Yes they are doing it. Suggest an item, get seconds, and the winners will be voted upon (at the convention I suppose). This one is of particular interest to me: End subsidies! | GOP Platform 2012 by MindMixer Because it sounds so...Democratic. But explore the list. Many are outside environmental issues, so this could be better in FHOP? Participating requires signing in. I did not but I presume they want you to be a registered Republican voter. Is 'the other party' also doing this? Seems like a reasonable way to see what warms the rank and file.
I have a SPAM-trap, email account used for 'marginal' web sites that are likely to follow-up with the usual network detritus. By default, everything goes into a Junk folder and I have to put in a "pass" rule for the Inbox. So I used that account to visit the site . . . I didn't need to bother. Slow, filled with photos of Republican leaders, and the usual content. Apparently some non-Republicans have also joined. I forgot to take screen shots. I'll go back this weekend and make some screen shots to share here . . . and with our friends in the political forum. Bob Wilson
Obviously the site had a different effect on me. I set to imagining ... What if a whole bunch of people second the 'no FF subsidy' idea. They can't put that in the party platform. Conumdrum And just anybody can 'second'? GOP may learn that the web is (partially) populated by enviro-wackos with too much time on their hands. THey should have know that already
I was expecting some sort of solicitation e-mail but nothing yet. There may be other goals ... perhaps looking for precinct workers? Bob Wilson
That is why I did not go to the site, since I have not approved of any Republican Platform since Goldwater, it would be unfair to inject my views on Republicans.
No subsidies to EV would be the repub idea. Dems have been anti-oil my entire adult life, and that is getting to be 40+yrs unfort.
You probably haven't paid attention to Louisiana and Texas Democrats Its a state by state thing. Even some pro oil democrats and republicans are ready to get rid of most of the subsidies. Carter was anti-oil. Clinton was not. Obama is pro oil on some issues and anti in others.
Well don't forget I have Louisiana in my have-lived-in-state portfolio. But ever since oil went over $0.29/gal in the early 70's the dems have been on the case. I know there are exceptions. Like global warming as a possible CO2 threat, I can only say nothing is new in my adult life. What happened before that I did not witness. After all us baby boomers run the place, no changes in beliefs until we pass the baton.
Yes! End $3T in subsidies for GOP Wall St failures AIG, Lehman and all the too big to fail "free market" phonies. End the $80B in subsidies for agriculture corporations. End the $100B in subsidies for oil, gas, coal and nuke industries. End the $400B in military contractor subsidies, Oh. Not those subsidies. OK.Never mind.
Romney just announced his intention to eliminate tax credits for wind generation. He just added 75,000 people to the hundreds of categories that won't vote for him.
My prediction is that the site will end up with a mixture of spoofs and motions by Ron Paul Republicans.
I am a wind user, and the wind subsidies have done their job. Wind technology is now mature and cost competitive for those of us that choose it without the subsidy. The problem is cutting the wind subsidy, without making coal pay for its pollution, which is a form of subsidy. Wind can definitely compete on a level playing field, if consumers are giving the choice, as they are in some states. We do need to make other energy sources non-subsidized at the same time. The senate has voted to keep the wind subsidy, just as they choose to keep the coal subsidies. IGCC coal and solar are currently still developing so they may need continued subsidies. Wind, Coal, gas, nuclear, should not be subsidized, but we need to remove the subsidies/add the pollution costs in a fair way.
GOP continually misstates all issues as "markets" when the real issues are environmental, national security and macro economic. Windpower subsidy being a perfect example. The overriding reasons for subsidizing windpower are to stop the unfolding disaster of global warming. To eliminate imported fossil fuels. To build US alternative energy,industry and jobs. Idea of leaving US problems to fake "markets" is a formula for disaster as US economy, alternate energy industry, job market, environment and nation security demonstrate.
AG@13 "without making coal pay for its pollution, which is a form of subsidy" I see three distinct levels. First are the first-mentioned subsidies and tax benefits. This is real $$$ and many countries do it not just USA. Second are the externalities e.g., coal-combustion aerosols and mercury and sulfur, and nitrogen and acidity from any combustion. Much progress here, in US beginning with clean air act. Some forms persist and in some countries it's still 'burn anything anywhere any time'. Notable here is that all of these wash out of the atmosphere locally or regionally. There are exceptions (mainly by injecting with enough energy to punch out to the stratosphere), but in general it is very difficult to pollute the troposphere on a global basis. This may have contributed to Clean Air act and similar successes. "it's our problem" Third is the global CO2 increase fundamentally linked to burning fossil C. If people were to agree that more CO2 means more warming with more downsides than upsides, then this would also be an externality and net C to the atmosphere could be monetized, and all the rest would follow. CO2, unique on this list, goes global. So far there has been one global emission success story, CFCs. Well, it will be a success in a few more decades; the chlorine monoxide is still mostly in the stratosphere, munching ozone. But we have not really taken the third step of monetizing CO2. The reasons are heavily discussed here, no need to review. But so long as we persist in betting that CO2 won't bite, we have to hope this presumption is more true than false.
