Durbin Can't Believe that Price Gouging BS

I am not easily upset but I did rant at “Meet the Press” watching Senator Durbin spin and obfuscate. He wants lower prices without increasing supply, worries about CO2, but opposes nuclear power. He praises Brazil’s Rapid Progress with enthanol (although he seems unaware that it took 30 years.) but responds like a vampire to a cross to reducing high tariffs on Brazilian ethanol to quickly lower pump prices.

Durbin is the kind of guy who doesn't want solutions. He prefers problems. He is not dumb enough to believe what he says (watch "Meet the Press" and you will agree), but I believe he suffers the same illusion that afflicts many big government types.

These guys cannot understand that solutions require REAL things to happen. They think that they can just make a law that will decree the good things they want. They seem to think that their opponents just will not agree because they want to make excess profits. They have a cartoon comic book understanding of the world.

They cannot understand that even if you eliminate all jokers, icemen and smoggies, conserving energy means using less. Getting more energy means producing more. Cleaning the environment means making choices about how much and what we consume. Somebody has to conserve and somebody has to produce. Durbin and his ilk don't get this. Anybody could cut his gas bill in half by driving half as much. That is what conservation is. That is what saving money is. Conservation doesn’t mean driving the same or more, while paying less.

Higher gas prices are the best incentive for conservation and alternatives. You can complain about the SUVs all you want, but the gas consumption equation is simple. It doesn’t matter what you drive; what matters only is how much gas you burn. A hybrid owner who drives all day is worse than an SUV owner who uses his vehicle rarely.

Nobody who is concerned about affordable energy or a clean environment can be against nuclear power. Many so-called environmentalists oppose nuclear power becasue they - like Durbin - prefer problems to solutions.

We cannot solve energy problems in the short or medium run without nuclear power. You cannot reduce CO2 emissions significantly w/o clean nuclear power. The best solution "hybrid" solution would be to use nuclear power for base load and solar for peak times. This is a great synergy. When do we need peak power? We need it during hot sunny days when people are using their air conditioners - just when the sun is out for solar.

Energy crises recur every couple of decades and we at first respond in the same stupid, anti market ways.

We have been here before. During the 1970s the rhetoric was exactly the same. In fact you can just copy the BS of the 1970s, about price gouging, conspiracies etc and how the government should create whole new industries. How did we "solve" the energy crisis of the 1970s? Two words HIGHER PRICES. Nothing else worked and most of the energetic governmental efforts caused harm. Synfuels, for example, cost big money to create environmentally destructive fuels that - thank God - never came to market.

We missed the chance in 1998 (when prices were at historical lows) to tax gas to a decent level to encourage alternatives. Now the prices come from a less controllable place. But we can still recover and learn from our earlier mistakes. So more nuclear power and higher prices are what we need. We already have one, let's get the other and let the market take care of the details.

Posted by Jack at April 30, 2006 11:49 AM
Comment #144304


I seem to remember when Dick Cheney forged your President’s Energy Policies in meetings with Oil Executives. Bush’s pal “Kenny Boy” Lay was part of that.


Whatever happened in those meetings, I wonder? Too bad we can’t find out because your President sealed everything up.

Another day in GOP Land.

Posted by: Aldous at April 30, 2006 12:15 PM
Comment #144308

I know you prefer the problem and shifting the blame to a real solution. NOTHING they could have done in these meeting could have created the price structure we have today. Energy is a persistent problem. It was not created yesterday or even five years ago. Investments require years to come on line. We had a good chance in the late 1990s to do the right thing. Too bad we didn’t have a secret meeting back then to push the prices up in 1999 or 2000. It might have done some good.

Posted by: Jack at April 30, 2006 12:31 PM
Comment #144311


Every time, when the price of energy/oil is mentioned in this country, nobody says anything about how cheap we have had it comared to everywhere else.
We have enjoyed cheap energy for years while most of the rest of the world has been paying more than what we are paying now even with the recent jump in the price at the pump.
Why is it that we build these groovy mass transit systems with the idea of finally conserving energy and no one use them?
I know in the east, most people use mass transit, but out here in the west with the distances we travel, we have fallen behind.

Posted by: Rocky at April 30, 2006 12:42 PM
Comment #144312


I agree with a lot of what you say, which is why I would have liked to see Bush tax gas, or increase research for alternative fuel (as he promised he would do), etc. Bush did a 180 degree turn on energy conservation and alternative energy as a talking point, but never put any muscle behind it.

So - I agree with you, but don’t believe your party really cares about these issues because they’ve delivered bupkiss, and have historically been an obstacle to alternative energy plans.

Posted by: Max at April 30, 2006 12:53 PM
Comment #144313

Jack, in your last comment you make the same argument as Durbin in the opposite direction. Your last comment says: “We had a good chance in the late 1990s to do the right thing. Too bad we didn’t have a secret meeting back then to push the prices up in 1999 or 2000. It might have done some good.”

You are arguing for boosting prices without decreasing supply, while Durbin, according to you, wants to reduce prices without increasing supply. Appears neither one of you believes in supply and demand purism. Since both of you argue for price regulation not hinged to supply and demand.

Bravo! There are circumstances and conditions when suppply and demand cannot be the ultimate arbiter of who benefits and who doesn’t. As in Emergency Rooms where triage dictates those with the most life threatening injury or illness get treated first, regardless of supply and demand curves of what’s in the patient’s wallet.

I wonder if some Republicans support military triage on the battle field based on family wealth or political donations; now that would be true supply/demand purity which is the cornerstone of Republican philosophy and economic rhetoric.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 30, 2006 12:58 PM
Comment #144314


No party really cares because most people DO NOT want the solutions that are possible.

The BS really annoys me. We want low prices and the ability to drive everywhere AND low prices AND less CO2. We want to live on 5 acre lots with easy access to highways AND we oppose sprawl AND we want short commutes.

I come to the free market. Politics cannot solve this problem because the people oppose all the real solutions. Government CANNOT raise prices for political reasons. IN fact, our government and ALL parties are currently working to lower prices. Only the market can take the heat and the public’s childish tantrums.

Posted by: Jack at April 30, 2006 1:01 PM
Comment #144315


What has the Democratic Party really done in the last 20 years about the problem? I don’t think that the outcomes are all that different regardless of the party. It’s lip service into prices stabilize, and then protect against energy prices becoming an inflationary driver, isn’t it?

