It is clear that the rapid increases in comsumption of oil by India and China are contributing to high oil prices, so NO presidential candidate can do anything to make gasoline cheaper. Regulating gasoline, or the vehicles that use them, will just make those products more expensive.

Right now, Dems have the perfect cover from criticism, should Americans start feeling the pinch of the 2007 CAFE standard increases - Bush signed it. If they make even the smallest additions to these standards, that cover is void. If Dems grant California their CO2 emissions regulations waiver, then the cover is shattered, because the vehicle market will become as fragmented as the gasoline market, which now has many different blends to meet several different state requirements.

I know that Dems just won't be able to help themselves. If they hold any power, their first and only recourse is to start telling people what they can and can't do - it is in every fiber of their being. Instead of using tax incentives to reduce costs of good behaviours, they will add tax burdens to punish bad behaviours, like filling up your car with gas, so that you can earn a living - those bastards.

I thought our current president was a Republican. ;)

Note: I try not to group myself in anyway so I can remain impartial and be free to adapt to new technologies and social conditions.

I thought our current president was a Republican. ;)

Note: I try not to group myself in anyway so I can remain impartial and be free to adapt to new technologies and social conditions.

He is more of a Republicrat

He is more of a Republicrat

He was never voted for by Democrats. If you don't like him anymore, you don't get to throw him under the bus like the Republicans didn't get him elected. Own your own mistakes.

Both parties are equally capable of idiocy and improper governance. We've arrived at this point the aid of both parties. Given that the last most of the last 6 years were dominated by Republican policy, it seems unlikely that the Democrats could be solely to blame. Perhaps we should prey more in schools, that'll help. Maybe we should remove what miniscule amount of discipline is still allowed, that'll help too. Oooo, oooo I've got it lets blame the schools, increase the admin, institute a national minimum standards test, reduce cost by increasing student to teacher ratio...this'll definitely fix it. Idiocy on both sides.

The most rediculous part of all is that if blinders were put on and the issues were laid out if full detail and considered without prejudice, most people would agree on the best course of action in most situations.

The biggest problem is the inherent polarization in today's party politics. That is what got us here and has the most potential to keep us lingering longer. This will be a significant recession no matter what. Good judgement and good leadership can help minimize the pain and I don't give a rats %^$ where it comes from.

Please, it's "Pray", not "Prey". It's a significant difference.

Please, it's "Pray", not "Prey". It's a significant difference.

If you keep correcting their grammar, it makes it harder to spot the fools.

If you keep correcting their grammar, it makes it harder to spot the fools.

I'm actually extremely tolerant of spelling and grammar errors. Einstein didn't do too well with those, so I doubt that it correlates with cognitive ability. Some, however, require correcting. as above. Name calling isn't the route to go though.
Thanks

I'm actually extremely tolerant of spelling and grammar errors. Einstein didn't do too well with those, so I doubt that it correlates with cognitive ability. Some, however, require correcting. as above. Name calling isn't the route to go though.
Thanks

Unfortunatly, in these days of anonymous web chat, people are far more likely to throw out insults and name calling then in the past when you had to stand there in front of somebody and risk getting punched in the face for it.

I don't think anyone is perfect at spelling and grammar. I am fairly lenient on it as well, even though I consider myself above average on both.

Anyway, to the original discussion - I'm a hard-core republican, or at least I have been. I've been very disappointed with the current administration's efforts on the environment and energy. During the campaigns, especially Bush vs. Gore, I went with Bush because I liked pretty much all of his promises, vs. what Gore had in mind. However, if I had it to do over again, I would have voted for Gore. Now I find myself wanting Hillary to win, which several years ago would have been unthinkable to me. I've nothing against McCain, specifically, but it sort of falls into the same situation.. Everything sounds good on the environmental policy, but will he follow through or is it just talk to win votes (as was the case with Bush) ?

However.. People want to take me out and lynch me for saying this. But I am glad gas prices are rising, and I hope they continue to. With our market economy, the price of fuel is the only thing that will cause a revolution in energy. Even if gas stayed cheap a little while longer, we all know it can't last forever. Eventually we'll start running out and supply won't be able to meet demand, then the price will really start going up. It is only a matter of time. I'd rather we start now on a conversion to electric vehicles rather than later. There are many benefits to pushing it now rather than waiting until the last minute.

Lol,adric22, you misspelled the first word in your post.

Republican or Democrat, it makes no difference.

As long as their votes are up for sale to the highest bidder, the system will never change......

Until term limits, election financing reform, and the elimination of donations of any kind by a PAC are made a part of the rules our elected officials have to operate under, what comes out of Washington, DC will still be beyond the belief of most rational people...

Please, it's "Pray", not "Prey". It's a significant difference.

Can't blame your red ink, this one is pretty bad. Wish I could say it was a typo, just typing the last thought while thinking the next.

Jason -

Didn't realize it was a grammatical error, wish it were that too.

I hope my rant-n-roll wasn't too offensive. It frustrates me when opinions and decisions are made from sides instead of good reason.

Glad to say my opinions are my own and not owned by a political party.

Currently, I am in possession of only one mind and body (that I know of anyway:)). So if you feel I've stated something foolish, please feel free to point it out to me.

Please, it's "Pray", not "Prey". It's a significant difference.

Can't blame your red ink, this one is pretty bad. Wish I could say it was a typo, just typing the last thought while thinking the next.

Jason -

Didn't realize it was a grammatical error, wish it were that too.

I hope my rant-n-roll wasn't too offensive. It frustrates me when opinions and decisions are made from sides instead of good reason.

Glad to say my opinions are my own and not owned by a political party.

Currently, I am in possession of only one mind and body (that I know of anyway:)). So if you feel I've stated something foolish, please feel free to point it out to me.

We can blame political parties all we want, but it's really just ourselves, the people of America, that are to blame. We have become people on the left, people on the right and people that just don't give a crap. You can really admire the people that don't give a crap. They're the ones that don't just read from a pre-scripted set of bullet points. No real agendas, no big picture, no ideal utopian society to work towards, just living life and evaluating only things that matter to them as they occur from a more or less neutral point of view.

On the other hand, they're not participating much and letting the folks on the right or left make all the decisions that can effect them even though the people that don't give a crap are the majority. Americans like a good competition with winners and losers, so the right and left get further and further extreme in their attempts to win dominance. The result is the things we argue about get sillier sillier, so more and more people don't give a crap. In the mean time, the country slowly goes to hell. Life was simpler when we were just regular ol' Americans.

Both parties are equally capable of idiocy and improper governance.
Indeed. In fact history would show that neither is capable of much of anything else.

The two-party system is a farce. In America we have a one-party system with two faces. Both parties serve the same agenda and the same master (corporate/central-banking power), but each has their own parts of this agenda to enact and their own face to present to the public.

Indeed. In fact history would show that neither is capable of much of anything else.

The two-party system is a farce. In America we have a one-party system with two faces. Both parties serve the same agenda and the same master (corporate/central-banking power), but each has their own parts of this agenda to enact and their own face to present to the public.

IF this were true, I'd be curious A) who will you be voting for in November and B) What's your solution?

On the other hand, they're not participating much and letting the folks on the right or left make all the decisions that can effect them even though the people that don't give a crap are the majority. Americans like a good competition with winners and losers, so the right and left get further and further extreme in their attempts to win dominance. The result is the things we argue about get sillier sillier, so more and more people don't give a crap. In the mean time, the country slowly goes to hell. Life was simpler when we were just regular ol' Americans.

It's funny that both Karl Marx and Nietzsche detested those who do not engage in "the struggle", and merely float along. I don't think people are obligated to fight, but they are obligated to generate enough productivity to sustain themselves and their dependents, and not look to anyone else for support.

I'm a huge believer in voting. I've missed exactly 3 votes (all in primaries with parents in intensive care), since I turned 18, which is several decades ago. I've never believed in voting by Party, but do vote on purported stances on issues. As citizens aren't we at LEAST obligated to try to be informed and participate in the process?
I'm not sure there ever was a time when we were all just "good 'ol Americans", but there does seem to be a direct relationship between the institution of "family" and the health of our country. Back in the 50's/60's we still actually sat down to meals, and it was far worse to be sent to the Pricipal in school - not because of his punishment, but because of what was waiting at home. These days, what's waiting at home is a lawyer drafting a case against the school system (thanks, ACLU).
Hope springs eternal, so maybe, someday, the pendulum will swing back....

I'm a huge believer in voting. I've missed exactly 3 votes (all in primaries with parents in intensive care), since I turned 18, which is several decades ago. I've never believed in voting by Party, but do vote on purported stances on issues. As citizens aren't we at LEAST obligated to try to be informed and participate in the process?
I'm not sure there ever was a time when we were all just "good 'ol Americans", but there does seem to be a direct relationship between the institution of "family" and the health of our country. Back in the 50's/60's we still actually sat down to meals, and it was far worse to be sent to the Pricipal in school - not because of his punishment, but because of what was waiting at home. These days, what's waiting at home is a lawyer drafting a case against the school system (thanks, ACLU).
Hope springs eternal, so maybe, someday, the pendulum will swing back....

Oh, I did not mean to omit each individual's civic duties - voting, jury duty, etc. I am just saying that people needn't become full blown activists as Marx and Nieztsche demand.

IF this were true, I'd be curious A) who will you be voting for in November and B) What's your solution?

For me, I will be voting for neither the republican or the democrat unless by some weird series of events, Ron Paul ends up the Republican nominee. Other than that I'll be looking at the libertarian party or other third parties, or using my right to cast a Write In vote.

... or using my right to cast a Write In vote.

Is Lyle old enough to serve? I know Bob Lutz is...(just kidding)

IF this were true, I'd be curious A) who will you be voting for in November and B) What's your solution?I believe it is true, documented, and provable. It's usually a rather long and tedious discussion, but it boils down to one basic concept--do you believe the world is run by an "elite" or not. If you don't, I'm not going to try to convince you.

I don't believe voting is an effective means to change anything. You have two choices: One, vote for someone who is "electable." These people, by definition, are supported by the establishment as "acceptable" candidates. They can say whatever they want about "change" during an election cycle but once in office, they will implement the pre-determined agenda of the establishment. Two, vote for someone who "cannot win" the election. These people are either truly anti-establishment or planted by the establishment as a form of controlled opposition. It doesn't really matter, because as you will hear the mass media say every single time they mention one of these candidates, they "cannot win" the election. Besides, I live in MA--so no matter who I vote for, the electoral votes are going to the Democrats.

Given those two choices, I don't think it matters who a person votes for. Choice one? An establishment candidate wins. Nothing changes in any way that is not endorsed by and controlled by the establishment. Choice two? Nothing changes because your candidate cannot win. The two choices in this election are ClintObamaCain and Anyone Else.

