obama or mccain?

[ganeil]

Originally Posted by unagi1

My point is that Truman went beyond acts and actually made accomplishments:
1) Ending WWII
2) United Nations / Establishment of Israel
3) Reconversion from war to peaceful economy
4) Strong military responses to N. Korea, China, Soviet Union (e.g., Korean War, Taiwan intervention, Berlin airlift)

My point is we will not know what Bush's acts will have accomplished until they play out.

The establishment of a western oriented, representative government in the middle of the Arab world would be an accomplishment comparable to that of Israel.

The economy that Truman presided over was much more turbulent that anything we are experiencing now - Strikes in key industries nearly crippled the economy, inflation at one point was running at 6% a month.

Strong military responses to Islamism may be just as vital to 21st century security as Truman's response to communism were to the last half of the 20th.

Our budget deficit is at $9 trillion, with potentially another $5 trillion to add on if taxpayers have to bail out both Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae. How is this not outside historical norms?? It is directly affecting the weakening of the dollar and the high prices of all commodities.

1) Inflation made it's highest monthly jump in 26 years.
2) Dollar is at all-time low vs Euro
3) Adjusted for CPI, Dow is at 1982 levels.
4) Housing market is in shambles and not due to recover until at least 2009
5) Commodities at all-time highs

Did you live through the Great Depression?

Our budget deficit is nowhere near $9 trillion. That is our overall national debt and it must be looked at in terms of the GDP. Historically, it is not outside the norms at all.

I did not live through Great depression but I have lived through much worse than what is occurring today. Inflation steady at 10%+, unemployment 10%+, mortgage rates in the teens, $800/oz gold, gas lines...

We experienced a housing bubble. We now have to deal with the consequences of that bubble bursting. Unfortunately the Fed has selected a method of dealing with this that has pumped liquidity into the economy and stoked inflation at the same time oil supplies are being pushed up.

We are in for a rough patch but unless we do some really stupid things like raise taxes or impose protectionist measures (are you listening Sen Obama) we will weather this quickly.

This is completely wrong. Due to foreign policy, we've alienated our most vocal proponent (UK) as well as France, Spain, Russia. We won't even get into the Middle East.

You are talking about a public opinion poll. I am talking about election results. Do you deny that Sarkozy, Merkel, Berlusconi, Lee, Maliki, and Karzai are more pro-US then their predecessors?

Maybe you were too busy watching the reruns of the President speaking to notice that Ben Bernanke testified before Congress, indicating that the US faces significant growth risks. Also, it might have helped that OPEC lowered their oil-demand forecast on the same day. The drop in oil was also attributed to longs taking profits.

Today's drop is due to higher EIA inventories than expected. Supply and demand. Not politics.

I heard Bernake and I accept his statement that we face risks. That does not negate the appeal of allowing increased exploration and drilling.

The future matters and since you accept that the price of oil is subject to variances of supply and demand, isn't a future prospect of increased supply a consideration?

[dr335is]

Originally Posted by ganeil

By point is we will not know what Bush's acts will have accomplished until they play out.

The establishment of a western oriented, representative government in the middle of the Arab world would be an accomplishment comparable to that of Israel.

The economy that Truman presided over was much more turbulent that anything we are experiencing now - Strikes in key industries nearly crippled the economy, inflation at one point was running at 6% a month.

Strong military responses to Islamism may be just as vital to 21st century security as Truman's response to communism were to the last half of the 20th.



Our budget deficit is nowhere near $9 trillion. That is our overall national debt and it must be looked at in terms of the GDP. Historically, it is not outside the norms at all.

I did not live through Great depression but I have lived through much worse than what is occurring today. Inflation steady at 10%+, unemployment 10%+, mortgage rates in the teens, $800/oz gold, gas lines...

We experienced a housing bubble. We now have to deal with the consequences of that bubble bursting. Unfortunately the Fed has selected a method of dealing with this that has pumped liquidity into the economy and stoked inflation at the same time oil supplies are being pushed up.

We are in for a rough patch but unless we do some really stupid things like raise taxes or impose protectionist measures (are you listening Sen Obama) we will weather this quickly.



