Proof public opinion is horse shit because Americans are idiots Options

[Dogmeat]

http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/Poll:_To_...2/08/71291.html

WASHINGTON -- The heck with Congress' big stimulus bill. The way to get the country out of recession - and most people think we're in one - is to get the country out of Iraq, according to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll.


Pulling out of the war ranked first among proposed remedies in the survey, followed by spending more on domestic programs, cutting taxes and, at the bottom end, giving rebates to poor people in hopes they'll spend the economy into recovery.


The $168 billion economic rescue package Congress rushed to approval this week includes rebates of $600 to $1,200 for most taxpayers, the hope being that they will spend the money and help revive ailing businesses. President Bush is expected to sign the measure next week. Poor wage-earners, as well as seniors and veterans who live almost entirely off Social Security and disability benefits, would get $300 checks.


However, just 19 percent of the people surveyed said they planned to go out and spend the money; 45 percent said they'd use it to pay bills. And nearly half said what the government really should do is get out of Iraq.


Forty-eight percent said a pullout would help fix the country's economic problems "a great deal," and an additional 20 percent said it would help at least somewhat. Some 43 percent said increasing government spending on health care, education and housing programs would help a great deal; 36 percent said cutting taxes.


"Let's stop paying for this war," said Hilda Sanchez, 44, of Waterford, Calif. "There are a lot of people who are struggling. We can use the money to pay for medical care and help people who were put out of their homes."


The subject of leaving Iraq shows a sharp partisan divide - 65 percent of Democrats think it would help the economy a lot, but only 18 percent of Republicans think so.


Just 29 percent of people think putting more money in the hands of the poor would help a great deal in fixing the country's economic problems.


According to many economists, the lower people are on the income ladder, the more probable it is that they will spend a rebate and do it quickly - a shot in the arm for the ailing economy.


In the poll, 61 percent said they think the economy is already in a recession.


"Things are bad, but it will get a lot worse," said Jim Sims, 60, of Greer, S.C.


And Nanette Dahlin, 52, of St. Louis Park, Minn., said the economic stimulus package "would only make a recession less damaging."


The economy nearly stalled in the final three months of last year. Some economists, like the majority of poll respondents, say it may actually be shrinking now, given the strains from a persistent housing slump and a painful credit crunch. The worry is that people and businesses will hunker down further and pull back their spending, sending the economy into a tailspin.


Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has gotten more forceful in cutting interest rates to spur people to buy more and to energize businesses. And now Republicans, Democrats and the White House have shown rare cooperation in approving relief.


Rebate checks could start showing up in mailboxes in May. However, Sanchez is typical is saying the money will "go automatically to bills." Thirty-two percent said they would save or invest the rebate. Said Sims: "I'm hoping to hold onto it."


Just 19 percent - like Dahlin - said they would spend it, while 4 percent said they would donate it to charity.


Paying off bills or saving the money won't give the economy a quick boost, though it may well be a wise financial decision for many people who are up to their eyeballs in bills.


"What is good for the economy as a whole - spending a rebate - is not the best idea at an individual household level if you are buried in debt," said Greg McBride, senior financial analyst at Bankrate.com. "Issuing rebate checks to give a boost to consumer spending amounts to a Band-Aid over the much bigger problem of consumer debt burdens," he said.


With Wall Street in turmoil, the top economic worry for poll respondents was seeing their nest eggs shrink. Fifty-nine percent said they were worried "a lot" or "some" about seeing the value of stocks and retirement investments drop. Those approaching retirement fretted the most.


Nearly half - 46 percent - said they were worried about being able to pay their bills. This is especially a concern for people whose household incomes are under $50,000, and for minorities. Twenty-eight percent most feared losing their jobs; minorities and those with a high school education or less were especially concerned.


Also, 48 percent of homeowners polled worried that the value of their homes would drop. The housing bust has led to record-high foreclosures, and weaker home values have made people feel less wealthy.


Who deserves most of the blame for the economy's troubles?


More than half - 56 percent - pointed the finger at mortgage lenders. Forty-four percent said Bush deserves a lot of the blame. After that come Congress, Wall Street, consumers themselves and in last place the Federal Reserve.


The Fed has the public's confidence that it will be able to right the economy.


