Right Wing #peakoil Deniers Still Exist? Have Fun During #Collapse

Clipped from spectator.org

From confused "peak oil" theorists to confused Congressmen, it's all but impossible to hear a discussion of US energy policy without hearing the left's tired refrain: "The United States currently uses 25% of the world oil production but has only 2% of world reserves." The left uses this misinformation to argue against domestic oil drilling, claiming that with only two percent of the world's reserves, we can't possibly have enough oil in the ground to matter. Read more at spectator.org

 

Hemp as part of #USA #energy policy #2012 #colapse #peakoil

Clipped from www.beyondpeak.com

Hemp

Beyond Peak Oil

Hemp vs. Marijuana Similarities Hemp and marijuana are varieties of the Cannabis sativa plant. They're both illegal to grow in the United States, although hemp products are legal. Both have similar aromas when in bloom. Differences Smoking marijuana makes the user high. Smoking hemp doesn't. (Hemp contains less than 1 percent of the active ingredient THC, marijuana has 10 to 20 percent.) Marijuana plants tend to be short and bushy, hemp can be as high as 25 feet tall. Marijuana can be used to smoke or eat. Hemp can be used to produce more than 25,000 products. Read more at www.beyondpeak.com

 

Sen John Kerry is Honest, Practical, Brilliant, and Truly Cares about America and the middle Class

Say what you will about him but he has been a consistent and practical force for US foreign relations for many years. Listin to the podcast on this site.

Clipped from www.commonwealthclub.org

Under Senator Kerry’s leadership, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee addresses the key foreign policy and national security issues facing the United States, including Afghanistan and Pakistan, nuclear nonproliferation and global climate change. As nations across the Middle East face unprecedented political upheaval, Kerry will discuss current affairs in that region as well as a variety of domestic issues. A U.S. senator for nearly three decades and a former Democratic presidential nominee in 2004, Kerry has distinguished himself as one of today’s most highly respected and influential leaders. Kerry has been a leading voice on a wide array of issues – from expanding health care to supporting small business – but his most notable work has been in regard to international affairs and national security. Kerry now chairs the very committee he notably testified before in 1971. Read more at www.commonwealthclub.org

 

Another incomplete project -Energy

Clipped from en.wikipedia.org

Project Independence

Project Independence was an initiative announced by U.S. President Richard Nixon on November 7, 1973[1], in reaction to the OPEC oil embargo and the resulting 1973 oil crisis. Recalling the Manhattan Project, the stated goal of Project Independence was to achieve energy self-sufficiency for the United States by 1980[2] through a national commitment to energy conservation and development of alternative sources of energy.[3] Nixon declared that American science, technology and industry could free America from dependence on imported oil [4](energy independence).

Some of the important initiatives to emerge from Project Independence included lowering highway speeds to 55 mph (89 km/h), converting oil power plants to coal, completion of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and diverting federal funds from highway construction to mass transit[3]. Read more at en.wikipedia.org

 

US Spends More on Education Than Defense

$900B spent on education in 2011. How many does that employ?

Clipped from www.usgovernmentspending.com

Education Spending Chart

See more at www.usgovernmentspending.com

 

Sugarcane vs Corn Ethanol

Clipped from en.wikipedia.org

The U.S., potentially the largest market for Brazilian ethanol imports, currently imposes a tariff on Brazilian ethanol of $USD 0.54 per gallon in order to encourage domestic ethanol production and protect the budding ethanol industry in the United States.[89] Historically, this tariff was intended to offset the 45-cent per gallon blender's federal tax credit that is applied to ethanol no matter its country of origin.[5][90][91][92] Exports of Brazilian ethanol to the U.S. reached a total of US$ 1 billion in 2006, an increase of 1,020% over 2005 (US$ 98 millions),[93] but fell significantly in 2007 due to sharp increases in American ethanol production from maize.[94][95] A recent study by Iowa State University's Center for Agricultural and Rural Development found that removing the U.S. import tariff would result in less than 5% of the United States’ ethanol being imported from Brazil.[96][97] Set to expire at the end of 2010, the $USD 0.54 per gallon tariff and $USD 0.45 per gallon blender’s credit have been the subject of contentious debate in Washington,DC with ethanol interest groups and politicians staking positions on both sides of the issue.[98][99][100][101][102]