You are talking about a public opinion poll. I am talking about election results. Do you deny that Sarkozy, Merkel, Berlusconi, Lee, Maliki, and Karzai are more pro-US then their predecessors?



I heard Bernake and I accept his statement that we face risks. That does not negate the appeal of allowing increased exploration and drilling.

The future matters and since you accept that the price of oil is subject to variances of supply and demand, isn't a future prospect of increased supply a consideration?

Majority of statements above are personal opinions...like the leader's of European nations to be pro-US...

However, here are some easily verifyable facts:
Ganeil Claims that our debt is not outside of the norms...

In 2000, our overall debt was $5.3T, our GDP was $10T (roughly 53% of GDP).
In 2007, our overall debt is $9T, our GDP was $13.8T (that is 65% of GDP).

12% degradation is HUGE in 8 years...

In the UK, that ratio is 43%

Last year's loss (deficit) was $1.3T -- http://www.usatoday.com/printedition...lede29.art.htm
How's that even possible with the great economy we have...
Can you imagine a CEO of a company goes from profitable to disaster like that???

Here is a little graph...why is it so predictable???

[unagi1]

Originally Posted by ganeil

My point is we will not know what Bush's acts will have accomplished until they play out.

The establishment of a western oriented, representative government in the middle of the Arab world would be an accomplishment comparable to that of Israel.

The economy that Truman presided over was much more turbulent that anything we are experiencing now - Strikes in key industries nearly crippled the economy, inflation at one point was running at 6% a month.

Strong military responses to Islamism may be just as vital to 21st century security as Truman's response to communism were to the last half of the 20th.

When Truman left office, my items 1-4 were already played out and in the history book. Bush has...let's see...about 6 months to get anything meaningful accomplished. Not likely to happen.

Originally Posted by ganeil

Our budget deficit is nowhere near $9 trillion. That is our overall national debt and it must be looked at in terms of the GDP. Historically, it is not outside the norms at all.

I did not live through Great depression but I have lived through much worse than what is occurring today. Inflation steady at 10%+, unemployment 10%+, mortgage rates in the teens, $800/oz gold, gas lines...

We experienced a housing bubble. We now have to deal with the consequences of that bubble bursting. Unfortunately the Fed has selected a method of dealing with this that has pumped liquidity into the economy and stoked inflation at the same time oil supplies are being pushed up.

We are in for a rough patch but unless we do some really stupid things like raise taxes or impose protectionist measures (are you listening Sen Obama) we will weather this quickly.

Numbers/semantics notwithstanding, I think dr325i proved the point quite dramatically that it's headed in the *wrong* direction.

What happened with regards to housing was not a bubble. It was the massive write-down of bad debt related to mortgage-backed securities. This caused many banks to lose much of their working capital, and in the end companies such as Bear Stearns and Indy Mac did not make it. The Fed absolutely had to step in and ease lending to bolster liquidity. The alternative was a series of bank runs such as happened in the Great Depression. As the rest of the world's economy is even more tied in to ours than it was over 80 years ago, this was the correct decision to make.

Also at the same time, the injection of liquidity weakened our dollar. If we didn't have such a large debt on our hands, we would not have been this badly affected. Currently we are paying out over $400b in interest every year to countries that have bought our debt instruments.

Originally Posted by ganeil

You are talking about a public opinion poll. I am talking about election results. Do you deny that Sarkozy, Merkel, Berlusconi, Lee, Maliki, and Karzai are more pro-US then their predecessors?

You are skewing my original statement to your own ends. I stated that our standing in the world took a hit. I measure such a standing with public opinion polls, and provided a link to one. If you traveled outside the US at all and talked to people as I have, it would not have been necessary to explain this. I think I've proven that public opinion of the US in other countries has declined significantly throughout the Bush administration.

Originally Posted by ganeil

I heard Bernake and I accept his statement that we face risks. That does not negate the appeal of allowing increased exploration and drilling.

The future matters and since you accept that the price of oil is subject to variances of supply and demand, isn't a future prospect of increased supply a consideration?

The optimists say that in 10 years, we can add $2m b/d from these offshore locations. That's the best case scenario. The last time those areas were surveyed was a couple decades ago and with old technology. At that point, you are basically wildcatting, so you will still have to find people to invest the funds to see if the oil is there. That's why there haven't been any new sites, it's much easier to expand on what is currently available.

