News-Record.com

John Williams ... http://www.shadowstats.com/

... as well as Kevin Phillips:

"Bad Money .. about the insecurity of America's future as the .... economy has become increasingly financialized and securitized, until the financial sector replace the manufacturing and service sectors as the center of wealth generation and political commitment. Exulting in its power and exalted by its successes, it ignored the risks that it took with more and more complicated ways to make money. Now, some of the risks are all too obvious ...

" ... In its hubris ... the financial sector has hijacked the American economy ... not just to the depreciated dollar but to the dangerous attitudes and flawed products of wayward megafinance ..

"Global overreach, worn-out politics, excessive debt, and exhausted energy supplies are all chilling signals that America is declining as the world superpower."

==

or maybe all that's doom and gloom what with another Internet boom about to happen, and oil dropping once again to $16 / barrel.

Don't fret Ray, the upcoming 'windfall profit tax' will remedy all our energy problems.

"It looks like demand — especially from China and India — will be greater than the supply for the foreseeable future."

No that's not it Ray, check with Demon Deacon, our resident energy expert. It's all 100% Bush's fault, he just said so recently.

"but I think it is time for our government to point us in the direction of some new technologies or to another alternative energy resource."

Amazing how many people think the govt. is the answer to all problems. "Our govt." has already pointed us in the direction of corn based ethanol which has allocated corn crop away from the food supply resulting in higher food prices. We taxpayers are subsidizing the corn and ethanol producers, $1.6 billion last year for corn farmers alone.

It's interesting how politicians, particularly Hillary Clinton, rail against govt. tax breaks for eeeeeevvvviiiiilllllll oil companies while "Big Corn" is getting govt. subsidies (read; our money) despite a booming market.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/27/AR2007092702054_pf.html

I don't remember any of them railing about cutting farm subsidies whilst campaigning in Iowa.

So which current energy source was given us by governemnt? Oh yes, ethanol which is causing food shortages all around the world for a new "energy" source that is less more expensive, less efficient, and more problematic in causing environmental problems.

Recently we learned that the "government" in San diego decided to put solar panels on all the schools, and in the next year their energy costs rose 80 percent!

35 years ago the decided to close the achievement gap between white and black students by spending countless billions busing children around and through cities, often past numerous school much close to their homes. That has been just another monumental screw-up by government as we are still trying to close that pesky gap!

Unless you are a recent graduate of our failed government schools that brainwashed you into believing that government is the answer to all of your problems, you would undertand that government is the cause of most of today's problems!

~

"... I think it is time for our government to point us in the direction of some new technologies or to another alternative energy resource."

GOOD GRIEF, Ray! Avez vous lost your mind? The Government?!

Oh ... I get it now, Ray. You're just pulling our collective legs, right? No sane person would seriously suggest such an absurd solution. Uh, you're not living at the John Umstead in Butner, are ya, Ray?

~

I still waiting for the speaker of the house, common sense plan for lowering gas prices, it over two old and gas is up $1.26 since her promise was carried in all the liberal media. Now the liberal media has gone under ground.
Strange how they print all this crap before elections and forget it, when it proves to be BS.
I am with the other post, want it screwed up, let the government fix it.

Keep waiting Dog but don't hold your breath for Congress. With gas likely to exceed $4/gallon fairly soon I decided to buy a smaller car that gets 36 mpg. Not a hybrid mind you, not worth the extra $5-6K. I'm not getting rid of the SUV, it remain in the driveway for vacations, boat trips, or hauling larger loads. But the car will be the primary mode of transportation especially for long business trips.

The dealer told me tons of others are doing the exact same thing, keeping the SUV but adding a fuel efficient car to the fleet for commuting. Hey it helps the slow economy too!!

Screw Congress, they cannot control the price of oil. However the consumer control the amount of gas used in many circumstances.

