Oil Wars & Energy Independence

The recent speeches from the ‘President’ of Iran have caused even more uncertainty and unrest in the Middle East, and in the Oil Markets.
The ‘Oil Wars’ that have been ongoing for decades should have convinced us LONG AGO that we need Energy Independence.
For such a fast moving society, we sure are slow to move on this issue.

Why haven't we moved away from our dependence on oil?
I believe we are smart enough to figure out how to accomplish this.

From nuclear energy, to wind, solar, coal, hydrogen, natural gas, and the continued use of fossil fuels we should be able to have numerous energy sources that can be utilized depending on geography.

So...what is the problem?

Many want to blame it on Bush and the fact that he is 'in bed' with the oil companies. This is not the only reason and people really need to move beyond this.
Clinton was in office for 8 years, supposedly had no ties to big oil, and little was accomplished.

Our automobile manufacturers did not work towards more fuel efficient vehicles fast enough. They have fallen behind because their marketing experts misread the public.
The 'excuse' I hear is that 'the public isn't asking for higher gas mileage'.
I don't know anyone who does not want better gas mileage.
Just because someone buys an SUV it doesn't mean they wouldn't prefer one that has a higher MPG - real MPG.

Jobs.
It is a concern that there would be many layoffs if we used less oil.
This may be true, but, many jobs opportunities would develop in companies that provide alternative energy.
How about this fact about jobs:
"The Department of Energy estimates that each $1 billion of trade deficit costs America 27,000 jobs. Oil imports account for almost one-third of the total U.S. deficit and, hence, are a major contributor to unemployment." link


NIMBY -Not in my backyard-
Nuclear is a problem because people simply do not like the idea of having a Nuclear Plant nearby. The waste is also a giant problem.
We have seen issues over 'wind farms'. They spoil scenic views and could cause problems for the Coast Guard.
'Letter: Sen. Kennedy should stop fighting Cape Wind'

(There are concerns about the other options also. Too many to list here. There is always a group that is against whatever is proposed.)

-----------------
The 'Oil Wars' will only get worse.

Chinese President Hu Jintao is visiting today. A grand welcoming ceremony was held earlier. (I liked the heckler.)
It has been mentioned that President Bush will speak to Hu about alternative energy sources.

China doesn't care who they get their oil from as long as they get it.
Since China is one of the countries where there is a problem with human rights they do not have a reason to be concerned about human rights violations in the nations they acquire their oil from.
India has the other fastest growing economy and has rising demands for oil. India has been looking for alternative fuel sources but do not really care who they buy their oil from either. A pipeline into Iran? - 'Iran's shadow over India-US relations'
Russia is a problem also. 'Russia Rejects US call to Halt Nuclear Plant Construction in Iran'

Energy Independence is necessary for various reasons.
The main reason, of course, is to stop propping up the terrible regimes in the Middle East, and other places around the globe, who control the oil supplies.

From: 'Institute for the Analysis of Global Security'

"It is a sad fact of life that many of the world's leading oil producing countries are either politically unstable and/or at serious odds with the U.S. Most of these countries are members of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). While OPEC countries produce about 40% of the world's oil, they hold 80% of proven global reserves, and 85% of these reserves are in the Middle East.

The oil wealth of OPEC countries allows them to be the strategic pivot of world politics and economy. But their record on human rights, political stability and compliance with international law is abysmal.

--Twenty two percent of the world's oil is in the hands of state sponsors of terrorism and under U.S./UN sanctions.

--Only 9% of the world's oil is in the hands countries ranked free by Freedom House."

Lessening our need for oil from these regimes will in turn cause problems for them. They will need to do more for their people. They will need to allow their people to do more for themselves. The miniscule amount of money that trickles down to the masses will not be as readily available. They will need to improve their economies in ways that have absolutely nothing to do with oil. Good thing for them this cannot happen overnight.
(Then the masses can blame the U.S. for all their problems because we are NOT buying their oil.)

The Environment is also a large concern. Yes. I said that. Global warming or not, we should take care of our environment.

Some nations are already weaning themselves off oil.
This has to be a global movement towards alternative energy sources.
The U.S. needs to get moving on this and create a massive global effort. It could only help our image. It could help with alot of problems around the globe.
It needs to be done.

Posted by Dawn at April 20, 2006 2:22 PM
Comments
Comment #141947

Here Dawn, you’ll like this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/20/opinion/20thu2.html

Posted by: Max at April 20, 2006 2:52 PM
Comment #141950

Well said, Dawn.

Posted by: William Cohen at April 20, 2006 3:07 PM
Comment #141959

> Why haven’t we moved away from our dependence on oil?

Because it hasn’t been a politically and economically viable option until very recently. Wait til we hit $4/gal.

> So…what is the problem?

There is and has been too much money in politics working against the cause of oil independence.

Posted by: David at April 20, 2006 3:35 PM
Comment #141961

Oil based technology is well developed and much cheaper than the alternate energy sources right now. As soon as oil gets expensive enough for other technologies to be ecomonically viable they will be developed. NIMBY will still be a major problem, though.

Posted by: traveller at April 20, 2006 3:39 PM
Comment #141966

Dawn, we will remain slow on this issue as long as government subsidizes oil energy companies to make the move to alternative energy. Their profits lie in oil until oil ceases to exist, and the more scarce it is, the greater their profits. Yet, our government continues to provide these corporations tax incentives (despite record profits) and subsidies to supposedly research alternative energy sources. This is the most absurd waste of tax dollars I have ever seen.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 20, 2006 3:48 PM
Comment #141967

much cheaper? we can definitively take it a few more steps than that. Oil is currently the cheapest liquid on earth.

Posted by: mpc at April 20, 2006 3:49 PM
Comment #141971

According to an article in the Jan.9, 2006 Wall Street Journal,

“At current prices, Brazil can make ethanol for about $1 a gallon, according to the World Bank. That compares with the international price of gasoline of about $1.50 a gallon. Even though ethanol gets less mileage than gasoline, in Brazil it’s still cheaper per mile driven.”

Posted by: Don at April 20, 2006 4:15 PM
Comment #141977

Ummm, no we can’t mpc. How about salt water? Or even fresh water.

Posted by: Jack Mohammedoff at April 20, 2006 4:43 PM
Comment #141980

Dawn, you’d think GW, having a history in oil, would recognize this and seize on it as a campaign strategy. Oops, I forgot, his actual oil history is being bailed out by Saudi Arabia and friends.

Posted by: Jack Mohammedoff at April 20, 2006 4:47 PM
Comment #141988
So…what is the problem? Many want to blame it on Bush and the fact that he is ‘in bed’ with the oil companies. This is not the only reason and people really need to move beyond this.

It’s not the only reason and we do need to look at the other reasons. But it is a major obstacle to reducing our dependence on oil. So no, we shouldn’t ‘move beyond this.’

