Disqus - Latest Comments for pporter

Re: The "American Clean Energy and Security Act" known also as "Cap & Trade"

pporter — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 23:00:07 -0000

apparently the federal government just gave stimulus money to a Car Company outside the US that is backed by Al Gore; so he is getting richer by pushing his agenda....so is this really about the environment or is it about money...i say it is about money. i have no problem using other technologies ...i want to use them but government should not back one of the other as it sets up opportunity for fraud and abuse. why did we send 2Billion to Brazil so they could expand their off shore drilling capability when we won't do our own; and the company that got the money was invested heavily by George Soros

Re: The "American Clean Energy and Security Act" known also as "Cap & Trade"

pporter — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 19:16:43 -0000

I completely disagree with this legislation!

First, Cap and Trade is only a shell game being put forth to strip more money from the people and industry; as opposed to actually coming up with something that will make us energy independent and at the same time provide good environmental policy. It does not reduce anything just moves it from one column to another.

Second, Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant it is a necessary element that is part of our photosynthesis process and current studies indicated that CO2 is at its lowest levels in our atmosphere than at any other time since before the ice age.

Third, this is not an energy plan; this is the lazy man’s way to deal with an issue while not really dealing with it at all.

Good Energy policy would be:

1. Drill for our own resources, instead of allowing China to drain our reserves off our shore or provide billions to Brazil to do offshore drilling. How does not drilling help the environment when someone else is still doing it and we support them but not ourselves? Additionally, we are much more environmentally conscious than any other country; so our processes will provide a higher level of assurance that drilling will be done responsibly.

2. Implement turbine construction along our entire highway system including solar collectors. This does not require taking large green spaces to accomplish a change and uses an already industrial focused land use to its highest ability. The electrical infrastructure is already in place so minimal investment for retrofit is required, as opposed to starting from scratch. The energy captured from this implementation can offset the housing demand as it is the lowest demand area.

3. Focus on diesel technology for transportation. Everything I have read shows that diesel burns 40% cleaner than our current fuel and it naturally achieve higher mpg ratings. The car companies already have access and use this technology so an entire retrofit of their industry is not necessary. And diesel can be created from resources other than fossil fuel.

4. Invest in clean coal, natural gas and nuclear to address industry demand; and where possible use geothermal energy in developments that require large land mass such as research parks, office parks, university and shopping malls just to name a few. Geothermal can also be included with the turbine construction because we already have to do deep pile foundations with these structures so why not drill for geo.

Re: Obama Announces 48 New Advanced Battery and Electric Drive Projects To Receive $2.4 billion In Funding

pporter — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 00:13:12 -0000

Not sure i agree with the investment in electric vehicles. we already don't have the electric capacity to deal with our current electricity demand. Adding additional demand prior to, or simultaneous with, expansion of our power grid is a bad investment of funds. I am afraid that just as ethonol has proved to be a poor investment so will the electric vehicle. I think hybrids, which the battery investment will accommodate, and deisel based vehicles are the best options for our transportation system.

Re: The Real Impact of ‘Obamacare'

pporter — Fri, 15 May 2009 15:55:36 -0000

David, the problem is that when Obama puts out ideas we never get a chance to read them or comment on them before they are signed into law so we better start talking about what we want to see versus what we don't want to see rather than waiting till it is too late. Additionally, he may say that you can keep your plan but if the government is offering a "free" health care solution then no company is going to keep theirs because why should they....and before you know it , we will all be on the same plan. Again sending $100 to washington equates to $50 or less in value. Read Tom Dashcle's book ...this is the plan that Obama is following and he was his intended pick. I don't think you will like what you read.

Re: The Real Impact of ‘Obamacare'

pporter — Thu, 14 May 2009 20:27:52 -0000

I think we can all agree that the health care system needs work no matter what side you are on. However, i feel that government should be the regulator and private industry should be the doer. You can't have government being both; that is what creates a system without checks and balances as we have seen with Fannie and Freddie, Medicare/Medicaid, VA health. My mother has been disabled for over 30 years and they would rather she be put in a home which costs in excess of $70,000/year than pay $10,000 once, for a lift so we can keep and care for her at home. People in the already existing government run health system don't get the care they need and current governement programs are already on their way to ruin why would we want to give them another responsibility when they can't handle what they do now. Giving government $100 means we get $50 back in care when if we had paid ourselves we would get the full value of that $100.
The problem is that the insurance companies are some of the biggest donors to the government so the government has not taken them on. I don't have a problem with Obama taking on the issues of pre-existing conditions and regulatory reform but i do have a problem with a system that is run by the government. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Specifically, what i learned as a small business was that the biggest issues to affordable health care are 1) state boundaries 2)employer based health care and 3) personal responsibility. First, state boundaries, insurance rates are predicated on spreading the risk. if competition were allowed between states premiums would immediately be reduced. Secondly, because we use the employer based health system, the risk population is reduced further because each employer is looked upon as one person or a smaller multiple as opposed to their full population. Going to individual HSA's would ensure that every person is counted in the risk analysis bringing premiums down again. The biggest issue regarding health is catestrophic health issues so high deductibles typically $5000 are available that become 100% plans. This would be a much easier system and would not eliminate the ability for companies to contribute for competition just as they do now. Third, personal responsibility comes into play because as individuals we need to be responsible for our own health. Many of us don't make good decisions because lets face it a $20 co-pay doesn't hurt enough to persuade someone not to eat McDonald's everyday; and more specifically where does the rest of the cost go. The doctor in Long Island had the best idea when he created a plan for preventative care/general care that eliminated the insurance industry from the equation for everyday needs of medicine and charges his clients $79/month..period, no matter what they need. This cost can still be part of the deductible and lets face it we are not sick constantly every year so why do we need to be ensured as if we are.

A thought i had is that we get rid of Medicare/Medicaid and VA and all go on the system as described above and the government deals with regulations that address pre-existing conditions. We open a HSA for every child and deposit $5000 in a guaranteed savings account that will double by age 7; take the principle out to cover the next generation and then by the time they are of adult age (21) the HSA is worth about $20,000 so they have a good foundation to start off. The individual and their employer can contribute to the HSA and be accessed by a debit card. Their are some things that need to be worked out for those on Medicare/Medicaid now but i think we can figure this out if we stop the "left" and "right" talk. You would be surprised what we agree on if we stop letting the politicians divide us by creating confrontational "game manship" between parties. We are American's and any corporation that worked the way our government did would be out of business in a week.

Social Security can be done in a similar way and by doing it this way we would save quite a bit of money. Currently we don't start contributing till we are of working age so we lose 15 to 20+ years. If we create an individual account at birth of $5000 by the time a person is 60 they can retire and receive payments equalling $50,000/year for 30 years; which is way better than they get now. If a person dies the remaining money is returned and used to fund the next generation and disability payments for those that need extra care.