Slashdot Mirror

In that case the US Government should fire everyone, since we're 9.5 trillion in the hole. The deficit spending popularized by Reagan, which cut out social programs, raised military spending, and lowered taxes for the wealthy, is just one of the internally flawed principles that passes as economic policy under "conservative" government.

An appropriate response would be to cut spending across the board, and probably reduce the trillion or so dollars a year we spend on military research and wars, which would be around 100 billion if in line with what the rest of the world spends. Instead, we've more than doubled our military spending since 2001, and our currency has steadily declined because of our refusal to address this very basic issue.

America has enormous wealth, but it's currently being squandered by the same chickenhawks who increased the deficit in the 80s with military spending, saber rattling, and tax cuts for the wealthy. Their names might sound familiar: Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz.

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

(Just because you don't like the source doesn't mean the numbers aren't real.)

So you say investing in public transportation would cost billions of dollars... would 100 billion per year cover it?

It seems that we are spending that much right now with much less to show for it.

Cynicism is no substitute for insight: http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

Yes, it's about oil. Check out 1998: PNAC Letter to Clinton: Remove Saddam ... vital interests in the Gulf. The people that wrote that letter ended up in the Bush administration and helped "architect" the war. Oil is important to the US economy and rather than invest in alternative energy and conservation, Bush and his cronies choose to invade a country that was no threat to the US.

It was about securing access to oil. It was a stupid idea that did not work and we will be paying for it the rest of our lives.

Actually most the money goes to the companies that extract the oil, they are suppose to get a sweat heart deal. See Western companies may get 75% of Iraqi oil profits:

As I said, the idea was to secure future access to oil because it's important to the US (and world) economy. The intent was not such much for cheap gas, but a continuing supply of oil and gasoline. Bush and friends have strong connections to the oil industry and they were more than happy to let them (not you, or Iraq) profit heavily.

OK, I'll bite. Here is the 1998 letter sent to President Clinton urging the removal of Saddam Hussein. Check out the second paragraph:

Three years before 9/11 occurred Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and others were pushing to topple Saddam Hussein to protect the oil supply. WMDs are mentioned, but the primary context is stability in the Middle East and access to oil.

So yes, bad intelligence played a part. If there wasn't oil involved, I doubt the US would have used 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq. Do you really think these guys care about "our moderate Arab allies" and Israel?

his prison term was commuted by the president, which left standing the other penalties imposd by the judge - fine, public service, and supervised probation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Libby>

And the $2 Trillion+ cost of the war you cite is more like a half Trillion dollars: http://zfacts.com/p/447.html>

Bill Clinton also left a lot of evidence (including a wad of DNA) to support his impeachment: http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/impeachments/clinton.htm>

As I said, YMMV. But Reagan is the guy who sent the US toward bankruptcy by doing huge amounts of deficit spending, effectively letting future generations pay, with interest, for the absurd amounts t.he Reagan government spent. Before you go and blame the Democratic Congresses of the Reagan years (except for a Republican Senate for a little while), keep in mind that Congress ended up allocating less money than Reagan had requested on all eight of his budgets.
I think that future historians will have to address the problem of how the economic disaster of the early 21st Century in the US happened, and I believe a lot of them will point to the ridiculous fiscal irresponsibility of the Reagan and GWB administrations. I'd like to be wrong on that one, but the situation is pretty scary right now. In any case, I think history will not be particularly kind to Reagan.
Keep in mind that part of Reagan's aura now is that a lot of people believe his enormous increases in military expenditures (during the Clinton years, the US was outspending its top ten potential enemies combined by more than a factor of two, and that was after "cuts" from what Bush 41 had planned to spend, and before Bush 43 sent military spending through the roof) were what bankrupted the Soviet Union and basically brought about the end of the Cold War. That view is not held by academic historians or by the intelligence community, and belongs more to Republican politicians and citizens who haven't actually studied the Cold War in detail. In fact, actual US intelligence analysis shows that it was surprising the Soviets lasted as long as they did, and the Soviet threat was largely exaggerated. Amusingly enough, a good part of the exaggeration was done by a "Team B" during the Ford Administration. The leader of the "Team B" that did the intelligence cherry-picking to exaggerate the threat after the actual intelligence agencies concluded that the threat was not as large as the Administration thought it should be? A guy of whom you may have heard... Paul Wolfowitz. Sayyyy... didn't a guy with a really similar name do a really similar thing in about 2002 or so? Hmmmm....
By the way, both Nixon and Carter were better presidents than most people think. And in the end, whatever the ordering, the difference between Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Ford, and Bush 41 are small compared to the difference between Clinton and that group. And the difference between Bush 43 and any of the others dwarfs the difference between Clinton and that group of 5. There have been no great presidents during my lifetime, but there has been one historically awful one. Has there been any president that deserves the title of "worst ever" more than Bush 43? Seriously, is there anything Bush 43 has done well? Well, other than demonizing Democrats and getting himself into the White House, of course. He's done that very well.

