Well, if the government prints less money, then possibly we'll experience deflation. And that's a bad thing, though I don't remember exactly why (it causes economic retraction or somesuch).

Go back to a gold/silver standard? Maybe, though the US doesn't produce much precious metal of its own, so we'd need to get it from somewhere else. A non-fiat currency would weaken the national government's hold on the states because it would be less able to dispense money that it doesn't have.

Energy independence. It sounds good, but is it really a good idea? Should we be, for example, steel independent? Tourism independent? There's nothing inherently wrong with international trade, and we need gazillions of things, so why should we be fixated on energy independence?

I like the idea of satallite-based microwave energy transmitters. Now that's energy independence with STYLE. Plus, we get angry with someone, we just point the beam at their capital for a few minutes.

"Montana and North Dakota are already being drilled though, thankfully."

...yes, and do you know how crazy those oil companies have gotten?? Nobody wants to work for them cuz it sucks, so they're offering like crazy benefits. Seriously, these guys are getting every third week off, the companies are paying for all the classes they need to take, and half the time, they're getting paid $12+ just so that they're on call. Seriously, it's gotten rediculous.

I have to say I disagree with your opinions.

The U.S. Government, for one thing cannot just stop printing money, for more than one reason, but I'll list three.

Point A: Currency consists of paper and metal, which wears out over time and needs to be replaced.
Point B: There exists such a thing as a natural inflation rate, which is simply in line with the real business cycle and consequently, due to the ever increasing Real GDP of the U.S. economy, the amount of GDP per capita consistently increases, and when every individual has more money, the price level increases (this is what is known as inflation).
Point C: The money supply is broken into numerous classifications (M1, M2...) M1 which is the most liquid form of currency consists of currency and checking deposits. In the United States, checking deposits comprise a vastly larger sum of the money supply than currency does. For this reason, not printing money will not have the effect on inflation you think it will. In reality, the way the Central Bank of the United States (known as the Federal Reserve, or "the Fed") controls the money supply actually has very little to do with printing money, and actually has more to do with required reserves that commercial banks, such as Citibank, or Bank of America are, as you might have assumed from the name, required to keep deposited in the Fed. The Fed controls the money supply by selling or buying government bonds to and from these commercial banks, when the sell these bonds to the commercial banks, they take the money used to pay for them from the required reserves, and consequently commercial banks are forced to deposit more money into the Fed, meaning there is less money for them to loan out to individuals and firms, and consequently, the money supply decreases. The opposite happens when the Fed buys back bonds from commercial banks. Additionally, most of this is a digitalized process, most "money" does not actually physically exist.

I have no idea where you got the idea that in capitalist economies the economy grows at a rate of 20-30% a year. Even in the fastest growing economies in the world (i.e. China), the rate typically does not exceed 12 or 13%. In the United States the figure is typically between 2-4%.

Again, I don't know where you got the idea that the Iraqi Dinar was worth three times as much as USD due to the large oil reserves that they possess. Again, the value of money is largely controlled by the Central Bank of a country (in Iraq, "The Central Bank of Iraq"). This is due to the real interest rate set by the central bank. When real interest rates are high, it becomes more lucrative for foreigners to invest in a country fiscally, because high interest rates mean high return on deposits. Consequently, the demand for that currency increases, and the exchange rate increases comparative to other currencies, in this case the USD.

Additionally, just because there are large oil fields in the United States doesn't mean that it is feasible to obtain this oil. In reality, if too much oil is drained from an oil well (which is actually effectively an underground lake), the well will collapse. Furthermore, the argument that we should drill Montana, North Dakota and Alaska is fine, except that doing such things destroys things like natural habitats for a variety of species of animals, we run the risk of wrecking ecosystems that are crucial for our survival as a species, and additionally, if you've ever heard of Teapot Dome (another instance in which people were trying to drill in national parks), it effectively ended in the people of the United States getting embezzled out of huge sums of money from oil-drilling.

I agree with you on the point of Nuclear power plants, I think you have the right idea, and you're right about the USSR. A little known fact is that the reason that Chernobyl was vastly more destructive than the Three Mile Island incident (in which I believe very few people, if anyone, was actually harmed) is because the Soviets actually relied mostly on stealing technology from Americans, and consequently their capacity for actually implementing it effectively was greatly reduced. Nuclear power, at least in the United States, has, and probably always will be, a relatively safe and highly-efficient form of producing relatively clean energy.

Solar power is pretty impractical, I agree, although the idea that the reason people aren't interested in it is because of MSNBC is pretty ridiculous, I think it has more to do with the fact that it's expensive to build solar plants, and they don't generate a lot of power.

Your analysis is incorrect, China is actually the world's largest producer of coal. Perhaps what you meant to say was that the United States has the largest coal reserves. I'm not sure if coal can easily be converted to oil, so I can't state an opinion on that, but my assumption is that it can't, typically in market economies, if a profit opportunity is available, it is taken.

Coal is a heavy pollutant, and if we were to switch to coal, our carbon emissions would increase greatly, as we can see is happening in China at the present time, as they have been building enormous amounts of coal-firing plants recently. Perhaps if you would like to increase greenhouse gases, and live in areas which are rich with smog and acid rain from the production of coal, then going back to coal-energy would be a wise choice, but I don't think it's a wise option at this point.

Ethanol is not a good idea, I agree with you on that point. It gives the agriculture industry yet another reason to get subsidized, which leads to the downfall of small American farms, and because ethanol requires so much produce, it drives up demand for food, which increases not only the price of corn and the like, but also of meat and other food products, because that's what they feed farm animals. Consequently, as the price level of food rises, the price level of everything in the economy rises along with it, decreasing the average persons buying power.

I think it's important to note that I'm not trying to call you a fool. I'm just giving you a more fact-based opinion. I hope you learn something from reading this. Feel free to contact me if you'd like to debate this more.