More than half - 55 percent - said they have a great deal or some confidence in Fed to turn things around. Forty-one percent said that about Congress, only 28 percent about Bush.


In fact, economic problems have contributed to pulling the president's approval ratings to all-time lows. Only 29 percent approve of his handling of the economy, the lowest mark yet in this polling. Bush's overall job-approval rating slid to 30 percent, also a record low.


The AP-Ipsos poll was conducted Monday through Wednesday this week and involved telephone interviews with 1,006 adults. It had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.

Pulling out of Iraq would have absolutley devastating long-term effects on our economy. It'd effectivley be handing a terrorist network a phenomenally oil-rich country. The people supporting the same Iraq pullout are the same fuckheads who are too god damned stupid to realize "our way of life" , aka our economy, depends %100 on oil.

What gets me is this poll also stated "more spending on domestic programs" will fix the economy, but they wanna cut taxes.

We already did the tax cut then spend more thing once, and apparently that didn't work. I'm not voting for raising taxes whatsoever, but why not ***CUT*** the spending down by %30. That might help.

[Testm0nkey]

maybe the dangerous situation is "100%" of our economy and way of life being dependent on foreign oil and not pulling out of iraq

[Dogmeat]

maybe the dangerous situation is "100%" of our economy and way of life being dependent on foreign oil and not pulling out of iraq

Well, we gotta get the shit from somehwere, don't we?

[Oasis]

since when was Iraq controlled by a "terrorist network"? It wasn't when we invaded five years ago, it isnt now, and it won't be if we pull out. You're a goddamned idiot

[Mommy]

umm... are you stupid? Why do you think there is so much fighting going on there right now? Because of a terrorist ring you fuck head

[blaarg]

http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/Poll:_To_...2/08/71291.html

We already did the tax cut then spend more thing once, and apparently that didn't work. I'm not voting for raising taxes whatsoever, but why not ***CUT*** the spending down by %30. That might help.

Now you're being contradictory. You say you need to cut spending but are lambasting efforts to cut spending overseas by ending the war (~1 trillion if I remember Ron Paul correctly).

As for oil, Iraq is producing/exporting less now than before the war....so they couldn't even get THAT right...

[Testm0nkey]

Well, we gotta get the shit from somehwere, don't we?

there are lots of places that have oil. MAYBE we should stop living in the stone age and progress and cut back our dependence on a resource that wont be around forever, caveman

[FORSAKENR320]

there are lots of places that have oil. MAYBE we should stop living in the stone age and progress and cut back our dependence on a resource that wont be around forever, caveman

AND I THINK A REGRESSION INTO THE STONE AGE IS EXACTLY WHAT WE NEED!!!

[Dogmeat]

Now you're being contradictory. You say you need to cut spending but are lambasting efforts to cut spending overseas by ending the war (~1 trillion if I remember Ron Paul correctly).

As for oil, Iraq is producing/exporting less now than before the war....so they couldn't even get THAT right...

Who were they exporting it to, China?

And yes, we need to cut domestic spending. So no, I'm not being contradictory.

there are lots of places that have oil. MAYBE we should stop living in the stone age and progress and cut back our dependence on a resource that wont be around forever, caveman

Ok well you're an environmental scientist or some shit so why don't you go ahead and invent this wonder technology that will let us all do that ...

[Testm0nkey]

while i would love to claim the billions of dollars its worth, its already been invented

[Mommy]

From what I understand, no alternative fuels are economical... and electric automobiles put quite a strain on power lines in places like california.

And I know that is a really dumb was of putting it all. I dont need any of you nerds coming in here and correcting me when Im just dumbing it down

[FORSAKENR320]

i would make billions if i could invent a device that allowed you to punch people in the face over the internet

[Psykopath]

...People with a vested interest in oil are always going to be negative towards even the idea of any sort of talk about alternative energy sources.

The End.

[Mommy]

I dont have any vested interest in oil

[Psykopath]

I dont have any vested interest in oil

Wasn't addressing you.

[Mommy]

Wasn't addressing you.

just thought i would respond since i was one of the ones saying we dont really have a viable alternative fuel source yet

[Hartmann]

...People with a vested interest in oil are always going to be negative towards even the idea of any sort of talk about alternative energy sources.

