Obama on coal ...

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Betruger
Posts: 2310
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

Post by Betruger »


MSimon
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

ravingdave
Posts: 650
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:41 am

Post by ravingdave »

Well, that video (if true) would explain McCain not slaming Obama on bankrupting Coal. (and the fact that Obama's comments weren't discovered until very recently leaving insufficient time to get the word out)

It is also an example why conservatives were never thrilled with McCain. He did a lot of things that were not only contrary to Conservative ideas, but were simply foolish, but I repeat myself.

Campaign finance reform was a stupid idea at the time, and maybe McCain now understands why.


David

ravingdave
Posts: 650
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:41 am

Post by ravingdave »

Tom Ligon wrote:Dave, et al ...

All this rather misses the point. I hardly meant to start an argument on the merits or demerits of GW, or even coal.

The question was, would the news that Obama had made a potentially explosive comment about bankrupting coal and coal-utilizing industries damage his results in coal-producing states, most importantly Pennsylvania? And Monday morning, McCain did pick up on the news and attempted to use it.

We now know the answer to the question.

Nah!


There was insufficient time to get the word out adequately to see a pronounced effect. Besides, that close to the election people already had their minds made up and were not going to be confused with irritating facts. Had this come out a month earlier it might have worked, but of course it appears that McCain had his fingerprints on another attempt to bankrupt the coal industry. I dare say people in ohio and pennsylvania probably already knew about this though the rest of us didn't.


David

kurt9
Posts: 564
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:14 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon, USA

Post by kurt9 »

ravingdave wrote:Well, that video (if true) would explain McCain not slaming Obama on bankrupting Coal. (and the fact that Obama's comments weren't discovered until very recently leaving insufficient time to get the word out)

It is also an example why conservatives were never thrilled with McCain. He did a lot of things that were not only contrary to Conservative ideas, but were simply foolish, but I repeat myself.


David
Having lived in Arizona, let me tell you about McCain. On issues, he is really a democrat. The reason why he is in the republican party is because of the way he entered politics in the early 80's.

He came to Arizona as a carpetbegger in the early 80's. Why Arizona? Because that's where many retired military vets live and his ability to win office was based primarily on him being a combat vet and a POW to boot. However, since most retired military vets vote republican and Arizona was largely a republican party state at the time. McCain decided to seek office as a republican rather than a democrat.

Remember how McCain's pandering to the social conservatives early in his campaign in fall of last year was so obviously transparent? This has been his campaign approach every time he has sought re-election for his seat in AZ. He panders to both the economic conservatives and social conservative. However, once he is safely re-elected, he proceeds to do whatever he wants, which is usually a statist agenda.

On economic issues, McCain is actually as statist as Obama. He is also the co-author of a "greenhouse" gas emissions bill along with Lieberman of CT that went nowhere in 2005.

Josh Cryer
Posts: 526
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 7:19 am

Post by Josh Cryer »

A carbon cap/tax is the *only* way to make nuclear (be it fission or fusion) competitive with fossil fuels. It also has the potential to make solar competitive.

TDPerk
Posts: 976
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:55 pm
Location: Northern Shen. Valley, VA
Contact:

Post by TDPerk »

Josh Cryer, those are excellent comments you made...

...to support the idea we should do nothing to subsidize those energy approaches until fossil fuels are scarce enough for them to more competitive.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
molon labe
montani semper liberi
para fides paternae patria

TDPerk
Posts: 976
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:55 pm
Location: Northern Shen. Valley, VA
Contact:

Post by TDPerk »

After rereading that I clearly needed coffee. There should be no subsidies for the new power technologies other than research, if that, and it is no tragedy oil prices have fallen to a lower natural level.

That's far better "welfare" than what the new administration proposes.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
molon labe
montani semper liberi
para fides paternae patria

Helius
Posts: 465
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 9:48 pm
Location: Syracuse, New York

Post by Helius »

TDPerk wrote:After rereading that I clearly needed coffee. There should be no subsidies for the new power technologies other than research, if that, and it is no tragedy oil prices have fallen to a lower natural level.

That's far better "welfare" than what the new administration proposes.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
There seems to be much more volatility in the commodities futures trading markets than there used to be. I suspect it is because futures traders can trade with narrower margins than they used to. What percentage did you need to put up to buy commodities futures contracts in say, 1980? What percent do you need to put up now? Have the rules regarding futures trading margins relaxed?

The problem now isn't that the price of oil products is now low, it is that you can't plan in backdrop of wildly fluctuating price.

Post Reply