However, you are still delaying the inevitable on a finite resource and making no progress. What needs to happen is the development of alternative resources. Wind, biofuels, electric -- all of these are more viable now than they were in the '70s and need to be developed.

[unagi1]

Originally Posted by dr325i

Majority of statements above are personal opinions...like the leader's of European nations to be pro-US...

However, here are some easily verifyable facts:
Ganeil Claims that our debt is not outside of the norms...

In 2000, our overall debt was $5.3T, our GDP was $10T (roughly 53% of GDP).
In 2007, our overall debt is $9T, our GDP was $13.8T (that is 65% of GDP).

12% degradation is HUGE in 8 years...

In the UK, that ratio is 43%

Last year's loss (deficit) was $1.3T -- http://www.usatoday.com/printedition...lede29.art.htm
How's that even possible with the great economy we have...
Can you imagine a CEO of a company goes from profitable to disaster like that???

Here is a little graph...why is it so predictable???

Good info

[ganeil]

Originally Posted by unagi1

When Truman left office, my items 1-4 were already played out and in the history book. Bush has...let's see...about 6 months to get anything meaningful accomplished. Not likely to happen.

The items you mentioned had occurred, they had not played out. In 1953 no one knew if Israel would survive a decade, if the UN would be a bigger failure than it has been (a la League of Nations), or what the result of the military response to north Korean aggression would be. By the same token, I could say there are western oriented, representative governments in Iraq and Afghanistan and we have responded forcefully to Islamist aggression so Bush has accomplished something meaningful. It all depends on how these events play out over a period of time.

Numbers/semantics notwithstanding, I think dr325i proved the point quite dramatically that it's headed in the *wrong* direction.

Numbers notwithstanding? I thought were talking about numbers?

As usual dr325i has proved nothing because he only provides two data points. (I also do not know where he got his numbers.) The debt to GDP percentage in 1950 (under Truman) was 80.2%, in 1970 - 28%, 1990 - 42%, 2007 - 37%. Source

You are skewing my original statement to your own ends. I stated that our standing in the world took a hit. I measure such a standing with public opinion polls, and provided a link to one. If you traveled outside the US at all and talked to people as I have, it would not have been necessary to explain this. I think I've proven that public opinion of the US in other countries has declined significantly throughout the Bush administration.

Public opinion polls matter more than election results? I understand that foreign elections do not often hinge on a nation's relations to the US but the decision a voter makes in the voting booth is much more consequential and hopefully more thoughtful than an answer to a pollster.

FWIW, I spent the majority of the past year outside the US. I was mostly in Iraq but also in Turkey, Pakistan, Bahrain, Kuwait, Germany, France, Italy, and the UK.

The optimists say that in 10 years, we can add $2m b/d from these offshore locations. That's the best case scenario. The last time those areas were surveyed was a couple decades ago and with old technology. At that point, you are basically wildcatting, so you will still have to find people to invest the funds to see if the oil is there. That's why there haven't been any new sites, it's much easier to expand on what is currently available.

However, you are still delaying the inevitable on a finite resource and making no progress. What needs to happen is the development of alternative resources. Wind, biofuels, electric -- all of these are more viable now than they were in the '70s and need to be developed.

I have seen median estimates that put ANWR alone at 1.4mbd so...

What harm is done from allowing exploration and drilling while those possible alternatives are developed? Why is this an either/or proposition? Oil is the preferred choice today because it is the most efficient store of energy currently available. Artificially limiting the supply so that alternatives look more attractive is nonsensical. Drill for and use what we can get now, work on alternatives, and if those alternatives succeed better than oil - great, if not we need to continually improve our oil recovery capabilities including shale because if there is the amount of oil in shale that is estimated the alternatives may not be needed for a long, long time.

[dr335is]

Originally Posted by ganeil

As usual dr325i has proved nothing because he only provides two data points. (I also do not know where he got his numbers.) The debt to GDP percentage in 1950 (under Truman) was 80.2%, in 1970 - 28%, 1990 - 42%, 2007 - 37%. Source



.

There ARE two numbers here -- GDP and Debt.
Don't try to sound smart because you really sound uneducated and funny...

