The Fitzman

http://thefitzman.blogspot.com/2008/08/strategic-long-term-comprehensive-us.html

219 Comments

    • Whither Oil Prices? [view article]
      by 2015, we'll see oil at $300/barrel. Sep 07 06:22 PM
    • Oil: The Inconvenient Truth [view article]
      Mmarrkk: your reason a) about a global market has absolutely nothing to do with the lack of a US energy policy that should be aimed at reducing oil consumption. wrt reason b), anyone who thinks the US can make up the 15 million barrels of day we import from foreign sources can be made up by drilling offshore and in alaska is smoking something. that said, i am for drilling, but as Boone Pickens says, that debate is *missing the point*. the point is, for the sake of our economy and national security, we need to be *transitioning away from oil*.
      as far as being in iraq, we could have 100,000,000 prius in the US for what that war has cost us (not to mention the cost in human life). comparing sadaam hussein to hitler to rationalize bush's takeover of iraq must have been a joke. you were joking...right??

      henarl: i agree both parties suck. mccain, before he morphed into mini-georgie, would have been someone i would have thought more seriously about. but now that he has joined the bandwagon on bush's tax and religious right outlook (mccain used to say the religious right was an "intolerable influence on government), i can tell he is just another tool of the radical right. ron paul has some great thoughts on currency and getting back to the constitution. that said, how can he be so steadfastly republican when he has seen how the bush administration has basically ripped up the constitution. i find that very hypocritical.       Sep 07 06:11 PM
    • Royalty Trusts: Maintaining Income in a Volatile Market [view article]
      steve: let me ask you this question: what is better, to save 5% or so on your tax rate and have the US dollar drop 40% and inflation running at 6%, or, paying a little bit more in taxes, having a strong currency, and paying less toward inflation. the US stock market is showing that the bush tax policy and virtually every other bush economic policy is a complete and utter failure of fiscal responsibility. net-net: the US investor is taking it in the shorts. bigtime. Sep 07 06:01 PM
    • Oil: The Inconvenient Truth [view article]
      mwrjr: under your assumptions, the "market" should have fixed the US's 70% dependence on foreign oil, and would have developed an alternative to the gasoline powered internal combustion engine and the distibution networks to fuel this alternative solution. unfortunately, a government "hands-off" approach has exascerbated the problem by letting the auto and oil lobbyists keep the US addicted to foreign oil. the net effect has been:

      - $700 billion a year (and growing) leaving the country and going into the hands of russia, iran, iraq, venezuela and bush's buddies the saudis
      - raging inflation
      - a huge drop in the value of the US dollar
      - an economy (and S&P500) that are dead in the water.

      what more do you need to see before you suggest we get a president and congress that will pass legislation to protect us against the biggest national security threat facing our country: our dependence on foreign oil and a future in which worldwide oil supply will not keep up with worldwide oil demand. honestly, i find your position on this issue illogical and very dangerous. your position matches bush's, with the exception of bush likes to put our troops on top of oil reserves. for the money he has spent on iraq, we could have put 100,000,000 priuses on the road and reduced our imported oil bill by 3-4 million barrels a day. or, we could have funded nat gas re-fit kit for ALL us cars and trucks and built the nat gas distribution network to re-fuel them. these are just examples, but show how important gov policies are to address the issue (versus fascism based lobbyist driven policies and militantism).       Sep 05 02:14 PM
    • Oil: The Inconvenient Truth [view article]
      henarl: i hear what you are saying and understand it first hand. i lived in san diego from 82-90, and it was a great time to be there. but i left when it got real crowded and took more than 1/2 hour to get to the beach. now, it's a friggin zoo down there. that said, the indiscriminate dumping on a state that is responsible for so much innovation (i suppose we disagree on that) and means so much to our economy doesn't seem fair to me. it also doesn't seem fair to dump on their politicians which see the environmental destruction due to auto emissions first hand and are attempting to lead in the battle against them (since the bush adminitration has used the EPA and even the supreme court *against* a cleaner environment). i just believe a little more objectivity is needed. besides, i know some places in cali that are so beautiful it makes my head swim. i miss those places. Sep 05 11:55 AM
    • Oil: The Inconvenient Truth [view article]
      Wadhamite: i mention ethanol in my energy policy, in fact, i suggested we abolish the ethanol *mandates*. don't get me wrong, i am all for using ethanol. however, the mandates are causing:
      1) artificially keeping the price of gasoline down (bad)
      2) dislocations in the food chain causing inflation and hardship on many producers of meat (bad)