So getting around to actually answering your questions...
a) Ron Paul (Choice two)
b) My (never going to happen) solution is to completely and totally eliminate all corporate money from government and to abolish all central banks and fiat currency--for starters. Things would get worse before they got better, as we are so far down the road to state-capitalism and dependence on government/corporations that reversion back to a truly free market and a truly constitutionally-republican (small c, small r) form of government as America was intended to be would cause some major transitional issues.

&eye,
I was hoping to ask you to point to a country that more nearly approximates what you're looking for, but on re reading your post, you mention "the world".
IS there anywhere on Earth that's closer to your ideal? I'd genuinely like to know. I'm far from happy with the state of things here, BUT I'm not seeing anything better anywhere else.

don't get me wrong, i'm just talking ideals here. i do enjoy living in America, and i don't want to go elsewhere. but i have no illusions that just because life is pleasant and nice that our system of government/society is therefore not corrupt, dishonest, and more-or-less a system of social control whereby we are corralled into a box and told ceaselessly to consume, marry and reproduce, watch tv, accept the status quo, etc.

i don't think things are any better anywhere else. but i haven't lived or even spent much time outside of the US, so i don't really have a valid basis for comparison. i'm not satisfied to accept the "best" current situation or the "best" current system if the "best" system is not honest and forthright--and i think you'd be hard-pressed to make a substantive and factual argument that it is. All current systems of global government are horribly corrupt and dishonest by nature. They are fully controlled assets of the world's central banks, and have been since at least the 17th century. governments, banks, and corporations are essentially the same entity. they play out a story of being different and sometimes at-odds with each other in the mass media, but this is just a fictional story.

&eye,
You paint a picture in which you are dissatisfied, but essentially hopeless and helpless.

i'm not painting a picture. just looking and reporting what I see.

i'd like for this not to be about me or my emotional state... but if you must know i'm not hopeless or helpless in life--just in terms of changing the status quo in terms of establishment rule. i don't think that's something that can be done. but there's plenty of hope in me, and i believe that i have full control over my own destiny. that i can't change the world doesn't mean that i am helpless or hopeless.

i'm not painting a picture. just looking and reporting what I see.

i'd like for this not to be about me or my emotional state... but if you must know i'm not hopeless or helpless in life--just in terms of changing the status quo in terms of establishment rule. i don't think that's something that can be done. but there's plenty of hope in me, and i believe that i have full control over my own destiny. that i can't change the world doesn't mean that i am helpless or hopeless.

Well put. I guess I just have a hard time connecting the dots. The powers that be are, and have been, in control of the world order and "I have complete control over my own destiny"
Thanks and God Bless

my destiny as I see it is to live as i am in the world as it is and to do the best I can. i'm fine with that, and I am generally a happy person. just not one with the standard set of illusions about politics being anything other than a game/fictional story. :)

Well put. I guess I just have a hard time connecting the dots. The powers that be are, and have been, in control of the world order and "I have complete control over my own destiny"
Thanks and God Bless

Tagamant,

Might I recommend some reading to you by someone who connected those dot's very well. Not sure if you've heard of him, his name is Harry Browne. Ran as Libertarian Party candidate during 2000, I think it was, or might have been 96. Anyway, he wrote a whole book about this subject.

Here is a link to amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/How-Found-Freedom-Unfree-World/dp/0965603679/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208455623&sr=8-1

that book looks great! but the hardcover costs $75 used on amazon... wow.

$10 here (http://www.trendsaction.com/product.php?product=How+I+Found+Freedom+in+an+Unfr ee+World&ulaCartSID=hppxxulFDIiQcDbmnfmBBizJb1208459242), probably paperback.

that book looks great! but the hardcover costs $75 used on amazon... wow.

$10 here (http://www.trendsaction.com/product.php?product=How+I+Found+Freedom+in+an+Unfr ee+World&ulaCartSID=hppxxulFDIiQcDbmnfmBBizJb1208459242), probably paperback.

Yea... it is... It is most likely because Harry died 2 years ago and I think his wife is trying to live off the proceeds of the books.

Those are e-books on that page.

Quote from the horse's a$$ who started this thread:

I know that Dems just won't be able to help themselves. If they hold any power, their first and only recourse is to start telling people what they can and can't do - it is in every fiber of their being. Instead of using tax incentives to reduce costs of good behaviours, they will add tax burdens to punish bad behaviours, like filling up your car with gas, so that you can earn a living - those bastards.[/QUOTE]





My rebuttal:
What a load of crap. Why is it that every time the GOP gets in control (as in the last 7 years) we get:

WAR, RECESSION & COMPLETE LACK OF OVERSIGHT ????



And of course, when they've ruined another 4 (or 8) years for this nation, their only response to complaints is to:
Blame Democrats.



7 Years of GOP control has given us:

NO Immigration Reform
NO Border Security
NO Healthcare Reform
NO Social Security Reform
NO Energy Policy

and of course........


NO OSAMA BIN LADEN.


I know, let's blame the Democrats for bush's lack of leadership on the energy issue. Lets blame the Democrats for cheney's secret meetings with the oil companies. Lets blame Democrats for Exxon's obscene profits.....the GOP's motto: "we can always blame the Democrats....."

If you keep correcting their grammar, it makes it harder to spot the fools.

simply look in the mirror

dectra,
Given your last two posts, it seems like there is plenty of vitriol to go around.
I'm far from being a GOP apologist, especially after the last two terms, but haven't the Dems had some time to do SOMETHING since they became the majority in congress? No president writes or passes laws (though it seems the high courts like to have that effect). Didn't the Dems promise to end the war in Iraqi? I might be wrong on that, so help me out.
God Bless (us all)

simply look in the mirror
much better if we can disagree and be civil about it rather than resorting to ad hominem, don't you think? Jason posted his opinion. I'm sure we'd all appreciate it you would post yours without insulting him.

dectra,

War came to the US, as Bubba and Hill'reh refused to deal with Al Quieda while they had the intelligence info to kill OBL. Al Quieda bombed the WTC in 1991, two embassies in Africa and a naval vessal, but impotent Bubba would only launch cruise missles to distract from his own impeachment.

Thank God there were Reps in office to clean house in the middle east, with the height being the lynching of Saddam Hussein. By my score, we've lynched one, and have a noose waiting for the other.

Dems want to dictate policy, not remove barriers to market solutions.

Jason, I suggest you stop accepting the government as a news source... First of all, the first WTC bombing was in 1993, not 1991. Second, the FBI is proven to have been responsible for this event. This is not some wacky conspiracy theory. It is documented and proven.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&warning_signs:_specific_cases=firstwtcbombing
http://911review.org/Wiki/FirstWTCBombing.shtml

Jason, I suggest you stop accepting the government as a news source... First of all, the first WTC bombing was in 1993, not 1991. Second, the FBI is proven to have been responsible for this event. This is not some wacky conspiracy theory. It is documented and proven.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&warning_signs:_specific_cases=firstwtcbombing
http://911review.org/Wiki/FirstWTCBombing.shtml

&eye,
You might want to consider a better source for your info than the internet. I waded through page after page of info based on hindsight or outright, self-acknowledged, speculation.
I know you believe this stuff and noone is going to change that. But what does all of this have to do with the VOLT?????

yes, we have drifted very far off-topic!! but since we're there... ;)

those links are just the first couple that i found on google... there is lots of unreliable info on the net, absolutely. if you want to go to the library and check sources from newspaper articles, the New York Times covered most if not all of it. FBI complicity in the 1993 WTC bombing is fact, not something that i believe because i choose to.

yes, we have drifted very far off-topic!! but since we're there... ;)

...FBI complicity in the 1993 WTC bombing is fact, not something that i believe because i choose to.

There's a huge difference between "complicity" and "incompetence".

the myth of incompetence is much easier for the public to swallow than the truth of complicity.

but again we'll have to agree to disagree i suppose. and maybe now we can get back to discussing the lack of ways in which the democrats and republicans are significantly different. i mean... how the Dems will over-regulate us into deep recession. ;)

and maybe now we can get back to discussing the lack of ways in which the democrats and republicans are significantly different. i mean... how the Dems will over-regulate us into deep recession. ;)

OK, here's how the Dems are differnt from the Reps: Democrats will as you say regulate and tax us into a resession. Republicans on the other hand have deregulated, borrowed and ignored us into a world class resession.

OK, here's how the Dems are differnt from the Reps: Democrats will as you say regulate and tax us into a resession. Republicans on the other hand have deregulated, borrowed and ignored us into a world class resession.

Neither party is to blame for the US spending over a 100 years becoming dependent on petroleum. Prior to petroleum, people were using animal fat for heating and lighting, specifically, whale blubber was cooked down to extract the oils.

This is why I say it really doesn't matter who controls government, because our government is now driven by events, not driving events themselves. Our next government will either make the right choices, and we will prosper, or they will not, and we will perish.

...

This is why I say it really doesn't matter who controls government, because our government is now driven by events, not driving events themselves. Our next government will either make the right choices, and we will prosper, or they will not, and we will perish.

It's taken us (the USA) a very long time to get to this point (both positive and negative). I doubt we'll perish in the next four years. This from a guy who looks both way on one-way streets (me). I DO hope that all of us bitter, Bible hugging, gun toting Americans turn out to vote in Nov. though.

It's taken us (the USA) a very long time to get to this point (both positive and negative). I doubt we'll perish in the next four years. This from a guy who looks both way on one-way streets (me). I DO hope that all of us bitter, Bible hugging, gun toting Americans turn out to vote in Nov. though.

We won't perish in the next 4 years, but if we make the wrong decisions within the next 4 years, we will perish in the long run.

there's one thing we agree on--we are at a great turning point these next few years. i don't happen to think "perishing" is in our future, but we're definitely at a turning point...

Neither party is to blame for the US spending over a 100 years becoming dependent on petroleum. Prior to petroleum, people were using animal fat for heating and lighting, specifically, whale blubber was cooked down to extract the oils.

This is why I say it really doesn't matter who controls government, because our government is now driven by events, not driving events themselves. Our next government will either make the right choices, and we will prosper, or they will not, and we will perish.

Both parties are to blame for subsidizing the industry with our tax dollars decreasing the incentive of the energy companies to explore newer technologies, allowing the dependence to continue for longer than it should.

Both parties are to blame for subsidizing the industry with our tax dollars decreasing the incentive of the energy companies to explore newer technologies, allowing the dependence to continue for longer than it should.