EDIT: According to your number of 37 % (for 2007) with the debt of $9T (at least), it would mean that our GDP is $24.3T which is not even closely true...
Stop believing in your "sources"...

[unagi1]

Originally Posted by ganeil

The items you mentioned had occurred, they had not played out. In 1953 no one knew if Israel would survive a decade, if the UN would be a bigger failure than it has been (a la League of Nations), or what the result of the military response to north Korean aggression would be. By the same token, I could say there are western oriented, representative governments in Iraq and Afghanistan and we have responded forcefully to Islamist aggression so Bush has accomplished something meaningful. It all depends on how these events play out over a period of time.

Well, I guess it depends on how you define success. The UN / Israel was established and North Korea was beaten back to the 38th parallel. Whereas the establishment of western oriented, representative governments in Iraq and Afghanistan is not yet complete and their future highly dubious. To cross over to your statement regarding pro-US elected governments, you cannot count either Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, or South Korea as they have or continue to receive massive aid in an economic or military fashion.

Originally Posted by ganeil

Numbers notwithstanding? I thought were talking about numbers?

As usual dr325i has proved nothing because he only provides two data points. (I also do not know where he got his numbers.) The debt to GDP percentage in 1950 (under Truman) was 80.2%, in 1970 - 28%, 1990 - 42%, 2007 - 37%. Source

So I used the word 'deficit' instead of 'national debt'. Grill me about it

As our GDP declines and our debt goes up, obviously the percentage will increase. That's generally a bad thing.

I would be careful about comparing apples to oranges, this country cannot sustain such a high percentage as before. In 1950 the dollar was backed with real assets, and was the de facto currency standard. Nowadays sterling and euro are stronger, and quickly becoming the preferred currency.
The last thing we want is for other countries to release their dollars into the global market because they don't think it's "good" enough anymore.

I think both McCain and Obama realize the urgency and will make debt reconciliation key parts of their strategy.

Originally Posted by ganeil

Public opinion polls matter more than election results? I understand that foreign elections do not often hinge on a nation's relations to the US but the decision a voter makes in the voting booth is much more consequential and hopefully more thoughtful than an answer to a pollster.

FWIW, I spent the majority of the past year outside the US. I was mostly in Iraq but also in Turkey, Pakistan, Bahrain, Kuwait, Germany, France, Italy, and the UK.

You understand that foreign elections don't often hinge on a nation's relation to the US. Ok, that's good.

Let me ask you this: if the elected official is at odds with the opinions of those who elected for them, are they really doing the job they were elected to do? This is the very reason that UK, Spain, France drew down from the war in Iraq. Aside to the usual protests in the street, the elected officials were spending too much political capital on an unpopular war. That is why Bush's trip to Europe a couple weeks back was so pleasant compared to previous ones where tensions were high.

Originally Posted by ganeil

I have seen median estimates that put ANWR alone at 1.4mbd so...

What harm is done from allowing exploration and drilling while those possible alternatives are developed? Why is this an either/or proposition? Oil is the preferred choice today because it is the most efficient store of energy currently available. Artificially limiting the supply so that alternatives look more attractive is nonsensical. Drill for and use what we can get now, work on alternatives, and if those alternatives succeed better than oil - great, if not we need to continually improve our oil recovery capabilities including shale because if there is the amount of oil in shale that is estimated the alternatives may not be needed for a long, long time.

If I were to go along with the idea of offshore drilling, let me tell you it wouldn't be on federally protected land. That's like burning the furniture to keep the house warm. Gulf of Mexico, ok, maybe. And then, we'd better be prepared to eat the cost of tearing the platform down right, clean ocean style. I basically agree with most of what you are saying except for that one point.

Corn's expensive right now, but switchgrass might make a viable alternative...

[ganeil]

Originally Posted by unagi1

Well, I guess it depends on how you define success. The UN / Israel was established and North Korea was beaten back to the 38th parallel. Whereas the establishment of western oriented, representative governments in Iraq and Afghanistan is not yet complete and their future highly dubious. To cross over to your statement regarding pro-US elected governments, you cannot count either Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, or South Korea as they have or continue to receive massive aid in an economic or military fashion.