      johngordon: ok, thanks. i will follow up on this. my gut tells me, however, that the big problem with coal is its dirty - dirty to mine, dirty to burn, and dirty to process in CTL. i'll get back with you on this. the real dirty little secret about coal (besides the well publicized CO2 emissions) is the release of mercury into our water table. the problem is so bad, most municipal water districts dont even test for mercury in their feed water because they don't want to publish the results...

      pursley: first i stated that CO2 in the atmosphere is bad, and you responded with "if you hate carbon you hate the environment" (!?). i responded with "i hate carbon?" and you come back with "since you have no problem with CO2.." Let me give you a basic chemistry lesson so we can at least debate with some level of intelligence here. carbon "C" and oxygen "O" are chemical elements in the periodic table. carbon dioxide (chemical formula "CO2") is what is emitted when gasoline is burned (about 19lbs CO2 per gallon of gas) and consists of two atoms of oxygen covalently bonded to one atom of carbon. just to be clear, it is the increasing CO2 levels and even more worrisome the exponentially increasting rate of "CO2"emissio... that are the problem. saying i don't like carbon is as idiotic as saying i don't like oxygen. here is a website that may help you understand "carbon dioxide" a little better:
      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      and here is an EPA website that will explain how much is emitted by burning one gallon of gasoline:
      www.epa.gov/OMS/climat...
      in the future, let's try to debate the issue without the remedial lectures on "the earth's climate always changes" and "photosynthesis&q... ok? jeez.

      fineye: bingo!!       Sep 05 10:49 AM
    • Oil: The Inconvenient Truth [view article]
      johngordon: i googled hydroliquefaction and got nothing. please explain this process and how it can be done in an environmentally safe way as well as being economic. seems the US would be crazy not to adopt something like this if it was viable...that said, we'd be crazy not to adopt a strategic long-term energy policy as well...

      pursley: what, now i hate carbon??? what an absurd argument!!! that was hilarious...unfortunat... i think you were actually serious!

      the global warming naysayers are alot like the bush economic team: they keep telling you how great their policies are and want you to believe in more of it. meanwhile, the market tanks and every economic indicator is lousy. sure, give me 4 more years of this - i just can't get enough. duh! limbaugh and kudlow are worth all the millions the republicans spinmeisters pay them. the truth in this statement is that this election is even close after their policies have enriched the uber-wealthy beyond their wildest dreams while the middle class (and thus the county) disintegrates before your eyes. out goes all logical observation, in comes rush and larry. what a country.       Sep 04 01:42 PM
    • Oil: The Inconvenient Truth [view article]
      Xyrus: you can't reason with people who rely on rush limbaugh and larry kudlow for scientific expertise. nice try though.

      regeya: please pubish the numbers that back up your position. the numbers i have looked at show that US demand is being sucked up by other countries. recent auto and trucks sales data for china, india, russia, and the middle east show this is not a short term trend.

      MarkSF: the non-believers don't believe the ice core samples showing historical CO2 levels and the exponential growth of CO2 since the beginning of the industrial revolution. i think limbaugh must have had a show debunking carbon dating.

      johngordon: yes, and there is a company in south africa that has pretty much perfected this process (Sasol, SSL). unfortunately, i believe the process takes alot of water and is very dirty.

