State Of Denial Address

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(john1701a @ Jan 23 2007, 09:52 PM) [snapback]379837[/snapback]</div>

It means he still doesn't have a clue, actually he probably doesn't even realize what that part of the speech meant, he's just happy he read it well .......... :huh:

Even Jim Webb in the Demo rebuttal just said that they look forward to working with the President to achieve independence from foreign oil.... yeah, good luck with that.

F*%$# it, I'm voting for Hillary!!!!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rangerdavid @ Jan 23 2007, 11:15 PM) [snapback]379842[/snapback]</div>

F*%$# it, I'm voting for Obama!!!!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(john1701a @ Jan 23 2007, 09:52 PM) [snapback]379837[/snapback]</div>

Probably thinking about the E85 loophole, the one that counts Tahoes for CAFE purposes as getting 27 MPG since they can run on E85.


Oh man, I'm so wishing I'd watched it tonight.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(john1701a @ Jan 23 2007, 09:52 PM) [snapback]379837[/snapback]</div>

That would be the new light truck CAFE regulation that he got through Congress last year. It split trucks up into categories by weight, reduced the fuel mileage for larger trucks (F150) and increased the fuel mileage for small trucks (Ranger). The combined average went up about a 1/2 mile per gallon. Of course that depends on the mix of trucks. If smaller trucks become more popular the total fleet mileage goes up. But if the mix shifts towards larger trucks and SUV's the total fleet mileage continues to go down. Conveniently these new regulations came out as GM was introducing their new full size SUV's and Trucks.

 

The only meaningful proposal in the SOTU, relating to energy anyway, was the proposed mandate of 35BN gal of alternative fuels by 2017. Whether a good or bad idea, it is a major change from current law and policy.

The rest seemed like status quo. Drill in ANWR, could've mailed that one in. Battery research, check. Reform CAFE but be flexible, i.e. let Detroit slide by again.

My favorite - double the Strategic Petroleum Reserve by 2027. Lets see - suppose we take no real action to decrease oil usage, so that oil imports increase, say, 3%/yr. 3% compounded over 20 years is nearly a double already. So the ration of SPR oil to daily oil imports will be - well, basically unchanged.

I just read about these parts of the SOTU, I did not listen to the SOTU live. I've lost interest in what Bush has to say. His "political capital" is negative and his influence on the domestic agenda is rapidly disappearing.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(john1701a @ Jan 23 2007, 06:52 PM) [snapback]379837[/snapback]</div>

Yeah well. This will help us reduce our gas usage how? And it has the potential to reduce our oil imports by more than an insignificant amount how?

Hello?! What we need is a REAL energy policy in this country. Something that we simply have not had since... well... since we've needed one. I think it was Nixon who first said that during his presidency we would find a way to be energy independent - and would no longer need to import any oil. And here we are, struggling to reduce our imports by 0.0001%?

 

"Let us build on the work we have done and reduce gasoline usage in the United States by 20 percent in the next ten years – thereby cutting our total imports by the equivalent of three-quarters of all the oil we now import from the Middle East.

To reach this goal, we must increase the supply of alternative fuels, by setting a mandatory Fuels Standard to require 35 billion gallons of renewable and alternative fuels in 2017 – this is nearly five times the current target."


Very sneaky! Reduce gasoline use by 20%. I bet he is not including the oil used to fertilize all those crops for biodiesel or the diesel used by agri-trucks.

Also he separated the section when he mentions "batteries for hybrids" from the section of what we can actually do to reduce gasoline usage by 20%. Suggesting they are independent issues.

In the end isn't this what a policy like Kyoto would have accomplished if the Bush administration had not turned its back on it.

Cheers!

 

What did all of you expect?

I'm not going to listen to an amateur with a lousy accent and little talent read from a script. They should hire the guy that does the voice overs for the movies. Or maybe Peter Graves. Geez, even Howie Mandell would be better.

I stopped listening to the man in 2003. Can't even stand the sound of his voice anymore. Content? You wanted content? Forget it. You can read what his speech writers wrote for him to say.

So, did he make everyone feel better and more confident? No? Well, then, he's not doing his job. Fire him.
Can't wait until the markets open tomorrow. Should be fun.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jan 24 2007, 12:48 AM) [snapback]379882[/snapback]</div>

GO OBAMA make us drive EVS again

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jan 23 2007, 11:48 PM) [snapback]379882[/snapback]</div>

I probably would have liked to have seen this:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/23/sot...ript/index.html

 

And you can have fun looking for buzzwords here, a page with a word search of all of his previous SOTU speeches:

http://www.nytimes.com/ref/washington/2007...ATEOFUNION.html

"hybrid" this year is a car, in '06 it was referring to human-animal mutants or something. I really should watch these speeches, sounds like he has to be high or something.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Beryl Octet @ Jan 23 2007, 07:48 PM) [snapback]379853[/snapback]</div>

Would you like a vid of it, I recorded it.

Wildkow

 

Didn't watch the speech, but I'm guessing he didn't mention anything about raising CAFE numbers for SUV, many of which underperform 70 year old technology:

http://cbs5.com/topstories/local_story_228191600.html

Want to really reduce oil dependancy (speaking to Mrs. Pelosi, since we know Junior doesn't)? Start by mandating 45mpg for cars, 35 for trucks within 5 years. Add a $1/gallon tax on gas (roughly the amount the government subsidizes gas prices through wars, tax breaks for oil companies, etc), and devote all of the proceeds to alternative energy research. Within 10 years we won't have to import a single drop of oil.