Most all our critical industries are subsidized - energy (coal, petroleum, renewables), agriculture, water, high-tech (modern commercial high tech companies are spin-offs of DOD, DOE and NASA technologies) and so forth. It is impossible to separate our government from the major contributors to our economy.

Renewable energy gives us an opportunity to allow individuals to generate their own electricity / heat / cooling from local renewable sources and avoid the grid.

OK, here's how the Dems are differnt from the Reps: Democrats will as you say regulate and tax us into a resession. Republicans on the other hand have deregulated, borrowed and ignored us into a world class resession.
i didn't say it, it's the title of the thread!

[QUOTE=Jason M. Hendler;2586]Most all our critical industries are subsidized - energy (coal, petroleum, renewables), agriculture, water, high-tech (modern commercial high tech companies are spin-offs of DOD, DOE and NASA technologies) and so forth. It is impossible to separate our government from the major contributors to our economy.

How is the petroleum industry subsidized? Are you talking about tax deductions for depletion and the ability to expense intangible drilling costs?

Are depreciation write-offs a subsidy? If so, every business in America is subsidized. Or are they part of the method for arriving at a fair taxable income?

[QUOTE=Jason M. Hendler;2586]Most all our critical industries are subsidized - energy (coal, petroleum, renewables), agriculture, water, high-tech (modern commercial high tech companies are spin-offs of DOD, DOE and NASA technologies) and so forth. It is impossible to separate our government from the major contributors to our economy.

How is the petroleum industry subsidized? Are you talking about tax deductions for depletion and the ability to expense intangible drilling costs?

Are depreciation write-offs a subsidy? If so, every business in America is subsidized. Or are they part of the method for arriving at a fair taxable income?

Please tell me who I can direct my accountant to speak with so that my business can fully depreciate multi-million dollar investments in the first two years after incurring the expense of a long term investment.

[QUOTE=SamB;2635][B]

Please tell me who I can direct my accountant to speak with so that my business can fully depreciate multi-million dollar investments in the first two years after incurring the expense of a long term investment.

I agree that a one or two year write off for a long term capital investment would be a tax subsidy, but I don't know of any such rule that is applicable to the oil industry except for intangible drilling costs which represent only a small fraction of the costs of drilling a well (and which the industry can easily live without). I am not saying another such tax subsidy does not exist. I am saying I do not know anything about it. Are you presuming such a subsidy exists, or do you know? If it exists, can you provide a reference? Thanks.

[QUOTE=Koz;2637]

I agree that a one or two year write off for a long term capital investment would be a tax subsidy, but I don't know of any such rule that is applicable to the oil industry except for intangible drilling costs which represent only a small fraction of the costs of drilling a well (and which the industry can easily live without). I am not saying another such tax subsidy does not exist. I am saying I do not know anything about it. Are you presuming such a subsidy exists, or do you know? If it exists, can you provide a reference? Thanks.

My perception of the state of subsidies and incentives is based on my recollection of news and some personal experience. I am not an expert in corporate tax law nor do I claim to study closely government policies. My recollection is that during the Clinton administration, future energy supply was targeted as an issue needing immediate attention. Some incenties were put in place to encourage exploration and development of most forms of energy sources from renewables to oil to natural gas and most others. Early in the Bush admin, domestic petroleum production was targeted as the best and most important avenue for meeting future energy demands. Subsequently, significant additional incentives were put in place at that time. I believe these greatly increased the incentive to drill domestically, if I'm remembering clearly. A few years after this, I was approached about participating in a round of financing for some domestic small scale natural gas wells. If I'm remembering accurately, basically you could recover up to 30% or so of your investment in the first 2 years depending on your personal tax rate. I did not invest but other members of my family did and they did realize the tax benefits. They have told it was along the lines of what was expected. There are also some other tax benefits that go with the production but I don't have an understanding of how they apply.

To see what could be found in print to corroborate my understanding of petroleum subsidies, I did a qoogle search on "oil drilling subsidies". The following are some quotes and links from that search. I kept most to unbiased sources and avoided the plethora of watchdog groups and environmental sites that came up. Iam now even more comfortable that my understanding is reasonably accurate.


"Last April, Bush expressed skepticism about giving new incentives to oil and gas drillers. "With oil at $50 a barrel," Bush remarked, "I don't think energy companies need taxpayer-funded incentives to explore."

But on Aug. 8, Bush signed a sweeping energy bill containing $2.6 billion in new tax breaks for oil and gas drillers and a modest expansion of the 10-year- old "royalty relief" program. The lawincluded some embellishments, like an extra royalties waiver for companies drilling in the deepest waters."
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/03/27/business/oil.php?page=2


"It also includes an estimated $85 billion worth of subsidies and tax breaks for most forms of energy -- including oil and gas, "clean coal," ethanol, electricity, and solar and wind power. The nuclear industry got subsidies for research, waste reprocessing, construction, operation and even decommission. The petroleum industry got new incentives to drill in the Gulf of Mexico -- as if $60-a-barrel oil wasn't enough of an incentive. The already-subsidized ethanol industry got a federal mandate that will nearly double its output by 2012 -- as well as new subsidies to develop ethanol from other sources.
...
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) also managed to insert at least $500 million in subsidies over a 10-year period -- with the option to double the amount -- for research into deep-water oil and gas drilling, a grant that many lawmakers expect to go to the Texas Energy Center in DeLay's home town of Sugar Land. The bill also includes royalty relief for deep-water drilling projects, a strategy that helped jump-start production in the Gulf during the 1990s.
...
"If you don't provide the relief, nothing will happen," said John Felmy, the American Petroleum Institute's chief economist. "The start-up costs are just too massive."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/29/AR2005072901128.html


"House Democrats easily passed legislation on Thursday that would rescind $14 billion in tax breaks and subsidies for oil drillers and reserve the money to develop alternative energy projects and conservation technologies.

The measure passed 264 to 163, with many Republicans joining a bloc of Democrats. Passage came despite opposition from the oil industry and the Bush administration, which said the bill singled out the companies for higher taxes and could increase the country’s dependence on foreign oil."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/19/business/19royalty.html?ex=1326862800&en=4c59d407c86249ff&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
I bill this legislation has been turned back since then and so has a subsequent similar one.


"The real grind is the $18 million in tax breaks oil companies currently enjoy. Senior executives from five of the major oil companies go before a congressional committee today to explain why they still need these tax breaks. Exxon Mobil Corp., Shell Oil Co., BP America Inc., Chevron Corp. and ConocoPhillips, will testify. The Associated Press reports these companies earned a total of $123 billion last year from soaring oil and gasoline prices. Do they really need those tax breaks?

The House of Representatives has approved legislation two times in the last year to end the tax breaks. The revenue was supposed to instead go to booster renewable fuels, wind and solar power. Unfortunately, neither of the House initiatives passed the senate."
http://www.rvtradedigest.com/interactive/2008/04/01/oil-and-tax-subsidies/
The above quote is from an RV site. Although they aren't an independent news source, I figured their motivation for inexpensive gas makes them an acceptable source for this subject matter.


"Top oil executives said Tuesday that despite their industry's record profits, Congress should continue granting them $18 billion in annual tax subsidies and expand drilling in areas that are now off-limits."
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/business/content/business/epaper/2008/04/02/a6c_oilexecs_0402.html

Good post, Koz.

I forgot that about the "no royalty" leases in Federal waters. That goes way beyond subsidy. I call that a give-away of public property to special interests. That should be a national scandal, but in the age of "no-bid" contracts to companies like Halliburton, I guess it is no surprise to anyone. The public just lies down and accepts it as a fact of life in America.

I guess we are all resigned to the fact that now the government exists almost solely to serve and to benefit commercial interests at the expense of the taxpayers. What we have is almost a kleptocracy.

If your relatives got in on the good wells in the Barnett Shale in North Texas, not only did they get tax advantages, but they will probably get their entire investment back in a year or two or three. The oil business can yield many times one's investment if the wells are good. Your relatives got to expense their share of intangible drilling costs ("IDCs")--otherwise capital costs made prior to the setting of production pipe (which could amount to 30 percent of their investment). They will also get percentage depletion on their share of the production for the life of the well. The oil business can be great. Unfortunately, there are still dry holes. Years ago one had a very small chance (say, one in seventeen) of making a commercial well drilling a mile or more away from existing production. That was the justification for the IDC and percentage depletion tax breaks: to encourage high bracket investors and companies to take the risk. And the industry drew a lot of investment money when the top tax rate was 70 percent because investors in that bracket were gambling with 30 cent dollars.

"kleptocracy";)

IDC's sounded familiar and I found good information at http://www.investopedia.com/articles/07/oil-tax-break.asp. The best incentives seem to be limited to the small investor. It doesn't give a timeframe as to when the incentives were enacted but they look pretty good either way. It does say IDC's are typically 65-80% of total drilling costs. I don't know how accurate this is but the article appears pretty comprehensive. By the the way, I meant to write fossil fuel drilling. It was in a different area of the country and a different fossil fuel. Less risky, less rewardy. I should have stretched to invest.

I believe mine and the rest of American's mid and long term interests are much better served by incentives for investment in alternative energy production facilities such as solar and wind rather than fossil fuel recovery. At the very least, they should be level.

IDC expensing and percentage depletion have been in existence for decades.

From what I have been told, wind is not nearly as profitable as a good oil or gas well. Payout takes years, but of course the risk is less--no dry holes. Tax incentives could make a huge difference for wind and solar. A lot of good things would be possible if the government was frugal and had the public interest in mind.

I should have written clearer about what where I think the incentives should be. I think they should be for developing the technology and for the capital investments in manufacturing facilities. As far as alternative energy production facilities (e.g. wind farms and solar farms), I'm not sold on incentives for them. I've heard that wind is pofitable in some areas at today's prices, but haven't studied it to really know. If this is even close to the case, then they should be very good long term investments. GE sure has invested a lot of money into wind. I know they like being perceived as a "green" company, but they like to make money more.

Thomas Friedman ripping congressional inaction ...

NYT Friedman Article Link (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/30/opinion/30friedman.html?ex=1367294400&en=0588e238277893d6&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink)

Thomas Friedman ripping congressional inaction ...

NYT Friedman Article Link (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/30/opinion/30friedman.html?ex=1367294400&en=0588e238277893d6&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink)

That didn't do any good for my 3 taco lunch:eek:, although the article was well done.

Thomas Friedman ripping congressional inaction ...

NYT Friedman Article Link (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/30/opinion/30friedman.html?ex=1367294400&en=0588e238277893d6&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink)

Excellent. Good to know that we can count on your vote for Barack Obama in the fall!


The McCain-Clinton gas holiday proposal is a perfect example of [...] the true American energy policy today: “Maximize demand, minimize supply and buy the rest from the people who hate us the most. Good for Barack Obama for resisting this shameful pandering.


