Infrastructure

Hmmm... I voted in every election since 1980.... Voting for a president is going to make a difference on this? I think not...

Congress has to make the decision to spend the money first.....

And they have done so to some extent... NREL for example...

http://www.nrel.gov/

Vote for your congressman and most of all encourage others to vote.

"The next great project that is way overdue is the development of a renewable energy system. The money spent on the wars in Iraq and Afganistan would have been more than enough to do the job.....$400 billion!"

Gee, if those pesky Al Quada had just given up their plans to destroy the West, Israel, and all those infidel democracies we wouldn't have to spend billions of dollars on all those "wasteful" things.

What are you suggesting? Maybe we have bake sales and sell tie-dyed T-shirts instead? If that doesn't work we could hit them really, really hard with an organized leaflet campaign. We could drop messages and tell them "We're sorry for all the terrible things we called you. How about a T-shirt and a CD with Kum By Ya around a campfire?" Does everybody feel better now?

Maybe we do need a national health care system because our prescription of reality pills seems to have run out.

...it happens to have the world's second largest oil reserves after Saudi Arabia.

I keep hearing everyone indicate that teh war is about oil, oil, oil. I do not follow where we obtain our oil, but I was recently told that we only import 10% of our oil from the middle East, with the majority coming from other countries.

Finally, if oil is such an all consuming issue, why isnt the US govt. allowing development of the reserves in Alaska? So a few moose in Alaska dont like the pipeline; too bad! I should think that national security trumps a few moose any day. But then I'm not a politician trying to be PC.

I agree with your history, but it seems unlikely that oil will hit $1000 a barrel.

We probably forgot that oil was $80 a barrel at the end of the 1970s after OPEC tried to embargo the US and the Netherlands. Eventually, members within OPEC broke the embargo, which broke the back of the embargo.

The US began to work towards energy independence by conservation and increasing domestic production, but the 80s and 90s brought that to a screeching halt when environmental concerns outweighed national security concerns. So we became complacent and began importing more oil again instead of domestic harvesting.

Ironically, Mexico and China are working together to drill for oil in the Gulf of Mexico, where we were going to drill (before Congress prohibited it). So all we can do now is watch as China takes oil off of our shores.

I don't know how much oil Iraq has, but they were only supplying about 1.5% of our pre-war total oil consumption at their best. It really is in everybody's best interest to see a peaceful and democratic Mideast.

as oil goes from $100 to $200 this extra money will enable the oil companies to extract the oil in a clean and sound manner. Just make them use isolated multiple drill pads and stilt raised pipelines so the heat will not hurt the permafrost and there is enough height to let animals pass below them.

Those three things solve all the problems.

The drill pad zones are made to contain everything within them, and the companies must agree to constant close supervision so if anything happens it is remedied ASAP.

It is about the risk of a local hitler (Saddam)taking over the entire middle east and using oil for political ends. None for the USA until Israel is gone.

He would them build a huge military empire and expand it, at least that was the way he was heading with Kuwait.

That is how Hitler started, but Hitler was appeased and he kept going. We are lucky that Hitler fancied himself a master strategist and general. Under this false mantle he made many fatal errors that resulted in the defeat of Germany. The planned war would have taken the UK and not attacked the USSR by an agreed zone. Hitler may have gotten nukes?? Who knows.

At least saddam was stopped. Had Hitler been stopped early, would we have suffered endelss liberal appeasers over the past 50 years? As I suspect we will suffer Saddam appeasers.

Welcome to the real World Mrgreentoo

Kind Regards....

Read through some of the previous post by using the search engine.

A number of people on this site are interested in solar energy, wind energy, tidal energy, etc. One is working very hard on a highly efficient car.

Unfortunately a lot of people are of the opinion that I have the money, let's spend it without regard to how it could hurt other people. ( A though one for me personally because I do enjoy the stuff I've bought without regard to how many people I could have saved by using my money elsewhere. But...... the wife has to agree. 35+ years we've been married.)

Hi Paul.

I am an outsider and don't know or care much about the political system in America.

But because we also has a hybrid federal system going in SA I think the federal model also need to be blamed.

The newly elected president starts with both hand tied behind his back and it seems to have to pledge some body parts to just free his hands, and I am not referring to Bill and Monica. The one area where he can muster support is by declaring war. (Have a look at the response of Americans after 9/11).

The real bread and butter issues are left to the states. Unfortunately some states either seems to be retarded or over energetic. The result is then leading or lacking behind in brilliance (good) or stupidity (bad) or stay indifferent (ugly).

What should be done? - At the moment do what the hand finds to do!!

In SA we fortunately has a system going where new law must be submitted to public commenting, It has been proven to be a great tool to have your vote listened to. (They have to consider each comment received). In some cases you are even invited to appear before a portfolio committee of parliament to put your case. The American system should look at CR4 and at least introduce a good answer system.

