The Official Soxtalk Poster Elections - Discussion Thread

[NorthSideSox72]

Anyone?

I'll dive in. I have a 7 point plan for achieving large scale reductions in the use of fossil fuels, reduction of polluting emissions, and moving our country towards energy independence...

 

1. Stop all tax breaks for oil drilling and exploration, and for that matter, any tax breaks or government funding at all for anything that isn't a renewable energy source. Those tax breaks add profitability to an already high-profit market in oil and gas, and are counter-productive to the greater good. All the money that previously went to those breaks will go to research on alternative energies (like wind, solar, hydro, hydrogen, etc.), and also shorter-term transitional energies like hybrid vehicles and high-output ethanol from switchgrass. This puts the incentives, and the goals, in line with getting us away from fossil fuels.

 

2. In order for the free market to take advantage of the increasing demand for alternate sources of energy, there must be an opportunity for players to enter the market. Therefore, we give the large energy companies an ultimatum - either get to work on alternative energy technolgies in a hurry, or we will release the patent protections on those technologies in the interest of national security. I believe the problem has reached that point. This will either force them to produce those technologies, or, allow other companies to make use of those protected technologies. Either way, someone will put them on the market. The timeframes specified must be short as well, and very specific.

 

3. Open up the use of pollution credits on an open, cleared exchange. This is done (I believe) loosely and OTC-only right now. Set up a trading system (venue, clearing) for these pollution credits that are granted by the U.S. government. This promotes the reduction of emissions by incentivizing the value of those credits, thereby injecting motivation to get on cleaner fuels (which will, at least some of the time, be renewable energies that companies have been hesitant to invest in). Further, the government can buy those credits as well, which effectively takes more pollution off the table.

 

4. Our dependance on oil costs us money and people every day - by tying us to the Middle East and other nations. Therefore, the more you use, the more you should pay. As we shift away from income taxes to more sales and use taxes (as I favor), the taxes on gasoline, oil and gas energies should reflect those significant costs. As those taxes go up, people and businesses will run towards alternative energies. This point would probably be the toughest one to get through Congress, because it comes off like a tax increase (even though it is not). But I'd push for it nonetheless.

 

5. Incentivize utility companies and large manufacturers into using energy from those renewable sources by allowing them to take tax deductions for the portion of their energy derived from those sources. The money could come from those removed subsidies I mention above, and later, from the decreased spending on war and other channels by which we funnel cash to the Middle East.

 

6. Turn the U.S. into an alternative energy partner and exporter. As we move to the front edge of developing these technologies, be aggressive in building partnerships with other North American nations and nations around the world to sell the energy and technologies globally.

 

7. Give EPA enforcement some teeth. Hire a whole bunch of new regulators and lawyers in the EPA to crack down on polluters, who currently only get caught some small fraction of the time. Make the fines and penalties enough to not only cover the new enforcement initiative, but also fund the re-purchase of those pollution credits mentioned earlier.

[kapkomet]

I hate being so busy because this whole thing looks very cool. Awesome job, all of you, for this.

 

I'll try to jump in at the end of the week, if I can't, I'll play along later as the election winds up as far as asking questions and all of that.

 

to all of you!

 

Kap

[Rex Kickass]

Anyone?

 

Wean oil companies from their subsidies for production of crude oil. Offer replacement subsidies for research and development in alternative forms of energy - specifically biofuels, hydrogen cells, and natural gas among others.

 

Require a 20% increase in CAFE standards for vehicles sold in the US within five years.

 

Force energy companies to move forward with utilizing alternative energy patent designs for efficient usage of oil or alternative fuels that they are sitting on. Establish a use it or lose it policy on those patents.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Im back from the deserts of Cali and with the holidays and my newly announced ( but we knew about it for a while anyway ) depolyment to Iraq in February I wont have time to campaign effectively so I think I'll just whore myself out for someone's cabinet if I'm wanted.

 

 

This should be a fun thing to watch.

[southsider2k5]

Im back from the deserts of Cali and with the holidays and my newly announced ( but we knew about it for a while anyway ) depolyment to Iraq in February I wont have time to campaign effectively so I think I'll just whore myself out for someone's cabinet if I'm wanted.

This should be a fun thing to watch.

 

Ah, its too bad it actually happened. Anyways, you stay healthy, you've got a message board full of people rooting for you to get back here in one piece!