Note: one such quality-of-life indicator is poverty

National Debt History (as percentage of GDP) by President

Even more interesting is who is responsible for our current debt : Presidents and the Federal Debt

All other presidents since WWII have contributed nothing to the Gross Federal Debt (as % of GDP) except for Reagan, George Bush, and George W. Bush. It is fair to say that postwar (WWII) debt is a creation of the GOP. This is *not* "politics as usual" and *is* historically significant.

National Debt History (as percentage of GDP) by President

Even more interesting is who is responsible for our current debt : Presidents and the Federal Debt

All other presidents since WWII have contributed nothing to the Gross Federal Debt (as % of GDP) except for Reagan, George Bush, and George W. Bush. It is fair to say that postwar (WWII) debt is a creation of the GOP. This is *not* "politics as usual" and *is* historically significant.

National debt as a percent of GDP.

I really hope we can put the tax-and-spend liberal myth to bed soon. I wholeheartedly support the idea of electing fiscally responsible representatives, and would like to see this happen in practice.

So, about 1/5 of what's spent on iraq so far, never mind afghanastan...

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home
http://zfacts.com/p/447.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11880954/

Hmmm... well infrastructure's not a priority, let's stick with blowing stuff up, and pissing people off.

More recent information about U.S. government debt:

U.S. Government Debt Graph (2007 Budget data) (Good for a quick view.)

U.S. Government Debt Clock

U.S. Government Debt

More recent information about U.S. government debt:

U.S. Government Debt Graph (2007 Budget data) (Good for a quick view.)

U.S. Government Debt Clock

U.S. Government Debt

The official Pentagon figures are 6.8 billion dollars a month, or approximately 9 million dollars an hour. Which means that one hundred million dollars would pay for slightly more than eleven hours worth of war.

Here you go. here is a second. How do you figure that our deficit actually went down under GWB? Or are you doing fox news math?

The total of SETI's 'wasteful' expenses is like 14 million a year.

$14 million dollars would fund the Iraq war for 88 minutes (based on the official Pentagon 'burn rate' estimate of $6.8 billion a month).

I looked around for your 6.5 billion per week figure and could not find it.

Actually I wrote 6.5B/month, not per week, and I obtained that number here.

It looks like 1kw is 22,000 (for a non battery backed up system) so that's $33,000 for a non battery backed up 1.5kw system.

No, that's outrageous. (You pulled that number out of some turkey's comments on that blog page instead of researching the actual cost.) Installed (grid-tied, i.e. not battery-backed) PV is well documented to be under $10/watt. The panels themselves are only ~$5/W. Here is some data to start with. Our 3300W system cost $24K, and at least 25% of that went to the installers, and that price is before any state subsidies or tax credits.

Battery-backed PV technology is stagnant, and totally impractical and uneconomical unless you have no hope of obtaining a grid connection. Battery wear-out costs drown any remote chance of saving money. Tying PV to the grid is better for everyone -- the grid is a fantastic virtual storage device.

Solar just converts current energy that was shining on the house anyway.

Absolutely!

What do you mean "appeared to"? Are you saying that the billions of dollars the Reagan Administration borrowed by issuing treasury bills are imaginary or something?

From http://zfacts.com/p/318.html - original source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/pdf/hi st.pdf
The traditional pattern of running large deficits only in times of war or economic downturns was broken during much of the 1980s. In 1982 [Reagan's first budget year], partly in response to a recession, large tax cuts were enacted. However, these were accompanied by substantial increases in defense spending. Although reductions were made to nondefense spending, they were not sufficient to offset the impact on the deficit. As a result, deficits averaging $206 billion were incurred between 1983 and 1992. These unprecedented peacetime deficits increased debt held by the public from $789 billion in 1981 to $3.0 trillion (48.1% of GDP) in 1992.