The greatest investment in infrastructure in America was done during the great depression. What most Americans don't understand is how the money systems works. If the government pays the people to "work" on infrastructure the monies are spent. Roughly 20% comes back the first year in income taxes. The spent money is earned by someone else and they pay taxes and this cycle continues. It is like a poker game were the house takes a percentage of each pot. Simple math...eventually the house has all the money if no one walks away from the table. That's what happens when the working class gets money from the gevernment they get it all back in short oder and even come out ahead. Wealthy people don't "spend" all their money, they invest it, buy up assets (homes and farm land) making them artifically higher for those who need them this does not produce income for the government. Investing on the otherhand makes money available for business "the trikle down theory" in reality tax breaks for the poor are more effective in stimulating the economy. Our economy is 75% consumption. Instead of giving 90% of the taxbreaks to the top 5% we should have raised the basic deduction across the board. it would have gotten spent and would have benn fair! Trickle up works better for the rich too....they all know how to get it from the poor....that's what they do best. Beside they need an incentive like everyone else to work. That is why investing in infrastruture is not a financcial problem. We need a president like FDR that told people what they needed to hear not what they want to hear. How will it be?

Have a look at this: Tax Distribution

The top 25% of wage earners pay 85% of the gross national income tax. The bottom 50% of wage earners pay 3%!

Basically, nothing you are postulating is correct. Prove it! The idea that tax cuts only benefit the rich is a myth perpetrated so as to dupe the people in believing in class warfare.

Government that governs least really governs best. There is no reason to use the federal government as a wealth distribution system. Who do you trust more to use your money, you or the government?

You wrote, "Wealthy people don't "spend" all their money, they invest it, buy up assets (homes and farm land)." What do you think happens to that money? Do you think they stuff it into their mattresses and it never sees the light of day? Grab a dictionary and look up the words "invest", "buy", and "capitol gains".

Program on TV in UK last week... top 10% of earners actually receive over 80% of the total earnings of the country....the gap between the top earners and the bottom IS growing..the rich ARE getting richer and the poor getting poorer... and who does the media snipe at? Tho people at the bottom of the pile ..t'was ever thus.

One top traders pulling in over £85million with bonuses... and what exactly does he produce?.... nothing. You may say he produces wealth...but that's just shifting money...he'll sell now in the hope that he can buy back later cheaper... ok he's good at it...but it isn't actually creating anything he's just accumulating money that some other poor sap is losing. If thay all stopped trading on a minute by minute basis this mirage would evaporate...

Hell what do I know ..I just make stuff?

You may be interested in these:

GINI Index 1

GINI Index 2

GINI Index 3

0 is a perfect score and 100 is absolute inequality in income.

The UK was about 36.8 and has been pretty steady. USA is 40.8. Of course you can have a score of 0.1 and all that means is everybody is either equally rich or equally poor. ;-)

Public commenting where a new law is to be submitted is a great idea. Although we have a somewhat similar system in the US (ie: we can call or write our congressmen, president, etc.), the problem is that money talks and unless you have a lot of it such as PACs or other lobbies that are well funded, the congressmen will pay no attention. They know which side their bread is buttered on.

While I hate to think in these terms, I am beginning to believe that only a revolution will change the direction of the US political system; as politicians will not change the system (do away with lobbyists), change will likely involve revolution and will only happen when things get really bad economically in the US. [Come to think of it, we are headed there now]

"When will we end the practice of policing the world and destroying infrastructure in the process?"

When Mankind gives up it's inherent greed.

What good is infrastructure to an oppressed and scared people. Not to give an answer to the attack of 9/11 would leave our selves open to more the same. Would give the enemy the idea that we are weak and that international pressure against us would allow them to continue their destructive rain of terrorism.

Are the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq mistakes. Afghanistan no that was Al quada base of operations. Iraq the biggest mistake is we did not do it first time in. In 1999 we had better reason after their invasion of Kuwait.

Yeah we need change we need to get rid of all the pansies in Washington that think that freedom is not worth fighting for. Are forefathers fought hard for the freedoms and many suffered worst then "the mess we are in today" .

Yes, The USA should have stayed out of WW2 as well, and let The Nazis and the Commies fight it out and then go down before winner. Why bother with the Pacific and Australia, we have enough here.

What did they call this? Appeasement? feed a dog and it wants more and get bigger and in time it will eat you.

So what is the USA to do? Let saddam create an empire, get all the arabs and their $$ into one block which he controlled and who would soon refuse to sell oil at any price to the USA.?

Grow up and think on this.

The USA erred in not getting rid of Saddam in the first gulf war and after the second they failed to let the outsed Saddam loyalists back into the civil service.

Now they have allowed them back, will this stabilize things?...It just might.

Great post!

"Why can't they "do what is right", instead of staying to the party line?"

I think that the answer to that is simply that the "party" is tightly tied to the funding organizations. As an example, Moveon.org has a lot of financial clout and therefore a substantial influence on the party platform. If you stray from the party line then your money evaporates.