[sox4lifeinPA]

Im back from the deserts of Cali and with the holidays and my newly announced ( but we knew about it for a while anyway ) depolyment to Iraq in February I wont have time to campaign effectively so I think I'll just whore myself out for someone's cabinet if I'm wanted.

This should be a fun thing to watch.

 

 

Hey Nuke, be well. You'll definitely have a place in my cabinet when you return...your choice. glad you're home.

 

PA

[EvilMonkey]

I have a question for all of you running that posted your platforms. To a person, you all put down that you support stem cell research. Support it how? By allowing private research, or by using taxpayer dollars to fund it?

[Texsox]

I have a question for all of you running that posted your platforms. To a person, you all put down that you support stem cell research. Support it how? By allowing private research, or by using taxpayer dollars to fund it?

 

Short answer, the term stem cell research is a bit misleading, what is really being researched are applications for cures for various human ailments that may be found in stem cells. I think each of those ailments is where the question of funding and private versus public research. Are we funding research to cure Parkinson's, Leukemia, or something more obscure.

 

Example, where there are huge applications for cures, like some common cancers, there is such a huge profit potential, that I do not believe public funding is necessary. Public funding should be limited towards those areas that private enterprise will not fund.

 

I am also an advocate of the government selling any advances they have discovered with stipulations that the drug companies set aside a portion of the profits into drug plans for the poor.

[NorthSideSox72]

I'd pretty much agree with Tex. For most purposes, the drug companies are motivated to spend a lot (and do) on R&D anyway - and the patent laws are there to protect that cause. Unless something comes along that is a national epidemic (read: national health/security threat), then the only funding I see needed from the government in that way is high-threat pathogen stuff they do at CDC (hemorragic fevers like Ebola and Marburg, or weaponized bio-weapons like Anthrax, or other such nasty beasties).

 

I'd also be OK with the profit-sharing to help the poor if the government happened upon something valuable as Tex suggested, since everyone would benefit. Excellent idea, sir.

[sox4lifeinPA]

I have a question for all of you running that posted your platforms. To a person, you all put down that you support stem cell research. Support it how? By allowing private research, or by using taxpayer dollars to fund it?

 

I believe that there is a moral dilema for many people regarding this issue. However, from a moral standpoint we must not be afraid of stemcell research. As many of my fellow candidates believe, there are huge potential for cures, for hope and for economic stimulation. Due to that fact, I do not believe that public subsidies are the role the government can play; rather by setting ethical standards for acquiring and using stem cells, we may realize the potential for irradicating many diseases and illnesses. What must be understood is that the quality of life for millions of people could be increased by such research. I believe that is a very moral ideal indeed.

[Balta1701]

I'd pretty much agree with Tex. For most purposes, the drug companies are motivated to spend a lot (and do) on R&D anyway - and the patent laws are there to protect that cause. Unless something comes along that is a national epidemic (read: national health/security threat), then the only funding I see needed from the government in that way is high-threat pathogen stuff they do at CDC (hemorragic fevers like Ebola and Marburg, or weaponized bio-weapons like Anthrax, or other such nasty beasties).

 

I'd also be OK with the profit-sharing to help the poor if the government happened upon something valuable as Tex suggested, since everyone would benefit. Excellent idea, sir.

For most cases, this is fundamentally incorrect. The Drug companies have virtually no interest in actually finding a cure for most diseases; it's the least profitable way to treat a sick patient. By far a more profitable action is to treat the symptom, or to find a way to treat the patient's symptoms and keep them alive without curing them, because then the patient is dependent on the drug company for the long-term.

 

There is a reason that a huge slice of the products we're seeing produced by drug companies in the past few years treat things like Acid Reflux disease, erectile dysfunction, and so on; it's much, much, much more profitable to create a drug that a patient has to take several hundred times than it is to create a new cure for something that a patient takes to become fully healthy.

 

Drug company research has a fundamentally different goal than that of research done by the government. Drug company research is done with its priority as: what would be the most profitable, government research is done as: what is the most useful, most high potential research. A drug company will not turn away money of course if a cure is developed, but developing cures is not their business.

[EvilMonkey]

For most cases, this is fundamentally incorrect. The Drug companies have virtually no interest in actually finding a cure for most diseases; it's the least profitable way to treat a sick patient. By far a more profitable action is to treat the symptom, or to find a way to treat the patient's symptoms and keep them alive without curing them, because then the patient is dependent on the drug company for the long-term.