Bush spoke in his state of the union address about reducing our reliance on foreign oil. And what has he done? Nothing. All talk. If he put some serious effort into it, such as improved CAFE standards and encouraging mass transit, I might actually think he meant what he said. But like a lot of other utterances out of his mouth (rebuild after Katrina, get OBL) he forgets he ever promised anything as soon as the camera is turned off.

Posted by: Steve k at April 20, 2006 5:16 PM
Comment #141989
Why haven’t we moved away from our dependence on oil?

I thought you Reps/Cons believed the market was always right… Obviously, if the market is always right, we shouldn’t move away from oil because oil is still relatively cheap. Or are you just the next in a long line of free marketers starting to have second thoughts about the ultimate wisdom of the market?

Posted by: wanna_be_jack at April 20, 2006 5:16 PM
Comment #141997
How about this fact about jobs: “The Department of Energy estimates that each $1 billion of trade deficit costs America 27,000 jobs. Oil imports account for almost one-third of the total U.S. deficit and, hence, are a major contributor to unemployment.”

Well, something doesn’t add up here. Our trade deficit is higher than it’s ever been, but what’s the official unemployment rate? 4.3% or something like that? If this DOE quote was accurate, we would have 5.4 milliion unemployed just due to our deficit with China.

Some nations are already weaning themselves off oil.

Such as who, France? LOL

Posted by: wanna_be_jack at April 20, 2006 5:52 PM
Comment #141999
The ‘Oil Wars’ that have been ongoing for decades should have convinced us LONG AGO that we need Energy Independence.

Dems, liberals and treehugging commie environazis have been trying to make this to happen since the ’70s, but you Reps/Cons would not hear of it. Now you seem to be saying they might have been right after all, is that what I’m hearing in your blogpost?

Posted by: wanna_be_jack at April 20, 2006 5:56 PM
Comment #142004

That 4.3% unemployment figure is bogus. It does not include the millions who have dropped off the unemployment databases due to expiring benefits. Our population has been growing by millions but work force employment numbers have not been growing by millions, each year over the last 10 years. That alone says the number is bogus. Simple logic.

There are deep flaws in our government’s computation of these figures, and it works to the administration’s advantage to keep those flaws in place. Independent figures are not attainable due to the government’s ownership of the database records and the cost of trying to do an independent calculation of true unemployment.

But, there are many statisticians who have written about the many ways the government’s figures don’t add up. Do we know how many homeless transients are in America? NO, and the government doesn’t want to know. Do we know how many persons are employed in the black or cash only market place? No, and the government doesn’t want to know and no effort is expended to find out. It would make the administration’s and Congress’ numbers speak very poorly of their governance.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 20, 2006 6:08 PM
Comment #142006
That 4.3% unemployment figure is bogus. It does not include the millions who have dropped off the unemployment databases due to expiring benefits. Our population has been growing by millions but work force employment numbers have not been growing by millions, each year over the last 10 years. That alone says the number is bogus. Simple logic.

I know it’s bogus. So is the “$1 billion of trade deficit costs America 27,000 jobs” figure. I was sort of hoping Dawn would repudiate one or the other.

Posted by: wanna_be_jack at April 20, 2006 6:12 PM
Comment #142012

wanna_be_jack,

Which town, city or district are you in charge of?
If your not already in office maybe you should consider a run. You seem to think you have all the solutions.

Posted by: bug at April 20, 2006 6:36 PM
Comment #142018

the gas problem could be relieved with hybred engines that are also recharged by solar cells. 100+mpg

Posted by: Ed at April 20, 2006 7:24 PM
Comment #142035

bug:

You seem to think you have all the solutions.

What did I write that said anything close to “I have all the solutions”? All I said was that the things I pointed out that Dawn wrote was hogwash. How is that claiming to have all the answers? I don’t expect an answer.

Posted by: wanna_be_jack at April 20, 2006 9:02 PM
Comment #142040

Steve k,
The things you criticized Bush for not doing require legislation by congress. Even if the president pushes his proposals as hard as he can it takes weeks or months to go through the legislative process.
Despite the fantasies of a lot of people, the president isn’t a dictator. The cooperation of congress is necessary for any of his proposals to ever see the light of day.
“The president proposes, the congress disposes”

Posted by: traveller at April 20, 2006 9:49 PM
Comment #142053

traveller:

Gee… then I guess you should be grateful we have a REPUBLICAN CONGRESS and REPUBLICAN SENATE to see to your leader’s policies.

Posted by: Aldous at April 21, 2006 12:03 AM
Comment #142095

wanna_be_jack,

‘Obviously, if the market is always right, we shouldn’t move away from oil because oil is still relatively cheap. Or are you just the next in a long line of free marketers starting to have second thoughts about the ultimate wisdom of the market?’

Cheap? Not the word for it.
Do we have a ‘free’ market?

‘I know it’s bogus. So is the “$1 billion of trade deficit costs America 27,000 jobs” figure. I was sort of hoping Dawn would repudiate one or the other.’

You know it’s bogus.
I used a quote from a place than is non-governmental and seems fairly reputable. If you have info to repudiate, please provide the link.

‘All I said was that the things I pointed out that Dawn wrote was hogwash. How is that claiming to have all the answers? I don’t expect an answer.’

If someone ‘knows’ a statement is hogwash it would be helpful if they could do more than just make that claim.

‘Dems, liberals and treehugging commie environazis have been trying to make this to happen since the ’70s, but you Reps/Cons would not hear of it.’

They have? Please reread the NIMBY part above. Various groups have been doing more fighting against each other than getting anything accomplished. I placed a link about a particular Dem up there for this very reason. It can not all be blamed on the Repubs.

So…let’s just continue to argue and blame and not get anything done.

Posted by: dawn at April 21, 2006 7:54 AM
Comment #142096
The things you criticized Bush for not doing require legislation by congress. Even if the president pushes his proposals as hard as he can it takes weeks or months to go through the legislative process.

Yeah, but like I said, he hasn’t done anything. Hasn’t proposed legislation, met with congressional leaders on the topic, etc. Don’t try to shift the blame by saying congress has to do it. Bush hasn’t lifted a finger to get congress involved.

Posted by: Steve K at April 21, 2006 8:14 AM
Comment #142102

The truth of the matter is it would be a terrible terrible mistake for the world to wean itself from oil consumption.Anybody thinking otherwise is thinking very short term.Consider this:

The most volatile region of the world is the middle east.Anybody who has been in that area will tell you most countries over there have nothing much going on for them except oil.Without oil they are nothing.Useless even.Ten Somalias all at the same time.Some of them(Iran?) brandishing nukes and other unsavoury implements of destruction.Scary thought.

If the mideast loses its capacity to earn an income,the whole area will self destruct,then somebody will have to go in to stabilize the place at a bigger cost than what it takes to buy oil from them.And the only way to keep this from happening is to maintain the status quo as reasonably as possible.Think of it as paying the neighbourhood vagrant to wash your car so he wouldnt have the need to burglarize your house.