{sigh} you really must be new here. There's no need to be snide over a typo, and other than your pointless grammar-Nazism, you offered nothing of substance in your reply.

Your inappropriateness aside, are you actually claiming that the Federal Government does not subsidize the conversion of corn into motor fuel? Huh. That's a remarkable degree of ignorance, given the nearly forty billion dollars that Congress has given in such subsidies in the past decade. Your taxpayer dollars at work. In any event, just so you won't think that I'm making this up, there are some who would disagree with you on this subject.

http://zfacts.com/p/416.html

The website does not look immediately reliable, mainly for the reasons that everything is written like you would explain it to a child, that it's slanted pro-wind, and that it doesn't quote any cost sources. Its mathematics are also bizarre - using the cost per kW at theoretical maximum utilisation and then adjusting that down for capacity.

If I were to speculate I would guess it's because they would not 'want a big number in the first column'.

1. That is so off. From here, wind is 7.5 vs's subsidized coal's 4.5. But if coal is required to clean up its' act (i.e. clean coal, bury the CO2, etc), then the costs will be about 15.Points out that all of the power is subsidized
2. Yeah, this is true. Most of these plants are located in places where the winds blow 70-90%. Sadly, when they are needed most (high temps), is when they are likely to be at their worse. That is why I keep saying that our research dollars should go into energy storage (heat, capacitors, etc).

You are correct to doubt your memory. Ronald Reagan went on the largest spending spree of any president since FDR in WWII. We will be paying the interest on that debt for decades to come. Hopefully we will pay the principal off someday.

Remember that when politicians say things lik 'I didn't raise your taxes'.

If they increased the national debt, they increased your taxes. They may not have increased your tax rate, but they increased the amount you owe, as well as the amount of interest you will have to pay.

If you look at how Republicans and Democrats spend your money, I mean really spend not what they say they are doing, you will come to two conclusions very quickly:

• Democrats spend way too much of your money.
• Republicans spend even more.

Sure can:

Sugar Ethanol
http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironm ent/wm1074.cfm
http://forums.wsj.com/viewtopic.php?t=247http://fo rums.wsj.com/viewtopic.php?t=247
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/09/sugar-ethan ol.htmlhttp://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/11/27 /061127ta_talk_surowiecki
http://blog.tomevslin.com/2007/03/tax_gasoline_im. html
http://www.iags.org/es82905.htm
http://www.forbes.com/2005/11/15/energy-ethanol-br azil_cx_1116energy_adams.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8769619/site/newsweek
(there are tons more links all over)

USA Gas Mileage Standards:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/cafe/overview. htm
http://zfacts.com/p/414.html
http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/FEG2007_GasolineVeh icles.pdf [Warning: PDF]

There are tons and tons and tons of links, data, charts, .pdf files and things you can pour over if you research the topic via Google, local library, watch CSpan, etc.

And to the AC earlier: Yes, corn farmers helped influence the decision, as did domestic sugar producers, but, oil companies are also to blame for this, as they don't want competition from ethanol PERIOD.

> The New Deal was the single biggest disaster in the history of the US government, in my opinion. Before we had that, the national debt was actually paid off some years.

Look, if you're going to talk about the national debt, you're going to have to look WAY after the New Deal before you see it inflate. Please, at least blame the right people for the national debt.

And just because I'm betting you don't know, here's a nice graph of the national debt so you can see that it really started spiking in the 1980s, under Reagan. That's quite a long way off from the New Deal.

But who am I kidding? You even dragged the 2nd Amendment into this for no reason. You're just trolling.

Okay, first of all:

Average mortgage rates during the Carter administration were over 15%! I don't even pay credit cards 15%!!!
Inflation was through the roof (12%).
Devaluation of the dollar.
Gas shortages.


All of those are the same thing. Inflation being through the roof is a devaluation of the dollar by definition. Mortgages were 15% because inflation was at 12% and no sane man will loan you money for less than inflation. Inflation, ultimately was caused by a steep increase in commodity prices, namely oil. There's little a president can do to mitigate that situation, and to his credit, of any president, he spoke the most bluntly about the need to address that in a strategic way.

