“We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK,” Obama said.
WHen I saw this in an article today, my first reaction was “what kind of wacky statement is that?”. I mean, why do we need the permission of other countries?
Then I realized that this is in the very least a pure politics pitch. After all he was delivering this statement to crowds in Oregon. But I wonder, does he really believe such nonsense? Would he really seek to take away our freedoms if elected President? Surely, he doesn’t support the federal government telling citizens how much they are allowed to eat or what kind of car they are allowed to drive or controlling our thermostats.
At least I hope not, or we might be in for a very dark period in this country.
16 comments ↓
He is simply stating that we as Americans can’t just consume, consume, and consume without giving back. Would you want other countries using all our resources and not give us anything in return? We are the most energy hungry nation in the world.
No where did he say the government would control our AC, what we eat, or what kind of cars we drive. California is already thinking of having radio controlled AC units so the utility companies can control the temperatures of people’s AC units. Go bash Arnold or something.
Mr. Anonymous -
What do you mean by “giving back”? We pay dearly for the energy and resources we consume. I think it is perfectly legit for us, or any people for that matter, to consume as much as they want as long as they are paying for it. And paying for it is something we are certainly doing — I paid $100 to fill up my SUV on Friday — which I think is completely fair and market driven.
We certainly don’t owe other countries something just because we consume the amount we do beyond the payment for those goods and services that we readily render.
I did not realize that California was going to such lengths to infringe upon individuals rights. Hopefully the residents of that state will not stand for such rights infringement. That, however, is really none of my concern since I am a resident of Tennessee and not California.
So what does Obama have his thermostat set to in his house, I wonder?
Probably 68 in summer, 72 in winter.
Typical elitist. Since when do other countries dictate what we eat, either? Fine, Obama, Iran says you can’t eat your waffle. Give it up.
Patrick,
You are absolutely right that we pay dearly for the energy we consume. But I think that what Obama is getting at, along with a lot of scientists and academics, is the fact that when, for example, we burn coal and oil to power our SUV’s and widescreen TV’s (mine is 57 inches!) we are tipping the balance of numerous, delicate ecological systems which are all changing as a result of our growing civilizations. I don’t think Obama could ever get away with telling us how to live our lives, and he’s not going to be able to put a cap on electricity use. But he’s saying that our SUV’s and our stainless steel appliances are going to continue to need energy, and we have to figure out how to supply that energy without further polluting our air, our water, and ultimately changing the climate on our planet. People say that you can’t put a price on freedom, but I’d imagine that the cost of cleaning up the next ecological disaster, or saving lower manhattan from rising sea levels, will bear an incredibly large and tangible price tag.
And as always, the people who can’t afford SUV’s will be the ones who bear the brunt of the misfortune should these events occur. If nothing else is clear, it’s clear that Obama wants to make informed decisions that will be in the interest of all Americans, not just the ones earning six figures. Complain all you want about the inconveniences of his policies, this guy is about freedom in a bigger sense: he’s about the freedom of the average person. He wants the average person to be able to live a kind of life that used to exist in the 50’s when there was still a middle class in our country. He’s Robin Hood, but he won’t even have to steal from the rich– he’ll just stop giving to them indiscriminately with corporate tax loopholes and no-bid contracts.
I mean is that really so horrible? If our next President is like, one of the Kennedys, but black, strong, handsome, and charismatic?
IdeasReallyRule:
You assert that climate change is man made. I think that is a questionable position.
AHHHH! Seriously? Are we still there? You are a bright man, I’ve read plenty of your posts. Get that big ol’ head of yours out of your arse Patrick.
Henry: I never made an assertion that climate change is man made. Quite the opposite. I am not yet convinced that climate change is not a natural occurrence unaffected by man, for worse or better.
I also beg to differ on the precise location of my head. It is squarely on top of my two shoulders, looking forward.
Sorry I wasn’t clear - I was quoting your 1st point from comment #5.
In other words, I was reacting with bitterness and disappointment that you are not yet convinced we are to a large degree responsible responsible for the relatively fast increase in global temperature.
Henry, It is important to distinguish that I am not denying the possibility, just questioning whether it is 100% factual. I am a little concerned that the things we choose to be political about, e.g. Climate Change, are those things in which there is controversy.
Why not put the political muscle behind something like Clean Water or stopping Mountain Top Removal? Things that far more people can agree are bad. They are also things that we can readily do to stop and/or solve.
I really think the people here are making the Earth warmer, so we should also stay away from Mars, Jupiter, Pluto and Venus. I have heard they are also getting warmer. You think we should send a ship to those planets and tell the residents there to stop polluting their planets also.