Posted by: john doe at April 21, 2006 9:20 AM
Comment #142117

I guess my question would be, do Republicans really believe we can solve our oil problem with a Texan as President?

Isn’t that an oxymoron?

Posted by: Vincent Vega at April 21, 2006 11:42 AM
Comment #142119

Jimmy Carter may not have been everything a President should be, but he did lead in the energy arena by example. He ordered all government offices be energy conscious and temperature levels were mandated at a prescribed setting. Legislation was introduced and passed setting national speed limits at 55mph. Auto manufacturers were strongly encouraged to develop economical cars; foreign car manufacturers got their foot in the American market door with their more fuel-friendly offerings; wood stoves sold by the millions; gas wars between service stations were a common sight.

What has President Bush done besides accuse Americans of “being addicted to oil”? The correct answer is NOTHING. In fact, quite the opposite. His leadership consists of running to Crawford in his gas-guzzling jet to vote (because an aide forgot to get him an absentee ballot. That little jaunt cost the taxpayers over $250,000 for a 78 cent postage expense had the absentee ballot been used). Cheney, with absolutely no credibility in the international arena, has jet-setted to three countries this week for “talks”. Virtually every congressperson and a large number of governors (on the defense department dime) have “jetted” to foreign lands to examine: the Iraq War (Senator McCain has been there over a dozen times. Why?); the Israeli terrorist plight; the Russian who-knows-what; the German whatever. This administration has traveled (read as wasted oil) more than any administration in history. Examples abound of this waste and not one person has been held accountable for the wasteful “addiction to oil” bureaucracy.

Most people don’t know that our military doesn’t even fill up their military vehicle tanks with Iraqi fuel. The U.S. government ships in tankers of fuel for use in military transports. Gas in Iraq costs around 14 cents per gallon. How much do you figure the shipped-in fuel costs the taxpayer per gallon?

If our government insists on being a Nanny Government, they should at the least set a good example for their prodigy. Instead we are bombarded with the silent message of “do as I say, not as I do”.

I got my ounce of say-so, however. My recent 4 cylinder Hyundai purchase (yes a foreign car manufacturered in a foreign country) cost me $38.00 for a fill-up at $2.76 per gallon. That was Monday; today (Friday) the price is $2.83 per gallon. That fill-up will take me to work for about a month with a couple of trips to the grocery store, as well. My big American vehicle now sits in the drive and if gas prices come down considerably, I’ll fill it up for future driving. It would cost me about $110.00 to fill it up at Monday’s fuel cost. I filled it when gas was $1.99 about a month ago. It would be really, really great if the feds would offer a tax incentive next year for purchase of a fuel friendly vehicle instead of offering the oil company more tax breaks, and SUV purchasers kickbacks. Something’s really screwed up about our President saying one thing and demonstrating another, but that is, indeed, the way of our beloved President.

Posted by: KDTEXAS at April 21, 2006 12:03 PM
Comment #142120

How to bring the lying dems. and lying liberal media to a screeching halt.Cris mathews of msnbc will be doing outside shows on campuses all over the u.s.a. as other liberal talking heads will.Naturally he will have his young liberal followers there.Its important to have just as many young conservitives to give thier oppinions to off set the stacked deck.If this is done right it will force the bumb back inside the studio.Conservitive bloggers need to consintrate on liberal blog sites to respond strongly to every issue.These liberals have a short attention span and are notorious for flipping out when the truth is presented.You can not be kind as these chumps take kindness as a sign of weakness.FOR EVERY LIBERAL POST BE THERE TO RESPOND WITH THE QUICKNESS.Then set back and watch these libs go off the hook.

Posted by: BUMBBUSTER at April 21, 2006 12:08 PM
Comment #142122

While we need to move away from our dependency on oil and move to other sources of energy I seriously doubt it will happen until the American people say ‘enough’ and put politicians in office that aren’t owned by the oil companies. And I’m not talking just about George Bush either. I’m talking about politicians in both parties.
I know the left is going to disagree, but we have enough oil to be independent of foreign oil right now. All we have to do is pump it out of the ground. No it may not last for centuries or even decades. But we can and should use it while alternative fuel sources are being developed.
Of course the envirowhackos won’t let this happen. “Why it’ll ruin the environment”. Funny they aint worried about the environment of the countries we’re buying oil from.
Gas around here right now is selling for $2.889/gallon. The national average last night was $2.799/gal. Why aint the American people doing more than giving the poor clerk, that has nothing to do with the prices, at the gas station a lot of grief? Why the hell aint they shouting at the folks that DO set the prices?

Posted by: Ron Brown at April 21, 2006 12:19 PM
Comment #142123

KDTEXAS
What kind of Hyundai do you have? I’ve recently taken possession of a 06 Elantra. I had to take over the payments so I took over the car. Anyway it gets around 34 mpg. And so far I’m really impressed with it. The only real complaint I have with it is the location of the cruise control. I keep bumping it when I get in and out of the car.

Posted by: Ron Brown at April 21, 2006 12:40 PM
Comment #142125

aldous,
As usual, you’re not making sense.

Steve k,
I’m not defending Bush; I think he’s despicable. I’m trying to point out and correct a common misconception about presidential power.

KDTEXAS,
Jimmy Carter certainly wasn’t everything an American president should be. He was an incompetent boob who made the US a laughingstock and Bush is no better. Saying one thing and demonstrating another is a tradition among all of our beloved political class.

Posted by: traveller at April 21, 2006 12:42 PM
Comment #142128

Ron Brown,

Typical conservative idea. Instead of finally realizing that we need to solve this oil problem in our country, we drill for more. That way the problem comes up 25 years from now and you won’t have to worry about it then.

Kind of like the levies in New Orleans. Right?

Posted by: Vincent Vega at April 21, 2006 12:48 PM
Comment #142133

Everybody talks about alternative fuels as if they are going to be cheaper than oil/gasoline. Doesn’t anyone think we would be using them already if they were cheaper? Oil is the baseline fuel cost…every other alternative will be more expensive to develop and use than oil or it would have already replaced oil as the fuel of choice. Ethanol is a joke - we’d all have to switch to vehicles not even available in the US to run on more than 10% or so ethanol. Wouldn’t anyone rather eat that corn and those soy beans or at least give it to people that have none now. We don’t have enough land in the world to grow the amounts of ethanol feedstock we’d need to supply all our fuel needs. The “market” will tell us when it will be cheaper to switch to some alternative fuel and noone is going to like the price at which it becomes economic. Here’s another thought - I can see us eventually developing an alternative fuel for driving (at whatever cost), can anyone think of an alternative for jet fuel? When we really do run out of oil I guess we’ll have to go back to trains and luxury liners for global travel.

Posted by: bobc at April 21, 2006 1:32 PM
Comment #142139

wanna_be_jack: You rock!!!