Jack and Rocky are both right. We have had our cake and eaten it to for too long. We’ve done it under Democratic and Republican Administrations. Until we have leadership that is willing to lead us to higher prices, that is where we will stay isn’t it?

Posted by: Rob at April 30, 2006 1:03 PM
Comment #144316

David (watch)

There are government failiures and market failures and sometimes a combination of both. The price of gas DOES NOT reflect the cost in terms of environment and geopolitical problems. I would like to use the market mechanism to compensate for the externalities.

I believe in markets, but I believe we have to pick up both ends of the stick. The market does not do externalities well. I am wiling to make the hard choices, probably because I don’t really have the power and unlike the Senator, I don’t have to pander to anyone except my wife.

The battlefield example is not a market situation at all. As for health care, it depends on what you want covered. Health care will always be rationed, either by money or fiat. It has a unlimited demand. My neighbor just had a breast reduction and limpo suction. She managed to get her doctor to claim it was medically necessary. A few less slices of bacon and a little more walking would have solved her problem w/o the medical intervention. If she had to pay for it all herself, she might have considered being smarter.

Posted by: Jack at April 30, 2006 1:10 PM
Comment #144321


Believe it or not, breast reduction has many reasons for medical necessity. Hard for a man to understand perhaps. How judgmental of you.

And I’m not familiar with limpo suction. Is that a new procedure?

Posted by: womanmarine at April 30, 2006 1:51 PM
Comment #144322

>>We cannot solve energy problems in the short or medium run without nuclear power.

Posted by Jack at April 30, 2006 11:49 AM

How short, Jack? How medium?

Assuming that every contract was fulfilled by Halliburton (no-bid), and all safety standards were reduced or eliminated (free-market), how long would it take for the first nukee plantee to go into operation?

Now, get real…there will be a number of plants designed and built on the lowest bid criteria, and we are far from the point we can safely dispose of spent fuels. Many current plants are built over unstable land (earthquake fault-lines, etc.), and there is no doubt, since that is the cheapest property, more would be built similarly.

Chirp, chirp, Cheney/Bush parrott…

Posted by: Marysdude at April 30, 2006 1:58 PM
Comment #144330


I plead guilty to being a man. But this is my logic. This woman has lived near me for nearly ten years. Ten years ago, she was not so fat and did not have this problem. I understand that this could be a needed procedure, but if you did not need it when you were 21 and you did not have some event such as pregancy, you probably can reduce the same way you got big, by diet and exercise. Lipo is where they such the fat out of your hips etc. It is another way people with weak wills lose weight.


With all due respect, if you read this same post on the other side (maybe using someone other than Durbin) would you think it was at all related to Bush policy.

So clean nuclear power is a Bush policy and seeking alternatives is a Bush policy. And you are against these things.

Nuclear power currently produces about 20% of U.S. power. It has increased capacity w/o building a new plant through better efficiency. Nuclear power has a perfect safety record in the U.S. You should not fear it and do you have any real alternatives?

Posted by: Jack at April 30, 2006 2:37 PM
Comment #144331

Aldous, do you ever speak directly to any point or comment made? You strike me as an intelligent and informed individual, yet every opening post you make is “well, look at what your side is doing.” You come off as a liberal version of Sean Hannity, who in my conservative opinion does absolutley no good for conservative or even our collective concerns and problems by dialouging the way he does. Kind of reminds me of the type of arguments and rational that we all heard or spoke in grade school. Only a complete fool would believe that by passing laws or legislation that they are going to change how economics work or even more foolishly going to change human nature: re: the war on drugs, the war on poverty, tax cheats, embezzelers, crooked accountants, crooked lawyers, crooked poloticians, et al. We change things by our own consumptive behaviour which means a willingness to save, go with less or without at all, to suffer inconvenience, to be wiiling to wait rather than act compulsively, etc. In short, lose the narccisistic attitude and resulting behaviour that our society so promolgates. But hell, that runs contrary to our human nature and closer to our humanity, so let’s just blame somebody else.

Posted by: scolex at April 30, 2006 2:40 PM
Comment #144333


“But hell, that runs contrary to our human nature and closer to our humanity, so let’s just blame somebody else.”

Not to mention manifest destiny.

Get thee out and consume.

Posted by: Rocky at April 30, 2006 2:49 PM
Comment #144337

Let me see: profit to oil companies on a gallon of gas is 9 cents…average tax on a gallon of gas is 50 cents. So, who is gouging the consumers at the pump? The fact is, the oil companies do not set the price of oil. OPEC sets a base price, and traders at the Mercantile Exchanges throughout the world bid it up. We are now competing with the growing economies of India and China for petroleum without an increase in supply…OF COURSE THE PRICE WILL GO UP! It is the law of supply and demand. Petroleum products have their own drawbacks, as do solar, wind, tidal, and nuclear energy sources. We can drill for oil and gas off the east coast, more in the Gulf of Mexico, off the west coast, and in the ANWR. Perhaps if we got the Government out of the way, and let the markets develope energy sources, both fossil and non-fossil, we just might be able to alleviate (not eliminate) the problem.

Posted by: Mike at April 30, 2006 2:56 PM
Comment #144340


“We can drill for oil and gas off the east coast, more in the Gulf of Mexico, off the west coast, and in the ANWR. Perhaps if we got the Government out of the way, and let the markets develope energy sources, both fossil and non-fossil, we just might be able to alleviate (not eliminate) the problem.”

I don’t know about you, but I grew up on the west coast, and saw the results of no regulation. I have seen oil spills, and the resultant damage that was caused not just to the environment but to the local fishing economies.
We may have the technologies to clean up the spills, but we still haven’t figured out how not to have them in the first place.

The government is in the way for a reason, and frankly I’m all for it.

Posted by: Rocky at April 30, 2006 3:08 PM
Comment #144341


I worked for plastic surgeons for years. I suspect I know much more about it than you do. For comparisons, try not to make it a gender issue, you are probably wrong in your assumption.

Posted by: womanmarine at April 30, 2006 3:14 PM
Comment #144343

Several years ago, I worked as a staff writer and reporter for a small newspaper with a circulation of about 35,000.

When gas prices would go up, as they did about the same time every year, we would inevitably do a story about the whys and wherefores for the increase.

One of my sources for those stories was a local gasoline wholesaler who was always good for a quote or two. He also owned several area gas stations, so he could address both the wholesale and retail sides of the issue.

But one day when I stopped by his office for a quote or two, he surprised me with this comment and question.

