Alright, i've got a lot to say this time.
First off, everyone who is complaining about obama handing out bailout money to the companies and saying this will ruin everything, i feel compelled to remind you that bush junior started this little trend back when the government bought out those major real estate firms last fall. This has been a trend of the government in general.
Second, i would like to voice my opinion that no one REALLY knows what makes the economy run.
Even economists can really only make educated guesses based on previous patterns.
Third, as has been previously stated, this bill comes from CONGRESS, not the president. However, the last election put the democrats pretty firmly in control of congress, WE VOTED FOR THIS. (and i voted democrat, and make no apology for that)
Fourth, While i agree that throwing money at failing companies might be a bad idea, realize that if we don't , we risk having our entire infrastructure crumble, that would be WORSE than going into debt.
Fifth, this trend started several years ago, this is not obama , or anyone in the current administrations fault, if anything , its the fault of the stupid CEO's who couldn't manage their own compaines.
And, now for a break from the enumerated points to bring you... what the stimulus bill is actually going to , as shown by wikipedia, i was going to post it here, but it took up too much space, and this post is going to be long enough as it is.. so here is your link oh readers of wrongplanet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_R ... ct_of_2009NEXT: some ideas and suggestions
Personally, i think we should throw as much of our weight behind alternative energy, ESPECIALLY NUCLEAR POWER. While i know a lot of people have a lot of anxiety about neuclear power, allow me to clear a few things up.
1: neuclear reactors actually produce very little radioactive waste. Fuel rods get recycled with a very high percentage of the material going BACK to the reactor.
2: while having radioactive material lying around IS a bad thing, nuclear waste can be FAR more easily contained than emissions from fossil fuels, and personally , i'd rather have a couple hundred tons of U235 stuck under a mountain in nevada somewhere than several THOUSAND times that tonnage of complex hydrocarbons in the atmosphere.
3: Almost all nuclear reactors are actually very stable. Both the 3 mile island, and ESPECIALLY the chernobyl incidents were caused by operator error, not by the reactor. (although cheyrnobl DID use an unstable type of reactor....which is no longer in use now, and was only used by the russians.)
and 4: its sustainable, the united states has most of the worlds supply of easily accessable uranium, which would be more than enough to meet our energy needs for a very long time.
Other forms of alternative energy, like wind and solar power, are also definitely worth pushing for.
If the united states were to push the alternative energy angle, we could not only SERIOUSLY slow the greenhouse gas problem, but we could also get the jump on energy once easily accessable fossil fuels run out. The US could become the core of the new century's equivalent of OPEC if we played our cards right. In addition, we could create a LOT of jobs and seriously stimulate the economy by building all these new power plants, and converting vehicles to run off the new energy sources.
Ok, my fingers hurt from all that typing, i'm done for now.
A new report published by a team of international energy and economic experts which conclusively proves that nuclear power is neither a practical nor economically viable solution to tackling climate change.
The report, “The Economics of Nuclear Power”, commissioned by Greenpeace International, concludes that nuclear power station construction can run up to 300% over budget and, on average, take four years longer to build than planned.
The Economics of Nuclear Power examines the reasons behind the huge delays and cost over-runs which are common to nuclear power construction projects, and concerns over safety and reliability of new technology, concluding:
* that in country after country nuclear construction has gone massively over budget;
* that long construction periods are symptomatic of a range of problems including managing the construction of increasingly complex reactor designs, and inherent within the ailing nuclear infrastructure;
* that combined with the huge subsidies required, uncompetitively high prices, poor reliability and serious risks of cost overruns,nuclear power stands no chance of being economically viable in countries that have moved to competitive power procurement;
that significant and widespread concerns remain over the basic safety, waste disposal and decommissioning of existing plants;
* that there are similarly significant concerns over new, untested technology in currently- proposed nuclear power projects.
02 Mar 2009, 4:16 pm