      CT: although you are tardy to the party, you haven't missed much. we're back to debating global warming again and whether or not would should push california into the ocean because it's a worthless state. interesting it's usually these same folks who think bush is the best thing since sliced bread. wrt the states driving energy and environmental policy - you are SPOT ON there and this in itself is a testament to how lousy the bush administration's policies are on these two issues. i mean, the supreme court has even gotten involved because the bush admin declared war on california's right to legislate CO2 emissions in its state arguing that the EPA (environmental destruction agency) had the sole right to do so (!??). wrt a comprehensive energy policy, you cannot even get one published in any leading business magazine...even as the stock market and US economy go right down the bush led black hole....

      miles: thanks buddy! please read and comment on my articles more often - i need the support!

      fran: yes, history is a great predictor of the future. right now, bush policy looks frighteningly similar to pre-WW2 germany: propaganda, industry led government (fascism), militantism, government control of the financial system, and ultimate control of the population by not allowing non-gasoline powered transportation solutions. that will be the ultimate control mechanism: control of the gasoline every must have in the US to survive. that's why i cannot understand why the editors won't print my strategic, long-term, comprehensive energy policy. i find myself asking: don't these idiots have family, children, and people they love? why are they assisting the government in the ultimate control of their lives? to save their jobs i suppose. but that's no excuse. it's like all the people in the bush administration who keep silent on all the idiotic policies until they leave their jobs...then they write a book saying what an idiot bush is. but, when they could have tried to have a positive impact, they didn't, wanted to keep that job. as you say, we will all get what we deserve, and without a sane energy policy, i don't have to tell you what the long term impact will be. look at the economy today with $100/barrel oil...just imagine what it will be like at $200/barrel and eventually what it will be like when we can't even get oil (gasoline) because our country will be bankrupt and russia, iraq, iran, and saudi have all the oil and pay us back for years of dissing them.       Sep 04 11:30 AM
    • Oil: The Inconvenient Truth [view article]
      Miky: i agree with everything you said, almost. i would argue that America is no longer the greatest country in the world. i bet if you had taken a poll of all the world's inhabitants 10 or 20 years ago, America would have won. now, i doubt it. we've become war-mongers with no moral, no financial discipline, no leadership, and no plan for the future. doesn't sound like greatness to me. very sad. as far as financial leadership, we lost that along time ago.

      Mmarrkk: yeah, boy those californians are nuts. they just want fuel efficient vehicles, alternative energy solutions, and a real energy plan to get off foreign oil. meantime, oil has gone up what, 500% under bush? yeah, those californians are really off base. i just wish georgie boy could run for 8 more years so we could see oil top $500 with a bush in office. with respect to voting machines (courtesy of bush and diebold....), it was the attorney general of california that pointed out what a shame they were, and what a threat they were to REAL democracy and outlawed the bush supported version from californian elections. yeah, those damn californians..what do they want, REAL freedom? jeez, somebody should wake em up and remind they are in the bush defined "new world order".

      Mr Rewrite: actually, i did mention mexico. the cantrell field is probably the best example of peak oil depletion. that said, mexico could produce more if they weren't so hobbled by the government control and corruption. bottom line is that the US's second largest source of imported oil will probably be a net importer themselves in the next few years. guess mccain will probably go after brazil at that point...

      Mmarrkk: i believe the pre-election manipulation. big decline in oil right when the repub VP announcement came out. "it's all so exciting" hahaha wrt ice caps, of course the world always changes (i hate this argument by the non global warming believers...). everyone knows and agrees on that, it's elementary. the issue is the RATE of change and the CAUSE of the increase in the rate of change. i'll just check back with you and pursley after a few more years and see if your powers of observation have gotten any better.

      pursley: but that was not my question. you said the world was over-supplied in oil, and i asked, if that is indeed the case, why is oil at $109/barrel? wrt glaciers and the ice caps, it's the rate of change. but you're convinced there's no problem, and nothing i can say will change your mind, so, enjoy your hummer and it's CO2 output.

      Miky: yup, please read my entire energy policy and you will see it is heavy on wind and solar. interesting about the dinar play. can you pick some up for me? what a deal, they get a bankrupted country (the US) to pay for their schools, roads, sewage, electrical gneration etc. etc. while they meanwhile build up a 100 billion dollar bank account selling their oil. amazing. you gotta love bush.