The Democrats wanted the wind and solar credits to be paid for by taking away tax credits from the oil industry. President Bush said he would veto that. Neither side would back down, and Mr. Bush — showing not one iota of leadership — refused to get all the adults together in a room and work out a compromise. Stalemate.

-Nuttzy :cool:

Nuttsy,
I hadn't heard that Obama was the Democrat's nominee. I really do try to keep up on those things, but I could have missed it.
Could you please point me to a reference?
Thanks,
Tagamet

Depends. Are you really interested in playing that game, or are you just testing out some catchy rhetoric? ;)

-Nuttzy :cool:

Depends. Are you really interested in playing that game, or are you just testing out some catchy rhetoric? ;)

-Nuttzy :cool:

I'm not sure what game you mean. Obviously there IS no Dmeocratic nominee, so why do you state that Obama has it already?

Okay, if we are getting technical, then neither is John McCain the Republican nominee. Nominees are not selected until the convention is held and the nominee "officially" selected. For practical reasons, we call John McCain the "presumptive" Republican nominee. For those that have to watch what they say, Obama will be the "presumptive" Democratic Nominee when he secures 2026 delegates (well... maybe). But I am free to say whatever I want without fear of political implications. I don't need to refer to a source to state the plainly obvious events set to unfold.

Though they must exist, very few could seriously consider a different outcome possible. It would be fascinating to chat with someone who thought things could play out differently short of some kind of political bombshell being dropped. Though in that case, John McCain is no less susceptible and practically speaking, it is no more or less correct to presume he will be the Republican nominee at this time also.

If you really need a source, here you go: "Barack Obama has won the Democratic nomination", attributed to some fool named "nuttzy" on the gm-volt.com forums. Feel free to alert the media ;)

Thanks for playing!
-Nuttzy :cool:

Nuttzy,
Given that the Republican Party doesn't have super delegates, McCain's "Presumptive" seems just a weeee bit more assured than the coin toss that the Dems have managed to create. McCain has actually earned enough delegates to be nominated.
You heard it here first.
God Bless,
Tagamet

Obama is clearly the "inevitable" nominee. You still think this is a coin toss? Excellent. Since you are the one making the distinction and refocusing the conversation on the matter (despite my attempt to let you off the hook) you must have a compelling rationale for how Obama loses. I'm sure you wouldn't just be making a point based on an absolutely trivial technicality. So please, let me hear your persuasive argument for why questioning the inevitability of the outcome is worthwhile?

Ping,
-Nuttzy :cool:

Well, actually, I WAS "just be making a point based on an absolutely trivial technicality". That's be the same one Hitlery is investing her 11 million dollars on, no? Then again, she IS the chair of the credentials committee for the convention. That'd be the same one that will seat the Florida and Michigan delegates, wouldn't it?
Tag
NOTE: In this post I made a horrible typo, for which I apologise. Rather than go back and change it later and erase my guilt. I leave it here to my embarrassment. I'm very sorry for any hurt this caused. Tagamet

Hitlery Hitler was guilty of the worst atrocities in modern history. Please tell me this was a typo or that it was late and you at least regret typing it. Or something. Anything! Otherwise you've at best demonstrated your willingness to sling nasty, over-the-top, and unthinking rhetorical statements; or worse, completely lost any perception of wisdom and balance. Hard to imagine what moral ground you have to stand on for questioning the writings of others if you let that crude comment stand. Pretty cut and dry here, time to man up.

Pong,
-Nuttzy :cool:

Hitler was guilty of the worst atrocities in modern history. Please tell me this was a typo or that it was late and you at least regret typing it. Or something. Anything! Otherwise you've at best demonstrated your willingness to sling nasty, over-the-top, and unthinking rhetorical statements; or worse, completely lost any perception of wisdom and balance. Hard to imagine what moral ground you have to stand on for questioning the writings of others if you let that crude comment stand. Pretty cut and dry here, time to man up.

Pong,
-Nuttzy :cool:

The short answer is that I have a wireless keyboard that often equals typos. I have to proof read everything which believe it or not I did, but common names - I guess I skimmed it and "saw: Hillary". And it WAS after 1 in the morning. My bad, and I do apologise. If you look to any of the daily threads you'd see that I'm the one that helps enforce the "no name calling" rule. Yesterday I groused at a guy for calling someone an idiot. It just would not fit to call a person Hitlery. Please do a search on "Tagamet" for my posts and I seriously doubt that you'll find anything more outrageous than saying "that's bunk" or something. Better yet ask any high frequency poster" - I'm pretty well known here.
Again, sorry.
Tagamet

It was a silly error, as we all know that Hill'reh is a communist, not a fascist. A communist uses "the common good" as the justification for looting private citizens and corporations, whereas a fascist uses nationalism, xenophobia, religion, etc. as the justification for looting private citizens and corporations.

The short answer is that I have a wireless keyboard that often equals typos. I have to proof read everything which believe it or not I did, but common names - I guess I skimmed it and "saw: Hillary". And it WAS after 1 in the morning. My bad, and I do apologise. If you look to any of the daily threads you'd see that I'm the one that helps enforce the "no name calling" rule. Yesterday I groused at a guy for calling someone an idiot. It just would not fit to call a person Hitlery. Please do a search on "Tagamet" for my posts and I seriously doubt that you'll find anything more outrageous than saying "that's bunk" or something. Better yet ask any high frequency poster" - I'm pretty well known here.
Again, sorry.
Tagamet
No problem, I'm satisfied with that. I let most things roll off, but it's clear you agree there's no room for language like that. Tip of the hat for taking responsibility ;)

Thanks,
-Nuttzy :cool:

It was a silly error, as we all know that Hill'reh is a communist, not a fascist. A communist uses "the common good" as the justification for looting private citizens and corporations, whereas a fascist uses nationalism, xenophobia, religion, etc. as the justification for looting private citizens and corporations.

Do you frequently tend to assign labels and define people? I've seen you paint folks with a very broad brush in another post. It's an effective tactic for putting someone on the defensive, which is why politicians do it... but only when they are being slimy.

-Nuttzy :cool:

Do you frequently tend to assign labels and define people?

I calls 'em as I sees 'em.

Hill'reh, and other libs, try to mask their actions with flowery speech and altruism, so I am forced to remove the fancy gift wrap, and show everyone the turd in the box.

both the dems and repubs are de-facto state-capitalists.

both the dems and repubs are de-facto state-capitalists.

State-capitalist is an oxymoron. A capitalist is one who does not want any government having a direct source of income, thereby setting prices, wages, etc. A capitalist recognizes the need for taxes (as long as those taxes can be mapped to direct benefits to that individual or enterprise), but no state ownership or price / wage control over products / services.

A state-capitalist moniker is just more fancy wrapping to disguise a communist / fascist regime.

I am from the school of thought that believes that it is speculation in the poorly regulated futures markets that is causing the price of oil to be so high, and so do many economists.

Neither Republicans nor Democrats can not be to blame for a recession. We have had almost eight years of Republican rule, and where has that gotten us? Oil was $25/bbl. when Bush took office, how much is it today?

If, as you say, the Democrats will regulate us into a recession, than I say that the Republicans will de-regulate us into mass poverty, as they have been trying to do for the past eight years.

The CAFE standards should not be that difficult to meet. People just have to stop buying behemouth vehicles, that they do not need to commute to work, and get a smaller vehicle that does not use as much fuel.

The fact of the matter with CAFE standards is that a lot of the foreign manufacturers, especially those in Asia, cannot sell the cars that they make for the United States, in their native country, because they do not meet the pollution and mileage standards for their country. They can build less efficient vehicles for the US, at a lower cost, and sell them to us. The "American" manufacturers do not want to raise the standards, because that would mean that they would have to sink more money into R&D, which will cut into their profits, and the stockholders simply wouldn't put up with that (sarcasm intended).

What this country needs is a "Manhattan Project" for energy and transportation. We need to get the idea out of people's heads that a bigger, faster car will not do you any good in your day to day commute to work. Heck, it will do you no good, unless you are a professional race car driver. We need the car companies to make it sexy to have a car that can get 100 mpg or better, not one that can pass cars like they are standing still. Until we do that, we are at the becon call of the oil companies, and their paid-off officials, who now run this country.
(steps down from soap box)

State-capitalist is an oxymoron. A capitalist is one who does not want any government having a direct source of income, thereby setting prices, wages, etc. A capitalist recognizes the need for taxes (as long as those taxes can be mapped to direct benefits to that individual or enterprise), but no state ownership or price / wage control over products / services.

A state-capitalist moniker is just more fancy wrapping to disguise a communist / fascist regime.
State Capitalism is a capitalist economy under State control. That is clearly and obviously what the 2-party system in America has brought about. We do not live in a true capitalist system, nor a strictly socialist one. It's not just about price/wage control (which we have here) but also about hyper-regulation, government bailouts of would-be failed corporations, and co-mingling amongst the ranks of politicians and corporate board members. The really is very little distinction between the realm of government and the realm of international corporate conglomerates these days.

Nuttzy re post 67,
Now that the dust has settled, do you want to respond to the issue of superdelegates?
Tag

State Capitalism is a capitalist economy under State control.

That statement has no meaning. Either the state owns companies and directly controls their assets by directly setting prices and wages (as in Cuba, Russia, Venezuela, etc.), or they don't.


That is clearly and obviously what the 2-party system in America has brought about. We do not live in a true capitalist system, nor a strictly socialist one. It's not just about price/wage control (which we have here) but also about hyper-regulation, government bailouts of would-be failed corporations, and co-mingling amongst the ranks of politicians and corporate board members.

What we have is a free market capitalist economy from which our goverment collects taxes - some of which goes to activities that protect individuals and enterprises, and some of which goes to purely socialist policies. True, the goverment has set a MINIMUM wage, as well as minimum safety standards, and other floor costs, but the government does not set the prices for goods and services, so all those minimum standards are merely passed through to consumers - no harm, no foul.


The really is very little distinction between the realm of government and the realm of international corporate conglomerates these days.

While some interests may be shared by government and industry, it is ridiculous to claim they are indistinct. A government is an entity that should have military / security / legal responsibilities, with no direct income, and a business must generate it's own income, but should not be allowed to have its own military / laws. It doesn't get simpler than that.

Nuttzy re post 67,
Now that the dust has settled, do you want to respond to the issue of superdelegates?
Tag
I can't believe you are bringing this up again. What are you gaining by denying the inevitability of the nomination? The sharp exchanges between Obama and Bush+McCain while Hillary is on the sidelines is not plain enough? Well here goes...