Of course it depends on how you define success. Success to most Americans in 1953 was not a stalemate at the 38th parallel but we came to accept that over time. In Iraq, we have been successful in accomplishing the tasks we set out to in 2003. I was at a level in the Army in 2003 where my unit received the guidance from the national command authority and it was:

Free Iraq in order to:
- Prevent Iraq from becoming a greater threat to the region and US interests by eliminating their WMD capability, programs, and means of delivery.
- End Iraqi threats to its neighbors.
- Stop the Iraqi governments tyranny of its own people.
- Cut Iraqi links to and sponsorship of international terrorism.
- Maintain Iraq's territorial integrity; and
- Assist the Iraqi people in creating a society based on moderation, pluralism, and democracy.

As our GDP declines and our debt goes up, obviously the percentage will increase. That's generally a bad thing.

I would be careful about comparing apples to oranges, this country cannot sustain such a high percentage as before. In 1950 the dollar was backed with real assets, and was the de facto currency standard. Nowadays sterling and euro are stronger, and quickly becoming the preferred currency.
The last thing we want is for other countries to release their dollars into the global market because they don't think it's "good" enough anymore.

I think both McCain and Obama realize the urgency and will make debt reconciliation key parts of their strategy.

Recessions happen. We are not yet in one but I would not be surprised if we showed zero or negative growth this quarter but it would not be the end of the world.

The fact of the matter is that we are fortunate that a significant percentage of the population has never experienced a significant recessionary period. The last severe recession in the US was in 1981-1982. The downside to this is many people tend to exaggerate the severity of the slowdowns we have experienced because they lack a reference point of a real recession.

I am all for lowering our deficit if it is done in a smart way. Economic growth is the key to debt reduction along with entitlement reform.

You understand that foreign elections don't often hinge on a nation's relation to the US. Ok, that's good.

Let me ask you this: if the elected official is at odds with the opinions of those who elected for them, are they really doing the job they were elected to do? This is the very reason that UK, Spain, France drew down from the war in Iraq. Aside to the usual protests in the street, the elected officials were spending too much political capital on an unpopular war. That is why Bush's trip to Europe a couple weeks back was so pleasant compared to previous ones where tensions were high.

People often tell pollsters what they think they should. Being against the US is the thing to be in many places around the world. All I am saying is that when the people of France, Italy, Germany, South Korea, etc... were faced with a meaningful choice between a candidate who favored improved relations with the US and one who was often hostile to the US, they chose the former. That in my opinion is much more significant than any opinion poll. I would also argue that the latest trip was more pleasant because most European leaders now are more pro-US than before. The fact that we are winning in Iraq helped as well.

If I were to go along with the idea of offshore drilling, let me tell you it wouldn't be on federally protected land. That's like burning the furniture to keep the house warm. Gulf of Mexico, ok, maybe. And then, we'd better be prepared to eat the cost of tearing the platform down right, clean ocean style. I basically agree with most of what you are saying except for that one point.

Corn's expensive right now, but switchgrass might make a viable alternative...

Why not? What benefit is gained by restricting the drilling? We don't burn our furniture because it serves an alternate purpose. What is the alternative in this case?

I am all for research on alternatives. (Not for subsidies, however. The ethanol program is a costly, wasteful boondoggle.) I just fail to see why the research cannot be done concurrently with exploration and drilling.

[dbempire]

Originally Posted by ganeil

Hope for what? For the notion that a person from an upper middle class background who attended elite schools can succeed?

First of all, if you were to look into Barack Obama's roots, you would see that he doesn't come from a family history of upper middle class status. McCain on the otherhand does. Is McCain who you are voting for?

[ganeil]

Originally Posted by dbempire

First of all, if you were to look into Barack Obama's roots, you would see that he doesn't come from a family history of upper middle class status. McCain on the otherhand does. Is McCain who you are voting for?

From the age of ten Obama was raised by his white upper middle class grandparents. They were well enough off to send him to the most prestigious private day school in Hawaii which currently runs $16k+ a year. He went on from there to an Ivy League undergraduate and law degree.

McCain was raised in a very prominent naval family. As he grew up and his father gained promotions their standard of living improved and he too attended a prestigious private high school before attending the Naval Academy.