“You know, when the price of a loaf of bread goes up a nickel, nobody complains. But let the price of a gallon of gas increase a penny and everybody complains.

“Why is that?”

I said then what I say now.

I don’t know!

Posted by: vietnam_vet at April 30, 2006 3:16 PM
Comment #144344
What has the Democratic Party really done in the last 20 years about the problem?

The Democratic party has acknowledged the problem and been wanting to something about it for long time. When were actually put in the position to do something about it in the last 20 years? Reagan? Bush Sr? Clinton with a Republican obstructionist congress? Bush Jr?

The politician that has talked about this problem the most has been Gore. You are Johnny-come-lately’s to the issue and previously only pushed for increased drilling and reliance on oil and gas.

Hey, I am glad this has become a bi-partisan issue. Did you read the New York Times article on Nuclear energy? Can’t find it now, but it was excellent.

I don’t buy this stuff about the parties being the same. The country was better led by Clinton, and would have made a lot more progress in these areas under Gore. I don’t mean to nitpick. I am glad that the issue is finally being taken seriously by both parties, but Republicans in particular need to demand more than lip service on these issues.

Posted by: Max at April 30, 2006 3:23 PM
Comment #144350
Nobody who is concerned about affordable energy or a clean environment can be against nuclear power. Many so-called environmentalists oppose nuclear power becasue they - like Durbin - prefer problems to solutions.


I am not convinced that sticking tons of nuclear waste under a mountain can be considered environmentally friendly.

There is only one way to decrease fuel costs in a free market society- competition. That is what is missing in the fossil fuel market. I did an article back in January about it From the Past; The Fuel of the Future, that also explains why drilling for new sources of fossil fuel in the U.S. is a waste of time and money.

Most new cars today can run on E80 ethanol, they are on the road today, you may be driving one. The problem of course is that there a few stations that actually sell E80. If the government really wanted to do something about energy independence, then they should start with taking big oil welfare away from oil companies and use it instead to offer incentives to companies that put the infrastructure in place to handle bio-fuels.

I recently read an article about a wind farm planned for off the shore of New England. The residents, including Ted Kennedy are opposed to the proposal because they are concerned about property values. I could understand where they stood on such an issue if that is what you saw when you looked out your window. However, this wind farm would be located 6 miles offshore and would only appear as a speck from shore. I am not sure that a speck would do that much damage to your property values. I am positive that it would do much, much less to property values than if you looked out your window and had a view of a nuclear cooling tower.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at April 30, 2006 4:24 PM
Comment #144353

Actually, the whole thing with Ted Kennedy and those opposed to this wind farm really pisses me off. I live on a shoreline, when you look to the north; two nuclear power plant cooling towers are clearly visible. When I look to the south another cooling tower in another state is clearly visible. These do not appear as specks either. I understand the not in my backyard mentality, but we all have to make sacrifices. Those specks 6 miles off shore will be much less of an eyesore than the three cooling towers I see from the shore.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at April 30, 2006 4:38 PM
Comment #144354


I wasn’t trying to make it a gender issue. My general idea about medicine is that we do too much of it. Many problems are lifestyle issues better addressed by doing or not doing something yourself. Doctors will often be willing to treat you in their specialty. Give a man a hammer and every problem begins to look like a nail.

I don’t know all the details, but it seems to me that if you are fat, your first recourse should be to walk past the Dunkin Donuts. Surgery should be rare.


Be serious. The Democratic party did nothing useful about energy when they controlled the Congress or the Presidency or both. They acknowledge the issue, like Durbin, and then do nothing or do the wrong thing. In fact, the only Dem to do anything was Carter and what he did was wrong, although he was very serious about it. Clinton enjoyed the lowest gas prices in real dollars in modern American history. The improvements in efficiency slowed during his administration. It was not his fault, but it shows that he did nothing to help.

The Republicans are not better except to the extent that they allow prices to rise, maybe for the wrong reason, which IS the proper solution. That is how the last energy crisis ended. Reagan dismantled the stupid Carter era policies and he didn’t have to do anything else.

Neither party really does much to address energy otherwise because nobody wants to address the real problem. The Dems talk a lot more about it, but that is it. I suppose they also feel guilty. Dem constituents are also more likely to oppose nuclear power or interfere with the building of refining infrastructure.

Think of Durbin. He is angry about the problem, but everything he proposes would make it worse. That’s how Dems often behave. They substitue passion and noise for action.

P.S. Did you see George Cluny re Darfur. HE want to demand we do something. Write you Senator, he says. I guess he wants the U.S. to deploy troops or go unilateral. Or maybe the fact that we “are aware” is enough action for a liberal.

Posted by: Jack at April 30, 2006 4:40 PM
Comment #144356

Viet vet,
Your example confuses the price per unit for an entire loaf of bread with the price per unit for a gallon, which is only part of what it takes to fill a tank. If the slice of bread went up a penny, we’d notice.

Second, it ignores the concept of elasticity. There is elasticity of demand as well as elasticity of supply. If this is unfamiliar, please do some reading.

You’re throwing out superlatives. Most likely a blend of solutions will be necessary. Nuclear power should be a part of that blend.

I suspect we’re seeing a fairly ordinary case of supply and demand, not a manipulation of the market. However, one Senator suggested the refineries intentionally withheld increasing production. Normally refineries increase production in the spring to meet the increased demand during the summer. If they purposely neglected to increase production, then they should pay the price.

Someone will have to prove that before I believe it.

Posted by: phx8 at April 30, 2006 4:56 PM
Comment #144358
The Democratic party did nothing useful about energy when they controlled the Congress or the Presidency or both. They acknowledge the issue, like Durbin, and then do nothing or do the wrong thing.

All Revved Up, Going Nowhere on Energy Policy

Most Republicans, constrained by an ideological resistance to federal regulation, have always opposed tougher mandates. But achieving better fuel economy was once a passion of Democrats. In 1990, 42 of the Senate’s 55 Democrats — about three-fourths — voted to require automakers to reach 40 mpg by 2001. That bill drew 57 votes overall, but failed amid opposition from President George H.W. Bush and a Republican-led filibuster.

Under pressure from the auto companies and auto workers, Democrats have retreated ever since. President Clinton didn’t seriously try to raise fuel economy standards. Last year, a proposal from Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) to require a 40-mpg average for cars by 2016 drew just 28 votes; only about half of the Senate’s 44 Democrats voted yes. Those voting no included every Senate Democrat considering a 2008 presidential bid.

