Perhaps the Republican proposal will take 10 years...but at least it WILL be effective...much like Ronald Reagan's tax cuts proved effective about 10 years down the road - which we saw during the 1990s!
So which would you prefer? A solution which does absolutely NOTHING and will only make things WORSE (because you CAN'T believe the Oil Companies will eat this cost - you KNOW they'll push their expenses on to the consumers) OR a solution that will take some time but will ultimately be effective?
OR does anyone have a BETTER solution???
Shh! Don't tell McCain! He just signed on to the "reduce CO2 output by 70%" ideology: expect him to offer AllGory the VP slot.
At least he is in favor of more nuclear power. Unfortunately, not enough to actually do something, he'd rather tout [read: spend billions on] wind power.
Telling people to consume less is not the job of the government. It will happen naturaly, however, as a result of high prices.
The question the republican are asking is whether the govt. created market distortions (mostly in the name of "off-limits" drilling areas) are worth the environmental benefits.
The question the dems are asking is completely different. They want to punish the wealth creators to redistribute the wealth. This might be a noble cause (I don't think so, but I understand the robin hood mindset) but it does nothing to promote energy availability.
Even the most liberal guy I know is in favor of nuclear power. I couldn't decide whether to strangle him for taking so long to see the light or hug him for his newfound wisdom. If Clinton had allowed drilling ten years ago, we wouldn't be held hostage in this manner.
Why is it we can pretend to predict and plan for a highly dubious global warming, but can't drill AND plan for alternate sources of energy when we know for CERTAIN how easy it is for our enemies to mess with us? S.T.U.P.I.D.
Commenting by HaloScan