      mdmrjsds: exactly, that is the problem. we need to acknowledge the gasoline powered US economic security problem and begin designing alternative transportation solutions now. with respect to government taking over critical resources, i think that is where the gov of the US is heading. you can forget free markets (another republican hypocritical position that the limbaugh is paid to smooth over). the fed took over bear strearns, is in the process of taking over the national mortgage market as well as the banking and financial sectors. so, oil is just another logical step. that said, what else is there left to invest in in the USA market? autos? banks? home builders? consumer goods? i dunno...energy is all i can see to invest in when the country is bankrupt, the middle class has been pushed to lower class, and the game on wall street is rigged, and when those guys fail, the middle class tax-payers bail them out and bernanke just cranks up the printing press.

      coffee/closer: was there just coffee involved in that response, or perhaps a nip of alcohol? heh heh

      hillbilly: russia and OPEC will be glad to sell us oil. at their price and only if no one else is willing to pay more (or has a better currency).

      bmaclaverty: although the US, Europe, and Japan are on hard economic times, i am not so sure the same is true of china, russia, and the middle east. they are having boomtimes. india has slowed. all the countries with great natural resources are still doing pretty good. and like i said, i think decreased oil demand in the US is being sucked up by the china, russia, india, and the middle east. ever check out the new car and truck sales in those countries? no recession over there...

      LazyAl: what the article as supposed to insinuate is that despite the big oil and energy stock sell-off (although i would argue that oil at $109 is still up over $30/barrel from 1 year ago), the fundamentals of oil and energy stocks are still very very bullish. despite the talking heads on CNBC, oil is not going to sink to $60-70, as kudlow has suggested. i should remind everyone that kudlow also thought oil was "way over extended" when it crossed $50.

      WEBISKING: exactly. but the powers that be can't have XOM stock priced where it should be at election time...too embarrasing for cheney and bush....

      JasonC: demand halves in one decade? how?? the US uses 25% of worldwide oil supply and there is a media censorship on realistic energy policies. how do you stop new car and truck sales in china, russia, india, and the middle east? don't see it.

      henarl: agree with your analysis of jason's response and added mine above. but why the dump on california? i just don't understand you guys. do you have any idea of the technical innovations coming out of that state in terms of electronics, computers, medicine, communications, bio-engineering, bio-medical engineering? are any of you familiar with patent applications and which states have the most patents issued? why dump on cali? it's one of the few innovative and progressive states left in the US!

      freefall51: unfortunately the ice-core samples taken by many independent scientific organizations shoot a hole in your climatological theories. carbon dating and CO2 levels correlated to climate. its all there. to disbelieve in the acceleration of CO2 levels due to man's burning of fossil fuels, and to disbelieve that this indeed is causing the planet's temperature changes due this is to disbelieve in widely accepted scientific methods, analysis, and conclusions. ain't facts just a pain in the behind?       Sep 03 11:06 PM
    • Oil: The Inconvenient Truth [view article]
      pursley: if the market is "oversupplied&quo... with oil as you suggest, why is it trading at $109.21 right now? if the global temperature has decreased 8 years in a row, why are both ice caps shrinking and glacier national park searching for a new name after all the glaciers melt?

      swim: heh heh.

      yank: i was going to mention the election manipulation issue, but i didn't feel like fighting all those folks who would have jumped on me!
      that said, i tend to agree and certainly agree with you on current energy stock valuations.

      longoil: exactly. however, as i opined in the article, i am not so sure the price drop can be blamed on slack US demand as rising consumption in china, russia, india, and the middle east is sucking it up. unfortunately, it takes some time to see those numbers. i tend to lean toward re-election posturing....

      jack: yup, i am all for drilling as any production here keeps more US dollars in the US. that said, we can't get close to replacing the 15 million barrels we import every day. the only solution is an alternative to the gasoline powered internal combustion engine to cut consumption.

      .*. thank you for the illuminating criticism. i suppose we agree that each other's words are useless. that said, at least i have an opinion. you say i am not logical, but point to no examples to debate. why even post your comment?

      Mmarrkk: yeah, California sucks..its just home to some of the best technical colleges in the world as well as home to most of the most brilliant computer scientists. it's also one of the world's biggest economies. yup, terrible state.

      sikarskie: i am doubtful of any "regulations"... wrt wall street. the place is running open loop these days. i think the big investment banks are able to do just about anything they want to the price of gold and oil and currencies. its a rigged game and the rest of us just tag along hoping we're participating in "free markets". it's all double-speak and smoke and mirrors.