But of course that would be bad for Exxon's bottom line, so let's go melt a few more glaciers.



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jan 23 2007, 08:48 PM) [snapback]379882[/snapback]</div>

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Beryl Octet @ Jan 24 2007, 12:09 AM) [snapback]379898[/snapback]</div>

Thanks, that saves some time. I was going to look for transcripts tomorrow.

Bush Transcript

"First, we must balance the federal budget. We can do so without raising taxes. What we need to do is impose spending discipline in Washington, D.C." ha ha ha ha HA HA HA HA! I can't begin to comment on this.

Earmarks. Wow, how coincedental he wants to talk about curbing earmarks. " I did not sign them into law. " Uh...yes you did. When you sign the bill they're attached to, you sign them into law.

"Finally, to keep this economy strong we must take on the challenge of entitlements. Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid are commitments of conscience -- and so it is our duty to keep them permanently sound. Yet we are failing in that duty -- and this failure will one day leave our children with three bad options: huge tax increases, huge deficits, or huge and immediate cuts in benefits. Everyone in this chamber knows this to be true -- yet somehow we have not found it in ourselves to act. So let us work together and do it now. With enough good sense and good will, you and I can fix Medicare and Medicaid -- and save Social Security."Social Security doesn't need saving. It need to lock up the money to keep it from being embezzled by OUR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. And the money that has been STOLEN needs to be PUT BACK. Then hands off. There. All fixed. As for Medicare and Medicaid....if only Bush had refrained from "fixing" that it wouldn't need further fixing. As for huge tax increases, huge deficits and huge and immediate cuts in benefits...well, that will have nothingto do with entitlements. That will be a result of our Iraq bill and when all of that paper comes due and our creditors come collecting.

"A future of hope and opportunity requires a fair, impartial system of justice. The lives of citizens across our nation are affected by the outcome of cases pending in our federal courts. And we have a shared obligation to ensure that the federal courts have enough judges to hear those cases and deliver timely rulings. As president, I have a duty to nominate qualified men and women to vacancies on the federal bench. And the United States Senate has a duty as well -- to give those nominees a fair hearing, and a prompt up-or-down vote on the Senate floor." Uh, where did that come from and what does it have to do with energy/alternative fuel? Did they use recycled paper and it's left over from a previous speech? Seems like he says the same thing every year.

Again with the temporary workers. Well, they're permanently unemployed in California due to all of the frozen produce that will never need picking. No worries though. Arnold has promised to take good care of them. On my dime, I'm sure.

Seems there was something missing out of that health plan thing. Like...if your employer provided insurance is worth more than Bush likes he's going to TAX you on it. Oh, and your employer will pay part of that tax too. "For Americans who now purchase health insurance on their own, my proposal would mean a substantial tax savings -- $4,500 for a family of four making $60,000 a year." Uh...does that mean a single person will save $1,125 if they make $15,000 a year? Oh, yeah. If I make $15,000 I'm so going to buy insurance. Changing the tax code is NOT the solution to affordable health insurance. "States that make basic private health insurance available to all their citizens should receive federal funds to help them provide this coverage to the poor and the sick." Except California. California doesn't get anything because we didn't vote for Bush. And can we say "unfunded mandate"? see NCLB.

"Dikembe Mutombo grew up in Africa, amid great poverty and disease. He came to Georgetown University on a scholarship to study medicine -- but Coach John Thompson got a look at Dikembe and had a different idea. Dikembe became a star in the NBA, and a citizen of the United States. But he never forgot the land of his birth -- or the duty to share his blessings with others. He has built a brand new hospital in his hometown. A friend has said of this good hearted man: "Mutombo believes that God has given him this opportunity to do great things." And we are proud to call this son of the Congo our fellow American."

While I think it's great Dikembe has the money to build a hospital, I can't help but feel sad this young man was diverted from his goal of becoming a doctor. He'll be in the NBA a few years. But he could have been a doctor for the rest of his life.

 

Your Republican party at work:

http://www.mysanantonio.com/sharedcontent/.../D8MR6NH80.html

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jan 24 2007, 12:46 AM) [snapback]379918[/snapback]</div>

That link was for the rebuttal. Anyway, in reading the Bush speech, he's calling for doubling the strategic reserves. What do you all make of that? Seems like if we had all this alt fuel capacity he was also proposing, along with conservation, then that wouldn't be necessary. The cynical part of me says that's just a gift to the oil companies, but the paranoid part says they think a big part of the world's production capacity (Iran?) will be offline for a while...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(john1701a @ Jan 23 2007, 06:52 PM) [snapback]379837[/snapback]</div>

If cropland goes into production of biodiesel, ethanol, etc. It takes away from the orginal intent of the cropland, which was to produce food and other items of economic and useful importance to the world. If produced from wasteproducts of food (etc.) production, it might be an improvement. On the other hand, even taking away wastes that are tilled back into the soil, could result in greater demand for fertiziler, etc. which is produced from petroleum.

The bottom line is:

No politician wants to tell the truth (least of all someone like G.W., who I doubt even knows what truth is), which is that the only solution is improving the efficiency of our use of existing resourses, not "Robbing Peter to Pay Paul". Or even worse for the politician that we be demanding less for our life style. The American (mainly us, but probably other countries as well) attitude is that it's might (Actual "my", but I'm not correcting it, since it's another American attitude.) right to have a big car, big house, etc. and to consume heavily. So, I'm going to have them and do it.

Dave M.

 

Energy has been mentioned the last 6 State of the Union Speeches, yet no plan defined - a tease.