44th President of the USA

[Burnout]

How are they going to pay for all of this (outside of the part that is to be partially funded by oil companies)?

I have no idea, taxes? Slowly withdrawing the military from Iraq and shifting the funding? (I can only imagine how much money is being hemorrhaged into/spent on that particular patch of desert on a daily basis).

Rising oil prices should also help to shift the market in favor of alternative energy sources as they become increasingly affordable relative to rising energy/oil prices as well. I mean, as alternatives become increasingly popular due to rising prices and the whole environmental/green movement they should also become a bit more popular and attractive to investors. I know Chevron and other energy companies are throwing money into alternatives.

 

[freakchylde]

I have no idea, taxes? Slowly withdrawing the military from Iraq and shifting the funding? (I can only imagine how much money is being hemorrhaged into/spent on that particular patch of desert on a daily basis).

:/ -1 I, personally, can't take any more tax burden, and they're against slow withdrawal and I'm against rapid redeployment. Add onto that, if they do try to implement national healthcare, that's going to come in the form of taxes as well. So, with all the taxes they're going to increase, they further push me away from them. *shrugs*

Rising oil prices should also help to shift the market in favor of alternative energy sources as they become increasingly affordable relative to rising energy/oil prices as well. I mean, as alternatives become increasingly popular due to rising prices and the whole environmental/green movement they should also become a bit more popular and attractive to investors. I know Chevron and other energy companies are throwing money into alternatives.

Oh, don't worry, they will continue to rise (at least at the pump), because of the taxes that they will have to pay and pass on to the consumer. BP Oil, and thus Exxon have been investing in alternative energy. The crux, is the fact that as Green as the Democrats want to be, every chance they've had to publically embrace something, results in one, or many shooting it down (windmills off the coast of Teddy Kennedy's compound comes readily to mind, as well as the Yucca Mountain waste disposal and the possibilies of nuclear-based energy). Needless to say, they like to talk, but they don't have a good track record with implementation.

 

[Burnout]

:/ -1 I, personally, can't take any more tax burden, and they're against slow withdrawal and I'm against rapid redeployment. Add onto that, if they do try to implement national healthcare, that's going to come in the form of taxes as well. So, with all the taxes they're going to increase, they further push me away from them. *shrugs*

I'm opposed to any sort of attempt at nationalizing healthcare myself, but I'd rather vote for someone who actually acknowledges the energy issue, rather than taking the Republican tack and ignoring it to the best of their ability.

Oh, don't worry, they will continue to rise (at least at the pump), because of the taxes that they will have to pay and pass on to the consumer. BP Oil, and thus Exxon have been investing in alternative energy. The crux, is the fact that as Green as the Democrats want to be, every chance they've had to publically embrace something, results in one, or many shooting it down (windmills off the coast of Teddy Kennedy's compound comes readily to mind, as well as the Yucca Mountain waste disposal and the possibilies of nuclear-based energy). Needless to say, they like to talk, but they don't have a good track record with implementation.

In some respects I can appreciate higher gas prices in as much as they'll encourage people to cut down on unnecessary trips and with any luck I'll see less people around here cruising around in studio apartments on wheels.

I try to drive as little as possible myself and even with prices the way they are, I'll probably be able to get by spending less than $200/year on gas.

That said, there seems to be a solid amount of work being done on alternatives but I would like to see more government funding provided to help speed up the process.

 

[freakchylde]

I'm opposed to any sort of attempt at nationalizing healthcare myself, but I'd rather vote for someone who actually acknowledges the energy issue, rather than taking the Republican tack and ignoring it to the best of their ability.

I can ignore the politics of it, as long as I can put my own effort into conserving and making decisions for myself to support companies that work with alternative things. In all honesty, it's only the government's responsibility to conserve for itself, the market can take care of itself, if all consumers moved in a direction that was more environmentally conscious.

In some respects I can appreciate higher gas prices in as much as they'll encourage people to cut down on unnecessary trips and with any luck I'll see less people around here cruising around in studio apartments on wheels.

I try to drive as little as possible myself and even with prices the way they are, I'll probably be able to get by spending less than $200/year on gas.

That said, there seems to be a solid amount of work being done on alternatives but I would like to see more government funding provided to help speed up the process.

I can't. I don't have a choice, I'm trying to save up enough to buy myself a bus pass, but so far, that's not flying. I like the idea of using city transportation, when I don't have to be at the gym, or carry around work supplies, but both tend to be a condition every other day, which makes the bus pointless. The other problem, is it's really an inconvenience in Atlanta, and the system only works so well (and in our case, barely works). *shrugs* I'd just rather see stuff like this be taken care of by the market, vs the government. Kinda like a lot of other things the government shouldn't be taking care of.

 

[Burnout]

Yeah, I can agree with you in some respects. I just would like to see the government give the market something of a kick in the butt to help things get rolling a little faster than would otherwise be possible.

 

[freakchylde]

Yeah, I can agree with you in some respects. I just would like to see the government give the market something of a kick in the butt to help things get rolling a little faster than would otherwise be possible.

So would I, but that would be the result of all current incumbents (or at least the deadbeats who want to play politics) to be replaced with new folks who actually want to make a difference and work together for a difference. As much power as the President has, the true power lies in Congress, and if they don't do anything, then nothing gets done. Which, results in the problems that we have today. I don't think changing the Presidential party is going to change much of anything, though, with the current batch of Dems in power, having Hillary at the helm scares the ever living shit out of me. I'd rather be stagnating then pressing through some of the laws that these guys want.