      Sep 03 01:14 PM
    • Crazy 2008 [view article]
      What you say is true, and yes it has been crazy. That said, the outlook for oil is extremely bullish. Demand destruction in the US is being snapped up by China, India, Russia, and the Middle East. Despite all the campaign rhetoric and Larry Kudlow's "drill drill drill" mantra, the fact remains the US has a DAILY shortfall of around 15 million barrels of oil which must be imported. No amount of domestic drilling will make up for this shortfall. Further, despite Boone Pickens' efforts (and, I might add, very few other high-profile folks...), the US still has no strategic, comprehensive, long-term energy plan:
      thefitzman.blogspot.co...
      You would think an S&P500 that has gone no-where in the last 8 years, a US dollar that has gone somewhere (down 40%), and inflation that is the hottest since the 1970's would have gotten some decent energy legislation out of Congress and the "pro-business&quo... Republicans. It has not. This is probably the best opportunity people will have to pick up energy and energy service related stocks before the final peak-oil push upward based on a future where worldwide oil supply will simply not keep pace with worldwide oil demand. Gold will tag along with oil for the ride.       Sep 02 01:43 PM
    • The Economics of Political Spin [view article]
      longoil: i agree with you - longterm oil is going to go up in price regardless of who is president. that said, as you pointed out bush invaded iraq and took millions of barrels off the market at exactly the same time that demand from china, russia, india, and the middle east began seriously growing. so, oil popped. oil also popped because a new geopolitical risk premium was added to the price of a barrel of oil as the rest of the world realized the US (that is,bush) would create wars in order to get access to oil reserves. so, oil popped further. next, with respect to the energy policy you and i agree is so badly needed, bush has been a huge hinderance to CAFE increases, alternative fuels (except for the idiotic ethanol mandates, which just increased food inflation), and has basically stuck with an oil centric mentality. so, US demand stays high and so does the price of oil. finally, the deficit spending by this administration which has weakened the US dollar some 40% also passes directly to Americans since oil is priced in US dollars. so, without the war in iraq, without the huge drop in the dollar, and with any resembling a logical energy plan, one could make a case that oil would be somewhere between $60-$80, or, somewhere around 40-50% lower than today. that said, oil is going to keep rising in the future due to worldwide supply/demand issues. which is why it is even more imperative that the US adopt a comprehensive, long term, strategic energy policy:

      thefitzman.blogspot.co...

      i often note what a hypocrit bush is. consider this: notice how everytime he rationalized filling the strategic petroleum reserve, he talked about how important oil is to the economy, how the US could not survive without it, and how important it is that we have reserves in times of crisis. then, he goes right out and fights for policies to keep us addicted to the foreign oil of his buddies in saudi arabia while he is telling us out of the other side of his mouth how important it is we get off it. this is a perfect example of bush hypocrisy. say one thing, and do the total exact opposite. just like spending. just like security. just like "freedom". of course i could go on and on and on (and i usually do).       Aug 29 01:14 PM
    • The Economics of Political Spin [view article]
      building 7 was not hit with jet fuel.
      if you don't think it's strange that bush's #1 priority after the 9-11 attacks was to fly saudi arabians out of the country, well, so what.
      gramps - i swear if you don't stop putting words in my mouth and debate what i actually WRITE instead of what you think i wrote, i am gonna come over and pull all the grey hairs off your chest one at a time.

      ok, so i give up, you guys have all convinced me with your excellent debating skills:

      bush has been a great president!
      bush is not responsible for the weak US dollar or weak US economy.
      bush is not responsible for the strengthening of russia & the middle east.
      bush is not responsible for the 500% increase in the price of oil.
      bush is not responsible for doubling the debt during just 8 years.
      bush is a foreign policy expert.
      bush has strengthened the middle class.
      bush's tax policies are fair and it makes sense to increase the wealth of the uber-wealthy because then it trickles down to the middle class.
      bush has left the US much stronger than when he came into office.
      the US stock and bond markets are in great shape.
      the financial system is in great shape.
      the feds aren't taking over the financial system
      inflation is not an issue
      and lastly, bush's energy policy has been *great* for the country.

      you guys are right! there is no need for change! everything is perfect, and bush gets all the credit for the great shape of the US today.
      oh, and i love and believe everything rush limbaugh and larry kudlow say. everything is great. i can't wait to see what wonderful things mccain has in store for us. you guys convinced me. bush is great.