Each party has repeatedly derailed the most ambitious proposals of the other. Republicans have blocked Democratic efforts to mandate more conservation and jump-start renewable sources; Democrats have sidelined Republican efforts to allow more domestic production.

Both sides are guilty. Who cares who did what in the past, what are we going to do about it going forward?

Posted by: JayJay Snow at April 30, 2006 5:09 PM
Comment #144359

The trouble with Ethanol is that while it’s clean burning, a renewable resource, and cars are equipped to handle it now, it’s expensive to make (producing more of it will not cheapen gas) It’s still a hydrocarbon that gives off CO2 as a waste, and there isn’t enough cropland to replace gasoline supplies with this.

As of right now, it’s a subsidy cash cow and little else. Hydrogen, if we can get past the problems on storage, is the better alternative fuel, so long as you put it in a fuel cell.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 30, 2006 5:28 PM
Comment #144360


That is one good reason to relax tariffs on Brazilian ethanol. Not all ethanol production has to come from crops. The most promising new source of biofuel is cellulosic biomass, or garbage. Fuel cells are only useful if it lessens our dependence on fossil fuels. Unfortunately, the Bush fuel cell program relies heavily on fossil fuels, doing practically nothing to address our dependence on fossil fuels.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at April 30, 2006 5:44 PM
Comment #144362

Well Jack, you win.

Of course you know better than her and her doctor whether it’s a medical issue or a too lazy to diet issue.

It must be nice to be so knowledgeable.

Posted by: womanmarine at April 30, 2006 5:49 PM
Comment #144367


I have been reading and listening lately about the wonders of ethanol as a substitute for gasoline. I have seen the ads from the auto companies for E85 cars. If I only listened to that side, I might run right out and buy an E85 vehicle.

However, I heard something yesterday on “America’s Car Show” that gave me pause. Bear with me as I recite some numbers:

Gasoline used in the U.S= 138 billion gallons per year.

Amount of ethanol available if the entire corn crop were converted into ethanol= 22.5 billion gallons.

Using an 85% ethanol mixture, figure the shortfall.

Also, it takes 1.3 gallons of E85 to get the same amount of energy as 1 gallon of gasoline.

This raises the total fuel needed per year to approximately 155 billion gallons.

Now, I don’t see ethanol as the magic bullet. In fact, I don’t believe there is one. I believe we are all going to have to bite the bullet and say “thank you” for a long, cheap ride, but now, the good times are over.

Posted by: John Back at April 30, 2006 6:55 PM
Comment #144376

also ethanol is the denatured type of alcohol and it is very poison, just like gas. and you have the same long term storage problems, like groundwater contamination.where as bio diesel is non toxic and is classified as non flammable. also the btu content is the same as diesel fuel so you go just as far on a gallon. also the cetane rating is higher, for a slight increase in performance.it also burns much cleaner. for the short term and mid term .until hydrogen is a go.

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at April 30, 2006 8:39 PM
Comment #144378

John Back,

You point out why things never seem to progress. Why is it that everything has to be all or nothing? The solution to our energy problems needs to come from a multilateral approach. Why is it that you think we have to replace all the fossil fuels we use with ethanol? What we can do today is increase the amount we use substantially. In combination with hybrid technology and improved gas mileage and new technology R&D we can decrease or dependence on foreign oil substantially.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at April 30, 2006 8:53 PM
Comment #144381


One of my friends works on these issues. He tells me the problem was simply not enough ethanol for the refineries outside the Midwest. They couldn’t make gasoline without ethanol as MTBE was taken off the table. Ethanol cannot be moved in the same infrastructure. So refineries did not make as much gasoline than they would normally have done. The weakest link in the chain determines its strength.


Raise prices and mileage takes care of itself much faster than if you try to legislate.


You are right about ethanol at this time. New technologies may make that less so. It actually is not a net creator of CO2.

BTW listen to NPR Talk of the Nation Science Friday about Methanol.


I don’t know for sure. I do know that many people enable laziness. Re my neighbor, I know she drives her car to the metro, which is a seven minute walk and eats a lot, so she is certainly voluntarily fat. I don’t know about the breast reduction besides that.


Hydrogen is a carrier of energy, not a source. Hydrogen does not exist in a natural state anywhere on earth. I think it is a good idea, but it will take nuclear energy to make it.

Posted by: Jack at April 30, 2006 8:57 PM
Comment #144402


I am not saying all or nothing. I am saying that those who are pushing E85 or any other “flex fuel” are either not doing their homework or are trying to fool us. They are also being less than forthright about the cost of E85. Based on what I have read about the wholesale cost of ethanol right now, it would cost at least $3.00 a gallon at the pump.
I agree wholeheartedly that there must be a multipronged attack on the problem. There are several interesting possibilities. Perhaps the most intriguing is biodiesel. Imagine having a vehicle that you could pull into McDonald’s or Wendy’s, or one of the other fast food places, get a sandwich and fries and fill up with used cooking oil. To me, biodiesel solves two problems, at least partially, fuel supply and disposal of waste cooking oil. I like that idea. At least until we can come up with something better.

Posted by: John Back at April 30, 2006 10:39 PM
Comment #144405

Max are you serious…this country was better led under Clinton and you think that Gore would have done a better job over the last 6 years? Are you delusional? or should we just imagine the Mad Hatter isn’t doing a dance in your living room. Clinton’s economy that was “so great” was an inflated economy of “don’t ask, don’t tell” that your friends at Enron, and Worldcom were allowed to run willy-nilly around and claim they had invented a better wheel!!! So to claim that they are the “puppies” of the Bush White House is just crazy…every Pres. has catered to the oil company execs for 50 years. And you think that Gore would have been better in leading after 9/11? Don’t make me laugh… And what? you think that he’d have a solution for keeping the Chinese and Indians (the ones in east asia) from incresing their demand for oil? (no wonder he sold nuclear technology to the Chi-Coms…he wanted THEM to have nuclear power and weapons before we had it). Want me to keep going? Gore would have had us in the exact same problems that the Carter administration had us dealing with…double-digit inflation, double-digit interest rates, stagflation, high taxes, high spending, the “misery index”…just IMAGINE (imagine all the people living for today…Thanks John).