Well, actually, I WAS "just be making a point based on an absolutely trivial technicality". That's be the same one [Hillary] is investing her 11 million dollars on, no? $5M is from prior to Super Tuesday. The bulk of the rest was spent in the PA race and when Obama seemed vulnerable with the Wright mess. Most likely Obama will help her retire her debt as a symbolic olive branch... but really it will be in exchange for political favor, like getting her active support without her demanding the VP spot. Failing that, she can afford it anyway. The investment has no impact on our discussion.


Then again, she IS the chair of the credentials committee for the convention. That'd be the same one that will seat the Florida and Michigan delegates, wouldn't it? Here is the part you may have missed. Let's say you give her everything she wants (and there's little chance that would happen). FL vote counts as it played out election day despite no campaigning. MI vote also counts with her garnering 55% of the vote and Obama nothing since he wasn't even on the ballot. Obama *still* leads in delegates. Estimating the vote in caucus states, he *still* leads the popular vote. He also *still* leads in contests won and *still* leads in super delegates. The blowout in NC and toss-up in IN crushed her final hopes of spinning the numbers or claims on momentum. Aides in her own camp acknowledge that people "understand the reality" (link (http://http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/15/1028013.aspx)).

Now please, I agree to acknowledge that Obama is not officially the nominee nor is Hillary officially out of it. Can you agree to be a little more tolerant if the official measure has not been certified, but for all practical reasons, Obama is the "probable" nominee.

Ping,
-Nuttzy :cool:

What this country needs is a "Manhattan Project" for energy and transportation. We need to get the idea out of people's heads that a bigger, faster car will not do you any good in your day to day commute to work. Heck, it will do you no good, unless you are a professional race car driver. We need the car companies to make it sexy to have a car that can get 100 mpg or better, not one that can pass cars like they are standing still. Until we do that, we are at the becon call of the oil companies, and their paid-off officials, who now run this country.
(steps down from soap box)

What we need are more cars like the Chevy volt that have big electric engines in them so that we can blow by the slow prius lovers and show them that american engineering wins again.

Come on now we have all had to pass by somebody on the highway or small country road. Thats impossible with todays current hybrid vehicles... most cant even get out of their own way.

Nonetheless, with newer(more powerfull) electric engines we will be contributing to the local economy by stepping on the gas(Err... What do we call it now that its no longer the gas?). And along the way as we create more wind and solar plants, we will be cleaning up the air.

We need to get the idea out of people's heads that a bigger, faster car will not do you any good in your day to day commute to work. Heck, it will do you no good, unless you are a professional race car driver. We need the car companies to make it sexy to have a car that can get 100 mpg or better, not one that can pass cars like they are standing still.

Yeah, heaven forbid anybody having any fun while driving. :rolleyes: I personally don't care about bigger cars, but faster ones I love and you won't get that idea out of my head. Getting 100mpg is never going to be sexy, just thrifty. I absolutely hope GM is working on a faster, performance oriented E-Flex car.:cool:

Dems will over-regulate us into deep recession.


I know that Dems just won't be able to help themselves. If they hold any power, their first and only recourse is to start telling people what they can and can't do - it is in every fiber of their being.

These are serious accusations. The content of your original post is fairly light on supporting evidence and historical reference. One might say it fits the notion of fear mongering and "sounds good" in your gut if you already have that perception. But does the argument hold water?

You seem to indicate the Democrat's history forms your opinion. So let's look to the most recent historical example. Bill Clinton presided over some of the most prosperous times in our nation's history. We made real strides in actually LOWERING the overall federal deficit, rather than just trying to lower the annual budget shortfall as the Bush administration has been trying to do. For the sake of argument, I will grant that one could argue it was merely "good timing" and also one could debate how much Clinton had to do with it. But the facts of expansion and deficit reduction are true, regardless.

Now for the real question. If it is in the very fiber of a Democrat's being to over-regulate, why was this massive economic expansion of the 1990's not smothered, and why was deficit reduced instead of sending that surplus exclusively to expand social programs? Please explain to me why this most recent example of Democratic behavior does not contradict your dire prediction.

Thanks,
-Nuttzy :cool:

These are serious accusations. The content of your original post is fairly light on supporting evidence and historical reference. One might say it fits the notion of fear mongering and "sounds good" in your gut if you already have that perception. But does the argument hold water?

You seem to indicate the Democrat's history forms your opinion. So let's look to the most recent historical example. Bill Clinton presided over some of the most prosperous times in our nation's history. We made real strides in actually LOWERING the overall federal deficit, rather than just trying to lower the annual budget shortfall as the Bush administration has been trying to do. For the sake of argument, I will grant that one could argue it was merely "good timing" and also one could debate how much Clinton had to do with it. But the facts of expansion and deficit reduction are true, regardless.

Now for the real question. If it is in the very fiber of a Democrat's being to over-regulate, why was this massive economic expansion of the 1990's not smothered, and why was deficit reduced instead of sending that surplus exclusively to expand social programs? Please explain to me why this most recent example of Democratic behavior does not contradict your dire prediction.

Thanks,
-Nuttzy :cool:

In 1994, Republicans took over congress and controlled it throughout Clinton's presidency. The Reps cut spending, not Clinton. Clinton was the beneficiary of the Peace Dividend at the end of the Cold War, but I do credit him with passing NAFTA and GATT (Republican initiatives), which forced our industries to modernize and compete.

In 1994, Republicans took over congress and controlled it throughout Clinton's presidency. The Reps cut spending, not Clinton. Clinton was the beneficiary of the Peace Dividend at the end of the Cold War, but I do credit him with passing NAFTA and GATT (Republican initiatives), which forced our industries to modernize and compete.


AND Regan cut the excess profits tax from 90% to 70%. Now Hilary wants the Dems to "just" raise it back to Regan's level" (from her lips on the Bill O'Reilly show interview). IMO that's where the money came rolling in from.

@Nuttzy If you are willing to coincede that it's fine to ignore almost half of your contituents, that most of the Super delegates will be uninfluenced by the Clinton Machine, and that Barack is seen as more electable than Hillary by the DNC, I guess I can concede that Barack is the presumptive cantidate(SIC).

No retort?

This is one of the few forums that have carefully avoided the pitfalls of Left versus Right, Republican versus Democrat, Witch Hazel versus Glenda the Good Witch of the North and the like. Why would the Volt fall into such easy to misguide labellings.

I apologize for not spraying hate on the Volt Nation forum as I go on to say, I am a retired US Air Force veteran. I mention this only because of the raw experience of seeing first hand how I lost friends to War, I saw the Pentagon burning, and I know the ugly truth that all roads led to oil, more so than Bin Laden and the like. Had it not been for the corrosive dollars flowing to the Middle-East oil barons equaling the flow of that highly addictive oil to our nations automobiles, what a different world we'd live in today.

The real price of gas for Americans to protect the flow of oil is estimated at $10/gallon when all costs are factored. Actually $11.00 per gallon since we're now at $4.00 a gallon at the pump. The cost to support the high price of our arms to subsidize the flow of oil to ALL countries like China, Europe, Japan, and India is staggering and we American consumers bear the greatest brunt of the expense. The only answer for Liberals, Democrats, Treehuggers, Right Wing Socios, conservatives, and throw up the whole litany of foul mouthed labeling that can be done is to help America retreat from this craziness of this TWIN TOWER SIZED Trade Gap. The people who hate all of us, right and left, are the Oil Barons of the Middle-East. They hate our democracy, our values, our culture, our beliefs in Judeo-Christianity, and everything other than our rabid addiction to their $9,000,000,000,000.00 supply of oil. Come on, let's get out of this right versus left oriented behavior and focus on the big game - American getting back in the win column whereby all of us win.

Tag, you're a long time pro on the site. Don't let Jason bait you with this nutty FOX Network News propoganda. This site is about the Volt, something we're all proud an American car company is building and something we can all agree on. Don't take the bait Tag, and frankly, I'll ask he be booted if he's hear selling snake oil. He needs to go to a forum that only uses Right Brain or Left Brain depending on the snake bite. And Jason, come on. You realize the address your at - this is precious real estate give to all of us by Lyle. Respect that kindly.

Your call Tag.

Thanks for contributing to the site. Read many of your posts.

1 - Eurpoe's politicians taxed gasoline, and you'd be hard pressed to say politicians can't influence consumption. 2 - Bush did sign it, and Reps and Dems helped him pass it - so what! 3 - China and India have roughly 7 million cars, the United States 100 million along with the most fuel consumptive trucks, and we can play more all day, every day. There are so many self-righteous, misrepresented as fact, narcissisitic comments in here by J.H. where to begin is the only question undeserving of an answer. Why? It wouldn't help. This is a closed mind. Come on - back to the Volt if you're serious about America's restoring it's values, leadership, and once unquestioned destiny. This isn't Left Wing, Right Wing, Tory versus Labor, and the like. This is an American company building a car that could conceivably end the American legacy of Oil addiction to the real culprits spraying hate at Americans in the Middle-East particularly, although Hugo Chavez and Putin are growing hateful follow-ons.


It is clear that the rapid increases in comsumption of oil by India and China are contributing to high oil prices, so NO presidential candidate can do anything to make gasoline cheaper. Regulating gasoline, or the vehicles that use them, will just make those products more expensive.

Right now, Dems have the perfect cover from criticism, should Americans start feeling the pinch of the 2007 CAFE standard increases - Bush signed it. If they make even the smallest additions to these standards, that cover is void. If Dems grant California their CO2 emissions regulations waiver, then the cover is shattered, because the vehicle market will become as fragmented as the gasoline market, which now has many different blends to meet several different state requirements.

I know that Dems just won't be able to help themselves. If they hold any power, their first and only recourse is to start telling people what they can and can't do - it is in every fiber of their being. Instead of using tax incentives to reduce costs of good behaviours, they will add tax burdens to punish bad behaviours, like filling up your car with gas, so that you can earn a living - those bastards.

Tag, you're a long time pro on the site. Don't let Jason bait you with this nutty FOX Network News propoganda. This site is about the Volt, something we're all proud an American car company is building and something we can all agree on. Don't take the bait Tag, and frankly, I'll ask he be booted if he's hear selling snake oil. He needs to go to a forum that only uses Right Brain or Left Brain depending on the snake bite. And Jason, come on. You realize the address your at - this is precious real estate give to all of us by Lyle. Respect that kindly.
Your call Tag.
Thanks for contributing to the site. Read many of your posts.