I agree with what your saying and mostly correct in my view. but the day we can vote no, on all of them an start over again will be the liberation of america. as far as the infastructure it is coming and as usual they will let greedy companies steal it all. and then the senators and congressman steel the rest. we need to find a solution that doesn't involve the same people that have been in there for 40 years. This WAR 49.000 dollars for ever family at present in debt, because of it. If we run our lives like they run this country we would all be broke , and most of us are. keep going man

hello everyone,

after reading all of the posts again, my personal opinion about these posts is that none of them are off topic. they are all biased to each persons personal point of view. that is good. where else will you read the other guys point of view? so what if the left thinks the government is run by war-mongers, and the right thinks the left is anti government. actualy in my opinion they are both correct.

war is part of the art of diplomacy. it is what comes after diplomacy has failed. the international community used to have rules of diplomacy that all countries were supposed to follow. that ended with the "Henry Kissenger Doctrine". he postulated that "might and morality makes right". in other words he went back to the very old diplomacy of "right by conquest".

now, i also have noticed that no one is looking at this discussion from the other side of the table. i don't mean the left and right side. i mean the us and them side of anti-american feeling around the world. doesn't anyone on the us side, think that the them side, might possibly be right? why do arabs hate the free world? why did bin ladin attack the united states and the free world? he gave his reasons at the time. no one has ever debated weather his point was valid. he said his reason was that the US would not remove it's troops and western influence from Saudi Arabia. i feel also that arab and middle eastern religious extremeists probably are only saying this because it is the latest of the many reasons they hate the western world. there is no doubt in their minds that the diplomats and governments of the west are all lying, thieving, cheaters. from their point of view, they are correct. from the western point of view, they must be insane, because we know that we are democratic, god loving, good people. again, both sides are correct.

so, we all use the approach that "let's just shoot them all and let god sort it out".

remember the old story about truth being like an onion. peal away one layer of truth and another truth is under it. well, when you do this, you are supposed to lay the truths side by side so you can study them and learn from them. otherwise, when you are finished discarding all of the truths, there is nothing left.

After rereading MrGreenToo's original post I have to say that most of the posts are off topic.

The original post's argument was that we need a substantial infrastructure project in the US to make us great again. I think that my post #8, paragraph 10 (Point #6) addressed that argument dead on.

The rest of my posts (and my other points in Post #8) and the vast bulk of everyone else's posts went into a completely different direction about world politics.

Which, if I may make an observation, is exactly what you have done with your post. It really doesn't address MrGreenToo's original postulation that infrastructure was the root cause for the greatness of the USA.

Not that any of that is bad, but I do disagree with your point that none of the posts are off topic. ;-)

ok, i see your point of view. the cloudy part is that he posed a multipart question, and then gave multipart answers himself.

this then allows the responders to answer any part of the question, or reply to any part of the supplied answers.

his thesis seems to be that only a change of administration can accomplish this. i am dubious if such a change would do the job either. it would take someone or a group with vision and control enough to see that the vision was actualized despite the opposition of all the big businesses that would lose their source of funding.

the present game seems to be rigged in favor of big business continuing to profit from resource extraction. when a business finds that resource extraction is suddenly a liability, they stop doing it. example: the asbestos industry. i am not sure if they stopped because of changes in regulations, or because of lawsuits. regulation changes seem to get results far quicker and with less damage to the population as a whole, than waiting for the problems to manifest themselves to the detriment of the population. so why can't the tax breaks and subsidies be taken away from big oil and given to alternative energies.

so here is my opinion on the first part of the question...............when?

as long as big business and big oil are in control, .........never......it is like asking why the runt in the litter can't compete with the bigger pups for the best tit......it is lucky if it gets any tit at all.

Well, if you look at the chronology of the posts, I was the one that started the posts going astray! ;-)

I really hate the "BIG" adjective. It is brainwashing in a form. Anytime anyone stands up and points at some entity and prefixes its name with BIG I just cringe. I know someone is just trying to cover up something and is making a scapegoat out of someone or thing.

Another point is reality. I have not been on this planet really long, but for the last 30 years of watching politics I have never seen such a partisan set of politicians as I do today. What comes along with the galactic sized riff between them is a warping of space and perception of cosmic proportions.

Sure, everyone has an opinion, but the problem is not much of our opinion is really grounded in facts; rather a smattering of truths cleverly woven together to swing consensus to one viewpoint or another.

More disturbing is that few people have the interest or fortitude to unravel the issues and separate truth from pretense and form their own opinion rather than repeating someone else's. Critical thinking is thinning out faster than the polar ice caps.

To your original point about the multipoint "question" posed by MrGreenToo, I really don't think he was asking any questions, just trying to stir up a hornets' nest of opinions and preach a point of view to see how many people might agree with him. That isn't really trying to stoke up a scholarly discussion, but stroking of egos.

You contend that the BIGs have a stranglehold on society and represent the roadblocks to social prosperity. I submit to you that it isn't the BIGs at all, but if you hold up a social mirror you will see all of the faces that are responsible for our troubles. The problem is that we are loath to accept the blame and the responsibility for the conundrum and prefer to turn to the safety of our armchairs and televisions.

MrGreenToo did raise a very good point that I don't think anyone noted. That is, to get involved and vote!