The problems with our energy policy were well addressed by Jack and he is right about a lot of things. I mean if the FRENCH can provide all of their power through nuclear power…can’t we? The problem is we are addicted to oil. We have the solution…3 point plan. Short-term (5-7 years max), increase our own production of oil through exploration, improving our refining capacity by actually BUILDING some refineries or allowing them to expand just a LITTLE bit, and increase our own supply so that we don’t have to rely on OPEC, Mexico, and Venezuela. Part 2, mid-range-term (6-15 years—yet investing in it NOW), Nuclear plants for base energy as Jack suggests with solar, wind, and all OTHER alternative energy sources for “peak” times. Nuclear power IS an alternative energy (and by FAR the most efficient). Part 3, long-term (10-12 years to and on into the future). New energy sources. At this point oil would probably be so cheap it would be possible to use oil with “clean-fuel” technology to use it again for most if not only for vehicles. I’d like to think that hydrogen would be a valid alternative, but we tried to use hydrogen before…remember the Hindenburg? And where would you get it from? Eletrolysis from water is the only way that I know of that can produce it and that is a difficult process to do on either a small scale or the massive scale that would need to be done to supply a vast array of “stations” for hydrogen. So the long-term is still cloudy to me, but there are MANY directions to go, and we can still provide more things for out own energy dependence.

Like I said, the long-term is still cloudy. We have many possibilities, but it’s better to have a plan than to have NOTHING like both parties right now. All the doing is complaining about the problem and not putting forward any solutions.

I have another thing that I might want to purport to you for a solution. The oil companies make about 8 cents per gallon of gas sold after refining, transportation, distribution, etc. costs. Meanwhile the federal government alone makes 18 cents on every gallon, and the states on TOP of that make between 15-28 cents. In my state, the state tax is 24 cents per gallon. However, our state is unique. It is the ONLY state that sets aside every penny of the gas tax STRICTLY for the construction of roads. How about a reduction in the gas tax…a repeal of it on the federal level. If the states want to raise money to pay for roads, let them figure out what the appropriate gas tax (along with toll roads etc.) to pay for the roads we need and the improvements that need to be made. I am IN the industry that does this type of thing (actually building a bridge right now) and I know that it works well with the way my state has it. It would also reduce the amount of pork that Ted Kennedy and Tom Coburn can get from the federal dollar. Reduction in the federal corruption (which is true conservatism) and giving the people back more of their money, b/c I GUARANTEE that the tax on a state-by-state basis would be less than the average 40 cents a gallon (unless you’re in New York or California—sorry guys). By the way I think that a Senator from South Carolina kinda suggested that so he’s the only one with an idea? Kinda sickening that these are supposed to be considered some of the most educated people.

Posted by: Robert at April 30, 2006 11:03 PM
Comment #144408

oh here’s something that’ll piss ya off too…you want to talk about how E85 and E10 unleaded are “cheaper” to produce. Wanna know why that’s bogus? The only reason it’s “cheaper” is b/c the federal gov’t gives the OIL COMPANIES tax BREAKS for blending ethanol into the gasoline. It is on average 20% MORE expensive to produce ethanol blended fuels right now (insider info…brother works for an oil company), but yet the feds still get US on the receiving end by still taxing us at 18 cents per gallon. So the feds want to sit there and say “the oil companies are gouging” “the oil companies are getting tax breaks they don’t need” “the oil companies are getting windfall profits”…yeah…all SUPPORTED by everyone who’s b**ching about it now! Nice huh?

Posted by: Robert at April 30, 2006 11:08 PM
Comment #144410

John Back…they already have kits that you can use that does that. It produces biodiesel from used deep-frying oil. It was shown on “Horsepower” on Spike TV (a truck show). I thought it was pretty cool, and EVERY diesel engine will run on biodiesel, it’s not like cars that run on unleaded which have to be “flex fuel” vehicles to run E85.

Posted by: Robert at April 30, 2006 11:11 PM
Comment #144412

Yes, ethanol will be more expensive starting out. Everything new is, but that price will come down as more people start to use it and production becomes more efficient. My point is that if we want prices to come down we need to have competition in the market. If you have a vehicle that can run on anything from 100% gasoline to E85 ethanol and you are given the choice between the two, which creates competition in the market that will bring the price down. Also, Brazil went after ethanol full speed after the 1973 oil embargo. Today, Brazilians can go to the gas station and have the option to fill up with either gasoline or 100% ethanol. Right now in Brazil, ethanol is about half the price of gasoline. You gotta start somewhere.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at April 30, 2006 11:41 PM
Comment #144415

BTW, Robert, Clinton was a better President than Bush by a mile! I have little doubt that Gore would have done a much better job over the last 6 years, he couldn’t have done any worse.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at April 30, 2006 11:47 PM
Comment #144416

That is b/c Brazil produces/refines all of it’s own ethanol from sugar cane…and abundant, cash crop for Brazil. The price for refining ethanol in the US is up to 10 times more expensive than refining oil. The oil embargo on 1973 was a shortage of oil. We don’t have a shortage, just exploding demand. Demand that we could settle on our own as part of the 3-point plan that I laid out.

Posted by: Robert at April 30, 2006 11:51 PM
Comment #144418

Clinton was a joke…as was Gore…we have a truly burgeoning economy instead of an inflated economy. I could go on and on and you could say you’ve got your reasons and we’d never convince each other. Of course you’d probably say that Reagan was a horrible President too. Get over it…you lost!

Posted by: Robert at April 30, 2006 11:55 PM
Comment #144425


Reagan was OK, not great but OK. Much better than what we have now.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at May 1, 2006 12:11 AM
Comment #144427

Jack, yes i am quite aware of hydrogen, it’s day will come. but to address our current problems of electrical power generation. i agree nuclear must be used. the newer plants are light years ahead of our forty year old, and still running plants of yesterday.the french are making strides in nuclear waste for reuse and recycle. Ray guest had a good post on it. Robert! i have one of those kits on order. the last three weeks ive collected, 12, 55 gallon barrels of used vegetable oil! YEA! for my new chevy Lt3 hd 2500 duramax diesel lbz. with a 35 gallon fuel tank.. after the motor is broke in. i will convert. and be 90% self suffcent! and much, much cleaner burning, hey! exxon and chevron! up your nose with a rubber hose.!!!!!

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at May 1, 2006 12:22 AM
Comment #144429

Jay Jay…you’re delusional as well…OK? He was the Great Communicator. His policies ended the Cold War, his only mistake was amnesty in 1986. He was among the top 3 President’s of the 20th century, no doubt.