(P.S.: Why do you wanna be Jack? Ewwwww… Jack gave me a piece of his mind in one post: it was all dark and grimy, with rust and cobwebs and this weird black stuff oozing out - might’ve been Oil; I don’t know - I didn’t want to touch it. I poked it with a stick, but all it did was keep squeaking: “Commies! Osamasaddam! PreciousBodilyFluids! Ecoterrorists! TheSouthShallRiseAgain!” and the like. I had the local HAZMAT boys pick it up and send it to Cuba for Political Reeducation… Oh, I’m rambling… So anyway, why do you wanna be Jack?!?)


Dawn:

So…what is the problem?

In 1975, an inventive American developed an automobile engine which ran on Vegetable Oil, got good mileage, and only output Water and CO2 as waste products. The rights to it were swiftly purchased by General Motors, who then put it in their vault never to be seen again

The Oil Companies are in league with the Car Companies: many of their Board Members sit on each others’ boards. They don’t want a Solution. Get real!

Posted by: Betty Burke at April 21, 2006 1:56 PM
Comment #142140
Everybody talks about alternative fuels as if they are going to be cheaper than oil/gasoline.

They will, when we start running out of oil. Simple laws of supply and demand. The growth in oil consumption from some previously non-oil hungry nations — particularly China — should have us thinking about that.

The question is if you want to let the market do it’s magic, which won’t happen until the price of oil gets high enough, or save your pocketbook X years down the road every time you fuel up your car and start working on those alternatives now.

Posted by: Steve K at April 21, 2006 1:57 PM
Comment #142141

Dawn,

Good article. I don’t have time to fully respond here. I intend to post a pro-nuclear article on the Democrats and Liberals column soon and I will make it in response to this article and thread.

Posted by: Ray Guest at April 21, 2006 2:12 PM
Comment #142143

Part of the problem, I believe, is that the hybred engines cars tend to be far more expensive to buy,it takes longer get your money’s worth (7 years was the last amount I heard), and frankly most Americans’ just don’t seem to want to buy them. I read recently that the auto manufactures will be making fewer hybred cars this year because no one is buying them

Most Americans’s trade every three years, and don’t have the money to or won’t pay for a more expensive car.

Perhaps a tax break on the hybred cars and a tax credit similar to what truckers get for buying diesel fuel might help to encourage us to purchase them. We Americans’ do like the idea of getting deal on things we buy. Look at rebates - we love them, but seldom fill them out!!!!

Posted by: Linda H. at April 21, 2006 2:21 PM
Comment #142144

Dawn:

Happy to hear a Republican agrees with us Democrats that we should reduce our reliance on oil and work for energy independence. Now, if you can influence the Republican Senate and House, it would be wonderful.

I believe we need a long-term project - like Kennedy’s space project - to develop alternative sources of energy that are sustainable.

Posted by: Paul Siegel at April 21, 2006 2:23 PM
Comment #142146

Oh darn, to the dustbin goes the libs, greenies and goreweasel’s argument on global warming. And just when we are all talking about oil/gas and emissions.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20060420-115953-7360r.htm

Posted by: Beak at April 21, 2006 2:32 PM
Comment #142147


Beak,

buried in the article you cite is the following:

“Although her study found that the Earth is, indeed, warming … “

Also, no mention if the study was peer-reviewed.

Posted by: Steve K at April 21, 2006 2:37 PM
Comment #142153

Dawn

—Only 9% of the world’s oil is in the hands countries ranked free by Freedom House.”

There is more oil in Canada than in Saudi Arabia.
Just at a higher cost.

David R.


That 4.3% unemployment figure is bogus. It does not include the millions who have dropped off the unemployment databases due to expiring benefits. Our population has been growing by millions but work force employment numbers have not been growing by millions, each year over the last 10 years. That alone says the number is bogus. Simple logic.

All the statistics and think tanks studies do people like me no good.
I have 4 JOBS waiting for people to fill them.
Where are all these IDLE people?


Posted by: George at April 21, 2006 2:58 PM
Comment #142164

to run on peanut oil or vegetable oil, the engine would have to be a diesel design, or compression ignition. where the engine uses very high compression and heat to ignite the fuel. a otto cycle or 4 stroke gas engine or what 96% of us drive, uses lower compression and the fuel is ignited by a electric spark or spark plugs. this design could not run on vegetable oil. the oil is way to thick and would foul the spark plugs don’t do it.! good news the diesel will run on vegetable or peanut oil. and several aftermarket companies make a kit to convert to peanut oil, the kit comes with a separate fuel tank and a pre-heater. you have to heat the peanut oil or it will also be too thick to run the diesel, no 2. you still have to keep your diesel fuel system in the car or truck, because the diesel also wont start on the peanut oil. so the engine has to be running on diesel then you flip a switch and a valve allows the peanut oil to enter the already running engine.also you can use old vegetable oil like from a fast food joint! and it is free! that is a big bonus! and i hear the exhaust smells like french fries! and the engine puts out much less pollution. i am considering a diesel truck with this kit added on it.since i just went by a gas station today in southern cal. reg. unleaded was $3.14 a gallon and rising.

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at April 21, 2006 3:41 PM
Comment #142166

‘many of their Board Members sit on each others’ boards.’

Betty,
Any chance you have a link to that? I have tried to find that info and have not been able to.

Thanks!

Paul Siegel,

I am still waiting for the Dems to actually accomplish something. and…I wish people would stop with the ‘we aren’t in power’ excuse. If the Dems want to do something all they have to do is band together and hit the airwaves - something other than complain. They don’t seem to have a problem stopping things.
So far all I hear from the dems about the oil/gas pprices is that the republicans won’t do anything about it - like they are supposed to perform some sort of miracle.

Posted by: dawn at April 21, 2006 3:55 PM
Comment #142167

Dawn,

You started this off on a non-partisan note, but fell for the baiting. Try and stay above the fray. I’m tempted to reply to some of your responses, but I won’t. I’m impressed Republicans are picking this issue up.

Posted by: Max at April 21, 2006 4:00 PM
Comment #142174

Carter was a boob? Perhaps he was naive in a political sense, but a boob? Actually he was one of the most intelligent president’s we’ve ever had. He nearly solved the Palestinian/ Arab dispute, until Sadat was killed. He didn’t get the hostages in Iran killed. He brought integrity back to Presidency, which Nixon had destroyed.

You obviously never actually lived or understood much about the political climate back then. Instead you’ve read a bunch of propoganda and bought it hook, line and sinker.

Oh, right, Reagan was a hero! Yeah when you gave him a line to read and put a cowboy hat on his head. I’m so proud that Jim Baker went to Iran and struck a deal with the Ayatollah selling him arms to embarrass Carter, before he was appointed by Reagan, before the election. The Republican echo chamber has delivered the government you bunch of “proud American” idiots asked for. A completely corrupt sham. Don’t you get they’ve play you for fools, yet? Abramoff and Delay were their golden boys. They’ve handed out bags of your tax dollars in Iraq in a stupid attempt to buy a friend. When the draft starts none of them will be lining up, but you sheep will follow them to the slaughter.