Personally, I hope they classify SUV’s with cars for CAFE standards. Average MPG’s has dropped significantly in this country since the 1980’s and that doesn’t include trucks and SUV’s even though there are a lot more on the road now than back in the 1980’s. We basically have become a gluttonous country since the early 90’s. I was looking at a Motor Trend the other day and was shocked to see the gas mileage on some American cars. A Mustang that gets 14 mpg and some new Dodge that looks like one from the early 70’s. It got 12 mpg’s. Shocking! I complain about my Mazda 3 because it only gets about 25 mpg in the city. Maybe it will take $5-6 per gallon gas to change our ways and force the automakers to shift their way of thinking. We’ve had gasoline engines for 100 years. Its time for something new.
Jeff S: I completely understand your motivation, but believe the approach you would have us take is severely misguided. The free market should determine energy consumption and vehicle design, not the government, especially the federal government.
Constitutionally, our federal government was setup to be a really limited republic that stayed out of people’s business as well as the business of trying to control a free market. Markets always find the right balance if left alone. Government intervention only makes markets inefficient which leads to less than optimum solutions, not to mention an infringement upon the liberties of her citizens.
You might make the argument that the pollution generated by a vehicle burning gasoline affects the population at large and therefore is infringing on the liberties of others. It is the governments job to protect our liberties, not infringe upon them, and therefore there might be a case for some solution to limit pollution.
I am not so sure it is direct federal government regulation of MPG minimums, but maybe you could argue some sort of state level pollution tax system where when you got your vehicle inspected, you were assessed a certain fee based on how far below a certain standard you are. That way you create a condition based on what people are actually consuming rather than and industry being told what they can and cannot manufacture. The net affect would be the same, depending on the level of fees and each state’s decision to employ such fees, however, it would solve the problem on the demand side rather than the supply side.
I am more concerned about the appropriate type of response from the appropriate level of government. Our federal government is already too powerful and too big.
Okay I am very very disappointed in what I have read on this page from some of the posters. I know for a fact that Corporation are bad just as bad if not more so than the Federal government. how can we have the market which is about money and can push adverts that makes there position look better. at the very least our politicians answer to us the voters even if we do remember that they represent us… I believe that we must all be better informed about how our actions related to others in this country and outwards. we are all on this planet not Americans and others but all humans and we will rise or fall together on this planet. if I drive a huge car that only gets 17 miles and produce lots of smog buy I pay for it. does that make it okay.. no it does not cause your neighbors whom ever they are will be effect by it. we are our brothers keeper cause every action we do effects someone else it always have and it always will we need each other cause we cant do anything alone but fail. Now after all I have said you don’t have to like it or except it but that does not make it any lest true or pertinent. We need to get back to a point we don’t just do for ourselves and live to today but do for others and look to tomorrows.
NUJU: Still you miss my point. Our government’s job, at least in the US, is not to control the lives of its people, but it is rather to insure that they have the rights/freedoms to pursue happiness, along with their life and liberty.
That is the bedrock of our formation. The government telling me what kind of car i can drive doesn’t sound like it is protecting my liberty, but rather taking it away.
Patrick,
“The government telling me what kind of car i can drive doesn’t sound like it is protecting my liberty, but rather taking it away.”
You don’t have a constitutional right to own a car or drive, therefore the government has every right to tell you what you can or cannot drive on public highways.
If the government didn’t get involved in the auto industry, we’d still be driving death traps. Every advance in safety and economy is a result of the government getting involved. Companies don’t innovate until they are required to. And if that requirement comes from the government then so be it.
The problem with leaving the free market alone is the one simple goal of every company. Maximize profits, eliminate competition. In effect, become a monopoly. So the players in the capitalist society are actually trying to destroy it themselves.
Maybe if the Supreme Court would overturn their ruling from 1886 which granted corporations the same rights as citizens, I’d have more faith in the free market.
Jeff S:
You and I approach the constitution from starkly different perspectives. I see the constitution as a document that has the intent of goal of limiting government. You appear to view it as an instrument that seeks to grant government the powers to limit individual liberty.
We also view free markets and capitalism very differently. I would disagree with you on the point of us driving death traps with no other option. The very nature of a free market means that people will ultimately get what they want (barring monopolistic practices, which is the threatens free markets and capitalism and which therefore we have protections against from the government).
Companies will make what they can market and sell. If the consumer demand for safe vehicles is there, then you can bet they’ll make safe vehicles. Why do you think car companies spend so much money advertising safety features of their vehicles?
Would you prefer we only had state controlled/run companies?
Leave a Comment