Quote:
Originally Posted by danielpalos
Advancing this type of technology could eventually reduce public and private sector costs, as well as make more feasible, such projects as an underground energy transmission grid that can deliver energy to all fifty states, plus Canada and Mexico. With such a system in place, energy deregulation could be more successful than it was in California without such infrastructure.
|
Alright, let's clear these up one at a time. Yes, using lasers to drill could make certain projects cheaper and easier to operate. However, at this point, according to your own posted quote:"Researchers
believe (emphasis added) that state-of-the-art lasers have the
potential to...
This would suggest that they are not able to be used at this time, which renders your point moot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by danielpalos
I think funding of this type of order could be considered within the normal budget of the executive branch since it could be accomplish by attrition of older vehicles. A certain portion of new vehicles could be required to be alternative fuel capable, thus creating more of a market for those vehicles and incentive for better product development for the private sector.
With any increase in demand for that type of product, the private sector will have more profit motive to provide better products and lower cost to the (private sector) consumer.
|
You are still dodging the question of funding the mandatory use of alternative fuels. Simply requiring new vehicles to be fueled by alternative methods, as I've pointed out before, does not create the funding that would be needed to
provide the fuel. The funding for that would have to come from somewhere, either new revenue (taxes), or spending cuts in another area. You have not, or more to the point, will not, identify how this will be accomplished.
Quote:
Originally Posted by danielpalos
Why is it that there is any consideration for making tax cuts permanent, if we are running massive deficits? Shouldn't a balanced budget or massive surpluses precede permanent tax cuts?
|
As much as you have demonized my supposed lack of research, I would have thought that you would have spent a modicum of time on economic research before posting such an inane statement. You cannot tax yourself into prosperity. Tax cuts bring revenue surpluses. Don't take my word for it, do some research on the CBO website and compare the numbers before and after Capital Gains Taxes were reduced. I believe the revenue
increaase after the tax
decrease was around 150%. Now I'm no accountant, but I believe that's actually a good thing. You should probably look up a way to compare deficits and GDP before you start bringing up that subject also. One cannot be used as an example, good or bad, without the other.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Norrin Radd
What question would that be? Is there nothing hemp won't do? That question? Yes, there are many things hemp won't do because brainwashed morons have allowed our government to make it illegal to grow in the US, the only industrialized country in the fucking world without a hemp crop.
|
As I stated earlier, I personally have no problem with Hemp manufacturing, for industrial or recreational use. However, I don't believe it to be the panacea that you do. We may be "the only industrialized country in the fucking world without a hemp crop", but we are also not hurting for the lack of it. Surprising how the rest of the world is so far ahead of us and yet so very far behind, even with the aid of Hemp. Oh, and that problem you have of forgetting the original question (about how to fund your magical EO), that could be short term memory loss caused by the Super Duper Magical Hemp. Just saying.