies that set up shop in Indonesia and an oil industry. They have shown that it is possible to get oil out of the ground without really disrupting much of the environment if there is environmental regulation in the background with some serous teeth and a government willing to use it.
|
|
Exactly. Ron Paul would be a great president as he would be forced to do only do the things that a president is ALLOWED by law to do. And at those few things that the President is allowed to do, Ron Paul's policies seem pretty good. Like I said, I dont agree with alot of Paul's stances, but the stances that he has that mesh with executive powers seem pretty darn ok to me. I agree, Citizens United was a horrible ruling, IMO.libertarian leaning Supreme Court justicesGood luck finding those... unless "only corporations, not citizens, should have rights" is libertarian, in which case the current group is spot-on.
“The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers.” - Ron Paul
"The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance" - Ron Paul