Ending a massively expensive war is unacceptable, but giving Americans health care, or funding hydrogen propulsion research is. I bet if we took the money from one month of Iraq funding, and gave it to the companies and people who are doing research on hydrogen fuel cells, we could have mass-produced hydrogen cars within 10 years, at the outset. We have the fuel cells, it is just the matter of the funding to test and bring them down in size, up in efficiency, and then conversion of gas stations. The prices will fall once mass production goes into action.

/just saying
//not subby

Consumer spending is 2/3 of our economy, subby.
Nice try, Democrat.

ndotseth: Consumer spending is 2/3 of our economy, subby.
Nice try, Democrat.

Can't expect the economy to run well when you remove 1/3 of it. Nice try Repub troll. I do wonder where you got those numbers though.

ndotseth: Consumer spending is 2/3 of our economy, subby.
Nice try, Democrat.

Yes, nice try there, but I notice the stores aren't exactly full anymore considering that the economy is in the crapper. Oh and considering Iraq is one of the world's largest oil producers and we conquered them, why the hell is gas so expensive?

HURRR!

I have to go with Obama on this: we just need a whole lot *more* government to solve all this.

People are stupid and need to have their precious money taken away from them, so that smart government people can spend it more properly.

I thought the "conservatives" have been assuring us non stop that the economy is fine and all is well... if so then why does Bush need to do or change anything ?

Unless "conservatives" are a bunch of lying f*ckstains.

ndotseth: Nice try, Democrat.
GAT_00: Nice try Repub troll

Oy. This is going to be a long election season.

Unright: Oy. This is going to be a long election season.

Nice try, Whig.

DarthBrooks: Unright: Oy. This is going to be a long election season.

Nice try, Whig.

Nice try, Federalist.

ndotseth: Consumer spending is 2/3 of our economy, subby.
Nice try, Democrat.

If that 2/3 doesnt have jobs or has to deal with massive inflation, it's not going to do so well is it?

Yeah, it's all about consumers not spending enough. Sure.

GAT_00: Nice try, Federalist.

Nice try, Bull Moose.

DarthBrooks: Nice try, Bull Moose.

How is that an insult?

DarthBrooks:
People are stupid and need to have their precious money taken away from them, so that smart government people OPEC, oil companies, and Halliburton can spend it more properly.

FTFY

Obdicut: DarthBrooks: Nice try, Bull Moose.

How is that an insult?

Aww, don't ruin the fun, Populist.

GAT_00: Aww, don't ruin the fun, Populist.

I'm just saying that even a mugwump like you ought to be able to discern that Bull Moose is short for "You're farking awesome, dude".

GAT_00:

Aww, don't ruin the fun, Populist.

Speak for yourself, Libertarian

Economics 101: Government spending stimulates the economy.

GAT_00: doing research on hydrogen fuel cells

Some of the important research on this was done quite a while ago. It goes like this

a) There isn't much hydrogen just lying around.
b) The commercially viable way to manufacture H2 is to electrolyze water.
c) Electrolyzing water requires energy.
d) Recombining the hydrogen to make water releases less (recoverable) energy than c).

Until you have a primary source of energy that is as inexpensive and reliable as oil and have that base installed, and until you learn the laws of thermodynamics, you can't build a hydrogen car. Sorry. Well, you can, but you will actually increase energy use.

Now tell me why scientifically uninformed politicians (namely Gore, Kerry, and O'Leary) of the other party cut the IFR out of the budget in 1994.

Obdicut: mugwump

pandabear: Until you have a primary source of energy that is as inexpensive and reliable as oil and have that base installed, and until you learn the laws of thermodynamics, you can't build a hydrogen car. Sorry. Well, you can, but you will actually increase energy use.

Primary point: We are rapidly running out of easily recoverable oil, and given by how much I farking paid for gas a bit ago, it isn't farking cheap either. I'd have to do the calculations myself to find out if it is a net energy loss or not, or if you have good data, I'll take a look at it. But energy we have. We have plenty of coal, and we could have massive amounts of solar power in a few short years. Even with coal plants, the pollution from a few more of them is less, and more easily contained and cleaned than however many billion cars are running all over the roads spitting out half-burned hydrocarbons.