Bush, now that’s a boob! Name one thing he hasn’t totally screwed up.

Posted by: Jack Mohammedoff at April 21, 2006 4:40 PM
Comment #142182

Weary Willie -

Lowering the speed limit: “There’s no question that the way you drive affects your gasoline bill. In general, how fast you drive has more influence on fuel consumption than any other single factor. As the chart indicates, the fuel efficiency of an average car drops significantly beyond 55 mph. For example, driving at 75 mph — rather than 65 mph — increases gasoline use by 25 percent. Of course, it will take longer to get where you’re going, but you’ll be saving $5-$10 for each additional hour you drive depending on your vehicle type.”

http://www.conocophillips.com/newsroom/other_resources/energyanswers/savings.htm

“Anyone could have brokered a peace deal when one side just got done kicking the other side’s ass.”

You still lack any understanding of that area of the world… ever wonder why Egypt is so neutral?

“Carter gave away the Panama canal! That was dumb.”

Care to discuss the downside to that?

Know any other Presidents directly involved with the Nobel Peace Prize?

Posted by: tony at April 21, 2006 5:11 PM
Comment #142186

I think people should consider that while oil is cheap per gallon, most people use up gas much faster than they do things like orange juice, coffee, and other so-called expensive fluids.

This is especially true for commuters who live more than fifteen miles away from home. If you’re paying for a gallon a day or more, then gas prices will start to beat you over the head.

I would remind those who make the case that alternative technologies are still expensive that modern technologies are cheap because of economies of scale and refined manufacturing processes. What we need to do is stop using the market as an excuse for the status quo, and start using a bit more imagination.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 21, 2006 5:35 PM
Comment #142187

bobc,

“Doesn’t anyone think we would be using them already if they were cheaper?”

Is this a trick question? If not, do you realize that oil companies are making record profits? That Haliburton’s stock that was at 9 dollars a share 5 years ago and now is at 90?


I ask again… Was that a trick question?

Posted by: Vincent Vega at April 21, 2006 5:37 PM
Comment #142197

Didn’t someone in the rose colored column, last year, predict gasoline prices, by now, would be back down to $2.00 per gallon ?
I wonder who that was ?

Sadly, one of the very few things that government could have done, one of the supreme opportunities to do something right, had the government had any vision or leadership, would have been to research alternative energy and fuel sources. Is any one really surprised? The federal government has a knack for creating or exacerbating problems, not solving them.

Corporate profits are at a 40-year high, while median household incomes continue to fall as they have for the last 6 consecutive years.

Corpocrisy and Corporatism is rampant, because they are the puppeteers of our bought-and-paid-for incumbent politicians. Voters should visit issues2000.org, find your congress persons, and look at their voting records. Then go to cagw.org, click on Reports on the menu, click on Pork Book, pick a year, press Ctrl F, type in the name of your bought-and-paid-for incumbent congress person, and look at the pork-barrel they vote on while troops go without armor and medical care. Then share what you found. People don’t realize how dirty their congress persons are, but you’d think voters would notice things just getting worse, while congress votes itself some rai$e$ and cu$hy perk$. After all, it is your tax dollars.

This week, there were rolling black outs in Dallas.

What we are witnessing was predicted, and it is only going to get worse (just like the federal government).


Posted by: d.a.n at April 21, 2006 6:01 PM
Comment #142216

any ships built after 1990 are too wide, up to 160 ft, to go through the panama canal. there locks are only 110 ft wide. they have to go all the way around the cape horn and back up. panama is going to build a third lane at 220 wide to accommodate the giant ships. they estimate the cost at $7.5 billion dollars .personally i think there estimate is very low! jack m was right about anwar sadat he was a giant. you have to give credit when its due and mr carter did some good things.

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at April 21, 2006 6:54 PM
Comment #142220
Weary Willie wrote: If you want to vote out encumbents, put a face on them and point out why you want them out.
That’s an excellent idea.

Have you visited South Carolina lately?

Except for Washington, D.C., South Carolina (along with many border states) has the highest violent crime rate in the U.S.

Senator Lindsey Graham said: “illegal aliens contribute to the economy and take difficult jobs such as landscaping”.
Senator Lindsey Graham also said: “as a golfer, I probably benefit from their labor.”

Check out what Senator Lindsey Graham (D-SC) does and says.

  • Senator Lindsey Graham (D-SC) Voted: YES on extending Immigrant Residency rules. (May 2001)
  • Senator Lindsey Graham (D-SC) Voted:Voted YES on more immigrant visas for skilled workers. (Sep 1998)
  • Senator Lindsey Graham (D-SC) Voted yes on motion to pass the BILL that would extend by four months a law allowing some immigrants to remain in the country while pursuing legal residency.

How revealing is that?
But, he doesn’t even sound certain about it?
You’d think the voters of South Carolina would be upset about this, but watch … they’ll probably re-elect him like that always do for the last 14 years. DOH!
__________________________________
Representative Lynn Woolsey:

In Jul-2003, Tina Phan, age 17 at the time, was a victim of a rape in July of 2003. Stewart Pearson, a 20 yr old punk, using a rag soaked in toilet bowl cleanser and Ajax, smothered Tina with it. Trying to fight off the effects of the chemicals of the rag and the stronger knife wielding Pearson, she was eventually overpowered. Tina Phan was then raped and brutalized. Tina Phan later told police that Stewart Pearson had told her he had committed this crime before and would do it again. Pearson initially denied raping Tina Phan but last fall admitted his guilt and pleaded guilty to rape in September in a deal that dropped other charges, including assault and sodomy.

On 2-DEC-2003, Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) abused the power of her office and wrote a letter on behalf of rapist, Stewart Pearson, the son of an employee in Lynn Woolsey’s office. It did not matter to Lynn Woolsey that Stewart Pearson pled guilty to rape. In a letter written on her official congressional stationery, she asked the judge to consider mitigating cirumstances and show leniency. The judge ignored the letter, and sentenced Pearson to eight years in prison.
_________________________________________
Stop Repeat Offenders.
Don’t Re-Elect Them !
_________________________________________

Posted by: d.a.n at April 21, 2006 7:08 PM
Comment #142226

That could go on for days, but this isn’t the right topic for that.

At any rate, if voters are tired of our energy vulnerability, mismanagement of Iraq, the out-of-control $8.4 trillion National Debt, Social Security $12.8 trillion in the hole, debt growing by $4 billion per day (if you included the plundered Social Security), and all of this, growing worse, while bought-and-paid-for incumbents grow fatter and more corrupt, then they need to start doing what they were supposed to be doing all along.

Because, bought-and-paid-for incumbent politicians won’t suffer.
Incumbent politicians already got theirs (from you, yours truly, the tax payers).
Incumbent politicians all got golden parachutes.

We’re just a nudge or two from an economic meltdown.

Posted by: d.a.n at April 21, 2006 7:28 PM
Comment #142228

: )

But, on the bright side, everything is “very good”.