Rodney…SUPER glad that you found that, and if I didn’t say it, diesel engines were originally made to run on biodiesel. Glad that you’re doing your part and if more people would it could be better (like our government…it would be nice).

Posted by: Robert at May 1, 2006 12:32 AM
Comment #144430

Robert and Jay Jay, i don’t know what the average price of E85 is. but two weeks ago in las vegas, it was only 27 cents a gallon less than regular unleaded. that’s no bargain, when you lose about 20%-25% mileage with it.

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at May 1, 2006 12:36 AM
Comment #144431

Only thing is Rodney…it really isn’t the oil companies that are really screwing you…read above.

Posted by: Robert at May 1, 2006 12:37 AM
Comment #144432

Rodney, here E85 isn’t any cheaper here at all, and it isn’t any bargain, but I didn’t know it got less mileage…some people’s research says that milage does not drop off, but in some cases it’s even better. I think in many cases with biodiesel, it DOES get better gas mileage…think I’ve seen research on it or heard it on Horsepower—love that show when I get to see it.

Posted by: Robert at May 1, 2006 12:42 AM
Comment #144434

Robert, the btu content in ethanol is about 30% lower than gas. the saving grace is the octane rating is higher than gas. you do get increased performance and much cleaner exhaust with ethanol. i think a new motor built from the ground up for ethanol. would equal gas mileage.

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at May 1, 2006 1:00 AM
Comment #144438

this all ethanol motor would address the different, chemical compounds and flow rates, and burn characteristics. camshaft ,timing , cylinder head, pistons, and fuel injection, good news! the drag guys build all alcohol motors, it is easy.

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at May 1, 2006 1:19 AM
Comment #144439

Marysdude reminded us:

Now, get real…there will be a number of plants designed and built on the lowest bid criteria, and we are far from the point we can safely dispose of spent fuels. Many current plants are built over unstable land (earthquake fault-lines, etc.), and there is no doubt, since that is the cheapest property, more would be built similarly.

You are absolutely correct. And it would behoove us to remember Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.

A Foolish Consistency is the hobgoblin of Little Minds.
- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Posted by: Betty Burke at May 1, 2006 1:23 AM
Comment #144442
Clinton was a joke…as was Gore…we have a truly burgeoning economy instead of an inflated economy.

Bush is a disaster. The worst president we have EVER had. I think given we have an unsustainable debt your claims about the economy are arguable at best.

Posted by: Max at May 1, 2006 1:45 AM
Comment #144472


I really have to wonder what you mean by that Emerson quote.

Are you trying to use irony to negate the statement you make immediately above where you consistently recite those 20+ year arguments that were foolish at the time, but today are merely OBE’d? Or do you really misunderstand the statement.

If you reread the entire essay on self reliance, I don’t believe you will use this quotation in the same way.


The cheapest property would probably NOT be on the fault lines. Unfortunately, silly people have bid up the prices around those on the W. Coast.

Nobody has ever died in a civilian nuclear accident in the entire history of its use in the U.S. Each year dozens die from using coal. Oil creates geopolitical problems. Even clean burning natural gas sets of explosions that kill people every year. And ALL these things fill the air with CO2 even when there are no accidents. No form of energy is w/o risk and all energy causes some harm. We trade off. Nuclear energy is one of the least harmful.


Yes. The worst. That rapidly growing economy with low unemployment makes us all unhappy. And the constant drumbeat of no terror attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11 is also difficult. Then there is the silencing of all the critics. We know they are silenced since they are always in the media telling us about it.

BTW - I am going into the woods today and may be unable to answer any points you make in a timely way. I am not ignoring you, just got no connection.

Posted by: Jack at May 1, 2006 7:50 AM
Comment #144507

David R Remer,

You say that the Dems have a more viable solution to our energy problems.

Can you tell what it is? Or what you think it is?

I dont see any real long term solutions coming from anyone in Washington.

Posted by: jwl at May 1, 2006 11:06 AM
Comment #144705

Of course Washington isn’t offering any real solutions that would me they would have to take a stance and then they wouldn’t be able to change what they said to please everyone so they can be re-elected. We need our government officials to stop playing the blame game and seriously address this issue. It is estimated that our global energy demand will increase by almost 50% by the year 2030! If we don’t do something now we will be in big trouble come 2030!

Posted by: Pauly at May 1, 2006 11:29 PM
Comment #144728

The Dems have no plan besides raising taxes and increasing government control of the energy industry. Face it, they want to nationalize the entire industry, a la Hugo Chavez in Venezuela.

More drilling/exploration at home, more refining capacity built, more alternative energy such as nuclear power. Do this and check back in 20 years and I guarantee we’ll be in better shape than we are today.

Posted by: Chloe at May 2, 2006 1:29 AM
Comment #144765

Look, during the 70’s when Paris had car bombs going off, and the Peacock Throne was butchering and killing to keep it’s power, we Americans were on only interested in bbq’s and driving our big caddies and chrome grilled guzzlers. And, back in the 70’s, when we had a President that told us, we need alternative fuels and need to cut back on our oil imports, we said get the hell out of here. As usual, we refuse to look for the entire truth. Maybe we should be asking; why can’t independents secure domestic funding (non government sources) for O & G exploration? Where is the domestic funding (non government sources) for R & D? Didn’t the Germans fly their Messerschmitts w/synthetic oil…Why do we seem to have made no truly significant inroads into alternative energy? We act as if we have a right to cheap gas…Why are we better than any other country? Why is it wrong, in a capitalistic culture, the culture we brag about and heap praise upon, for a company to show 8 billion in quarterly profits? Why is it wrong for a man by a dint of hard work and luck, to work his way up the corporate ladder and be rewarded by what the market and share holders can bear? Commodity prices are subject to supply and demand, and fundamental and economic circumstances: Free market! After all, no one is forced to buy a SUV so they can sit high and feel superiour to their fellow man. Will not the price of oil reach a point of inelasticity, or is the problem – solution so much simpler. ” …the fault dear Brutus lies not in our stars, but in ourselves…”

Posted by: Eisai at May 2, 2006 9:25 AM
Comment #144887

Jack told us, unnecessarily:

I am going into the woods today and may be unable to answer any points you make in a timely way. I am not ignoring you, just got no connection.

Yes Jack, you are deep, deep in The Woods - lost in them, actually - and you have No Connection - to Reality.