As for the debt, the debt, as a percentage of GDP, which is what's important, went down under carter:

http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/National-Debt-GDP.g if

Of course in raw dollars it went up because inflation was at 12%.

Carter may have banned wine at the white house but I don't recall him trying to get prayer in schools, outlaw abortion, birth control, etc. He could be a total religious wackaloon for all I care so long as he makes no law about what I should be doing.

He didn't demoralize and dimsantle the army. The demoralizing was the after effects of the Vietnam war. Filling the ranks with people who don't want to be there in a war with a poorly understood purpose caused serious long term problems for the military.

The B-1B, who needs them when you've got ICBM's and cruise missiles?

The one thing I will concur on was that he blew the Iranian situation by giving the Shah asylum. He should have kept our collective nose out of it. Had he done that, the Ayatollah would not have had that moment of glory, and he'd never have come to power. Though arguably, it was previous administrations trying to put the Shah in power that are more to blame for this.

Carter was a lousy politician, pure and simple. He's a good and smart man who was way ahead of the curve on the dangers that are posed to us by being dependent on middle eastern oil, amongst other things. I would say that he was a rather mediocre president overall.

What extremism? I think Bush's "faith based" programs may be wrong, but they're not "extreme". Or do you just think that anyone who is religious is "extreme"?

Attempting for the first time in our history to amend our constitution for the sole purpose of discriminating against a group of people based solely upon how they were born out of ignorant religious based hatred *is* pure religious extremism.

Nonsense! We still have the essentially same reputation we had in the 90s. Those nations and newspapers who liked us before still like us now, those who hated us before still hate us now. No difference.

Laughable, and entirely unrelated to reality. We're hated by honest people all over the world because we as a nation have acted in a manner which deserves contempt hatred and fear. Recognizing that is called integrity. You might want to look into that. Anyone who doesn't fear us would have to be really fucking stupid at this point.


A bit of hyperbole, but it is true that Bush is a major spendthrift. Of course, so was Clinton.

Ahhh, the old tired "but Clinton" whine. You lose.

Every President for the past three quarters of a centry has grown the size of government and the debt.
Followed up with an idiotic lie


Was the claim of WMDs a lie? Or just the result of mistaken intelligence?

It was a bald faced lie. The head of the CIA told Shrub not to go with the bogus info and that walking disaster went in front of the nation and lied straight to our faces. Completely made up Nigerian uranium bullshit? Hell, they even outed a CIA agent over getting called on the carpet for that bald faced lie. Aluminum tubes? I could go on and on but it's worthless. If you're so desperate to keep defending scum (which you sure as shit aren't even benefiting from) that you'll piss away all of your credibility like this, then all the facts in the world will do nothing to change your view. You can't be reasoned out of a position that reason didn't get you into, and there is no reasonable argument for supporting this administration and its blatant, obvious lies.

Since every other world leader was certain Saddam he had them, I lean towards the latter.

Yes, if you make shit up you can convince yourself of anything.

Bush has been no different. He's no worse than Clinton in this regard.

Oh bull fucking shit.
Clinton was no prize, but Bush's crimes and various acts of treason are far above and beyond anything Clinton did. The fact that you're even trying to equate the two is pure partisan hackery without a scrap of evidence or even sanity backing it up.

I truly fear the day when your party gets back in power.

I'm not now, nor have I ever been a member or supporter of any major political party. The fact that you can't pull your head out of your partisan hackery to notice that people from all over the spectrum are waking up and realizing what an unmitigated fucking disaster Bush has been for this country, to grasp that simple fact speaks volumes.

Of course, all you're fearing is being made to take personal responsibility for your own chosen *actions*.

When I saw the historical price graph of Uranium ( http://www.uranium.info/prices/monthly.html ), it struck me that as very similar to a historical price graph of gasoline/oil ( http://zfacts.com/p/35.html ).

[reaches for tinfoil hat]
CONSPIRACY!!!

There are at least two main reasons.

The first of which requires an understanding of what the most important resources are, and where they are located. I'll give you a hint - it's oil. To a lesser extent, other, less convenient energy sources.