 

[Pellaz]

I'm sure Hillary will forge ahead with the energy policies that poll well......and, like dirty diapers, drop the ones that don't poll well. Judging from her recent experiment with the $1,000 new-baby grant (or whatever that monstrosity was that she scrapped), at least. Or maybe it was that ill-fated idea to give drivers' licenses to illegals?


As long as those who vote for a living can control things, the Democrats will remain in office.

 

[Burnout]

I'm sure Hillary will forge ahead with the energy policies that poll well......and, like dirty diapers, drop the ones that don't poll well. Judging from her recent experiment with the $1,000 new-baby grant (or whatever that monstrosity was that she scrapped), at least. Or maybe it was that ill-fated idea to give drivers' licenses to illegals?

I can't believe Pelosi scrapped the bill that would allow employers to require their employees to speak English. What part of that is unacceptable?

 

[Saladbar]

I can't believe Pelosi scrapped the bill that would allow employers to require their employees to speak English. What part of that is unacceptable?

I don't think there's anything unacceptable about it, I think it's just irrelevant.

 

[freakchylde]

I don't think it's irrelevant at all, and as far as the states go, employers should be able to make it a requirement without governmental approval. So, while yes, at the Federal level it's more pandering and probably not a necessary bill, it would just reinforce employer's rights.

As far as Pelosi goes, I think she's also against listing English as, at least one of, our national language. Kind of ridiculous, as well as increasing the inefficiency of this country.

 

[Burnout]

I don't think there's anything unacceptable about it, I think it's just irrelevant.

I don't know about you, but I need to actually be able to communicate with someone if they want my business. If they can't speak any English (broken English is quite acceptable) I'm going to go somewhere else, it's that simple.

 

[Saladbar]

I don't know about you, but I need to actually be able to communicate with someone if they want my business. If they can't speak any English (broken English is quite acceptable) I'm going to go somewhere else, it's that simple.

But do you see the amount of business that you're alienating by doing so?

 

[Saladbar]

I don't think it's irrelevant at all, and as far as the states go, employers should be able to make it a requirement without governmental approval. So, while yes, at the Federal level it's more pandering and probably not a necessary bill, it would just reinforce employer's rights.

As far as Pelosi goes, I think she's also against listing English as, at least one of, our national language. Kind of ridiculous, as well as increasing the inefficiency of this country.

Well as a "skill" I don't think that there's nothing wrong by asking someone to speak English for a job. I can't see someone wanting to be a Doctor if he doesn't speak English, do you think there should be a law for that though? I mean if it's part of the job description then I don't think so. I work with people who speak other languages, part of my job description was that I spoke Spanish AND English as well. It's just what the job calls for.

 

[freakchylde]

Well as a "skill" I don't think that there's nothing wrong by asking someone to speak English for a job. I can't see someone wanting to be a Doctor if he doesn't speak English, do you think there should be a law for that though? I mean if it's part of the job description then I don't think so. I work with people who speak other languages, part of my job description was that I spoke Spanish AND English as well. It's just what the job calls for.

I don't think there should be a law. If you read what I wrote, you'd see that I said it would only be reinforcing the fact that employers can make English proficiency a requirement of employment, thus negating any issue that might arise from "discrimination claims" from those whose first language is not English. The law was not meant to protect those who were raised here, and whose first language is English, or has a native proficiency (as in the case of your example).

The other problem, in the run of the mill life, is that if you can't understand English, how are you going to understand the driving laws (they don't print the books in Spanish), how are you going to get around, etc. etc.? It makes sense, if you're moving to another country, to learn the language that most business is carried out in, and here, that happens to be English. Having been over in Scandinavia (who does very good in this respect), I can appreciate the fact that we have labels in English and Spanish. That isn't an issue, but fact of the matter, most first generation immigrants tend to not learn the language, if they don't know it already, and hold on to the country of origin.

 

[Burnout]

But do you see the amount of business that you're alienating by doing so?

That's honestly not my problem, I'm not a charity. If one person can't speak English I'll find someone else to do the same job for the same price that I can actually communicate with. It's California, I don't speak Spanish and I shouldn't have to. I wouldn't move to France and expect to get by only speaking English.

 

[Pellaz]

The day that the law doesn't allow an employer to specify, say, that their air-traffic controllers must speak English.....is the day I take the train.

 

[rockyracoon]

But do you see the amount of business that you're alienating by doing so?

If you come to the U.S. and fail to grasp some level of verbal/written English, then you've alienated yourself.

 

[Burnout]

If you come to the U.S. and fail to grasp some level of verbal/written English, then you've alienated yourself.

Exactly, I have my problems with immigration, but that said, if I cannot communicate with someone at even a minimum level then I'm going to take my business elsewhere. They do not have to be fluent, I'm more than happy with even broken English so long as I can just communicate with the person.

 

[Greykiller]

...and the correct answer is?
"Who gives a crap!"

 

[...AndTimeBegan]

Any time a discussion arises about making English "required" in the US, both sides are beating around the bush with regards to the real issue: illegal immigration.

Businesses have no right to require jack shit if they know they are hiring someone who doesn't speak English. Simple as that.

In fact, employers should be heavily fined, or even imprisoned if they hire people who don't speak English (high probability of being an illegal immigrant). Obviously businesses that hire illegal immigrants are providing an incentive that worsens the problem.