If Fission is so neat-o kean-o Fluffy & Cuddly Friendly and Harmless, why don’t we store the Waste in your backyard? I mean - literally - in your back yard. Then, you and your descendants -

Oh, I forgot; you’re a Conservative: you don’t give a damn about your descendants - just your Heirs. Who could (and would) move - to a nice Gated Community, no doubt - to get away from the Problem you had created…

Never mind.

Posted by: Betty Burke at May 2, 2006 4:58 PM
Comment #144904

Are you serious? You think high WORLDWIDE oil and gas prices are a result of a secret meeting? Like Durbin, I refuse to believe you are that ignorant. You think Bush and Cheney rigged this? Why, so everyone in the country would hate them and it would sink the party they’ve both supported their whole adult lives? I suppose you think they don’t care about clean air or water either because they have secret supplies of both, just for themselves.

Do you think it might have something to do with a madman in Iran trying to get nukes and destabilize the whole region? Or the 3 BILLION Indians and Chinese that are becoming industrialized, i.e., driving cars and living in air conditioned homes? Those two countries use as much oil now as the WHOLE WORLD DID 10 YEARS AGO. Or our failure to capitalize on our own oil deposits? Oh no, the 3 freakin billion people who want gas don’t have anything to do with it, it’s eeevil Bush and Cheney. How sophmoric! Why even post if that’s the best you can do? I’m embarassed for you.

Three years ago you guys were saying we were invading Iraq so we could steal all their oil and avail ourselves to CHEAP OIL. Since that did not happen, (you know…you were wrong) you invent an opposite conspiracy. How about…SUPPLY & DEMAND? Or is that too simple for the socialists these days? Your fundamental lack of understanding of human nature and the way the world really works is why SOCIALISM ALWAYS FAILS. Every time. Everywhere.

Posted by: David C. at May 2, 2006 6:33 PM
Comment #145071

In between the spitballs there are some good ideas listed in here. I don’t believe that we can drill our way to a solution. Our country has no new oil deposits. The exploration is over. Alaska has the last untapped well and it’s very small. Until there are some significant leaps in deeper drilling, we will have to milk the ones we have and import the rest. I think Jack had it right. CONSERVATION and HYBRED SOLUTIONS are the answer. We have kicked the can down the road as far as we could. The low price fuel is over.

I think we all understand that. Buy more efficient appliances like refridges, dishwashers and laundry machines, beef up home insulation, smarter building practices, better lightbulbs, double paned windows, use public transportation when possible (not easy in LA), smarter driving trips, turn off lights, TVs and computers when not in use, etc. You know the drill.

Until we can figure out a solar car or a stronger, smaller rechargeable battery, fuel efficientcy is the underlying answer. Less CO2 emissions from those cars is the bonus answer. Fuel efficientcy is a no brainer. Yet, on average, our cars miles per gallon have gone down in the last 5 years. (Thanks SUVs. Those of you who own em, you had better get used to $50 fill ups.) Automobile fuel standards is one area that the big bad govt can do something about. They can push the reluctant car industry in the right direction, which won’t be very hard now. Pushing the Republican led congress in the right direction is another story.

As much as I don’t like the idea of nuclear power (because of its waste), it may be the best short term solution. BUT, is the cost of building and maintaining a nuclear plant, then handling and storing the waste, less than the cost of building ten thousand wind mills? How many mills would equal the output of a nuclear plant? I’m asking, perhaps someone knows.

Regardless, the long term goal should be a combo of wind and solar. You might think I’m living in Durbin-land but if there was a real commitment and the roof on every home and building had solar panels covering it, wind energy from huge wind fields spread in different parts of the country and off-shore, could handle the rest of our energy needs. Plus some solar fields too. Actually they could combind them and have solar wind fields. Why not? We phase out nuclear and coal as the other power comes on line. And there would be ZERO nuclear waste and ZERO coal burning pollution.

Problem solved. 9:48, it’s time for breakfast.

Posted by: Matthew at May 3, 2006 12:47 PM
Comment #145074

>>Nobody has ever died in a civilian nuclear accident in the entire history of its use in the U.S.
Posted by: Jack at May 1, 2006 07:50 AM

The problems, of course, is that it likely won’t be a single civilian to die in the next newkewler accident. And of those that do die, many may suffer long, agonizing, and expensive deaths. In those gas line fires and coal burning accidents, etc., only a handful are effected at a time, and there is pretty good evidence that that won’t change into the future. Given our track record on construction SNAFUs (those storage facilities for nuke waste in Idaho and Washington), how good are the odds your ‘no single civilian’ will last?

Posted by: Marysdude at May 3, 2006 1:06 PM
Comment #145080

ok genuses, since both sides have decided to attack the oil industries for making a profit, and all oil production is controlled by a few multinational companies, what happens when they can make more money outside the country and don’t want to deal with you deadbeats anymore. Since you don’t want to drill anywhere and you haven’t built a refinery in about thirty years what are you going to do now college boy???

Posted by: Ed at May 3, 2006 1:57 PM
Comment #145101

I’m all about refineries. I want one in my backyard. But that’s not exactly a short term fix. I heard it takes at least about 3 years to build one. But where the Oil companies are liable is that they have been closing refineries here and there recently for “cleaning”. Unfortunate timing or market manipulation?

“what happens when they can make more money outside the country and don’t want to deal with you deadbeats anymore”

As long as deadbeats have money, they will sell them gas. You dont have to go to college to know that.

Posted by: Matthew at May 3, 2006 3:35 PM
Comment #145267


I think you missed my point, At present 2/3 of oil sales goes on outside the US and is out of our control and that margin grows each day. Oil companies are in business to make money for their stockholders. Now if my main goal is to make money and the United States is going to beat me up for that, why on earth would I ever want to do business with you when I can sell my product anywhere else on earth for whatever I can get for it and not be thrown into jail for making a 6% profit on my investment?


Posted by: Ed at May 4, 2006 12:31 AM
Comment #145269


I think you missed my point, At present 2/3 of oil sales goes on outside the US and is out of our control and that margin grows each day. Oil companies are in business to make money for their stockholders. Now if my main goal is to make money and the United States is going to beat me up for that, why on earth would I ever want to do business with you when I can sell my product anywhere else on earth for whatever I can get for it and not be thrown into jail for making a 6% profit on my investment?


Posted by: Ed at May 4, 2006 12:33 AM
Comment #145378

Thanks for offering some constructive solutions. I definitely agree with conservation and finding alternative energy sources. In fact, I’m pretty sure a lot of oil companies already invest a chunk of their profits into exploring alternatives. As far as wind and solar though, I’m not so sure they will ever be able to replace fossil fuels as a sustainable energy source (at least not anytime soon)… maybe you can correct me. In my opinion, we should go ahead and let the companies access some domestic sources of oil in order to increase our supply and give consumers a break on prices.