Here is a map of the oil:
http://wolf.readinglitho.co.uk/mainpages/oilmap.ht ml

Here is a map of the all the US bases in the world:
http://respectsacredland.org/no-us-bases/

Yes, the USA has a finger in almost everywhere, and especially in those places with valuable resources. The US is nothing at all like the fictional non-expansionist America of Sid Meier's Civilization game. There is no power in history that has controlled as much of the globe as has America, and maybe the percentage as well. Even back then, the Romans never controlled China, or Russia for that matter. The world is bigger now and the US controls more of it. Compare:
http://www.unrv.com/roman-map-for-sale.php

Of course, it gets sold to Americans (and the world) that they are being "world's policeman", a good natured bobby who wanders around making sure that the kids play nice. And they are so nice, they supposedly do it all for no fee, no taxation required.

Of course, in the real world taxation is the basis of all empires, and the US empire is no different. The way the tax works is harder to understand, but no less effective.

In the modern world, everyone needs oil. In order to buy that oil, it must be purchased in US dollars. If an oil producing nation decides to sell in another currency, the US will invade. Saddam tried to sell in Euros in 2000 and paid the penalty. And because France and Germany would have benefited, they opposed Gulf War 2 and hence the US responded with all the "cheese eating surrender monkey" propaganda that was produced around that time.

How does the tax work? Consider that the number of US dollars has been increasing all the time, and that the cost to print them is effectively zero. If the US runs out of money, it can just print more. Or, at least, the FRB can. But who owns the FRB is something you can google yourself.

And the US _has_ been printing more dollars for a long time now. When the US does that, the rest of the world picks up the tab by making more of what US citizens are willing to buy. Here is a graph of the US dollars in circulation, the M3.
http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/charter.exe/fedst l/m3sl

So that's the first reason why the US is "policing" Iraq. To maintain a monopoly on the currency oil is traded for, and hence, the foundation of their empire.

The second reason is for Israel. Saddam was considered a major threat to Israel. Consider the goals of PNAC, what they wrote before the war, the members, and where they are seated in the Bush regime.
http://zfacts.com/p/775.html

Are you an adult, that you know the difference between a lie and a mistake?

http://zfacts.com/p/581.html

Oct. 7, 2002
George W. Bush
"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."

Not "we believe", not "we have evidence that indicates", not "sources tell us"; he said "we know." Yes, I know the difference between a lie and a mistake.

Aug. 26, 2002
Dick Cheney, Vice President
"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."

This simple average comparison is a bit unfair to Republican Presidents though. Given inflation a dollar borrowed in 1950 is a lot worse than one borrowed in 2006. In the timeframe since 1946 all Presidents (no matter what party) have decreased the national debt as a percentage of the GDP. With the notable exception of Reagan, Bush and G.W. Bush.

Here are some good graphs: http://zfacts.com/p/318.html the site has a clear bias though, so I doubt you'd want to accept the data without checking. There is confirming material availabe here though: http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_media/TheNation alDebt.html - This is not quite as illustrative but provides the links to the official government information regarding debt, so you can verify the information.

Cutting taxes in an of itself does not raise the debt of a nation and actually in this case probably lessened the debt.

Alternatively, you could just look at the facts. Oops. You may be right about cutting taxes to help the economy, in order to increase tax revenue. The only problem is that Bush forgot the other half of the equation: cutting spending.

1. In order for the economy to grow, the money supply must grow. Deficit spending allows us to increase the money supply without the inflationary pressures of printing more currency or borrowing from the Fed.
2. A government deficit is a surplus to the private sector (read: you and me). When we (the public) buy treasury securities, it increases our net worth.
3. The private sector is much more effective at investing this surplus into generating economic growth than the government is, provided the right infrastructure is in place.
4. The government can use the money generated by selling the securities to build up our infrastructure and defend us from external threats- these are the core responsibilities of the government.

Whoa... Your beyond drinking the kool-aid. Your flat off in la la land. Paying off the debt would not drain the economy, rather quite the opposite. It would free up the $9 trillion plus interest payments for private economic development.

debt-to-GDP is increasing, and has been for several years. http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

So unless we do something stupid to stop economic growth, like raise taxes or pay off the debt early, this debt will never have to be paid off. It will be continually rolled into new debt without increasing our total debt burden.

fact, our current debt-to-GDP ratio is 65% and falling, meaning that our economy is growing faster than our debt is. What President Bush should do is a) further cut taxes or b) further increase spending to keep this ratio constant and promote the most economic growth. Personally, I prefer option (a).