Posted by: d.a.n at April 21, 2006 7:34 PM
Comment #142229

Perhaps we shouldn’t be too hard on the federal government. In view of this, what grade would you give the federal government ?

Posted by: d.a.n at April 21, 2006 7:37 PM
Comment #142252

They want you to speed, so they can raise some revenue; meet their monthly quotas. Don’t speed around the end of the month.

Saw some guy on TV saying we need a Windfall profits tax.
I don’t like gettin’ gouged by oil companies (if that’s the case), but I dislike even more the crooked government that thinks they can tax someone more for making a profit. Did we wake up in N. Korea today? Why does anyone think it is OK to tax one person more than the other.

It’s like saying, Gee, Willie, you are making more than your neighbor … so we need to put a windfall profit tax on you, so we can distribute where we see fit.

Doesn’t anyone else see that as a fundamental infringement on people’s freedoms ?

Now, it might be different, if the Oil companies and outlets were price fixing, but there’s no evidience of that yet.

Also, gasoline prices have not really changed as much as some other things. Americans have been spoiled, wasteful, and lazy about developing other energy sources.

For all those that think a windfall profits tax is the American thing to do, they better think about how they will feel when it is their business or their industry, that is being targeted for windfall profits tax by the corrupt U.S. federal government. And, what makes you thing the bought-and-paid-for incumbent politicians will fairly distrubute the revenues from those windfall profits taxes? It’s a farce to talk about the fairness of distribution when the plunder of an industry is the source of the funds.

If oil companies are gouging or price fixing, then they should be heavily fined, but there is competition. If people don’t like the prices, then it will be a good incentive to finally develop more alternatives.

Posted by: d.a.n at April 21, 2006 9:44 PM
Comment #142260

max,

You are right.
Unfortunately it happens in 99.9% of the threads and tends to get annoying.
and … the majority of us complain about our polticians acting like children… go figure.

Posted by: dawn at April 21, 2006 10:44 PM
Comment #142261

Tony (et al),

Just for the record - Theodore Roosevelt won the Nobel Peace prize.

Posted by: adverbal at April 21, 2006 10:50 PM
Comment #142280

>>Senator Lindsey Graham (D-SC) Voted: YES on extending Immigrant Residency rules. (May 2001)
Senator Lindsey Graham (D-SC) Voted:Voted YES on more immigrant visas for skilled workers. (Sep 1998)
Senator Lindsey Graham (D-SC) Voted yes on motion to pass the BILL that would extend by four months a law allowing some immigrants to remain in the country while pursuing legal residency.

d.a.n.,

Are you sure Graham is a democrat?

Posted by: Marysdude at April 22, 2006 12:26 AM
Comment #142281

Vincent
I knew that yall Liberals wouldn’t like the idea of us using our own oil. Reckon yall would rather keep us dependant on foreign oil until we can come up with alternative fuels. Figures.
I’m not saying not to research alternative fuels. If you bothered to read my whole post you’d know that I’m saying to use the oil we have until other fuels are developed. This will reduce our dependency on foreign oil. If not eliminate it.
There is research going on and I believe it needs to be stepped up.

Posted by: Ron Brown at April 22, 2006 12:28 AM
Comment #142283

I was betting on marysdude to catch that!

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at April 22, 2006 12:40 AM
Comment #142284

d.a.n
What gets me is everyone screaming about the price of gas. Currently $2.789/gal for regular unleaded, $2.889/gal for mid grade, and $2.989 for premium.
But they don’t scream about $3.99/gal for the milk their kids drink. And you can bet the farmer aint getting near that from the dairy.

Posted by: Ron Brown at April 22, 2006 12:43 AM
Comment #142292

another politician won the nobel peace prize in 1912. elihu Root. republican from new york, he was secretary of war from 1899-1903, and secretary of state from 1905-1909, also he was a senator from 1905-1909. he declined to run for a second term in the senate.

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at April 22, 2006 2:10 AM
Comment #142302

excuse me , he was a senator from 1909-1915!

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at April 22, 2006 4:50 AM
Comment #142311
d.a.n., Are you sure Lindsey Graham is a democrat?

You’re right. He’s Republican.
There’s really not much difference to me.


Posted by: d.a.n at April 22, 2006 8:34 AM
Comment #142312

I should not have even bothered to denote party.
Both Democrats and Republicans want votes and cheap labor. It’s a win-win for them. Lose-lose for American citizens.

Posted by: d.a.n at April 22, 2006 8:36 AM
Comment #142318

Ron Brown,

I ‘scream’ about the milk price approx. 3 times a week when I pick up our 3 gallons. I ‘scream’ about the price of a lot of things….

The thing is - I don’t drive up to a pump with a tank to fill when I buy my milk. It ‘hurts’, but not as bad.

My guess is the store is making between 30 and 50% profit on the milk. I say that because every couple weeks it goes on sale for a $1/half gal. or $2/gal. around here.

We aren’t only paying for the fuel to fill our tanks…we are paying for the fuel to deliver the products we buy.

Posted by: dawn at April 22, 2006 9:35 AM
Comment #142321

Dawn:

My God.

You actually didn’t know that Corporate America is rabidly incestuous?!?!?

http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/management/2002-11-24-interlock_x.htm

http://www.careerjournal.com/columnists/inthelead/20030709-inthelead.html

I could post a thousand links if the WatchBlog ParanoiaBot didn’t automatically trash posts containing more than two.

YOU DIDN’T KNOW THIS ABOUT AMERICA?

Amazing. Simply amazing…

Honey, here’s an Education in a very short space (you need to do some Catching Up):

1.) A relative handful of people control the vast majority of Wealth and Assets, in this country and in many others.

2.) When they’re not backstabbing each other with Industrial Espionage and False Advertising, they are colluding together in Price Fixing and Monopoly schemes…

3.) Go to the Supermarket, to the Toothpaste Aisle. Start reading the Fine Print on the back of as many Toothpaste “Brands” as you can find. Notice that, although there might be 12 different brands of Toothpaste, they are all owned by about four different companies. *THINK* about what this means… You can repeat this experiment with Canned Food, Hair Products - you name it: “competition?” - puh-leeeeeze!

4.) Do a more exhaustive Search than I just did to (instantly) find those Two Links, above (I deliberately picked from Conservative Sources, so that you wouldn’t claim LoOnIe LeFt LiNkS). You will find articles from twenty years ago to the present day, warning about America’s Limited Corporate Board “Club.”

Jesus, I feel so overwhelmed: where can I begin to show you all you must not even be aware of… It’s a hopeless task.

Listen, Dawn: the world is not as you’ve been taught it is. You’ll either discover that, or not. Some do (Arianna Huffington comes to mind); some don’t (Phyllis Schlafly, Anita Bryant, and Tammy Faye Eyelash, for example). If you wanna be Free, open your Eyes and your Mind; if you wanna be Last Year’s Stepford Model, just keep watching Faux “News” and avoiding Controversy…

I’m sad and tired now, I just don’t have it in me to try any harder at this time. I hope you choose Awareness.