Brazil's sugar cane-based industry is more efficient than the U.S. corn-based industry. Sugar cane ethanol has an energy balance seven times greater than ethanol produced from corn.[3] Brazilian distillers are able to produce ethanol for 22 cents per liter, compared with the 30 cents per liter for corn-based ethanol.[118] U.S. corn-derived ethanol costs 30% more because the corn starch must first be converted to sugar before being distilled into alcohol.[78] Despite this cost differential in production, the U.S. does not import more Brazilian ethanol because of U.S. trade barriers corresponding to a tariff of 54-cent per gallon, first imposed in 1980, but kept to offset the 45-cent per gallon blender's federal tax credit that is applied to ethanol no matter its country of origin.[5][90][91][92]

Sugarcane cultivation requires a tropical or subtropical climate, with a minimum of 600 mm (24 in) of annual rainfall. Sugarcane is one of the most efficient photosynthesizers in the plant kingdom, able to convert up to 2% of incident solar energy into biomass. Sugarcane production in the United States occurs in Florida, Louisiana, Hawaii, and Texas. The first three plants to produce sugarcane-based ethanol are expected to go online in Louisiana by mid 2009. Sugar mill plants in Lacassine, St. James and Bunkie were converted to sugar cane-based ethanol production using Colombian technology in order to make possible a profitable ethanol production. These three plants will produce 100 million gallons of ethanol within five years.[119] By 2009 two other sugarcane ethanol production projects are being developed in Kauai, Hawaii and Imperial Valley, California.[120] Read more at en.wikipedia.org

 

US Gas Artificial & Dependant on Oil

Remove this tariff and start importing more sugarcane based ethanol!!

Clipped from en.wikipedia.org

Brazil's sugar cane-based industry is more efficient than the U.S. corn-based industry. Sugar cane ethanol has an energy balance seven times greater than ethanol produced from corn.[3] Brazilian distillers are able to produce ethanol for 22 cents per liter, compared with the 30 cents per liter for corn-based ethanol.[118] U.S. corn-derived ethanol costs 30% more because the corn starch must first be converted to sugar before being distilled into alcohol.[78] Despite this cost differential in production, the U.S. does not import more Brazilian ethanol because of U.S. trade barriers corresponding to a tariff of 54-cent per gallon, first imposed in 1980, but kept to offset the 45-cent per gallon blender's federal tax credit that is applied to ethanol no matter its country of origin.[5][90][91][92]

Alcohol and gasoline prices per liter at Rio de Janeiro (left) and São Paulo (right), corresponding to a price ratio of E100 ethanol to E25 gasoline of 0.64 and 0.56.

Ethanol fuel in Brazil

Brazil is the world's second largest producer of ethanol fuel and the world's largest exporter. Together, Brazil and the United States lead the industrial production of ethanol fuel, accounting together for 89% of the world's production in 2009.[1][2] In 2009 Brazil produced 24.9 billion litres (6.57 billion U.S. liquid gallons), representing 37.7% of the world's total ethanol used as fuel.[1] Read more at en.wikipedia.org

 

Wealthy 1% Have ALWAYS Controlled USA

Clipped from www.tax.com

Figure 5: Share of wealth held by the Bottom 99% and Top 1% in the United States, 1922-2007.

Here are some dramatic facts that sum up how the wealth distribution became even more concentrated between 1983 and 2004, in good part due to the tax cuts for the wealthy and the defeat of labor unions: Of all the new financial wealth created by the American economy in that 21-year-period, fully 42% of it went to the top 1%. A whopping 94% went to the top 20%, which of course means that the bottom 80% received only 6% of all the new financial wealth generated in the United States during the '80s, '90s, and early 2000s (Wolff, 2007). Read more at www.tax.com

 

Prohibition: Alcohol Then, Marijuana Now

Prohibition represented a conflict between urban and rural values emerging in the United States. Given the mass influx of immigrants to the urban dwellings of the United States, many individuals within the prohibition movement associated the crime and morally corrupt behavior of the cities of America with their large immigrant populations. In a backlash to the new emerging realities of the American demographic, many prohibitionists subscribed to the doctrine of “nativism” in which they endorsed the notion that America was made great as a result of its white Anglo-Saxon ancestry. This fostered xenophobic sentiments towards urban immigrant communities who typically argued in favor of abolishing prohibition.[15] Additionally, these nativist sentiments were a part of a larger process of Americanization taking place during the same time period.[16]

In the 1916 presidential election, both Democratic incumbent Woodrow Wilson and Republican candidate Charles Evans Hughes ignored the Prohibition issue, as was the case with both parties' political platforms. Democrats and Republicans had strong wet and dry factions, and the election was expected to be close, with neither candidate wanting to alienate any part of his political base.