      <fingers crossed>       Aug 29 09:36 AM
    • NBC Refuses Pickens Plan Ad [view article]
      Actually, the move by NBC (GE) is simply a continuation of the media censorship of REAL energy policy ideas. I cannot get my energy policy:

      thefitzman.blogspot.co...

      published anywhere. The WSJ and Barron's have each turned me down (twice). I don't pretend the policy I developed is perfect, but I do know it is light years better than what we have now, which is nothing but an oil centric policy with mandated ethanol that is causing food inflation. Why, in light of $120/barrel oil, $4/gasoline, raging inflation, and an S&P500 that has returned less than 2.6% annually for the last 10 years do the leading "financial" media not want to solve our biggest challenge: oil? Throw in how the US is intentionally strengthening Russia, Sauid, Iran, and Iraq and you really have to wonder what in hell is going on. It is maddening. By the way, NBC did finally approve the Pickens ad, but only AFTER Pickens sent this email out to his "army":

      A message to all members of PickensPlan Army: NBC is refusing to run one of our strongest ads, and I need your help in showing NBC they can't control what we can or cannot say. The 15-second ad talks about how the government of Iran is making a MAJOR effort to use natural gas in their vehicles so they can free up $120 a barrel oil to sell to us while we are doing nothing. I need you to click on the link, watch the ad, then send it to five of your friends. Please ask each of those five people to send it on to five of THEIR friends. This is important. Let me know what you think: www.pickensplan.com/ne.../ --T. Boone Pickens Visit PickensPlan at: push.pickensplan.com       Aug 29 08:02 AM
    • The Economics of Political Spin [view article]
      longoil: hey, i am the first one to admit obama's energy plan needs work, and if you think i am hardcore on SA, you should see the emails i have been sending his campaign for the last 6 months. just to show i am even-handed in my dishing out of political criticism, plz remember this response to obama's windfall profits tax announcement back in june:

      seekingalpha.com/artic...

      and, yes, i must admit that i want to get rid of bush in the worst way. electing mccain does not do this. we just continue on the same path, with perhaps even more militantism than before (i didn't think that was possible, but as i said before, after reading mccain's writings, i am sure we'd be in a war with russia right now were he CIC.)

      gramps2: yeah, right. building 7 feel because of "fires". independent investigations by your own government said if building 7 collapsed as it did because of "fires" it would be the first building of its design type in the history of the planet to fall due to fire. ridiculous. wrt the saudi airlift, i can only conclude that you agree it was the right thing to do. ridiculous. what about lying about it? was that also the right thing to do? what about trying to cover up the flight, i guess that was the right move as well. ridiculous. i NEVER said ALL saudi's were guilty of being behind 9-11 - those are your words. what i said was, and you can ask the survivors of the 9-11 victims if they agree with either you or me (i can tell you already, they agree with me), to fly saudi arabians out of florida, when they may have been in contact with the 9-11 saudi conspirators when they were in florida, prior to an investigation (assuming you could even HAVE a real investigation with bush in office) was a criminal offence on bush's part. by the way, who profited more than anyone else with the rise in oil under bush? the saudis. or, perhaps russia, either way, you and i lose. "it is amazing that i think bush is such an idiot"? you say. helloooooo, i am not the only one gramps. the majority of the world knows it. with respect to rants, you can do it but i can't? are you not ranting back? what i am trying to do is save our economy before 4 more years of insane economic policies deep-six the middle class (what's left of us...) forever."Bush is an idiot" is a reason NOT to vote for mccain, because mccain has morphed himself into mini-georgie.

      i never claimed to be an energy expert (that's you talking for me, again). what i did propose was an energy policy that i believe is superior to what we have now, which is no comprehensive policy at all, and is nothing but an oil centric ideology that is strenthening russia and saudi and iran and iraq as quickly as it is weakening us. wake up gramps.

      my foreign policy is lacking huh? well, condi is supposed to be a russian expert from stanford right? well, look what backing the puppet in georgia got us? look what star wars in poland got us. russia is the biggest oil exporter in the world, and we did our best to piss them off. brilliant. now all we can do is lob verbal threats while putin just laughs at how stupid georgie was when he "looked into his eyes". please. i might not be the most brilliant foreign policy expert, but i know idiocy when i see it. and bush foreign policy has been a complete and unmitigated disaster in every way possible.

      again, you say i suggested that ALL saudis been indicted after 9-11. your words gramps. if you are going to debate me, please, at least debate me on what i said, not what you wanted or imagined me to have said.