Posted by: Betty Burke at April 22, 2006 9:45 AM
Comment #142324

Betty,

I just wanted the names of the people who are on the boards.
I’m not as unaware as you think I am.

Posted by: dawn at April 22, 2006 9:52 AM
Comment #142356

ron, yesterday morning (friday)when i went to work gas was $3.12 a gallon regular unleaded today it is $3.19 a gallon. not$2.79 like your average that’s .40 cents more a gallon .i filled up 16 gallons . 16gal times .40= $6.40 more to fill up than last week. i can buy milk at a store for $4.50 for 2 gallons ,big discount when you buy 2.it is only april.and the way oil is climbing it could be $4.00 agallon in late summer that really hurts everbody, the little guy. the single mom ,the business owner who has a fleet of 50 trucks.the student, the family,the retired people. there squeezing everyone! i went to look at a diesel thursday night,the car lots were dead. this is hurting everyone! record profits for the gas companies. if your a lib. or a con. consumer it hurts just the same

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at April 22, 2006 1:23 PM
Comment #142387
and i hear the exhaust smells like french fries! and the engine puts out much less pollution.
That would be much nicer than the nauseating exhaust of a gasline or diesel.

China and India (over 2 billion people) need more gasoline too, and they are pursuing sources from countries hostile to the U.S. China and India have bought into Russia’s oil and gas sector.

There is a race for oil.

Meanwhile, all of the bought-and-paid-for, do-nothing, FOR-SALE, irresponsible incumbent politicians ignore this problem too, just like all of the many pressing problems facing the nation.

We could have already been on hydrogen, ethanol, fuel cells, electric, etc., a long time ago, had government ever had any vision or leadership.
There was a hydrogen cadillac in the 80’s , but they were bought up, and hidden away.
Perhaps research into energy and fuel alternatives should have been more important than $27.3 billion in pork-barrel in 2005, and $29 billion of pork-barrel scheduled for 2006 ?

Ron,
Good point. Fortunately, I don’t ever buy milk…just that soy-bean substitute stuff with no lactose.

The oil situation and prices are just going to get much worse from here on out (see year 2006 on the chart above … we are now witnessing just a very, very minor inconvenience compared to what it will become).

The U.S. has made a very huge mistake with the urban sprawl and very little mass transit.
Thus, people have to drive to get everywhere.

How long before we see the 55 mile per hour speed limit again?

Posted by: d.a.n at April 22, 2006 6:08 PM
Comment #142400

We have the 55 mph speed limit inside Houston.(Well 60 actually). What was hillarious was when city council had a meeting to discuss the budget shortfall due to the reduction in traffic tickets written because of the problems associated with Hurricanes Rita and Katrina that the police have had to deal with. Of course it’s a safety issue not a revenue issue. Except when the police union contracts are up and the police impose a ticket writing slow down. It’s a safety issue. Really. I mean it.

Posted by: Jack Mohammedoff at April 22, 2006 9:07 PM
Comment #142408

Im impresed at the leftwing blog on the right wing blog lindsey graham is a rep from sc and its both parties tryn to play cut throat polotics.On energy!it needs to be made plain and clear we as a country need to work harder on new ways of energy and to hell with special intrest groups do those groups pay your personal bills hell no but they pay poloticans both democrate and republicans and they have both been caught in it if a republican does it hes outa there cause good ole never make a mistake dems see to it yet when dems get caught there explanations are like there polotics worthless meaningless garbage there is coruption in both parties and do we as the american public gain from this trash i think not.And will we pay you bet 5 bucks a galon and the most of it is state and local taxs stacked on the gas is cheap its the taxs thats the killer!

Posted by: allen stephens at April 22, 2006 10:23 PM
Comment #142430

At any rate, if voters are tired of our energy vulnerability, mismanagement of Iraq, the out-of-control $8.4 trillion National Debt, Social Security $12.8 trillion in the hole, debt growing by $4 billion per day (if you included the plundered Social Security), and all of this, growing worse, while bought-and-paid-for incumbents grow fatter and more corrupt, then they need to start doing what they were supposed to be doing all along.

Right d.a.n. - remember who makes the rules - Congress. We could drill for more oil here. Dems killed any sort of Social Security reform, Pres. Clinton added close to three trillion to the national debt, bringing it close to six trillion. Lobbyists have bought politicians on BOTH sides of the aisle. We need wholesale emptying of Congress!

Posted by: LLE at April 23, 2006 12:21 AM
Comment #142453

>>Pres. Clinton added close to three trillion to the national debt, bringing it close to six trillion.

Posted by: LLE at April 23, 2006 12:21 AM

LLE,

Can you cite that?

Posted by: Marysdude at April 23, 2006 7:42 AM
Comment #142471

As you can see below, the National Debt grew by by $1.6 trillion during Clinton’s two terms from 1992 to 2000:
09/30/2000 ___ $5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 ___ $5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 ___ $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 ___ $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 ___ $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 ___ $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 ___ $4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 ___ $4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 ___ $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 ___ $3,665,303,351,697.03

The budget was almost balanced in 1999/2000.
Bush and the current congress (including both Democrats and Republicans) have totally blown that, with the total Federal Debt now over $22 trillion ($8.4 trillion, Social Security $12.8 trillion in the hole (source: CATO Institute), PBGC $450 billion in the hole, Medicare trillion$ in the hole, and deficits of several hundreds of billions per year forecast for a decade, or more).

It is a recipe for disaster.

These 5 things could very easily turn a recession into a depression:

  • FISCAL IRRESPONSIBITY: a nation with $12 trillion GDP, but swimming in astronomical $54 trillion in total nation-wide debt ($8.4 trillion National Debt, $32 trillion of total nation-wide personal debt, Social Security $12.8 trillion in the hole, PBGC $450 billion in the hole, Medicare trillion$ in the hole), decreasing options, lost opportunities, falling dollar (not backed up by real value), potential inflation, trade deficits, and the failure stop the debt and government from growing ever larger to nightmare proporations, and increasingly corrupt , elitist, and arrogant government that is unwilling to solve problems, but more than willing to create more problems;

  • GENERATIONAL STORM: 77 million aging baby boomers (that all vote), making less, spending less, pay less tax, expecting to draw from already troubled Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, & welfare in the next decade.

  • ENTITLEMENT SHORTFALLS: The looming Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, & welfare deficits and short falls, and decreasing number of tax-payers per entitlement recipient. Social Security has been plundered since it began and is now $12.8 trillion in the hole (this is not part of the $8.4 trillion National Debt; it is always cleverly omitted)

  • LIMITED GROWTH & INCREASING FOREIGN COMPETITION: The limited capacity for growth due to declining quality and rising cost of public education, a generally less educated population failing to develop new technologies, coupled with a steady increase of foreign competition, while simultaneously importing poverty and crime (i.e. illegal aliens) that is costing the U.S. taxpayers a net loss of over $70 billion per year.