[dr335is]

Originally Posted by ganeil

From the age of ten Obama was raised by his white upper middle class grandparents. They were well enough off to send him to the most prestigious private day school in Hawaii which currently runs $16k+ a year. He went on from there to an Ivy League undergraduate and law degree.

McCain was raised in a very prominent naval family. As he grew up and his father gained promotions their standard of living improved and he too attended a prestigious private high school before attending the Naval Academy.

Poor McCain in 140 years of his life, he made his millions by joining Navy and flying jets...

[unagi1]

Originally Posted by ganeil

People often tell pollsters what they think they should. Being against the US is the thing to be in many places around the world. All I am saying is that when the people of France, Italy, Germany, South Korea, etc... were faced with a meaningful choice between a candidate who favored improved relations with the US and one who was often hostile to the US, they chose the former. That in my opinion is much more significant than any opinion poll. I would also argue that the latest trip was more pleasant because most European leaders now are more pro-US than before. The fact that we are winning in Iraq helped as well.

You are basically saying that people around the world like to secretly snub pollsters, then vote in the opposite manner? You really don't think that the overriding factor in choosing a candidate is one that addresses domestic issues more than foreign?

I'm also sure those very same leaders are more pro-US than before, since it's not their troops getting shot at. As an aside, if US support is so strong as you noted, what happened to the coalition of the willing?

Originally Posted by ganeil

Why not? What benefit is gained by restricting the drilling? We don't burn our furniture because it serves an alternate purpose. What is the alternative in this case?

I am all for research on alternatives. (Not for subsidies, however. The ethanol program is a costly, wasteful boondoggle.) I just fail to see why the research cannot be done concurrently with exploration and drilling.

Alright, I guess the environmental example of the ANWR wasn't doing much for you. How about this, what if vast supplies of oil were found beneath Mount Rushmore, but the only way to get at them would be to level the mountain. Would you do it? Let's not stop there, what if the oil was under Arlington National Cemetery? Can we just kind of, move everyone somewhere else?

All of the places above (including ANWR) serve a purpose, whether you agree with that purpose or not. Off-shore drilling is not a foolproof art and the repercussions are quite unpredictable.

[ganeil]

Originally Posted by unagi1

You are basically saying that people around the world like to secretly snub pollsters, then vote in the opposite manner? You really don't think that the overriding factor in choosing a candidate is one that addresses domestic issues more than foreign?

I'm also sure those very same leaders are more pro-US than before, since it's not their troops getting shot at. As an aside, if US support is so strong as you noted, what happened to the coalition of the willing?

No, I am saying people put more thought into important decisions like, "Who will lead my country?" than they do in answering a pollster. I am also saying it is of much greater consequence to US foreign policy who our allies choose to represent them than is an opinion poll.

Alright, I guess the environmental example of the ANWR wasn't doing much for you. How about this, what if vast supplies of oil were found beneath Mount Rushmore, but the only way to get at them would be to level the mountain. Would you do it? Let's not stop there, what if the oil was under Arlington National Cemetery? Can we just kind of, move everyone somewhere else?

All of the places above (including ANWR) serve a purpose, whether you agree with that purpose or not. Off-shore drilling is not a foolproof art and the repercussions are quite unpredictable.

You gave me no environmental example concerning ANWR. You are talking about an area the size of South Carolina not a national monument or cemetery. Using your logic we should not mine or drill anywhere in South Dakota because Mount Rushmore is there or log in Virginia because of Mount Vernon.

Every decision involves costs and benefits. No action is foolproof. I am asking, what is the cost of drilling in ANWR? Until we can realistically discuss the costs we cannot determine whether the benefits outweigh them.

[unagi1]

Originally Posted by ganeil

No, I am saying people put more thought into important decisions like, "Who will lead my country?" than they do in answering a pollster. I am also saying it is of much greater consequence to US foreign policy who our allies choose to represent them than is an opinion poll.

My original point was that our reputation has taken a hit for the worse, and I've supported that through the public opinion poll I linked. Your position is that some of those countries elected pro-US leaders, thus my reasoning is wrong. However, you assume the following:
1) Foreign policy is the number one issue for those voters
2) Voting for a pro-US candidate constitutes a vote of confidence for the US.