Gat_00

When I'm stressed, I tend to reference the Cleveland administration.

sucking stimulates more than blowing

GAT_00: We have plenty of coal, and we could have massive amounts of solar power in a few short years. Even with coal plants, the pollution from a few more of them is less, and more easily contained and cleaned than however many billion cars are running all over the roads spitting out half-burned hydrocarbons.

Why build coal plants? We could build fast-neutron reactors, on the IFR model. Safe, never needs refueling, no long-term (couple hundred years) waste. Proliferation proof, although that's why Bill and Al cancelled it, because they don't get it.

And yes, the second law of thermodynamics says that you will lose energy. Delta-S is greater than or equal to zero. Except zero never happens.

So spur the economy by building a shiatload of new powerplants that never need refueling. Build a lot--a surplus. Moderate some with lead (then they can be run hot enough to thermally dissociate water into H2 and O2). Subsidies to energy companies? Sure. As long as they do this. Then you can have electric cars and electric trains and hydrogen for combustion or fuel cells, and heat homes with electric instead of coal and oil, undamn the rivers and desalinate water for LA with the waste heat after the turbines. Stop strip mininng Kentucky. Stop the acid rain. Cut carbon emission by at least half. And fuel for tens of thousands of years.

Fluff Girl: DarthBrooks:
People are stupid and need to have their precious money taken away from them, so that smart government people OPEC, oil companies, and Halliburton can spend it more properly.

FTFY

/FI again.

/sorry, pet peeve.

Where the "POLLS CLOSED!" thread?

I forgot the word is.
/DAMN YOU DYSGRAPHIA!

DarthBrooks: I have to go with Obama on this: we just need a whole lot *more* government to solve all this.

People are stupid and need to have their precious money taken away from them, so that smart government people can spend it more properly.

Yep, Cletus really knows how to spend that money. Give it to him!!!

Bush weighs new measures to help stimulate economy

It's about time you guys went metric

ndotseth: Consumer spending is 2/3 of our economy, subby.
Nice try, Democrat.

Iraq war spending has effects on consumers, domestic spending

GAT_00: ndotseth: Consumer spending is 2/3 of our economy, subby.
Nice try, Democrat.

Can't expect the economy to run well when you remove 1/3 of it. Nice try Repub troll. I do wonder where you got those numbers though.

Same place where most Republicans get their numbers. Hint: Poop comes out there.

I'll stick with the greenbacks, this is finally going to be their year!

DarthBrooks: I have to go with Obama on this: we just need a whole lot *more* government to solve all this.

People are stupid and need to have their precious money taken away from them, so that smart government people can spend it more properly.

If you want more government, vote Republican.

HEY, here's an economy-stimulating idea!

George W kills himself, and every American goes out to buy a bottle of champagne!

Huh?
Eh?
Wha?

Even if they ended the war that money would still not go to something useful. They would find another way to waste it.

GAT_00: I'd have to do the calculations myself to find out if it is a net energy loss or not, or if you have good data, I'll take a look at it.

Simple calculation. Start| 2X (H2O) -> 2X (H2) + O2 : -> is energy in
Burn| 2X(H2) + 02 -> 2X (H2O) : -> is energy out

So with a perfect system energy there in no energy creation. We don't have a perfect system so there is a net energy loss. Hydrogen is not a power source. Not much research nessecary

subby: Bush weighs new measures to help stimulate economy.

He's resigning?

Mentat: He's resigning?

No, PAYDAY ADVANCES for ALL!!!

/Then you have to hear
Presidet Cheney//
///Slashies even shutter to think about that

ExJerseyGirl: GAT_00:

Aww, don't ruin the fun, Populist.

Speak for yourself, Libertarian

Bite me, Know-Nothing. (new window)

(Nothing personal - you're on my favorites list)

Hey, that party name is PERFECT for a lot of farkers...and as a bonus, a lot of them have the same ideology.