Thanks for the service and the kind words, but (and there's always a but, isn't there), is your solution to NOT debate? Certainly, one of the dearest things you fought to protect is the right to disagree (and the right to be wrong). To ban people or their opinions seems counter to our Constitution. I wish we could ban all SORTS of groups, starting with the ACLU, but that's not what we're about is it? To me, (emphasis on ME) the only options are debate or ignore. If I do the later, then "Evil fourishes when Good Men do nothing". I'm certainly open to any other options you can suggest. I mean that.
Be well and God Bless,
Tag

You know, someday there might be a Volt Nation meeting and you guys will come face to face. Seems silly to get all worked up about world politics that we really can't do much to change. Just vote for whoever you want and move on.

Now, about that Volt...

You know, someday there might be a Volt Nation meeting and you guys will come face to face. Seems silly to get all worked up about world politics that we really can't do much to change. Just vote for whoever you want and move on.

Now, about that Volt...

I'd like a red one, please.

In 1994, Republicans took over congress and controlled it throughout Clinton's presidency. The Reps cut spending, not Clinton. Clinton was the beneficiary of the Peace Dividend at the end of the Cold War, but I do credit him with passing NAFTA and GATT (Republican initiatives), which forced our industries to modernize and compete.
We are unlikely to agree on where the success comes from, so let's not try. Surely you're not telling me that a President is powerless to a Congress that wasn't even filibuster or veto proof. For your gloomy forecast to be true, shouldn't we have felt obvious pain either during or shortly after the 2 years of total Dem control? Wouldn't the leadership you predict is capable of driving us towards deep recession at least have been able to throw cold water on the historic economic expansion?

Again, bravo to your choice of avatar. Stephen would be proud of your "gut" appealing arguments ;)

-Nuttzy :cool:

p.s. @jbfalaska: Lyle did create this politics forum, didn't he? Then I don't see any harm with folks posting political opinions so long as they are well formed.

Just vote for whoever you want and move on.
Our country doesn't work this way. Not to say that it doesn't happen--just that things don't work right when it does happen. And unfortunately, there is a couple hundred years of hard data to support that fact... Too many people think that just going to the polls is enough. It's not. There's no one to vote for that is not already pre-selected and pre-approved by the establishment.

Our country doesn't work this way. Not to say that it doesn't happen--just that things don't work right when it does happen. And unfortunately, there is a couple hundred years of hard data to support that fact... Too many people think that just going to the polls is enough. It's not. There's no one to vote for that is not already pre-selected and pre-approved by the establishment.

I doubt Obama was a national establishment candidate. Certainly, the local Chicago political machine promoted him beyond his measure, but the national establishment wanted Hill'reh. Unfortunately for Hill'reh, she mismanaged her campaign, and allowed a grassroots movement usurp her candidacy. (BTW, Howard Dean was not a national establishment guy - he has been at odds against Clintonistas from day 1.)

Surely every US senator is endorsed by and pre-selected by the establishment. Obama is presented as an "opposition" candidate, but there is absolutely no way anyone who truly opposes the establishment can become elected as a US Senator or come anywhere close to winning the presidential nomination of the Democratic party. To think that any of this is by-accident or due to poor planning is seriously underestimating the forces that have been running our world for centuries upon centuries. They don't make mistakes. They make things seem interesting enough so that most of the mass-media consuming public doesn't disbelieve the illusion of democracy/a free republic.

AND Regan cut the excess profits tax from 90% to 70%. Now Hilary wants the Dems to "just" raise it back to Regan's level"

Actually Reagan hurt this country in a lot of ways, and it was not just by cutting the excess profits tax. He busted unions, and started this whole "globalization" garbage. By cutting tariffs, he paved the way for corporations to make more than their fair share, and move their factories overseas. It used to be that if something cost a dollar to make here, and cost ten cents to make in China, there was a 90 cent tariff, to balance the economy. This was used to fund our country until taxes became the norm, around the time of the Spanish American War, when the IRS was formed to collect taxes that were supposed to be temporary.
The only entities that elimination of tariffs benefit are large corporations that trade all over the world. Local people do not benefit from goods and services coming from every end of the earth, and neither does the LOCAL economy.

AFAIC, they should reinstate the excess profits taxes back to the days of Eisenhower, bring back tariffs, strengthen unions, and tax the blazes out of companies that do not use goods made in the United States wherever possible. If they want to do business here, they have to make their stuff here. We should also tax the heck out of any one person who makes more than say two million a year, from any and all sources of income. It would more than pay for R&D, equipment, and be able to fund a "Manhattan Project," that could be geared toward getting us off of fossil fuels.

I doubt Obama was a national establishment candidate. Certainly, the local Chicago political machine promoted him beyond his measure, but the national establishment wanted Hill'reh. (BTW, Howard Dean was not a national establishment guy - he has been at odds against Clintonistas from day 1.)

Please give me a break. ANYONE who goes into politics in Chicago, of all places has got to be part of an establishment. It will be proven to you, when Obama has the nomination. Your head will spin when you see what an establishment line he takes when he gets elected. Though Dean was not an establishment guy several years ago, he became one when he became the head of the DNC.

And what of that "maverick," McAncient? He may have been a slight maverick twenty years ago, but his voting record speaks for itself. Not to mention, he wants to keep the status quo with each and every policy and program that WE THE PEOPLE have suffered through for the past eight years under Bushco, Inc.

To think that any of this is by-accident or due to poor planning is seriously underestimating the forces that have been running our world for centuries upon centuries. They don't make mistakes. They make things seem interesting enough so that most of the mass-media consuming public doesn't disbelieve the illusion of democracy/a free republic.

Oh, if we only could get in to the secret smoke filled rooms we could ask for some help for us little plain folk. While we're there, we could ask them kindly for our EV1 back. Damn those Free Masons and their secret handshake!! I wonder what their plan for us is? To be able to calculate the outcome and not make mistakes over the centuries, they must have a super computer or time travel. Oh My Gosh! That's it! Alien visitors (not the Mexican kind) must secretly be controling our world! I'm going to get the facts. Let's see... I'll just type in w-i-k-i-p-e-d... :rolleyes:

Please give me a break. ANYONE who goes into politics in Chicago, of all places has got to be part of an establishment. It will be proven to you, when Obama has the nomination. Your head will spin when you see what an establishment line he takes when he gets elected. Though Dean was not an establishment guy several years ago, he became one when he became the head of the DNC.

The national machine was controlled by the Clinton's, but Dean and Obama come from a grass roots movement that learned how to raise their own money, separate from the unions, trial lawyers, environmentalists, etc.


And what of that "maverick," McAncient? He may have been a slight maverick twenty years ago, but his voting record speaks for itself. Not to mention, he wants to keep the status quo with each and every policy and program that WE THE PEOPLE have suffered through for the past eight years under Bushco, Inc.

You can't blame Bush for a housing bubble that started when baby boomers started speculating in real estate, and you can't blame Bush for our energy crisis that was 30 - 40 years in the making. Bush did handle 9/11 right, and I agree with him going into Iraq, but the housing and energy problems are both demographic and poor policy problems that were decades in the making.

Oh, if we only could get in to the secret smoke filled rooms we could ask for some help for us little plain folk. While we're there, we could ask them kindly for our EV1 back. Damn those Free Masons and their secret handshake!! I wonder what their plan for us is? To be able to calculate the outcome and not make mistakes over the centuries, they must have a super computer or time travel. Oh My Gosh! That's it! Alien visitors (not the Mexican kind) must secretly be controling our world! I'm going to get the facts. Let's see... I'll just type in w-i-k-i-p-e-d... :rolleyes:
The conspiratorial view of history is factually correct. You're the one making it ridiculous, not me.

The national machine was controlled by the Clinton's, but Dean and Obama come from a grass roots movement that learned how to raise their own money, separate from the unions, trial lawyers, environmentalists, etc.

Jason, I'm glad we can agree on something ;) Though it wasn't so much "learning" to raise money (though learning was involved) as it was the rise of Internet that has made this possible.

The Dean campaign first blazed the trail, and Obama has amped it up. Rather than raising $2300 from well-off folks, it is now possible for many more inspired average folks to give $25. The ground swell of a grassroots movement can now be leveraged via email fundraising campaigns. It is so simple to donate over the net. If you wanted to support Clinton or Dole in 1996, you'd need to know where to mail your check!

So for the first time, the candidate that is able to move people can raise more money than the establishment candidate.

-Nuttzy :cool:

The Dean campaign first blazed the trail, and Obama has amped it up.

Obama didn't do anything. Neither did Dean. Others set it up, like MoveOn.org, and Dean was chosen by MoveOn and benefitted from the money they steered to him. Later, the same infrastructure chose Obama, and has steered the money to Obama and Dean. Kos and myDD enlisted, trained and organized the ground infrastructure for all House and Senate races, which Obama now benefits from during the presidential primary season.

Obama is a post-turtle. If you see a turtle stuck up on the top of a post, you know:

1) he didn't get there by himself
2) he doesn't know what to do now that he's there
3) his only options are to stay where he was put or fall

Obama is just the fortunate inheriter of many other's work. When he gets off script, you can see he has no coherent thoughts.

More then likely the Dems will just burden us with a natinoal sales tax (they'll call it a VAT tax), just like they have in Europe, of about 15%-18%, just to pay for their increased welfare plans (taxpayer funded health insurance, taxpater funded college education, taxpayer funded daycare, etc). In the end we'll all end up poorer, just like Europeans. That and everybody will hae at least one college degree, even day laborers and janitors (just like in Europe). Going to school won't get you a better job because there are already more college graduates than then jobs for them, so even degreed people will make about the same as fast food employees. Democrats don't understand things like supply and demand much.

More then likely the Dems will just burden us with a natinoal sales tax (they'll call it a VAT tax), just like they have in Europe, of about 15%-18%. Ridiculous, pure and simple. No one is proposing these measures. Please point me to a source where such outlandish claims are pulled from, other than your butt. This is exactly the sort of "truthiness" being offered by some conservatives that sounds good in the gut for rallying the troops but in reality there is nothing to it. Why not also say "Oh yeah, and Obama is a secret ******" while you're at it. Either way, you're playing a fear card based on untruths.

-Nuttzy :cool:

"Liberals" are now way past wanting to merely tax industries - Maxine Waters admitted her desire to nationalize the oil industry, seizing all assets and profits.

Obama is just the fortunate inheriter of many other's work. When he gets off script, you can see he has no coherent thoughts. I can't disagree with you enough. Since we are extremely unlikely to agree, let's leave it at that.