Dan:

I find it disingenuous how you – and others – are now picking on “ particularly Hillary Clinton “ for railing against the govt. tax breaks YOUR BELOVED REPUBLICAN President and Congress GAVE the eeeeeevvvviiiiilllllll oil companies … at the same time YOUR BELOVED REPUBLICAN President and Congress also GAVE “Big Corn" similar. subsidies (read; our money) … despite booming markets?

Transforming Energy Now Act of 2006 (Introduced in Senate)

S 2680 IS
109th CONGRESS
2d Session
S. 2680
To facilitate the increased use of alternative fuels for motor vehicles, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

April 27, 2006.

Maybe you can come back with a 2006 link from this blog showing you were then “railing” at the government for this debacle.

Speaking of others .. Yo .. TONY .. you too .. how about chu’ come back with a 2006 link from this blog showing were you were “railing” at the government for this debacle

Calm your jets JDR, bad day eh? I said the "govt." not the Republican or Democratic govt. just the "govt." My two biggest beefs with GWB are excessive govt. spending (borrowing) and not doing jack shit about illegal immigration. The "D" Congress is proving just as bad as the "R" Congress that preceded it. The "govt." sucks on both sides.

My one mention of Hillary; she is especially in favor of punishing oil companies for making profits. I just watched one of her ads saying exactly that whilst quietly watching Jeopardy! No mention about taking $$ away from "big Corn" and "big Ethanol".

Oil company getting tax breaks = evil

Corn and ethanol producers getting subsidies = good

Can you 'splain the difference?

I abhor all this govt. waste no matter who is in office or controls Congress. Period.

So simmer down and rest tranquilly knowing your recent tax payment provides extra dough to corn farmers in Iowa despite the fact that they are already making money and your food prices are climbing.

I make more money and pay more taxes. Big Corn makes more money and thye get an extra $1.6 billion from taxpayers. What is wrong with this picture?

"Calm your jets JDR, bad day eh? I said the "govt." ..

No you said "It's interesting how politicians, particularly Hillary Clinton ... "

You said " ... particularly Hillary Clinton ... "

Then you follow it with a link that mentions "
" Hillary Clinton " not a single time, but does include and interview with "Handsaker, a Republican who keeps a framed picture of President and Mrs. Bush in his office, argues that such farm subsidies help keep agricultural land in the hands of family farmers and away from corporate monopolies."

I wonder if Mr. Handsaker is selling bridges too.

==

Now I'm not defending Hillary - but Jeeze Louis ...

btw - get Neo to talk to you about how the farm programs were set up under FDR.

==

meanwhile I'll wait for that link from you .. and Tony Balony too ... showing where you have "stayed the course" since 2006,

"Sen. Hillary Clinton, who once opposed requiring motorists to use corn-based ethanol in their cars, proposed Tuesday to dramatically boost use of the alcohol fuel. Clinton called for $1 billion in grants for research on methods of making ethanol from plant cellulose, the fibrous stuff found in everything from corn stalks to wheat straw, grass and wood. Ethanol is now made almost exclusively from grain.. . . Clinton, who is considered a frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination, was one of 26 senators who opposed the energy bill passed by Congress last year mandating the use of 7.5 billion gallons of ethanol by 2012. Clinton opposed both the ethanol mandate and lawsuit protections for ethanol."

I've not researched this (her) position at all .. but there's a DAMM big difference between Corn Grain Based Ethanol .. and I CAN find 2006 links in this very blog where I railed against that STUPID decision .. and Ethanol from "corn stalks to wheat straw, grass and wood" .. which is a good idea.

I swear to God yousguys ...

Not defending Hillary but then you continue with a new post that leads with....you guessed it....Hillary!!

From her website, addressing energy independence and of course global warming:

"A $50 billion Strategic Energy Fund, paid for in part by oil companies, to fund investments in alternative energy. The SEF will finance one-third of the $150 billon ten-year investment in a new energy future contained in this plan."

Translation: Tax the hell out of the oil companies for making too much profit, give it a catchy name like Strategic Energy Fund, much more pleasing than TAX, and figure out later where the rest of the dough is coming from.

