Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (255018)	10/12/2005 7:00:28 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572619

re: No we could have. Remember you have to consider not just the budget cost but the cost to the economy. The cost of rushing through a massive increase in alternate fuel usage (enough to reduce our oil consumption by 50%) would be a lot more than $100bil a year. You could probably get a single digit reduction without too much cost. But 50% would be, at least in dollar terms, a lot more painful then the spending in Iraq. Also if we had started such a program the day Bush took office, we would probably still be spending the money in Iraq, in addition to the costs to reconfigure our fuel use. So... lets pass ANOTHER tax give away to the energy industry! If we can't hit 50% with conservation, why even try? (We are the problem, so we are also the solution to the energy crisis). John