Democrats versus Republicans

[PBzeer]

Short answer windy is ..... they are doing "something". Government has to act, to perpetuate the need for government. Government doesn't develop anything. Government can only reduce the cost of development.

[US27inKS]

Originally Posted by PBzeer

Government can only reduce the cost of development.

Thanks PB. I needed a good laugh this morning.

[sailaway21]

tdw is suffering another episode of cognitive dissonance over free trade and market incentives. As Windy ably points out, government cannot just wave it's hand and repeal the laws of physics. Were it so I'd have thought the entire country would be bathed under a Ft. Lauderdale-like sun and we'd cover our roofs with solar panels. Some seem to think that, just like stem cell research, if the government just put that last tiny bit of money into solar and wind the revolution would arrive. What the true believers really aspire to is solar and wind power at any cost. The type of government intervention that they desire is mandatory use of alternative energy.

In Michigan our governor is trying to ram through a policy that will require that the state derive 25% of it's energy from alternative sources by 2025. You can view that two ways; the date is far enough off as to make the plan meaningless or that things will change radically in the next seventeen years. GM is taking a different approach-at least they say they are-they're developing the Volt and going to being it to market despite the fact they don't have the batteries to make it work! They are hoping that technology will fall from the sky, and soon, to provide batteries to power their dream. The chances of that happening are best illustrated by the new production numbers listed by GM for the Volt. Gone are the days of every garage with one; it's now to be a limited production run. Soon it's going to be very, very similar to the hybrid diesel program. The Clinton administration spearheaded an effort called PNGV to subsidize diesel hybrid development in Detroit. Detroit spent most all the money and quietly pronounced it unfeasible. The Bush administration shifted the focus to fuel cells for hydrogen cars and the news there hasn't been any better. Greens Say: Kill Pngv, All Diesel Research Programs | Diesel Fuel News | Find Articles at BNET

The point being, that you rarely get the results you want just by subsidizing industry to produce a specific given result. If you wish to subsidize research and then find an application for it that's fine, there's an actual history of such efforts yielding results. But simply saying that you want a diesel car that gets eighty miles per gallon and emits no pollution is too limiting to be effective and it wastes a lot of taxpayer monies. As Windy has remarked, industry is already hot on the trail of any technology currently feasible that they think may have a glimmer of success.

The type of subsidies that the Wombat myopically criticizes going to the oil industry are the same types of subsidies that the US government, and most all governments, give to effective producers. They are indeed myriad and they should, in all likelihood, be eliminated. But then, so should subsidies to the world's most efficient agriculture industry as well. I call the wombat's view myopic because what he fails to acknowledge is that those subsidies go to an industry that currently produces a product that works, a product whose only deficiency is that we do not have more of it. Contrast that with the pie in the sky dreams of diverting those subsidies to alternative energy sources, the one thing of which we know is that-they don't work!

And our furry friend will be well advised to invest in that 'U' mining stock. Eventually we're going to get around to doing what does work, while we continue to investigate alternative sources of energy. The bloom is well off the rose of ethanol, despite tremendous subsidy, and it serves as a perfect example of government rushing in to subsidize what they want to work.

And it's "the free market crap" that's going to bring all of this to pass. Contrary to the Wombat's assertion, it's the free market that reliably supplies oil to us. It's government and citizen interference with the free market that means we do not have viable alternative energy sources like nuclear operational. Citing Russia and China, two countries desperately trying to enter the twentieth century, does little to advance criticism of the American market or government's intrusions into it. We need less government, not more acknowledgment of government's already pernicious involvement.

[sailaway21]

Originally Posted by sailingdog

Can't we just shoot them all—All being professional politicians and lobbyists—and start fresh...

You don't think that we're getting exactly the government we deserve?

[sailaway21]

We're getting just the government we deserve because our demands are apparently insatiable.

We fund a Coast Guard we hardly need for offshore rescue work just as we fund an international EPIRB distress system that is hard to justify government involvement in. (Now, that ought to throw dinner, along with the fat, into the fire!)

Private industry can perform both functions at far lower cost and the Navy could pick up much of the same duties as the CG with some reorganizing and law changes.

Why should we spend all this money on a government body to serve mostly a wealthy, but foolish, boating community? Merchant shipping rarely has need of the CG's offshore services using them more commonly for shipboard inspection of safety and pollution issues. Those same merchant ship companies could pay for their EPIRB services the same as they do for their satellite telephone services.

The reason these programs are popular is that there are a lot of boaters who see value in them. Value that they do not have to pay for themselves. Why shouldn't boaters subscribe to their own offshore rescue services or their own EPIRB services? They don't want to pay what it would cost to do so, that's why.

The farmer in Iowa sees that as a waste of money, just as the boater sees farm subsidies as a waste of money. Both are indeed correct. And both are getting exactly the government they deserve.

[PBzeer]

John - I should have said can reduce, not only reduce. Usually it makes it cost more.

[chucklesR]

You know what Sailaway, you struck a nerve - again.

I do get the government I deserve because I don't vote and I'm not active.

Time to change that, and take a note from Obama.

Yes, we can - throw the bums out.

[US27inKS]

What kind of crap are we getting stuck with now? The new bill is such a piece of crap, this is the kind of garbage they have to throw in to buy votes. I wonder who got paid off by a children's arrow manufacturer or importer? The actual bailout plan is 112 pages of the 451 pages of this POS.

20 SEC. 503. EXEMPTION FROM EXCISE TAX FOR CERTAIN
21 WOODEN ARROWS DESIGNED FOR USE BY
22 CHILDREN.
23 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (2) of section 4161(b)
24 is amended by redesignating subparagraph (B) as sub301
1 paragraph (C) and by inserting after subparagraph (A)
2 the following new subparagraph:
3 ‘‘(B) EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN WOODEN
4 ARROW SHAFTS.—Subparagraph (A) shall not
5 apply to any shaft consisting of all natural
6 wood with no laminations or artificial means of
7 enhancing the spine of such shaft (whether sold
8 separately or incorporated as part of a finished
9 or unfinished product) of a type used in the
10 manufacture of any arrow which after its as11
sembly—
12 ‘‘(i) measures 5⁄16 of an inch or less in
13 diameter, and
14 ‘‘(ii) is not suitable for use with a bow
15 described in paragraph (1)(A).’’.
16 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by
17 this section shall apply to shafts first sold after the date
18 of enactment of this Act.

[sck5]

Isnt that amazing? Childrens arrows. The newest special interest. I hope the newsies track down who put that in there and pay a visit to the childrens arrow factory. Ought to have some entertainment value.

[PBzeer]

Your government, hard at work, saving you, protecting you .... looking out for YOUR interests.