I find this to be an interesting comment. Two of the largest proponents of alternative fuels are oil companies, Chevron and Shell. Shell has worked tirelessly to create a hydrogen fuel cell car, which is almost done being road test in Washington D.C.

[Testm0nkey]

exxon was the one that created that awesome new green battery. SMART people with vested interests in oil know renewable sources are where they need to put their money and focus on. but the regular grunts who dont actually know anything will just be out of work and out of pentions

because in 50 yrs whats going to happen to an oil company where drilling is the only thing they do?

[Psykopath]

Let me elaborate more on my comment...I wasn't clear.

People, as in public average joes, who either are invested in from afar or do blue-collar work for oil companies seem to have a VERY negative view on any sort of alternative energy source.
I've spoken to many back when I was a student, had debates with them in class, etc...and that was strangely the resounding consensus.

just thought i would respond since i was one of the ones saying we dont really have a viable alternative fuel source yet

The sun rises and sets every day. Somewhere, the wind is blowing. Tides go in and tides go out.

If we develop these technologies with the fervor that was seen in the development of the combustion & oil based energy sources of the last century, maybe they will actually become as (or even more) viable.

This post has been edited by Psykopath: Feb 10 2008, 10:40 PM

[Hartmann]

exxon was the one that created that awesome new green battery. SMART people with vested interests in oil know renewable sources are where they need to put their money and focus on. but the regular grunts who dont actually know anything will just be out of work and out of pentions

because in 50 yrs whats going to happen to an oil company where drilling is the only thing they do?

Yep, I forgot about Exxon doing that. Chevron has developed some cool geothermal stuff that I think Iceland is in the process of testing.

Refineries will still be around in 50 years as we'll still need chemicals for everyday products, I just think the premium will be much higher.

[impala454]

Let me elaborate more on my comment...I wasn't clear.

People, as in public average joes, who either are invested in from afar or do blue-collar work for oil companies seem to have a VERY negative view on any sort of alternative energy source.
I've spoken to many back when I was a student, had debates with them in class, etc...and that was strangely the resounding consensus.

People have a negative view of it because the shit doesn't work yet, or costs 10x more than what we do now. People tend to have a negative view of something that costs them way more money but does the same thing. I was watching Discovery and saw a science episode on energy, that asian dude that shows up in all of those shows mentioned how we can currently make anti-matter, but it costs us so much, it'd be like the national debt to create a teaspoon of the stuff.

The sun rises and sets every day. Somewhere, the wind is blowing. Tides go in and tides go out.

If we develop these technologies with the fervor that was seen in the development of the combustion & oil based energy sources of the last century, maybe they will actually become as (or even more) viable.

I'm pretty sure everyone is aware of the sun and the wind and the tides . Fervor has little to do with it. You guys who keep suggesting "well just go to solar, wind, etc! duh!", it's not that simple. It takes time to develop this stuff. The answer from you guys always seems to be, "well if we'd just build a better _________ then we wouldn't have to depend on oil anymore!".. DUH! Well if they'd just work harder they'd come up with a cure for cancer too right?

I was watching "this old house" the other day and they went to the sweetwater wind farms to check em out, and they mentioned how there's something like 2,000 large wind generators in texas now, surpassing california as the biggest producer/user of wind power. Even at the best, they still said that they generate no more than 2% of texas' power/year. and we have the best wind power setup in the country.

[Psykopath]

People have a negative view of it because the shit doesn't work yet, or costs 10x more than what we do now. People tend to have a negative view of something that costs them way more money but does the same thing. I was watching Discovery and saw a science episode on energy, that asian dude that shows up in all of those shows mentioned how we can currently make anti-matter, but it costs us so much, it'd be like the national debt to create a teaspoon of the stuff.
I'm pretty sure everyone is aware of the sun and the wind and the tides . Fervor has little to do with it. You guys who keep suggesting "well just go to solar, wind, etc! duh!", it's not that simple. It takes time to develop this stuff. The answer from you guys always seems to be, "well if we'd just build a better _________ then we wouldn't have to depend on oil anymore!".. DUH! Well if they'd just work harder they'd come up with a cure for cancer too right?