"Aggressive action to transition our economy toward renewable energy sources, with renewables generating 25 percent of electricity by 2025 and with 60 billion gallons of home-grown biofuels available for cars and trucks by 2030"

No mention what these biofuels will be made of but I agree with you corn ain't the answer. Big Corn is already sucking at the taxpayer teat and I doubt they'll make a spot for Big Grass. Who has more clout? That question has already been answered in the corn based ethanol disaster.

"An increase in fuel efficiency standards to 55 miles per gallon by 2030, and $20 billion of "Green Vehicle Bonds" to help U.S. automakers retool their plants to meet the standards"

Ahh, Big Auto gets $20 billion in taxpayer money.

This idea is nonsense. With the speed of technological advances how does Hillary even know cars will be running on gas in 22 years?

And of course more govt. regulation over private industry:

"An aggressive comprehensive energy efficiency agenda to reduce electricity consumption 20 percent from projected levels by 2020 by changing the way utilities do business, catalyzing a green building industry, enacting strict appliance efficiency standards, and phasing out incandescent light bulbs"

I thought incandescent bulbs were already being banned.

Since Hillary Clinton's prayer has been answered in the form of a pastor who just won't shut his mouth, perhaps she can win the nomination and go after those eeeeevvviiiiilllll oil companies and big govt. programs after all.

Dan – I “continued with a new post” because I was unclear about Hillary’s position on Corn.

I did a quick search, and one that caught my eye was “Hillary Flip-Flops in Ethanol” … so I checked it out. What was her flip-flop?

Apparently she went from “opposed requiring motorists to use corn-based ethanol in their cars” … which I think we all agree is NOT the right thing to do .. to “ … research methods of making ethanol from plant cellulose .. “.. which I think we all agree IS the right thing to do.

You’re whining Dan, partisan, unproductive, childish whining. If anoyone else ... say Ron Paul .. had on his website the same stuff as Hillary has on hers, you'd be all over it in a positive way.

I’m really not following the election … my studies these days are energy recovery for profit, 20th century economic theory, and mambo rock & roll. .. but as a quick stab:

A $150 billon ten-year investment .. $15 billion per year. Is that a big deal? Let’s find out: First and only site I’m checking – chosen at relative random and with no position on its accuracy:

http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2005/10/oil_company_pro.html

Exxon had $26.1 billion as net income in 2004. $7 billion went to dividends; $9 billion to buy back stock, plus $12.5 billion cash.

ChevronTexaco had $13.3 billion as net income 2004. Dividends unstated; $2.1 billion to buy back stock; $5 billion in cash.

We can go one, but afai can see, you have no details of what “Hillary Care” means .. you just hate her. Should Hillary Care actually recommend “EEEEVIIVIILLL oil companies that legitimately invest $15 billion in the future may take a tax credit .. then what’s wrong with that?

And if you’re into “… catchy names … “ go no further than “Clear Skies Act” … or the “Clean Water Act” ..

==
Speaking of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, what did the National Republicans for Environmental Protection Association have to say? “ .. organization was disappointed in the bill: it did not give enough of a short to conservation, and continued to subsidize the well-established oil and gas industries that don't require subsidizing.”
Imagine.. Conservatives wanting conserve. A bunch of RINO’s if ever I heard of such.

"You’re whining Dan, partisan, unproductive, childish whining." Just trying to have a conversation, either your studies are stressing you out or adopting the same tactics of the blog bully.

Guilty as charged, I'm a bit partisan when it comes to Hillary Clinton.

After all we agreed on a major point of corn based ethanol. Show me all your engineering facts and figures please, most are interesting, but lighten up on the attitude please.

" ... but lighten up on the attitude please."

You’re right and I apologize .. I'm just so tired of all the unproductive partisan whining - the Hillary position on Corn, at least as I understand it, illustrates the point well ...

... but I'll try to lighten up anyway.

p.s.: sign me, Newest Member: http://www.rep.org/