The US national debt as a percentage of GDP (projected by the OMB in the 2007 budget) will rise to reach the level it peaked at near the end of Clinton's first term (about 70%) http://zfacts.com/p/318.html While high by historical comparison, the nation is waging a very expensive war, and for wartime it's actually somewhat low (it went to 120% during WWII). Certainly the trade imbalance is worrisome, but that is hardly Bush's fault. That is more, as you correctly observe, a reflection of our collective hunger fo cheap imports. And yes, I agree, it will catch up with us before too long.

Also ask yourself if Saddams regime was so evil why did the US put most of the Saddams government back into the administration of the country for some time.

Unfortunately they didn't. They went after all Baath party members and banned them from power, and moved in exile Iraqis like this guy, missing a few billions in the process.

If they hadn't removed the whole former ruling elite from power, the U.S. might have had chance for a turnaround, but if you criminalize most of the people who know how to run this country and give them no other chance than to fight you, you are fucked.

The cost have already piled up to over 300 billion, and may total up to more than 1 trillion dollars if the U.S. will stay a few more years under the same circumstances. What an incredible screw-up.

p.

DGPS does the correction on a satellite-by-satellite basis. The GPS receiver must support DGPS corrections, which are uploaded to the receiver to include in its internal calculations before the separate satellites are combined to form the final result.

Remember when GPS itself was thought to be in danger back in 2000? Remember when there was talk of balancing the budget? Read this article all the way from 1996 about the military importance of GPS technology. It's worth the read.

About the NDGPS vs. WAAS debate: I work for a group that relies heavily on GPS for aviation purposes. As the number of uses for GPS expand, as they inevitably will, new technologies will spring up. NDGPS vs. WAAS is like 802.11g vs 802.11a. I think they both have a place. If the government won't support NDGPS, perhaps there is a commercial application? What are the FCC regulations on the 300KHz spectrum? If no one will pay for it, let it die, I think.

Okay, <rant>
I laughed when I read, "Therefore, when it comes to cutting the budget during tight times, programs like NDGPS are prime targets." How are we cutting costs when we just ran up a record high deficit in the last two years? I like it that we're cutting costs. Let's cut some of the really big ones, like military spending!
</rant> Couldn't resist.

Maybe he is implying that since Gore likely wouldn't have invaded Iraq, we'd have an extra third of trillion or so in the budget to help out NOLa.
I don't think Democrats are gods gift to my personal freedom, far from it. I only vote for democrats because they are the lesser of two evils. They have in the last 30 years shown themselves to be more financially prudent. They also dont invade third world countries.

If it were up to me all uniformed police would have to wear cameras and mics at all times so we could all watch the watchers. The government would stop spying on it's own people. We would legalize all the silly vices (sex, drugs) and tax them instead. The government would spend hundreds of billions on public transit and getting us off of foreign oil, not on trying to force democracies on countries that crave theocracies.

Most days I just wish we had a parliamentary system ala Iraq or Sweden where smaller parties could actually have a say, as there is no greater personal freedom then castinv a vote that actually counts.

Cost of Iraq War and Nation Building is currently at $311,307,067,758 (thanks, Bush). So, the U.S. invaded Iraq in March 2003. Three years and 4 months later approximately 1225 days have passed. Dividing the days into the cost gives us $254,128,218 per day. Dividing by 24 hours (in a day) gives us $10,588,675 per hour. Further dividing by 60 gives us $176,477 per minute.

So, we can say conservatively (no pun intended) that it is costing the U.S. approximately $10 million dollars per an hour or $175 thousand dollars per minute to continue its invasion of Iraq.

Of course, the number has gone up since I started writing this.

People buy SUVs because they work. You can haul a boat or your entire basketball team. You can't do that in your EV1 or prius.

People buy SUVs because they are convenient. You can refuel in 5-10 minutes almost anywhere and drive 300 miles. Your EV1 is ready to go 100 miles (maybe) in just a few hours using a special charger.

People buy SUVs because they last. You can drive a SUV into the ground, while you need to replace batteries in your EV1 in just a few years.

Electrolosys causes maybe 85% energy loss, you would never generate hydrogen that way.

Batteries are a decent storage medium for electricity (but maybe not due to energy density issues). Hydrogen is a good storage medium for chemical energy (maybe nuclear if they get new high temp hydrogen cycles working).