Clearly both of those assumptions cannot hold. Your last statement regarding greater consequences is a misdirection of my original point.

Originally Posted by ganeil

You gave me no environmental example concerning ANWR. You are talking about an area the size of South Carolina not a national monument or cemetery. Using your logic we should not mine or drill anywhere in South Dakota because Mount Rushmore is there or log in Virginia because of Mount Vernon.

Every decision involves costs and benefits. No action is foolproof. I am asking, what is the cost of drilling in ANWR? Until we can realistically discuss the costs we cannot determine whether the benefits outweigh them.

I did give an example. Let's try the other way, what do Mt. Rushmore and the ANC represent? Patriotism, national pride, reverence for the fallen. What does ANWR represent? Land, environment, floral, fauna, what have you. Why do we go around protecting land then? Maybe we should just have one large stinking city from coast to coast with no preserves whatsoever.

[ganeil]

Originally Posted by unagi1

My original point was that our reputation has taken a hit for the worse, and I've supported that through the public opinion poll I linked. Your position is that some of those countries elected pro-US leaders, thus my reasoning is wrong. However, you assume the following:
1) Foreign policy is the number one issue for those voters
2) Voting for a pro-US candidate constitutes a vote of confidence for the US.

Clearly both of those assumptions cannot hold. Your last statement regarding greater consequences is a misdirection of my original point.

My initial response asked how you determine our "standing in the world?" I offered what I believe is the more consequential measure of government to government interaction. Our discussion revolved around government policy and I think that lends itself more easily to a determination based on our governments ability to implement its foreign policy. You disagree and that is fine.

I did give an example. Let's try the other way, what do Mt. Rushmore and the ANC represent? Patriotism, national pride, reverence for the fallen. What does ANWR represent? Land, environment, floral, fauna, what have you. Why do we go around protecting land then? Maybe we should just have one large stinking city from coast to coast with no preserves whatsoever.

I do not oppose protecting land per se, (although I believe it is more properly done under the Constitution by the states rather than the feds) but protecting land has a cost associated with it. That cost should be evaluated against the benefit of utilizing the land. ANWR is an enormous area. The amount of that area that would be impacted by opening up the coastal plain for exploration and drilling is a fraction of a percent of the total area. So the question should be asked what benefit is gained by keeping that tiny sliver of marshy tundra off limits and how does that compare to the benefit of an extra 1+mbd of oil on the market? You are not allowing an honest debate of the relative costs and benefits when you insist on comparing an area the size of South Carolina to a national cemetery.

[unagi1]

Originally Posted by ganeil

I do not oppose protecting land per se, (although I believe it is more properly done under the Constitution by the states rather than the feds) but protecting land has a cost associated with it. That cost should be evaluated against the benefit of utilizing the land. ANWR is an enormous area. The amount of that area that would be impacted by opening up the coastal plain for exploration and drilling is a fraction of a percent of the total area. So the question should be asked what benefit is gained by keeping that tiny sliver of marshy tundra off limits and how does that compare to the benefit of an extra 1+mbd of oil on the market? You are not allowing an honest debate of the relative costs and benefits when you insist on comparing an area the size of South Carolina to a national cemetery.

It's difficult comparing intangible assets with those you can sell on the market. How do you value the 1.5-million coastal area designated as 1002 area? If you go by raw land, then yes you are right, drill away. However, what if that area is crucial to the integrity of that area of the wildlife reserve? How do you place a price on that?

What I'm trying to say is that although 1.5million acres doesn't sound like much out of 19 million acres -- if a drilling operation is not carried out carefully and with the necessary expenses, it could affect a larger area. The costs of such a cleanup effort would then certainly affect the profitability of such an operation.

Nature is not very forgiving, and disasters scale quickly. Forest fires, oil spills, dam failures, earthquakes, nuclear meltdowns all start localized but spread far and wide.

In much larger terms, this also has the potential of being a watershed event that would also raise the question of intervention in other wildlife preserves. But, I digress.

I just think that once you declare something to be protected, it should encompass that entire area, whether big or small. That's how I can justify comparing ANWR to ANC. If it comes to pass that the federal govt / state decides ANWR doesn't need to be protected, then by all means break out the platforms.