Obama didn't do anything. Neither did Dean. Others set it up, like MoveOn.org, and Dean was chosen by MoveOn and benefitted from the money they steered to him. Later, the same infrastructure chose Obama, and has steered the money to Obama and Dean. Kos and myDD enlisted, trained and organized the ground infrastructure for all House and Senate races, which Obama now benefits from during the presidential primary season. Well, you don't have this quite right. Let's just say I happen to know a great deal about the subject. If you really care to know, I can expand on the topic enormously. Sure, MoveOn and others had valuable contributions in running Internet based grassroots campaigns, but those are magnitudes smaller in scale than what is required for a legit Presidential run.

No one prior to the Dean campaign had attempted a national Presidential campaign leaning so heavily on the Internet to bring people together, get their message out, and raise a substantial amount of funds. A core group then went on to implement the lessons learned from Dean at the DNC, which enjoyed tremendous success in 2006. In early 2007, the Obama campaign decided to lean on the same core group. But to be clear it was Obama's choosing them and not the other way around. Hillary choose different people.

Obama was able to immediately able to leverage the lessons learned in 2004 and 2006. But 2008 is an entirely different animal. The amount of resources required dwarf the requirements of 2004. Constituents now look to the web first. They require more of a personal connection. There must be things to keep them informed, rev'd up, and coming back to the site. And money... oh the insane amount of money that gets raised. But it is far less insane when you consider these are just average folks donating the smaller sums that they can afford... but there are *millions* of them.

Money is a key to winning political races. The Internet is now getting us closer to a "people" funded race rather than special interest funded... all without raising your taxes. Neat! For the purpose of this discussion, money is also the only metric that makes sense to proclaim whom a trailblazer is. No one has ever raised money over the net on the same scale as Obama.

-Nuttzy :cool:

"Liberals" are now way past wanting to merely tax industries - Maxine Waters admitted her desire to nationalize the oil industry, seizing all assets and profits.


“And guess what this member* would be all about? This member would be all about socializing — er, uh. [Pauses for several moments] …. would be about … [pause] … basically … taking over, and the government running all of your companies.”

We can agree that this idea is moronic and indefensible. Are you prepared to defend every moronic idea some random House GOP member may spout off without thinking?

I think she means regulation rather than nationalization, but that doesn't make it much better. Her statement was pure hyperbole with the hope of giving the appearance to her constituents that she is doing something. Though I think she realized how stupid she sounded as she was saying it. I would be more concerned if it was a Democratic leader of any consequence making the statement.

Pretty sure you'll never hear of this idea again. Tell ya what, if this gains any traction whatsoever, I'll help you organize a movement to oust her from office ;)

-Nuttzy :cool:

I think she means regulation rather than nationalization, but that doesn't make it much better. Her statement was pure hyperbole with the hope of giving the appearance to her constituents that she is doing something. Though I think she realized how stupid she sounded as she was saying it. I would be more concerned if it was a Democratic leader of any consequence making the statement.

Your quote above is why the netroots movement is so tragic. You have no idea how communists / fascists are masking their intentions and getting a bunch of naive idealist netrooters to do their work for them. Sadly, you will realize too late what is behind all this, but I guess every generation has to learn the hard way.


Pretty sure you'll never hear of this idea again. Tell ya what, if this gains any traction whatsoever, I'll help you organize a movement to oust her from office ;)

I am sure that we won't "hear" about it again, but it is the string-pullers intent to nationalize the oil industry, and any other industry from which they can bleed a vein. Social programs (at least those design by libs) must be subsidized by wealth possessors / creators. The more they fail, the more libs have to bleed what works.

I can't disagree with you enough. Since we are extremely unlikely to agree, let's leave it at that.

No one prior to the Dean campaign had attempted a national Presidential campaign leaning so heavily on the Internet to bring people together, get their message out, and raise a substantial amount of funds. A core group then went on to implement the lessons learned from Dean at the DNC, which enjoyed tremendous success in 2006. In early 2007, the Obama campaign decided to lean on the same core group. But to be clear it was Obama's choosing them and not the other way around. Hillary choose different people.

Here again you admit that Dean utilized someone else's work, having "a core group" to expand on it, to carry his campaign.


Obama was able to immediately able to leverage the lessons learned in 2004 and 2006. But 2008 is an entirely different animal. The amount of resources required dwarf the requirements of 2004. Constituents now look to the web first. They require more of a personal connection. There must be things to keep them informed, rev'd up, and coming back to the site. And money... oh the insane amount of money that gets raised. But it is far less insane when you consider these are just average folks donating the smaller sums that they can afford... but there are *millions* of them.

Here Obama, having been favored by Dean and the netrooters over Hill'reh, was handed the keys to what was handed to Dean. It may have been improved, but Obama had no hand in creating or improving it.


Money is a key to winning political races. The Internet is now getting us closer to a "people" funded race rather than special interest funded... all without raising your taxes. Neat! For the purpose of this discussion, money is also the only metric that makes sense to proclaim whom a trailblazer is. No one has ever raised money over the net on the same scale as Obama.

I have no problem with netroot systems of raising cash or organizing activists to aid campaigns. I too think it is great that more people are involved. It is just a shame that all these people don't realize how their efforts are being usurped. I don't doubt the sincerity of many who want to "fix" many things in our government, but their efforts are being usurped to completely undermine our free market capitalist system. I suppose if the Deaniacs and Obama were honest about their intentions, that would be another thing completely, but they are not (accept when they make gaffes like Maxine's call to nationalize the oil industry, and Obama admitting he would happily sit down with Castro, Chavez, Ahmedinijad, Kim Jung Il, etc.

You have no idea how communists / fascists are masking their intentions and getting a bunch of naive idealist netrooters to do their work for them. [...] but it is the string-pullers intent to nationalize the oil industry, and any other industry from which they can bleed a vein. Jason, I'm disappointed in you. I expect you to make well-formed arguments that we can debate, and most likely determine specific points where we can agree to disagree. But what am I supposed to do with this? If I read this correctly, you are stating that the Democratic Party is just a facade for a few folks that look like this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1e/Villianc.jpg
...were there a shred of truth to your words, I'd expect the messenger delivering the warning to be the GOP leadership... not "random Internet guy"

-Nuttzy :cool:

Nuttzy,

Reps are warning people about the Dems intent. Rush Limbaugh had a field day on Maxine Water's desire to nationalize the oil industry, with a chorus of "I told you so.".

Dems aren't like the blatant unscrupulous character you pictured, they are far more like Delores Umbridge from Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix - outwardly saccharine sweet and seemingly harmless, but internally malicious, vicious, hateful, jealous and thieving.

Reps are warning people about the Dems intent. Rush Limbaugh had a field day on Maxine Water's desire to nationalize the oil industry, with a chorus of "I told you so." Please. Rush has a show to put on and he has no show unless he has something to be indignant about. It's ridiculous to mention him in the context of GOP leadership. It's like saying I should care about anything Keith Olberman has to say.

John McCain is the GOP standard-bearer of 2008 and also known for his straight talk (though the wheels occasionally fall off the Straight Talk Express). If he isn't sounding the alarm about a Communist infiltration of the Democratic Party, then I'm really not concerned. Disagreeing with the Democratic or Republican positions or believing they can't achieve what they advertise is fair game. Proclaiming there are far more sinister motivations being kept secret is the view of extremists not rooted in reality. (note: I'll allow for sinister individuals, but not entire parties)

There are people on the extreme Left, just as there are people on the extreme Right. We've let the extremists direct the discourse in politics for too long and divide us with a handful of wedge issues. It's time to dump the party-line split and work together more. It's time to be *for* things rather than *against* things. I'm confident that both McCain and Obama are capable of achieving this (Hillary... not so much).

-Nuttzy :cool:

Dems [...] are far more like [...] outwardly saccharine sweet and seemingly harmless, but internally malicious, vicious, hateful, jealous and thieving. If this isn't blatantly demonizing your opponents, what is? Jason, as Colbert would say I thought you might be a "formidable opponent". But you are really letting me down. I suspect there is high-mindedness in you, let's see it.

-Nuttzy :cool:

I object, that was clearly a picture of a republican. :D

(It's the hat that gives it away)

No retort? My retort is that it's now obvious that you were either unable or unwilling to see the writing that has been on the wall for over two weeks now. Obama is now the presumptive nominee. I had not called him that before, never calling him more than "probable". What your motive was for making this an issue was never clear to me. Now you've confirmed what I alluded to all along, that your pushing this was nothing but a distraction.

-Nuttzy :cool:

Dems will over-regulate us into deep recession.

Six months later, the economy on the verge of depression under the Bush Administration's watch, and your comment seems utterly ridiculous now. I've no doubt that you still maintain the opinion. However, how about acknowledging the conservatives roll for getting us into this mess before you start theorizing (fear mongering) about what Democrats might do.

-Nuttzy :cool:

Six months later, the economy on the verge of depression under the Bush Administration's watch, and your comment seems utterly ridiculous now. I've no doubt that you still maintain the opinion. However, how about acknowledging the conservatives roll for getting us into this mess before you start theorizing (fear mongering) about what Democrats might do.

-Nuttzy :cool:

Being a neocon means never having to admit you're wrong... if you're never wrong, obviously you never have to say you're sorry. Haven't you been paying attention? From "heckuva job Brownie" to "fundamentals of our economy are strong" the administration has been ignoring its failures and inventing or overrating its successes for 7.5 years.

The crisis on wallstreet is the perfect argument against people like Jason who base their entire world view around Ayn Rand style free market fetishism. Guess what, CEOs are very often unscrupulous criminals looking to make a quick buck at the risk of the entire company/firm/market.

Don't even bring up Rush Limbaugh in an argument. He's made a career out of stirring up hatred and fear against cartoonish imaginary villains. He gets on the radio every day and whips up a millions of idiotic listeners into a frenzy then goes back to one of his mansions to relax with some cuban cigars and oxycontin.

Something that needs mentioning: Bush himself was actually interested in increasing regulation on wall street. God bless him, he made a common sense judgment call that since the government gives fannie and freddy a guarantee of a bailout it should damn well get a say on how they run their business. It's one of the rare instances where George Bush had the right idea. The rest of the Republican party and a few of the blue dog democrats weren't having any of it and kept pushing de-regulation and now here we are.

the wild west we have in wall street has ****ed us more then regulations has. I love how john maccain is like ill reform wallstreet. With his fellow keating five buddies who deregulated wall street into the late 80s recession

letting the markets decide is a joke the ****ers will drain one industry and move onto the other

Nuttzy,

Reps are warning people about the Dems intent. Rush Limbaugh had a field day on Maxine Water's desire to nationalize the oil industry, with a chorus of "I told you so.".

Dems aren't like the blatant unscrupulous character you pictured, they are far more like Delores Umbridge from Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix - outwardly saccharine sweet and seemingly harmless, but internally malicious, vicious, hateful, jealous and thieving.

screw it its our ****ing oil the oil companies should have to buy it from us. Right now we are charging about 4% royalty on the oil.