      User93017: thanks for all the insults. i did note, however, that you neglected to debate me on any specifics. try again sometime - that was a pathetic post and will stay on here forever to document your debating skills as nil.

      scrooge: wrt transfer of wealth, you seem to be oblivious to the transfers that have taken place under bush the last 8 years. let me help you out:

      1) the transfer of wealth from middle class taxpayers to the wall streeters, bankers, iraqi "contractors"... katrina "suppliers", and many other well connected bushites from your US Treasury, doubling the entire fiscal debt of the US in just two terms.

      2) the largest transfer of wealth in the history of the planet (i am stealing this from boone pickens) as US citizens send their dollars to saudi, russia, iran, iraq, and venezuela.

      if you *really* watch your dollars like a "hawk", debate 1 and 2. please, spare me the ideological criticism of democrat s[ending, i heard the same thing before clinton balanced the budget after the 1st bush's deficit spending. i also note how much stronger the US dollar was under clinton than under bush. but i suppose that isn't important either.

      wrt gasoline consumption, yes, we are seeing gasoline consumption decline. look at the gov. numbers on their website for the details. every economist worth his salt knows we are in a recession. but, like the inflation numbers and everything else the bush administration publishes, they won't admit a recession until the next president takes office.

      igorisky: bs. russia fell because of an economic system and leadership that couldn't compete with US military spending since the end of WW2. reagan/bush just happened to be in office when it finally collapsed. note how good this latest bush is handling russia...pushing up the price of oil 500% during bush's term has done nothing but enrich russia (as well as saudi, iran, iraq). but for some reason, no bush supporters ever debate this fact...considering it is currently the most important fact, that is a rather large omission from the debate.
      further, i don't need a bush supporter to tell me what a disaster iraq has been, i understand. thanks anyway. mccain is mini-bush, i don't buy your optimism. anyone who thinks we can continue the bush tax policy that is crucifying the American middle class has got to have a bolt loose. besides, mccain will get us in a war with every country that even looks at us sideways. read his book.

      fran: wow, thanks, whew...i get to rest my fingers. i agree that the country still has alot of economic issues, but i can only focus on what i feel is the biggest: energy. if we don't solve the energy problem, nothing else will matter: we're completely hosed. i appreciate your challenge, but i must decline. currently, i am doing all i can to get senators, presidential candidates, and financial media to publicize and adopt a comprehensive energy policy along the lines of the one i have developed, or, at least use it as a starting point for debate. this is a full-time job as the media and politicians block me every chance they get.

      hwood007: i don't remember ever recommending we become like any country in Europe, although i have mentioned france's nuclear effort, germany's wind effort, and electric light rail all over the continent of europe and japan. i also wouldnt mind us having a health plan similar to the scandinavian countries. agree on drilling, but agree even more on alternatives of wind, solar, geothermal, and tidal. agree even more on alternatives to the gasoline powered internal combustion engine and on the infrastructure needed to refuel them. wrt dividends, i don't understand the republican stance of no tax increases on the wealthy: it ends up we have a US dollar that depreciates 40% and inflation that is probably close to 6-7%. now, does saving an extra 2-5% on your cap gains or dividend taxes make up for the ~45% hit you've taken on the dollar and inflation. hell no it doesnt. it's just more republican hypocrisy and double-speak. they know everybody likes the sound of "cut taxes". i wish people would just wake up and THINK.







      Aug 28 05:54 PM
Loading...
Symbols:
Authors:
Quick Links:
Contribute an Article Become a Seeking Alpha Contributor

Transcripts

More Transcripts»