Manly honor indeed ...

... first, I'm not going to even get in to whether the New Deal was an economic failure - it was, history has begun to recognize that, I've gone to pain staking lengths to demonstrate the fiasco it was, the unemployment it did not solve, and how the tariffs prolonged it, and prior to his comment section below my post Jambo told me he agreed with that statement over the phone when we discussed it at length ... although I do notice a slight habit of his sounding more hostile towards the New Deal's economic impact over the phone with me then in this forum. Not an accusation but merely a subjective observation.

Titus, for the love of all that is holy, I GAVE SPECIFIC reasons as to why I objected to Jambo's federal energy plan, gave my own version of governments proper role concerning it, and offered sarcasm only lastly, as a finishing satiric book end to that discussion, as is a trade mark here that YOU DAMN NEAR INVENTED! The pot calling the kettle black doesn't begin to describe this. NOW, since you obviously MISSED IT, here is what came before my satire, dated 11 February 4:07pm:


I must act ...

. . . less my support for this become an urban legend. And you should know I'm risking scorn from my better half by typing on our site at this very moment, with all the "honey do's" needing my attention around here.

In brief I feel that a federal energy plan as Jambo described it would be a disaster, and just because I was sympathetic to the federally backed multi peril insurance does not, in my opinion, lend itself to a slippery slope, and here is why:

The multi peril has 3 aspects: 1.) its need was created by nature. A natural disaster so vast that private business no longer wants any part in protecting the citizens that dwell there. As I stated on the phone, there is just no private market there whatsoever. 2.) in this respect the federal government happens to have a decent federal track record in terms of the flood insurance program. In other words a workable model currently exists. 3.) In this day and age the federal dollar will be on the hook of "bailing out" the next Katrina style victims, no matter what. It was my belief that at least it is more equitable for the tax payer (especially those not dwelling in the paths of hurricanes) to collect a premium in the years intervening.

Now, the energy plan as Jambo presents it has the complete opposite scenario. The energy problem (read: lack of domestic supply) for the US is man made. To be more precise it is government made - the red tape; the stifling environmental requirements to get a nuke plants, gas, clean coal, new refineries, etc online; locking up both land off shore reserves, and on and on - I mean we could go on for days with how government discourages domestic energy recovery of all forms. Hell, some environmental groups objected to the power lines hooked to wind mills because the actual cord disrupted the local ecology, and the governments track record (especially this government trends towards bowing at these extremists altar). A perfect example of this is the 5 billion dollar Nevada Power clean coal fired plant that was about to be constructed. I say "about" because 48 hours ago the CEO of NV Power announced the plant had been scratched, and for an astounding reason. Harry Reid (our senior senator and a flaming lib) contacted them and explained that they might as well not bother, because the global warming legislation soon to be introduced by this new congress would render the plant not profitable anyway. The exec simply stated that he couldn't trust congress to allow them to operate, period (how many jobs did that kill by the way?).

The point being that when the government attempts to fix a "crisis" that it caused it almost ALWAYS makes it worse (see bail outs via Freddie and Fannie, which got this recession rolling). I have zero faith in our federal governments ability to initiate such an ambitious plan, make it work, and make it profitable. In addition, unlike the multi peril insurance there IS a robust energy market in the private sector, ready, willing and able. And if absolute fools like Harry Reid would just get out of the way, they could put America on the road to energy independence. We scoffed at the idea of Pelosi or Obama, or even candidate MCain as a defacto "landlord" for all these toxic mortgages they wanted the feds to buy up. I am even more frightened at the prospect of some bureaucratic energy Czar sending me my power bill, and being responsible for the light in my home running smoothly.

All do respect Jambo, this is apples and Cadillacs. The insurance is a very narrow, very specific, federal responsibility, and very limited in population and region. That does NOT describe the energy scenario you laid out, and I'm just not willing to oblige the feds to take on any more projects that fall outside of that description - narrow, specific and limited.