Any off shore in the gulf they pay NOTHING NOT A CENT. Then they ditch us with the bill to clean up their mess. They ditch us with the bill to develop the infrastructure. Thats cooperate welfare at almost its worse i have 700 billion other reasons why this isnt the worse case.

The ****ers in wall street if they want a penny from the federal goverment should give majority control to our country, Get 50 cents on the dollar at BEST.
The board and executives should be fired and sent to jail if the FBI finds anything. If they are convicted all assets acquired from the crime should be seized.

When we **** up we lose just about everything these ****ers should be living in some slum house in 6 months if i had my way.

take AIG they insured sub prime mortgages with PMI. They took the capital they got from these policies and invested them in subprime securities at a ratio of 30:1.

That ment they had 30 times the liability then the capitol in hand. When the forclosures started to happen their securities went down in value and by more then half so now the ratio of capital to liability as something around 120:1. **** em


I want them to insure my lottery tickets " i actually dont buy any"
They what they can do is with my policy money use it to buy lottery tickets for their company. How could that ever fail?


The GOP ****ed this mess up doubled our national debt and now they claim they can fix it.

I hate the dems almost as much but they are the lesser of 2 evils.

My solution? Any capital gain of more then 5 million in a year would be taxed at 80% If your not from America it would be at 30% Thats pre bush prices
If your from a Tax shelter or claim to be its 99% the capital gains tax
**** that anyways Iran, Valenzuela uses counties like Luxembourg, the caymans as a proxy to conduct economic warfare against the US.

He's singing a very different tune tonight and even claiming that he warned of this disaster last year, another one of his bold-faced lies. Even a few days ago he was championing de-regulation. This is his campaign strategy: take credit for the positions your opponent has had for years and hope nobody calls you on it.

edit: this is about mccain from last page

If anything, our recent financial crisis should teach us the importance of keeping our financial house in order. I certainly would not run my finances like the US does. It would be financial suicide!

If you don't keep your financial house in order, soon you will be faced with making all kinds of decisions that go against your morals and principles. When a stomach gets hungry the mind will listen to anything that delivers food.

The US is obviously is serious trouble right now. Most of us feel that nothing can really happen because we are so big and important to the world. It's beyond most of our abilities to see how bad it could really get. The talk of spending $700 billion on bailouts should at least get most people thinking, "Did I read that right? $700 billion?" This is a huge amount of money, folks! It might also only be the start.

It is my option that the major reason for our problems comes from our energy policy. I believe we started heading down a bad path once we reached peak oil production in 1970. From that point on we were working against powerful forces. We came up with a brilliant strategy (at the time) of controlling the world's economy by controlling the petroleum market. By insisting that the world use the US dollar to trade for oil allowed us an amazing advantage. Other countries are forced to earn US dollars in order to purchase needed petroleum. We only have to print more money and wait for it to come right back to us.

If we would have been more disciplined and strict with our budgets and made sure we were not running too much dept (currently around $10 trillion) we would be in a much better position to deal with the current energy crisis.

I think people do not realize what is going on. They think we have a huge problem with our mortgage lending and that we only need to fix that to solve the problem. However, our problems are much deeper than that! The real deep underlying problem we have is we weakened our financial position so much that it will be hard for us to hold on now that petroleum production can no continue to increase at the rates we have grown accustomed to.

Our entire economy is designed to run with cheap and continually growing oil supplies. When oil supplies no longer fulfill those requirements massive pain will be felt. We are seeing it now. Expect more.

It's not all doom and gloom however. Our current energy crisis is not the same as what we had before or what Cuba experienced (massive reductions in petroleum supply). When your energy is suddenly cut off it causes immediate and painful problems. That's when machines come to a screeching halt. Massive shortages and long lines at the gas stations, people not being able to eat, etc.

Our situation is that we have to now learn to live with the same amount of oil that we had last year and the year before that. Forget about seeing those huge increases in oil supplies we have seen since the first oil well was drilled. Those days are over!

The only way for our economy to grow now is though invention and efficiency gains. We can't just build more stuff with the same technology. That would require more energy. That said, our 20 mbd of petroleum consumption is a huge amount of energy! We are also very inefficient with our use of that energy. Much can be gained. However, it will not be anywhere near as fast and easy as just getting more energy every year.

My current prediction, barring any severe disruptions in supply or massive downward spiraling problems, is that we are going to experience economic stagnation (after many reorganizations) for the next 10 years or so before new technology energy systems start to move things forward again.

After that it should be a brand new day! A new world where we are no longer bound to the limitations of petroleum and other non-renewable energy resources. The opportunities will be unlimited. Thus, I'm optimistic and think we will make it though. I'm looking forward to seeing our cities becoming clean, quiet and shiny places where we no longer have to endure the stench of gasoline, diesel and coal burning. We'll get there folks we just have to hang on and resist the urge to push those big red ICBM buttons. If we do that, we'll be fine. We won’t be the same and we won’t all make it but we will be stronger.

He's singing a very different tune tonight and even claiming that he warned of this disaster last year, another one of his bold-faced lies. Even a few days ago he was championing de-regulation. This is his campaign strategy: take credit for the positions your opponent has had for years and hope nobody calls you on it.

edit: this is about mccain from last page

McCains policy is to lie get called out on it and then make up a new lie

I agree with texas. On our oil BS. Like check out cars. The MPG in the past 30 years as stayed the same but HP has doubled. You know we could of taken that Very same HP gains dump it for MPG gains and get 25-33% more MPG across the fleet today.

We have enough energy domestically to do what we need we just waste money and effort avoiding the issue

Whats that round symbol Obama has on the tail of his airplane, and behind him when he's speaking on the stump, is it some kind of logo or is he going to change the looks of the flag? ----------NO PLUG NO SALE

Whats that round symbol Obama has on the tail of his airplane, and behind him when he's speaking on the stump, is it some kind of logo or is he going to change the looks of the flag? ----------NO PLUG NO SALE


On July 20, before Sen. Barack Obama took off on a week-long overseas tour that included stops in the Middle East and Europe, his campaign unveiled a newly designed Boeing 757 plane that the Illinois senator, members of his campaign staff, secret service and members of the press corps will use for the remainder of his campaign. The plane features first class, business and coach seating, with new carpet and leather chairs and a brand new paint job of the exterior.

Prior to the redesign, Obama had used a number of planes for his traveling needs, but the plane in question was one he has chartered from North American Airlines since late March. The design of that plane had featured two images of the American flag: a small wavy flag that was displayed on the side of the aircraft and a much larger image of the flag that appeared on the plane's tail. According to NAA's director of corporate communications, Steve Forsyth, both images are typical of North American Airline planes. "The flag design is used on the tails of all North American aircraft (Boeing 757s and 767s) and is in the corporate logo," said Forsyth. However, neither image is a part of the Obama campaign's new plane design.

there you go

However, neither image is a part of the Obama campaign's new plane design.

Wow! Our new messiah is designing planes too??!! Is there anything he can't do?? Oh yeah, bowling... but other than that, he is unstoppable.:rolleyes:

Thanks Zeksteve, that explains the airplane, but why is he using the symbol on the backdrop on some of the stages where he is speaking, I wish I could remember a case in point----NO PLUG NO SALE

That's his campaign logo. Don't know what you want to hear exactly. What's with John McCain writing Country First all over the American flag? He gonna change it too?

Guys, please stop talking about stupid things. Flag designs are a distraction and if it influences your vote even a little bit, then you are a tool.

My point on digging up this topic again is not to say this is all the GOP's fault and the Dems are angels (there's 30 years of blame to go around). The point is to show Jason that his comments are the baseless scare tactics the GOP has been running on for years. The biggest fallacy being "tax and spend Liberals". The phrase resonates in the guts of many conservatives but has not been true for at least 20 years.

The rest of the world is gaining ground on us (though I think we have a nice buffer still). We better start using our heads, and not our guts. That is why I LOVE Jason's avatar of Stephen "truthiness" Colbert, b/c that's how he acts sometimes (though sadly he's not being comedic).

-Nuttzy :cool:

Where is Jason here? Please come back and defend your (literally) bankrupt philosophy for us please. You must be in the middle of a full blown existential crisis right now.

Left here because it got too snippy. Here, chew on this...........

http://zfacts.com/p/196.html

Left here because it got too snippy. Here, chew on this...........

http://zfacts.com/p/196.html

We were well on our way to oil independence until Reagan got elected, then look at how fast our oil imports shot up. As Amory Lovins says, we are the OPEC of "negabarrells" and if we have the will to do it we can cut our oil imports drastically through conservation and efficiency like Carter did. That site is pretty spot on.

We were well on our way to oil independence until Reagan got elected, then look at how fast our oil imports shot up. As Amory Lovins says, we are the OPEC of "negabarrells" and if we have the will to do it we can cut our oil imports drastically through conservation and efficiency like Carter did. That site is pretty spot on.





Yes. Oil companies and Republicans made great soul mates until oil started running out of gas. ;) Now Republicans need to divorce their old lover before she takes them both down. Oil no longer is the tool needed to control the world and our power structure. If we keep holding on to it we will bankrupt ourselves trying to secure the remaining reserves. As we now know oil wars are not cheap. People have learned how to fight the US. Never take us head-on. You don't jump in front of a raging bull. You put up a big red sheet and step aside. Little digs and stabs. That way the bull has no idea who or where to charge into. It's also how we defeated the British way back when.

We need to pull back from petrol dollar diplomacy. It will be painful and a slow process but it's the right path to take. We can be a much more positive influence if we are powering up the world with high technology renewable energy systems than rationing out depleting fossil fuels.

Definitely get off oil but keep in mind that its going to take years to make the transformation over to other types of fuel, big trucks that deliver our food and other commodities still need oil, farm equipment and emergency vehicles are also going to be dependent on oil for a long time. I think the Volt and other evs are going to make the transformation quicker so please GM hurry up----NO PLUG NO SALE

Definitely get off oil but keep in mind that its going to take years to make the transformation over to other types of fuel, big trucks that deliver our food and other commodities still need oil, farm equipment and emergency vehicles are also going to be dependent on oil for a long time. I think the Volt and other evs are going to make the transformation quicker so please GM hurry up----NO PLUG NO SALE





The technology is the least of our worries. If we really wanted to be energy independent we would have already been there decades ago. Our energy policy and forgien policy are kissing cousins. Even if we had the perfect battery tomorrow we could not transistion too fast. It would mess up the entire world's economy, and really kill us. We have so much debt that we need to be controling the world's oil with our petrol dollars. The situation is never as easy as it seems.