A shift from nonrenewable sources of energy to renewable sources is a big change; somehow I doubt that someone can do it all within one or even two presidential terms. On the other hand, someone has to try and make a start, so she can certainly be congratulated for making the effort--if she does it. As for the other things you mention, well, of course, anybody on the Democratic side would be an improvement over the incumbent.
2007-08-08 04:44:27
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
3⤋
And you believe what Hillary says and you have the T-shirt to prove it? Democrats are pushing biomass, wind and solar energy. All of which end up being expensive and don't do much to reduce the carbon footprint.
Why not push for standardized nuclear power, hydro-electric dams, and geo-thermal wells. Long term they are cheap and actually do something about those greenhouse gases the environmentalists are so concerned about.
Is poor money managment by individuals which is causing those record forclosures the governments problem?
You had better watch out those nasty liberals will jump all over you for wanting fiscal responsibility. After all THEY are responsible for 6 trillion of that national debt you are so concerned about.
And while this war may be useless and expensive I don't see anyone on the Democrats side offering solutions to a stabel middle east and ending terrorism.
The two reasons the rich get richer is because they can afford tax accountants to LEGALLY make use of the loopholes. You and I can't do that. The second reason is there is no owners manual supplied with a dollar. So the people who don't know how to use it, lose it.
And no it won't bring back the middle class.
2007-08-08 06:09:41
·
answer #2
·
answered by namsaev 6
·
2⤊
1⤋
The national debt means nothing.
The war wasn't useless... and still isn't useless. If you own a computer, drink milk, bottled water, have gas heating, drive a gas powered car, or have any items made of plastic, you benefitted from this war.
Oh, and if you've ever worn makeup, there is a decent amount of crude oil IN the actual makeup AND in the container it came in.
But no, this won't bring back the middle class. A million jobs in renewable energy wouldn't be enough... and I would imagine it wouldn't pay enough either.
2007-08-08 04:43:38
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
If renewable energy was a moneymaker, don't you think the big energy companies would already be investing big dollars only to reap huge profits?
The fact is that renewable energy, as it is currently planned by both Dems and Reps, is nothing more than an additional government subsidy. What this means is that money will be taken from productive Americans and given to govt supported energy companies. This removes productive capital from the economy, with the net result of less jobs.
All you have to do is look at NASA. They spend billions & billions getting into space. The guy from Virgin Airways will be offering orbital-space rides by 2010 for 20 people @ $200,000 per ticket. Billions v. Millions. Public v. Private. Government v. Entrepreneurs.
P.S. Drive out to West Texas and see all the wind-generators going up. We don't need the government to get involved just to slow things down and increase the price.
2007-08-08 04:55:15
·
answer #4
·
answered by phil b 2
·
2⤊
3⤋
Yes, it would be a better way IF she could do such a thing.
She cannot.
Hilliary, like the other bottom-feeding politicians is a politician and will say anything to get the votes.
She is lying, plain and simple.
The Clintons have a long history of lying.
Also, she is a lawyer, which makes her the lowest of bottom feeders, a lawyer politician.
She will not 'bring back the middle class'. She will eliminate the 'classes' except for the elite (the politicos in power) and the serfs (the rest of us). That is socialism in a nutshell and Hillary is a socialist.
2007-08-08 04:45:49
·
answer #5
·
answered by credo quia est absurdum 7
·
2⤊
2⤋
Yes job growth is what we need the county is close to it breaking point. Mid-class taxes is where the government get most of their money. So if we do not stop bleeding mid-class paying jobs to other counties. we will be in real trouble as will the rest of the world. What happen if the USAgoes into a depression. The money that we own will be lost to the world and thye will come crashing down with us. So we had better find away to get people making money fast or even the rich are in trouble.
2007-08-08 04:48:02
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
1⤋
The viability and sustainability of our economy derives from investment INSIDE the United States. Whether it's renewables or whether it's something else like nanotechnology or even media innovation, the middle class can only be sustained if there are healthy incomes to be attained that reflect the value of the industry and the processes that employ them, AND that can be scaled and increased duly.
2007-08-08 06:01:19
·
answer #7
·
answered by ? 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
Renewables like windmills? Opposed by the Democrat's Senator Kennedy.
I would prefer someone that would address the cause of the Federal Debt.
2007-08-08 04:41:33
·
answer #8
·
answered by phillipk_1959 6
·
4⤊
0⤋
We hope, do a Google search on solar chips, they are all made in China. I am afraid it is too late this technology and industry is already lost to overseas production. We will pay the price for G W and his friends making their final haul on foreign oil. The neo cons have sacrificed the future of this country for their personal profit. The rest of us can run after low paying service jobs as the country goes broke.
2007-08-08 04:44:29
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
2⤋
She is going to have to, to replace all the jobs lost in the production of non-renewable energy, isn't she? Shouldn't have any problems finding workers though, as the flood of illegals will certainly increase under her watch.
2007-08-08 04:41:17
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
1⤋