[ganeil]

Originally Posted by unagi1

It's difficult comparing intangible assets with those you can sell on the market. How do you value the 1.5-million coastal area designated as 1002 area? If you go by raw land, then yes you are right, drill away. However, what if that area is crucial to the integrity of that area of the wildlife reserve? How do you place a price on that?

What I'm trying to say is that although 1.5million acres doesn't sound like much out of 19 million acres -- if a drilling operation is not carried out carefully and with the necessary expenses, it could affect a larger area. The costs of such a cleanup effort would then certainly affect the profitability of such an operation.

Nature is not very forgiving, and disasters scale quickly. Forest fires, oil spills, dam failures, earthquakes, nuclear meltdowns all start localized but spread far and wide.

In much larger terms, this also has the potential of being a watershed event that would also raise the question of intervention in other wildlife preserves. But, I digress.

I just think that once you declare something to be protected, it should encompass that entire area, whether big or small. That's how I can justify comparing ANWR to ANC. If it comes to pass that the federal govt / state decides ANWR doesn't need to be protected, then by all means break out the platforms.

My understanding was that the 1002 area is specifically designated in the 1980 legislation as an area for possible exploration. When the area was protected it was understood that the coastal plain might contain vast oil resources and provision were made to allow those resources to be obtained without endangering the rest of the refuge.

Now I will admit that for me the choice would be an easy one. That much oil, the consent of the few people who actually live in the area, the remoteness of this especially desolate area all combine to tip the scale away from protecting some caribou and musk oxen from some remotely potential harm. I remember the fears for the caribou when Prudhoe Bay was opened but those fears have been completely unfounded.

[Icedog_16]

Can anyone explain to me why ANWR (or anywhere else for that matter) is so sacrosanct when active exploration drilling is going on here:

[unagi1]

Originally Posted by Icedog_16

Can anyone explain to me why ANWR (or anywhere else for that matter) is so sacrosanct when active exploration drilling is going on here:

It's called a "Wildlife Refuge" for a reason...

There's active drilling going on just west of the 1002 area, in Prudhoe bay. So it's not like drilling is banned everywhere, just not on federally protected land.

[unagi1]

Originally Posted by ganeil

My understanding was that the 1002 area is specifically designated in the 1980 legislation as an area for possible exploration. When the area was protected it was understood that the coastal plain might contain vast oil resources and provision were made to allow those resources to be obtained without endangering the rest of the refuge.

Now I will admit that for me the choice would be an easy one. That much oil, the consent of the few people who actually live in the area, the remoteness of this especially desolate area all combine to tip the scale away from protecting some caribou and musk oxen from some remotely potential harm. I remember the fears for the caribou when Prudhoe Bay was opened but those fears have been completely unfounded.

The 1002 area is still part of the ANWR, and protected as such. Here's a link to the latest report (1998): http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/fs-0028-01.htm

And here's a link to the FWS report stating that the 1002 area is..."critically important to the ecological integrity of the whole Arctic Refuge":http://arctic.fws.gov/issues1.htm

[ganeil]

Originally Posted by unagi1

The 1002 area is still part of the ANWR, and protected as such. Here's a link to the latest report (1998): http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/fs-0028-01.htm

And here's a link to the FWS report stating that the 1002 area is..."critically important to the ecological integrity of the whole Arctic Refuge":http://arctic.fws.gov/issues1.htm

The stated purpose of §1002 is to, "authorize exploratory activity within the coastal plain."

The idea that you are willing to sacrifice the economic well-being of millions of Americans because of a extremely remote threat to the "ecological integrity of the whole Arctic Refuge," is simply a concept I cannot grasp. There is an enormous amount of oil there, the equivalent of 30 years worth of Saudi imports and to keep it closed off because Jimmy Carter wanted it to be just does not pass the common sense test.

[Icedog_16]

Originally Posted by unagi1

It's called a "Wildlife Refuge" for a reason...

There's active drilling going on just west of the 1002 area, in Prudhoe bay. So it's not like drilling is banned everywhere, just not on federally protected land.

OTOH, there is also wildlife in the Prudhoe Bay area and across the immediately adjacent Canadian border. Makes a lot of sense. Gotta love government.