Posted by: Rachel at May 4, 2006 12:43 PM
Comment #145939

I think oil companies do already sell there gas to anybody who will buy it. But, America happens to be the largest market in the world. Like they are gonna turn their backs on that? Not a chance. Besides, nobody is going to jail. Especially rich oil execs. I’ll stake my life on that one.

Oil is a finite source. Someday we will run out. That is a fact. At current levels of pumping we are barely keeping up with demand. Someday, if we dont use other sources, that will change for the worst and we will be burning more oil than we can pump. You think the prices are high now, just wait. So, I dont know what you mean by “soon” but eventually we will be forced to use other sources. And i’m all for it. Onward and upward!! Goodbye mustang hello solar-electric-hydro-natural gas-ethanal-hybrid car. I hope there’s room for me in it.

I am not for drilling in ANWAR but it’s gonna happen someday so it might as well be now. Get it over with. I hope they try not to destroy too much of the habitat in the process of sucking up that texas tea. But, I don’t think it will affect the price at the pump much at all.

Posted by: Matthew at May 6, 2006 8:39 PM
Comment #146254

matthew ,some good posts,you do realize the auto makers could easley double their mileage and durability, by going to diesel power. these newer diesels are clean and powerful. my new duramax chevy diesel. 6.6 liter turbo, i picked it up a week ago. i toped it off up saturday all city driving 25.mpg! a 5,500 lb truck ! i can’t wait to try biodiesel. if i mix the fuel say 70 % bio and 30% petro diesel i get a dollar rebate! so that’s $2.20 a gallon and will pick up another 2mpg with the bio diesel! it has over 220,000 btus per gallon and is super clean. you say diesels have no power hooey! this truck has 360 hp and 650 ft lbs of stump pulling, torque! just a foot note, some clown was doing 25 in a 55 mph zone, i went around to pass, then of course he nailed it. i nailed mine going 35mph and looked in the rear veiw mirror and laid a 40 ft patch of rubber! so you don’t have to floor it to pass!

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at May 8, 2006 3:03 PM
Comment #146291

I read your post earlier. I didn’t know that diesels got better mileage. A couple questions: Where do you get the bio part? and Do you know if diesel exaust is worse for the air than gas exaust? I know it smells worse.

Posted by: Matthew at May 8, 2006 4:47 PM
Comment #146320

matthew, you don’t need a bio part, there are bio dealers throughout the country! the reason for the better mileage is several factors 1. they produce there top torque band at about 1400 rpm and top horsepower at about 3000 rpm .about half of a otto cycle or gas engine. less rpm less fuel! also the fuel has a higher btu content than gas, 170,000 for gas .and about 220,000 for diesel. and they are multi fuel flexible! petro diesel fuel, bio diesel fuel. and peanut oil or vegetable oil or soybean oil. back in the old days up till the early 1920s all diesels ran on bio or vegetable oil !the big petro oil companies killed out the clean and safe bio folks!also the bio fuel is safe and non flammable and almost 100% Green. the vegetable oil is 100% green. the kit i was talking about allows you to run 100% new or used vegetable oil, mr diesel does not care, he is not as fussy as a gas engine! the kit comes with a 12 to 25 gallon tank and a electric switching valve. and a pre heater. the idea is to run your diesel on diesel fuel or bio diesel until you get to normal operating temps,then you switch on the valve and run on pure clean, green ,and almost free vegetable oil. the new 2005 emisssions standards for diesels were much better than before they have come a long ways from the 1980s diesels that smoked and were junk. these are real diesels engines from the ground up.btw i can buy a chip for my truck that has 3 power levels no 1. economy, no 2. towing no 3. hang on !up to 200 more horsepower and another 200 ftlbs of torque!my truck on 3. would be 560 hp and 850 ft lbs of torque! my nephew did this on his 2005 dodge cummings diesel. hold on ! price for the chip $450 dollars! btw i did not just tell you that about the chip!!!

Posted by: RODNEY BROWN at May 8, 2006 6:17 PM
Comment #149373

All, put energy aside for a moment.

What are the people of Illinois thinking about when they vote and support this, this “???”. Beyond his notions regarding energy he continues to bumble on illegal immigration.;

I am quoting an article in the LA Times dated 5/18/06, “erecting a fence to control our borders would sour relations with Mexico”!!!SCREW MEXICO! What about the population of the U.S.? Residing in southern Calif. I can say that having to support all the illegals here is without a better phrase, very taxing. Being a U.S. military veteran, and a second generation American who’s grandparants emmigrated legally, do not appreciate this “???” from Illinois. His siding with a country who will do nothing to bring their society into the 21st century, while their credo with the support of Vincente Fox and Vincente Bush, is to milk the U.S. of our educational resources, medical resourses and financial resources on the notion of our needing bodies to support our economy. Crap! I can tell you that I see countless numbers of illegals standing at the big box stores waiting to be hired with no avail day after day. Others have concluded that we have enough illigals along with their disregard for education to provide offspring which will provide labor, “one of their arguments”, for who knows how long. All for the benefit of Mexico and the Mexican people while congesting and bleeding our society.

Fox, Bush, Durbin and the people of Mexican citizenship should be ashamed of themselves for not making an attempt to develope Mexico. The laziness of sponging off others is deplorable. I say, that if those illigals of Mexican decent do sincerely have any backbone, would revolt in Mexico and shape their own country. If they do not have the will to do so, which I do not belive they have, they should all go back to Mexico and vote to have Mexico annexed by the U.S. Which would provide them with all of the desired benefits of our society. Only then do I believe all would be happy.

Wishful thinking??

For if not, and with the help of those so called American leaders, manage through the years to recapture American soil - will have it as big a mess as Mexico! And frankly folks, that would be a terrible shame, not to speak of what it would do to the future generations of America.

Do not stand by and allow those, both politicians who without having experienced this delemma on a daily basis, and illegals, make decisions that will sell out this country. And while doing so not give a damn about anything but “La Raza”, or those here caring only of their out of touch political agenda.

Common sense here. Wouldn’t you care to drive your Chevrolet through the USA, as you know it???


Time to protect the heartland!

Posted by: andy at May 19, 2006 1:07 AM
Post a comment