Obama’s Energy Policy Has Little To Do With Freedom

• August 4, 2008

Today Obama (who began to crater last week on his opposition to expanded domestic drilling for oil) is launching his energy policy this week. Looking at the “Energy Policy Fact Sheet” posted on his website I think his policy can be summed up as follows (per Ed Morrissey):

* Increase Fuel Economy Standards
* Invest in Developing Advanced Vehicles
* Build Biofuel Distribution Infrastructure
* Build More Livable and Sustainable Communities

So what do these things mean? Bigger government, and more government intervention into our lives.
Increased fuel economy standards means the government telling you what kind of car to drive. Do you live in northern climes and want a big SUV to ferry you and your family around safely? Tough. Barack Obama thinks you need something more fuel efficient. Because it’s not like car companies know how to make vehicles people want to buy. Nope. They need government intervention to figure it out.
Investing in developing advanced vehicles means nationalizing, even if only partly, the auto industry. Much like with biofuels, the government will invest in what they think you should want and not very often in what you will actually want. Such government steering rarely ends well. And again, we see Obama wanting to tell you what sort of vehicle you should want. Apparently this is what he thinks government is for.
Biofuel distribution infrastructure makes sense, but you have to wonder why Obama is in favor of this but not in favor of expanding our oil infrastructure. The risks are the same. A pipeline dumping thousands of gallons of ethanol into the ground is about as bad as a pipeline dumping crude oil into the ground. Or even refined gasoline. So why one and not the other? Especially given that demand for biofuels is negligible, and that biofuels aren’t even marketable without heavy government subsidy. I think we should first produce a biofuel people want, and then worry about a delivery infrastructure.
As for building “sustainable communities,” this is the scariest part of all. What it means is all sorts of government mandates on how you live your life. How you conduct your business. How you build your home. How you move yourself around. Sound pleasant? It might be if your idea of living the good life matches up with Obama’s and his government cronies. But if it doesn’t? Too bad. Your lifestyle isn’t “sustainable,” and thus isn’t acceptable.
What Obama has created here is not a solution for America’s energy woes, but rather a farce that only uses those energy woes as an excuse to clamp down on our freedom.

Tags: Asshats, Domestic Issues, Economy, Politics, Technology, The Loony Left

http://www.wethepeopleforum.com/forum/forums.asp golfmann

What Obama has created here is not a solution for America’s energy woes, but rather a farce that only uses those energy woes as an excuse to clamp down on our freedom.

Precisely why they don’t want to unleash our reserves…

Question is will they pull it off? A LOT of people think we can’t drill our way out and the oil’s almost gone.
pparets

Our government ensures our freedom.

No, Hannitized, we do!

It is in the nature of those who govern to steadily increase their influence and power. The Framers understood that ‘self-interest’ of human nature. Hence, they drafted a constitution that made the amalgamation of power by our government as difficult as possible.

“People should never fear their government. Government should fear the people.”
Hannitized

Bigger government means less FREEDOM?

Dude. I know you don’t like Obama but that is just nuts.

Our government ensures our freedom.

Freedom does not mean you can do what ever you want Rob.
2Hotel9

Ding, ding, ding! This”* Build More Livable and Sustainable Communities” is what Obamoid is about. Force people into monolithic “apartment” buildings where each “resident” has under 2000sqft of space, no privately owned vehicles, communal cafeterias with strictly enforced food allotments for each “citizen”, and complete control of movements and information access. The Marxist Utopian Dream, just thinking of which makes Obamoid and sannitized get all tingly in the pants.
Hannitized

PP,

“We” might, but “we” do so by means of a government vehicle.

Our military is not a public organization. Our law enforcers are not public organizations.

I understand what you are saying, but let’s keep our feet on the ground here.
http://www.fileitunder.com/ Rob B.

A planning trick that helps people is replace “fuel” or “gas” in these plans with “water.”

People will claim that it changes the dynamics because we need water to live but in our economy we need gas just slightly less. In doing so, the plans that don’t make sense stick out a little more because people see the need for water a little easier.

So a “wind fall profits tax” on water companies? Suddenly people see that it might not be as good of any idea as “create a less wasteful water infrastructure.”

It isn’t perfect, but it help model the point.
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

Bigger government means less FREEDOM?

Dude. I know you don’t like Obama but that is just nuts.

Our government ensures our freedom.

Actually, the whole point behind our federalist, republican form of government is that the power of government was spread to the people in order to prevent the government from becoming too powerful.

Power corrupts, and our founders feared a government that was too strong. That’s why the United States was divided up into sovereign states. That’s why the right to bear arms was enshrined in the bill of rights. That’s why we’ve got three branches of federal government. That’s why we have two houses of Congress.

What you liberals want to do, which is consolidate power with the federal government, is the exact opposite of what the founders intended to happen.

SayAnythingBlog.com

Obama’s Energy Policy Has Little To Do With Freedom

Create a SAB Readerblog

Recent Comments