In January 1917, the 65th Congress convened, in which the dries outnumbered the wets by 140 to 64 in the Democratic Party and 138 to 62 among Republicans. With America's declaration of war against Germany in April, German-Americans—a major force against prohibition—were widely discredited and their protests subsequently ignored. In addition, a new justification for prohibition arose: prohibiting the production of alcoholic beverages would allow more resources—especially the grain that would otherwise be used to make alcohol—to be devoted to the war effort. While "war prohibition" was a spark for the movement,[17] by the time Prohibition was enacted, the war was over.

Clipped from en.wikipedia.org

Prohibition in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Prohibition in the United States, also known as The Noble Experiment, was the period from 1920 to 1933, during which the sale, manufacture, and transportation of alcohol were banned nationally[1] as mandated in the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The United States Senate proposed the Eighteenth Amendment on December 18, 1917. Having been approved by 36 states, the 18th Amendment was ratified on January 16, 1919 and effected on January 17, 1920.[2] Some state legislatures had already enacted statewide prohibition prior to the ratification of the 18th Amendment.

The "Volstead Act", the popular name for the National Prohibition Act, passed through Congress over President Woodrow Wilson's veto on October 28, 1919, and established the legal definition of intoxicating liquor, as well as penalties for producing it.[3] Though the Volstead Act prohibited the sale of alcohol, the federal government did little to enforce it. By 1925, in New York City alone, there were anywhere from 30,000 to 100,000 speakeasy clubs.[4] Read more at en.wikipedia.org

 

NRA and Guns in the USA

Another disgraceful problem in the US cause by the fear mongering right wing political apparatus that supports this unhealthy hobby of owning a gun.

Clipped from en.wikipedia.org

Gun violence in the United States From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search This article is about gun violence in the United States. For gun violence globally, see Gun violence. 1901 assassination of President William McKinley by Leon Czolgosz, using a revolver, at the Pan-American Exposition reception in Buffalo, New York. McKinley died eight days later from his wounds. Gun violence in the United States is an intensely debated political issue in the United States. Gun related violence is most common in poor urban areas and in conjunction with gang violence, often involving juveniles or young adults.[1][2] Gun violence is not new in the United States, with the assassinations of President Abraham Lincoln in 1865, and of Presidents James Garfield, William McKinley, and John F. Kennedy. High profile gun violence incidents, such as the assassinations of Robert F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Jr., and, more recently, the Columbine High School massacre, the Beltway sniper attacks, the Virginia Tech massacre, and the 2011 Tucson shooting, have also fueled debate over gun policies.[3] Read more at en.wikipedia.org

 

Is Corporate Tyranny Destroying America? Pt 3

Although the United States has the second highest statutory corporate tax, the background paper reports that U.S. corporate income tax revenue (federal and state) as a percentage of GDP paradoxically is much lower than the OECD average — 2.2 percent in the United States versus an OECD average of 3.4 percent — over the 2000-2005 period. In short, the OECD data present a conundrum — the United States has the second highest combined statutory corporate tax rate among OECD countries, yet is tied with Hungary in raising the fourth lowest amount of combined corporate income tax revenue relative to GDP in 2004

Clipped from www.taxanalysts.com

The Corporate Tax Conundrum by Peter R. Merrill In conjunction with a conference on business taxation and global competitiveness, the Treasury Department on July 26, 2007, released a background paper on the taxation of business income in the United States. The background paper describes the taxation of corporate and noncorporate businesses in the United States, compares the U.S. corporate tax system with that of its major trading partners, and describes the major economic distortions caused by the U.S. rules for taxing income from capital. The background paper reports that the United States has the second highest combined (federal and state) statutory corporate income tax rate among the 30 member countries of the OECD. At 39 percent, the U.S. combined statutory corporate tax rate is reported to be 8 percentage points higher than the OECD average. More recent data collected by the OECD show that the OECD average corporate tax rate has fallen to 28.4 percent in 2006, almost 11 percentage points below the U.S. tax rate. This gap continues to widen. Legislation has been enacted further reducing corporate tax rates in Germany (from 38.9 percent to 29.8 percent), the United Kingdom (from 30 percent to 28 percent), and Denmark (from 28 percent to 25 percent). Read more at www.taxanalysts.com