I was watching "this old house" the other day and they went to the sweetwater wind farms to check em out, and they mentioned how there's something like 2,000 large wind generators in texas now, surpassing california as the biggest producer/user of wind power. Even at the best, they still said that they generate no more than 2% of texas' power/year. and we have the best wind power setup in the country.

So the solution to alternative energy sources is "Well, they cost too much right now...so fuck 'em." ...?

I'm not advocating a sudden switch to everything but fossil fuels.
I would just like to see a more concerted and dedicated effort to further develop alternate and renewable energy sources (and for fuck's sake, not ethanol).

[Mommy]

I don't want my fuel prices going up more than they already are. K thx

[blaarg]

I don't want my fuel prices going up more than they already are. K thx

gl with that in 30 years...

As for wind energy goes (and I am an advocate):

I agree with Impala, there is A LOT more than switch to A to get dependence off of oil. For Denmark (an advance country with drive/determination concerning environment/alternative energies) it has taken about 25 years to get substantial improvements. Let's say you switch to wind energy and are gung-ho about it. Output due to wind farms can vary substantially, so you have to have the infrastructure to manage the shifts (which is pretty complex if the end users wants to see no variation when they want to turn on/off the lightbulb). I mean sure it takes about 3 days to get a windmill up, but managing the output is the tricky part.
I think everyone (some can agree excluding oil industries) WANT alternative fuels, it's just that most don't realize the complexity of adapting the system and want immediate results.

Here in Denmark, wind energy is 20% and they want it to be closer to 40% by 2020, but that isn't the crux of their energy plan. The BIG priority is to have NO increase in energy consumption during the same years, which is pretty ambitious, but they are so far about 5 years going strong. That is what we should be shooting for first is getting our consumption down. I mean we have twice the consumption per person than Japan and Germany...

two other minor points:
alternative energy doesn't cost 10x times that of the normal production we are getting now (excluding solar). Most are only tens of percentage points more (like around 30-40% more per kWh, or something...)

contrary to popular belief, there is a STRONG effort in the US for alternative energy. We are behind only Germany and Spain concerning Wind Power output I know and are the #1 research country concerning alternative energy...

[Hartmann]

gl with that in 30 years...

As for wind energy goes (and I am an advocate):

I agree with Impala, there is A LOT more than switch to A to get dependence off of oil. For Denmark (an advance country with drive/determination concerning environment/alternative energies) it has taken about 25 years to get substantial improvements. Let's say you switch to wind energy and are gung-ho about it. Output due to wind farms can vary substantially, so you have to have the infrastructure to manage the shifts (which is pretty complex if the end users wants to see no variation when they want to turn on/off the lightbulb). I mean sure it takes about 3 days to get a windmill up, but managing the output is the tricky part.
I think everyone (some can agree excluding oil industries) WANT alternative fuels, it's just that most don't realize the complexity of adapting the system and want immediate results.

Here in Denmark, wind energy is 20% and they want it to be closer to 40% by 2020, but that isn't the crux of their energy plan. The BIG priority is to have NO increase in energy consumption during the same years, which is pretty ambitious, but they are so far about 5 years going strong. That is what we should be shooting for first is getting our consumption down. I mean we have twice the consumption per person than Japan and Germany...

two other minor points:
alternative energy doesn't cost 10x times that of the normal production we are getting now (excluding solar). Most are only tens of percentage points more (like around 30-40% more per kWh, or something...)

contrary to popular belief, there is a STRONG effort in the US for alternative energy. We are behind only Germany and Spain concerning Wind Power output I know and are the #1 research country concerning alternative energy...

Great post!

Denmark is a fantastic example of the cost of the switch.

I think Europe has it a little easier as far as not increasing consumption just because of the infrastructure. Your point about Japan is interesting as well, because again, it has to do with infrastructure, public transportation, and an overall weaning of the people's reliance.

Are you in Copenhagen?

[Spectatrix]

You guys who keep suggesting "well just go to solar, wind, etc! duh!", it's not that simple. It takes time to develop this stuff.

Since I'm the main one who has said this, I should clarify.