What the government could do is be a "working Jr partner" with the private energy sector, and in a way McCain advocated (sort of), work to reduce red tape, requirements, and the multi tiered government obstacles that lay between me and my own nation's domestic energy potential.


And from 11 February 5:06pm Eastern Time:


Absolute nonsense ...

You are driving right past my point. The federal government has no business foraging into the energy sector in that form, hydrogen or otherwise. The nuclear and coal examples I used were to demonstrate the inherent obstructionist role our government has played regarding domestic energy recovery, thus highlighting my resistance to they being anything but that with hydrogen.

In addition Hoover Dam, etc, in comparison are very small scale compared to what you are suggesting. The point here, with all this money being spent, IS NOT to argue over WHERE, WHEN AND HOW the government spends this money, it is to fight over it being spent at all! I mean does the Hoover Dam justify the economic failure of the New Deal as a whole? Hardly. I am not conceding the argument to them that bigger government is inevitable, less we fall into the McCain mistake of being a "them lite." If the trend towards big government is the way the pendulum is swinging, fine, but I'll resign myself to fighting that trend, rather then squabble over what shape big government takes. The point is to have the federal government create the environment for the private sector to most efficiently do this, NOT do the hands on work themselves. That's the feds proper role here, the government leading by getting out of the way, not a federally employed worker picking up a hammer.

You guys voted for Clinton, supported him. Was it not he in his first SoTU who declared emphatically, "THE ERA OF BIG GOVERNMENT IS OVER."

On paper or in theory you can make almost anything work, like your federal hydrogen plan. What I am commenting on is the reality of accepting this responsibility as that of the federal government's (THIS federal government in particular). You can make it work on paper (electronic or otherwise) all day long. In practice I'm confident it would be a disaster.

And tariffs during a recession? Didn't we try that already? How did that work out?

But all you responded to was the sarcasm post.

Let me tell you something Titus - you speak of my opposition to the New Deal as some sort of non factual, irrational, emotional, conservative knee-jerk cliched response DESPITE the fact I have spent countless hours and posts going into finite detail, numbers, recitations of historians, economists and the like. I've done the equivalent of 3 source cited, backed up, research papers on this topic yet you attempt to sum it up as if I simply state the phrase, "liberal tripe" and am done with the issue (a phrase I happen not to employ I might add). And the only reason I can come up with, that fits this pattern of your insanity of misrepresenting the detail of my arguments is that your "groupie fainting", idolic worship, avowed loyalty, blood oath to defend, protect, and promote ALL THINGS FDR has biased your eyes into seeing only what you want, in keeping with that irrational, emotional, orgasmic pledge to worship at the alter of New Deal. There is your liberal tripe - I figure since I'm going to be accused of employing the phrase as my only response I might as well start using it.

****
Badboy wrote ... We have all posted here and alot of times we have to agree to disagree but Jambo has proven beyond a doubt that he is not just a bunch of self promoting hot air but a bonafied legitimate card carrying member of the the United States and I applaud him.

I didn't realize that a natural born citizen had to prove his "legitimate card carrying membership" bonafides. But perhaps they've amended the Constitution you've sworn to protect, and I'm just not aware. And if you'd like to eliminate all of the Bund's (or my) so-called "hot air", then some of the most amusing posts might as well be deleted right now. But beyond that I'm not sure exactly why you two are taking the one sarcastic post I wrote regarding this issue so personally on behalf of Jambo. Especially given the fact that he hasn't taken it personally AT ALL, and I'm sure even enjoyed a laugh over my description of Titus's wagging tounge. And given he is the one I keep in contact most frequently these days (via text, read: HE TEXTS BACK) I can assure you there is no ill will. We HAVE simply agreed to disagree, and without even having to say so! But by all means Titus and Badboy, attempt to intervene on behalf of his personal honor. Gallup in on a white horse and challenge me to a duel at 20 paces ... but I assure you, it is not necessary.