 

There is a reason that a huge slice of the products we're seeing produced by drug companies in the past few years treat things like Acid Reflux disease, erectile dysfunction, and so on; it's much, much, much more profitable to create a drug that a patient has to take several hundred times than it is to create a new cure for something that a patient takes to become fully healthy.

 

Drug company research has a fundamentally different goal than that of research done by the government. Drug company research is done with its priority as: what would be the most profitable, government research is done as: what is the most useful, most high potential research. A drug company will not turn away money of course if a cure is developed, but developing cures is not their business.

The PR value alone in finding a cure for cancer or AIDS would be almost immeasurable.

[NorthSideSox72]

For most cases, this is fundamentally incorrect. The Drug companies have virtually no interest in actually finding a cure for most diseases; it's the least profitable way to treat a sick patient. By far a more profitable action is to treat the symptom, or to find a way to treat the patient's symptoms and keep them alive without curing them, because then the patient is dependent on the drug company for the long-term.

 

There is a reason that a huge slice of the products we're seeing produced by drug companies in the past few years treat things like Acid Reflux disease, erectile dysfunction, and so on; it's much, much, much more profitable to create a drug that a patient has to take several hundred times than it is to create a new cure for something that a patient takes to become fully healthy.

 

Drug company research has a fundamentally different goal than that of research done by the government. Drug company research is done with its priority as: what would be the most profitable, government research is done as: what is the most useful, most high potential research. A drug company will not turn away money of course if a cure is developed, but developing cures is not their business.

I see what you are getting at, but I have to disagree. If some company found a vaccine for AIDS, they'd be set for income for eons. No way they don't try to do that. Yes, they ALSO go after the simpler, annoying things that they can treat for life. They do both.

[southsider2k5]

I see what you are getting at, but I have to disagree. If some company found a vaccine for AIDS, they'd be set for income for eons. No way they don't try to do that. Yes, they ALSO go after the simpler, annoying things that they can treat for life. They do both.

 

Especially since all it takes is one company who is locked out of the patent money on treatments, to come up with a cure, to not only ensure them a revenue stream, but to blow up their competition by destroying their market for cures. Profit motive is a funny thing.

[Balta1701]

I see what you are getting at, but I have to disagree. If some company found a vaccine for AIDS, they'd be set for income for eons. No way they don't try to do that. Yes, they ALSO go after the simpler, annoying things that they can treat for life. They do both.

Yes, but the key question is the one of funding priorities. The drug companies do spend some $ on trying to develop cures, but it's not nearly what a government institution would spend on the same task. I'm not arguing that private companies fail to fund them entirely, I'm arguing a position of priorities. It is so much more profitable to treat the symptoms rather than develop a cure that a company who's goal is maximizing profit will focus the majority of its research dollars on developing treatments, not cures. PR value, undercutting other companies, yes, those are nice things, but drug companies focus on one thing above all else, profit, and you all know that.

 

Here's a piece from the RAND corp. making the same point.

 

As America ages and medical science advances, there are many new drugs coming onto the market to help us look younger and enjoy life more. Ads for these “lifestyle” drugs — treatments for ailments like baldness, dry skin, wrinkles, erectile dysfunction, incontinence and hot flashes — are widespread on TV, radio, the Internet and in the print media.

 

Drug companies are heavily advertising lifestyle drugs and pouring time, money and effort into developing them because such medications — particularly those that require frequent use — produce big profits.

 

But as resources are diverted to develop medications that enhance our lives but don't save them, drug companies are carrying out less work to develop less profitable treatments for life-threatening diseases. Pharmaceutical companies respond that profits from lifestyle drugs play a vital role in sustaining research and development on important life-saving drugs.

 

Still, there are only so many researchers and so much research funding to go around, and some badly needed drugs are not on the fast track to development. For example, there is a growing need for new drugs to treat infectious diseases that are on the rise. Increased trade and travel have made America's borders more porous to threats from diseases once thought confined to distant parts of the world. Superbugs are becoming resistant to current antibiotics at alarming rates. As a result, more than 170,000 Americans died in 1995 from infectious agents — twice the number as in 1980.

 

There are other areas of neglect, especially when it comes to prevention. At a time when lung cancer kills more than 150,000 Americans annually, only three new drugs are being developed that help people stop smoking — even though smoking is the main cause of lung cancer.