Gas prices may not be so bad, due to inflation. We are not 2x, just equal to the max value:
http://zfacts.com/p/35.html

And your hybrid may not be the way to go, using a full life cycle analysis:
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?7a1f3b0c- 8232-4e9d-89f6-622a5327b670

I'll believe a partial solution through thermal deploymerization like the
Changing World Technologies folks are doing
, long before I believe Ethanol - which fits perfectly into the system you describe.
Right now is a way to siphon tax dollars into ADM's pockets.
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/031128.html
http://zfacts.com/p/35.html
http://zfacts.com/p/60.html

I'll believe a partial solution through thermal deploymerization like the
Changing World Technologies folks are doing
, long before I believe Ethanol - which fits perfectly into the system you describe.
Right now is a way to siphon tax dollars into ADM's pockets.
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/031128.html
http://zfacts.com/p/35.html
http://zfacts.com/p/60.html

Oil wasn't really the primary reason for the invasion. The invasion's got to do with the fact that France and Germany weren't willing to take action against Iraq because they were afraid of getting their own spigot shut off. It's got to do with the fact that the UN is toothless and allows issues to escalate because it's full of crooks and liars. Iraq would not have happened if the UN had taken action when Sadam had first kicked out the inspectors. And the US's debt is in large parts not owed to the rest of the world. A lot of it is internal debt -- debt one department owes to another -- and treasury bills. Also, the debt figure doesn't take into fact inflation, and economic growth. Look here for a more accurate picture.

To end off, let's compare some major economies and their level of debt.

UK--40.8%

Germany--65.8%

Italy--105.6%

Japan--164.3%

Russia--28.2%

Spain--53.2%

India--59.7%

Brazil--52%

Canada--68.2%

South Korea--20.5%

France--66.5%

US--64.7%

See the rest here--http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook /fields/2186.html

For some shits and giggles, check out this report comparing the US to the EU.http://www.timbro.com/euvsusa/

To end off, let's compare some major economies and their level of debt.

UK--40.8%

Germany--65.8%

Italy--105.6%

Japan--164.3%

Russia--28.2%

Spain--53.2%

India--59.7%

Brazil--52%

Canada--68.2%

South Korea--20.5%

France--66.5%

US--64.7%

See the rest here--http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook /fields/2186.html

For some shits and giggles, check out this report comparing the US to the EU.http://www.timbro.com/euvsusa/

I know a lot of people have a negative, knee-jerk reaction to nuclear power, but given the world we currently live in, it's looking better all the time.

The latest nuclear power plant designs are much safer than older designs, and can also efficiently generate Hydrogen from water filling a critical role in the Hydrogen Economy (today most Hydrogen is produced from natural gas, which won't scale to a full blown Hyrdo economy).

Here's a nice view from 10,000 feet - http://zfacts.com/p/285.html

When you think about all the environmental and political fallout generated by using fossil fuels (especially the now undeniable fact that the Earth is getting warmer), a few tons of nuclear waste buried here and there doesn't seem too bad. Future generations will be able to handle the nuclear waste before it becomes a critical issue. Wouldn't it be better to leave them a world with some nuclear waste than no world at all?

This site seems to debunk much of the hype over ethanol. It also has some choice things to say about the "hydrogen economy". I don't know how credible their analysis is, comment if you think it's crapola or not.

They do. It's called the Congressional Research Service, and it's part of the Library of Congress. Their job is to write reports on issues that are of concern to members of congress. Reports are confidential unless and until a representative or senator decides to release them.

While the CRS doesn't seem to have a web site, many other sites contain lists of reports that are available to the public.

Holy propaganda batman!

The American coalition for ethanol is basically a lobby of Midwest corn farmers who really like their ethanol subsidies.

The talking points are a very slanted and biased. For example the claim that EtOH has a Net Energy Value (NEV) of 1.67 is so generous to be absurd. See http://zfacts.com/p/83.html

Now while EtOH may not impact the cost of gasoline the fact that EtOH production needs to be subsidized with tax money means that it is not an economically viable solution (yet.) The ONLY reason EtOH fuel is not more expensive than $3/gal gasoline is that it is subsadized.

Now the sterling engine you linked to is indeed interesting, and i wish them the best of luck, but I withhold judgment until something is actually mass-produced. In my opinion the best short-term solution is small turbo diesel powered vehicles, and the worst is hydrogen fuel cells.