I know it's not as easy as just deciding "ok, we'll do solar" and everything is magically fixed. My main point was that some people (not on here, I mean politicians and the like) seem to concentrate on a single type of alternate energy source, which I don't think is going to be the answer. Alternative liquid fuels will play a part in our eventual energy infrastructure, but I think we're going to end up with a wide patchwork of renewable energy sources. Wind, where it's viable (admittedly, not many places). Solar, pretty much everywhere once the cost comes down. It may not be a primary power source in most places, but it'd be great for offsetting power usage and should be easy to stick on the roof of a house. I have this vision of most houses 25 years from now being built with solar panels for partial energy and rooftop rainwater collection for water supply. It's probably a pipe dream, but I'd like to build a house like that.

Anyway, my point is that I think the solution is multi-faceted, rather than ethanol or hydrogen or whatever being a "magic bullet" to solve all of our energy problems.

[impala454]

So the solution to alternative energy sources is "Well, they cost too much right now...so fuck 'em." ...?

I wasn't presenting that as a solution. I was merely saying that's how it is right now and that's why there hasn't been some massive switch yet.

I would just like to see a more concerted and dedicated effort to further develop alternate and renewable energy sources (and for fuck's sake, not ethanol).

What would you like to see? I don't get it man. This is exactly what I was talking about. "More effort, blah blah". Do you not think the top minds are already grinding away at this? Whoever comes up with the best energy alternatives will be rich beyond their wildest dreams. I assure you everyone (including the big oil companies) have their tachs pegged in tryin to get this deal figured out. Saying "well blah blah I'd like to see more effort towards curing cancer" doesn't get that done any quicker either. Even if you think it makes you feel "greener".

[impala454]

I have this vision of most houses 25 years from now being built with solar panels for partial energy and rooftop rainwater collection for water supply. It's probably a pipe dream, but I'd like to build a house like that.

I completely agree, and would also like to have stuff like that on my own house. But like you said, "25 years from now". It's just not something that will happen overnight.

[Mommy]

Eww... I wouldnt want rainwater to drink. I dont want to know what gets evaporated from our oceans and stuff. Yuck

[impala454]

Eww... I wouldnt want rainwater to drink. I dont want to know what gets evaporated from our oceans and stuff. Yuck

you probably don't want to find out what you really are drinking then

[blaarg]

Great post!

Denmark is a fantastic example of the cost of the switch.

I think Europe has it a little easier as far as not increasing consumption just because of the infrastructure. Your point about Japan is interesting as well, because again, it has to do with infrastructure, public transportation, and an overall weaning of the people's reliance.

Are you in Copenhagen?

Yeah I am in Copenhagen going to school over here at DTU. I'm taking an emerging energies seminar, so we talk about this stuff a lot...

[Spectatrix]

Eww... I wouldnt want rainwater to drink. I dont want to know what gets evaporated from our oceans and stuff. Yuck

What gets evaporated is pure water. It's when it comes back down that it picks up crap in the air.

My folks have a rainwater collection system at their house. Funnels off the roof through pipes into a big tank. Pretty sure it gets filtered somewhat on the way down to catch the big stuff. From the tank, it gets pumped through two big filters in the garage and a UV-radiation chamber to kill microbes. It's a bit more work to maintain on their end, but the water is fine.

[Hartmann]

Yeah I am in Copenhagen going to school over here at DTU. I'm taking an emerging energies seminar, so we talk about this stuff a lot...

Very cool. How long will you be over there? Is it grad school?

[blaarg]

Very cool. How long will you be over there? Is it grad school?

wrd.

[impala454]

What gets evaporated is pure water. It's when it comes back down that it picks up crap in the air.

My folks have a rainwater collection system at their house. Funnels off the roof through pipes into a big tank. Pretty sure it gets filtered somewhat on the way down to catch the big stuff. From the tank, it gets pumped through two big filters in the garage and a UV-radiation chamber to kill microbes. It's a bit more work to maintain on their end, but the water is fine.

I've seen a couple of DIY network shows lately that had people installing large rainwater tanks for use in watering their lawns as well.

[Spectatrix]

I've seen a couple of DIY network shows lately that had people installing large rainwater tanks for use in watering their lawns as well.

Yup, though obviously you don't need the filtration/radiation for that.

[Psykopath]

Those are called cisterns, yes?

I want my future house to have a cistern, solar panels, and wind vane. /end hippie.
=P

[Spectatrix]

Yeah, cisterns. We just call it the tank, though.