[Texsox]

For all discussions on government spending we must work within budget restraints. Looking at this through the eyes of unlimited funding creates a solution that is only theoretical. Now, I will take a shot at spend and don't tax proponents here, they have convinced a large slice of the public that we do have a virtually unlimited supply of money. They have hoodwinked the public into believing these deficits will result, down the road, in economic prosperity, and all this money will flow back into the treasury. What happens if it flows back but government is still spending more than they take in?

 

We must look at where private industry is funding research and stay out of their game. We must also look at where government funding of research would have military value.We also must balance the budget.

[Gregory Pratt]

After reviewing the platforms several times, I am suprised at the many places I agree in part or whole with the lot of you. Especially Rex. However, in the areas I disagree, there is a wide gap. And I disagree with the whole group of you on rebuilding NO. Not going to get into thathere, justI don't think the government should be doing it. At the moment I am torm between Tex and Northside.If I can come up with something to differentiate between you two for me, I'llbe sure to let you know. If only our real elections were this 'clean', eh?

 

You don't think any government should be rebuilding NO? Not even NO's and LA's?! I'm of the opinion that the feds should butt out -- and I wrote that -- but, no one should be rebuilding NO but private contractors or something?

[EvilMonkey]

You don't think any government should be rebuilding NO? Not even NO's and LA's?! I'm of the opinion that the feds should butt out -- and I wrote that -- but, no one should be rebuilding NO but private contractors or something?

I think the place is a death trap and accident waiting to happen and have no desire to spend billions building houses and/or businesses that are below the damn sealevel. They should make the place a park, or a monument or something. but putting poor people back below the level of the ocean is just plain wrong, foolish, pigheaded and shortsighted. If the state wants to spend its own tax dollars to rebuild, oh well. I would have a different opinion if the place wasn't a ready-made flood zone, but it is, and has been sinking as well, even before the hurricane. But lets argue/discuss that elsewhere.

[sox4lifeinPA]

You don't think any government should be rebuilding NO? Not even NO's and LA's?! I'm of the opinion that the feds should butt out -- and I wrote that -- but, no one should be rebuilding NO but private contractors or something?

 

 

Unfortunately, or fortunately, EVERYONE should be involved in rebuilding people's lives. We can argue about who dropped the ball during and right at the hurricane, but the longer we stall on helping these people, the more damage done.

 

My parents did their part...they took in a stray doggie!

[Gregory Pratt]

Unfortunately, or fortunately, EVERYONE should be involved in rebuilding people's lives. We can argue about who dropped the ball during and right at the hurricane, but the longer we stall on helping these people, the more damage done.

 

My parents did their part...they took in a stray doggie!

 

I'm just not of the opinion that the feds should be involved anymore at this point.

[NorthSideSox72]

I think the place is a death trap and accident waiting to happen and have no desire to spend billions building houses and/or businesses that are below the damn sealevel. They should make the place a park, or a monument or something. but putting poor people back below the level of the ocean is just plain wrong, foolish, pigheaded and shortsighted. If the state wants to spend its own tax dollars to rebuild, oh well. I would have a different opinion if the place wasn't a ready-made flood zone, but it is, and has been sinking as well, even before the hurricane. But lets argue/discuss that elsewhere.

When this subject came up a while back, I stated my opinion, and it was much like yours - anything rebuilt in the areas of NO that were heavily flooded should be parks, open space, natural marshlands, amusement parks, or other types of non-residential and non-permanent business reserves. That is the only responsible, smart thing to do. It means we don't go through this again, and really, will probably make NO a much better city to live in anyway.

 

But it also means that for those areas not in flood zones, or at the margins, that were damaged or abandonded, that we money we DO spend can be concentrated and well-thought out. And I do think that the federal government bears some of the burden, if for no other reason than the fact that it was the US Army Corps who built and maintains the levees. Even the open space aspect will still require some work to get to a semi-open state. So I don't think there is any avoiding spending SOME money on it.

[NorthSideSox72]

Looks like someone has a fan.

[benzac]

Looks like someone has a fan.

 

FanS, plural

[Gregory Pratt]

I am, for the most part, staying out of the debates. I'll jump in here and there, maybe, but I've got my own campaign plan and debating isn't high on my list.

[NorthSideSox72]

I am, for the most part, staying out of the debates. I'll jump in here and there, maybe, but I've got my own campaign plan and debating isn't high on my list.