  • ENERGY VULNERABILITY: We are witnessing the beginning of this. Of all the responsible, insightful things government could have done, they failed miserably to research and foster alternate energy sources, more energy efficient homes, automobiles, etc. There’s no surprise there. It should be clear by now, the U.S. government should be given as little as possible to do, because their track records shows nothing but a knack for mismanaging everything they touch.


Posted by: d.a.n at April 23, 2006 12:18 PM
Comment #142620

Ummm… d.a.n.:

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/05/01/clinton.debt/

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/09/07/debt.clock/


Plus, you neglected to post:

09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
09/28/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06

which indicates that the National Debt has grown under The Cheney Regency as follows (and counting only four Full Fiscal Years):

10/1/05 - 4/20/2006: +$416,568,036,531 [not counted: less

than seven months worth of data]

Fiscal Years
2004-2005: +$553,656,965,393
2003-2004: +$595,821,633,587
2002-2003: +$554,995,097,146
2001-2002: +$420,772,553,397

for a Total of $2,125,246,249,523 - yes, that’s Two Trillion One-Hundred Twenty-Five Billion Two-Hundred Forty-Six Million Two-Hundred Forty-Nine Thousand Five-Hundred Twenty-Three Dollars - in only Four Years!

compared to seven Full Fiscal Clinton Years:

1999-2000: +$17,907,308,271
1998-1999: +$130,077,892,718
1997-1998: +$113,046,997,500
1996-1997: +$188,335,072,262
1995-1996: +$250,828,038,426
1994-1995: +$281,232,990,696
1993-1994: +$346,868,227,618

which total to only $1,328,296,527,491 - meaning that BushCo have run up the National Debt in Four years nearly twice as much as the Clinton Administration managed to do in Seven years!

Additionally, look at the rate of Change in the Clinton Years vs. the Bush Years: notice that, during the Clinton Years, the Rate Of Change was actually declining, the great Debt Engine of America slowing down.

Now look at the Bush Years: notice that the Rate of Change is going UP - at the Projected Current Rate, the National Debt will have gone up over $720 Billion dollars by the end of this Fiscal Year, September 30, 2006!

Clinton was paying the Debt down; Bush is making it skyrocket!

Posted by: Betty Burke at April 24, 2006 1:53 AM
Comment #142718
Betty Burke wrote: Plus, you [d.a.n] neglected to post:

09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
09/28/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06

Betty, you won’t get any arguments from me about the fiscal irresponsibility of the federal government. Especially the Bush administration.

Betty, I was only addressing 1999 to 2000.
But, of all the people here at watchblog, I have been posting continuously the fiscal irresponsibility of the federal government for two solid years. Here are two links I post practically every week (not to mention they are on my web-site too).
National Debt 1950 to 2005
National Debt Pay Off (most optimistic schedule)

Betty, if you’re trying to imply that I’m giving anyone in the federal government a free pass for fiscal irresponsibility, you haven’t been paying attention. Visit my web-site or VOID to get a better idea of my philosophies before trying to paint me as a “conservative”, “Bush defender”, “liberal”, etc., because I’m not defending Bush or Clinton in any way, shape, or form. In fact, even though I didn’t care much for Clinton, I gave him credit for slowing the growth of National Debt. Your statement that he was paying down the debt is incorrect for two reasons:
(1) The National Debt increased every year of Clinton’s eight years. He came close his last year (1999 to 2000) in which the National Debt only grew by about $20 billion.
(2) The National Debt does not include the continuous plundering of Social Security, which is why the Social Security is in the hole by $12.8 trillion , $4.4 trillion more than the ?National Debt.

Total federal debt, including the PBGC that is $450 billion in the hole, and about $1 trillion for Medicare, the total federal debt is about $23 trillion in the hole.

Add that with $32 trillion of personal debt, and the U.S. is swimming in a total debt of about $54 trillion (and growing fast).

Therefore, Betty, you have been naughty again, and “It’s the “special” Mushroom Stew for you, if you keep that up!

_____________________

LLE wrote:
Right d.a.n. - remember who makes the rules - Congress… . . Lobbyists have bought politicians on BOTH sides of the aisle. We need wholesale emptying of Congress!

LLE,
Yes, we need to oust the irresponsible ones, and keep the good one (if any).
Unfortunately, too many of us (and I used to be one of them) have been seduced into the distracting, circular pattern of petty partisan warfare. And too many of us are all too fond of wallowing in the petty partisan warfare.
Irresponsible incumbent politicians are all too happy to fuel it, as they pit Americans against each other over perceived differences (many of which don’t really even matter).

Posted by: d.a.n at April 24, 2006 4:04 PM
Comment #142785

Just heard a very disturbing rumour and since I dont know the logistics of oil pricing Ill run this past yall.Someone told me the high gas prices right now are artificial and that the govt is trying to raise some emergency cash.Supposedly the only person suspicious enough to ask questions is Charles Schumer.He is calling for an ivestigation into price gouging.Is the rumour a possibility?

Posted by: john doe at April 24, 2006 8:26 PM
Comment #142795

Sounds like a rumor, since, if they need more money, the Fed can just print more money, like they are doing now, which is one of the reasons we have increasing inflation and interest rates.

Inflation is likely to keep climbing too, with deficits forecast for many years into the future, $8.4 trillion in National Debt already, $12.8 trillion in debt for Social Security, and $trillions of debt for Medicare, PBGC, etc. And, $32 trillion of personal debt too (for a total nation-wide debt of over $54 trillion) is not a pretty picture.

However, if someone wanted to run up oil prices, he would probably do something like:
(1) claim we are addicted to oil;
(2) leak news of tentative plans to attack Iran;
(3) continue to ignore alternative energy technologies;
(4) and invade Iraq on bad intelligence.
(5) and other carefully planned blunders …

Posted by: d.a.n at April 24, 2006 9:07 PM
Comment #142842

d.a.n.:

It’s true: you have been scolding the Bushies as well as their predecessors - however, it’s not enough to simply gloss over what the Clinton Administration managed to accomplish over the short time they had, compared to every other administration going back to WWII!!!

And, had Al Gore been allowed to take the Seat he Won, you can bet that those Figures would have kept going down, instead of reversing direction and SKYROCKETING as they have done under Alfred E. “What, Me Worry?!?” Bush. The point is valid, and I would hope you acknowledge it: Clinton was doing better than any president in living memory had done, and we were prevented from carrying on that Progressive trend.


As for the Special Stew, now just who is going to Cook that up? Are you Irish, my lad? Can you cook? Don’t make empty threats unless you have a proper kettle and spoon, and know how to use them!


:op`’`’`

Posted by: Betty Burke at April 24, 2006 11:11 PM
Comment #145973

/ / . (}

Posted by: FA STEPHENS at May 7, 2006 12:16 AM
Post a comment