revisions on blog 2

In an election between two very different candidates, Barrack Obama and John McCain have managed to find some common ground – losing our dependence on foreign oil. The problem is how each candidate chooses to free us from our foreign oil bonds. The presidential hopefuls are both very focused on their energy policies and both have their pros and cons, but overall Obama’s plan to stop importing oil and start using alternative fuels has better promise and more economic benefit.

Oil hasn’t been this hotly debated since the shortage of the 1970’s. McCain’s running mate Sarah Palin has been around the oil business in Alaska and believes drilling is the only solution to America’s energy problem. Both McCain and Obama agree that drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) is out of the question, but Palin thinks otherwise. In an interview with NBC’s Maria Bartoromo, Palin emphasizes that drilling in select parts of ANWR would yield great amounts of oil while not disrupting wildlife. I did some research on ANWR and it is 19 million acres of land on the Northeastern coast of Alaska that is populated by many endangered species some becoming more endangered as a result of global warming. Palin’s stance on this issue is that the oil platforms will only take up about 2,000 acres and therefore will not disturb anything. The issue she ignores is the pipeline that has to be put in to get the oil back to refineries that would cut through ANWR and severely interrupt the natural environment . Critics have also pointed out that the many oil platforms are spread throughout ANWR and the roads and weigh stations connecting the many platforms will harm wildlife and natural beauty.
This is kind of off topic but I find it interesting that Palin has many of her own views some of which disagree with those of John McCain and the GOP. Instead of Drilling in ANWR McCain supports drilling in the outer continental shelf of the US. He is also a huge supporter of nuclear energy something Obama is hesitant to support without further safety features.

On the other hand Obama wants to use 15 billion dollars towards developing and refining alternative energies such as wind and solar. He would also impose a profit tax on all oil companies to try to discourage high prices. Obama’s goal is to eliminate our dependence on foreign Oil in ten years. Much faster than McCain’s 25 year plan. Obama proposes higher fuel efficiency standards and lower carbon emissions standards. A $7,000 tax credit also goes to any person who invests in an advanced vehicle. He also intends to put over 1 million plug in hybrid cars capable of getting over 150 mpg on the road by 2015. McCain proposes going 45% nuclear by 2030 which is great, but his plan lacks many other aspects that would make it as reliable and stable as Obama’s. Rather than support higher standards of fuel efficiency McCain plans to implement penalties for violating current standards. I believe in the saying “you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar” so Obama’s positive incentive plan is more convincing to me.

In the end there will be drilling in the US. McCain promises it as our chief source of energy, while Obama uses it as a mode of weaning ourselves off of foreign oil while developing alternative energies at the same time.

In an election between two very different candidates, Barrack Obama and John McCain have managed to find some common ground – loosing our dependence on foreign oil. The problem is how each candidate chooses to free us from our foreign oil chains. The McCain platform heavily emphasizes the drill here drill now idea whereas Obama chooses to support more research of alternative energies and a possibility of short term off shore drilling. Oil hasn’t been this hotly debated since the shortage of the 1970’s. McCain’s running mate Sarah Palin has been around the oil business in Alaska and believes drilling is the only solution to America’s energy problem. Both McCain and Obama agree that drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) is out of the question, but Palin thinks otherwise. In an interview with NBC’s Maria Bartoromo, Palin emphasizes that drilling in select parts of ANWR would yield great amounts of oil while not disrupting wildlife. I did some research on ANWR and it is 19 million acres of land on the Northeastern coast of Alaska that is populated by many endangered species some becoming more endangered as a result of global warming. Palin’s stance on this issue is that the oil platforms will only take up about 2,000 acres and therefore will not disturb anything. The issue she forgets is the pipeline that has to be put in to get the oil back to refineries that would cut through ANWR and severely interrupt the natural environment. On the other hand Obama wants to use 15 billion dollars towards developing and refining alternative energies such as wind and solar. He would also impose a profit tax on all oil companies to try to discourage high prices. No matter how hard either candidate tries the reality is that the world will be dependent on oil until it runs out and when that happens unless we perfect our alternative energy sources, there will be huge scramble to do something later. The small-scale equivalent of this problem shows in everyday gas prices; people are more concerned with current gas prices than they are with developing technology that could eliminate the need for gas all together. Many people don’t want to believe it but animals are set up to interact and react with situations happening now not later so it is just instinct for humans to react that way. In the end there will be drilling in the US McCain promises it as our chief source of energy, while Obama uses it as a mode of weaning ourselves off of foreign oil while developing alternative energies at the same time.

I don't know why but the blog wouldn't let me indent anything.

This weekend the Bush administration proposed a 700 Billion dollar bail out of the US financial system. The president requested wide spread authority for the treasury department to buy mortgage assets from various financial institutions through out the US. This solution to the crisis was put together by Ben S. Bernanke, the chairman of the Federal Reserve and Henry M. Paulson Jr. the Treasury secretary. This dramatic plan is aimed at preventing another Great Depression.

In March the Fed bailed out Bear Stearns and more recently Merrill Lynch, but let Lehman Brothers go under. The government then went on to salvage the American International Group (AIG) the giant insurer many considered to be the safest investment there was.

The questions Americans across the country are asking are, "Will this bail out work" "Are there more bailouts to come" and "Are our financial futures at risk". The tentative answers are yes no and no. At least that is what the government wants us to think. There is no real guarantee bailing out financial giants will save the economy because the $700,000,000,000 is coming out of taxpayers pockets. The real challenge will come to the next president of the United States who will have enormous pressure to right the wrongs of former administration. Whether it be John McCain of Barack Obama, the new president will have to change the way the mortgage system in America works and create surer safer more fool proof methods of investment.

Based on the current economic situation in America I think that our economic system in general could use a bit of a tune up. Instead of adopting a policy of nearly laissez faire capitalism as the government has in recent years, there should be some regulation of large institutions like investment banks. If the government had more regulation on these banks the mortgage crisis could have been prevented all together because the people who foreclosed wouldn't have been able to get a loan to start with.

Another problem with the current government system is the lack of representation in government. When Congress was established in the 1770's each congressman represented only 30,000 people, but now each congressperson represents an average of 7 million people. One person representing 7 million people doesn't sound like government totally by the people. Smaller groups of people should be represented by congresspeople, maybe not 30 thousand to one but something smaller than 7 million to one. I think this would be a more representative form of government than the current system and would better serve the American people.