Board member on fox news last night ??? very O/T

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

I just woke up. Did I miss anything? At least I am poster #100. And Adam, since Leon locked the other thread, thanks for the offer of the steak dinner. Sounds great, and I may show up one day...unannounced and very hungry!

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

I've never voted republican in any election, ever, in my life. But to suggest that we invaded Iraq solely for oil is really very Jimmy Carterish. I put nothing past this administration. But I also believe that a very large part of the reason Iraq was invaded was because Saddam was playing cat and mouse with the UN weapons inspectors, refused to cooperate, had fomented terrorism in the middle east, and had previously used chemical weapons against his own people. Indeed, Saddam had killed more arabs than Israel had in all of its wars with the arabs combined. Hatred for Bush should not obscure the facts of what occurred prior to and after 9/11.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

FINALLY.......A SANE VOICE on this Thread. I agree totally with you. And, I will add
the "Oil for Food" scam that Sadamm had going with France, Germany, and Russia.

There is the real "OIL CORRUPTION" story.....but the L-I-b-E-R-al Media doesn't want
to investigate it......as it doesn't fit their "agenda".

THANK YOU JEFF L.

T-Rex TED

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Okay- this thread has calmed down for the night so allow me to summarize my feelings: We've all had an opportunity to express our views, and clearly many of us have very strong opinions about the state of the world. But what I find most disheartening is just how split this nation is, and how deeply divided we are in our thinking. Net54 is just a microcosm of what is happening around us. You would think that 9/11 would have rallied this country together but it has done just the opposite; in fact, if we weren't a civilized nation, I am not certain we couldn't be on the brink of a civil war here. And I have no choice but to put the responsibility for this on our failed leadership. Whether you are Republican or Democrat, privileged or disenfranchised, people in ever greater numbers are becoming totally fed up with the people at the top. We have a president who has the look of someone who is neither qualified for the job nor even interested in having it, one who is clueless about diplomacy and has created enemies in nearly every corner of the globe. We have a war that we should have never been in that will probably go on for years to come, yet we have almost no tangible moral outrage. Why? Because it is somebody else's son who is being killed or maimed. If the draft were ever reinstated, you could be sure that no privileged family would want their son to fight and we would see an end to the war in short order. We've created a breeding ground for terrorists, and they are rampaging through Iraq with impunity. We've destroyed that country and the rest of the Middle East is likely to follow. The Right likes to brag about all the wonderful tax cuts we've gotten but I don't feel any richer. However, I can say with confidence there are more billionaires, and if there is anything America needs right now is more billionaires. I'm not sure anybody can save this country right now, but I do feel passionate that the current leadership needs to get their sorry asses out of office. We've been betrayed by them and the country is divided like never before. And I for one have never felt more pessimistic about the future.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Barry, weren't Muslim terrorists rampaging around the globe at the time of 9/11? Weren't Muslim terrorists planning large scale attacks against us prior to 9/11? Hadn't they succeeded? What about in Israel? Were Muslims strapping bombs to their children's bodies and sending them to slaughter innocent Israelis -- every day? Should we have done nothing in Afghanistan after 9/11? If we had stopped after Afghanistan would the French and Germans and Russians like us more? Why do the Russians condemn our attacks against Muslim terrorists when they seem to have no problem attacking their own Muslim terrorists - with much more ferocity I might add? Why do the Russians do everything they can to prevent real sanctions against Iran? (Do you think it might be based in economics?) Since the French are so against any war against Muslim terrorists why is it that they have had such internal strife with Muslims in their country - while we have had virtually none? Just some simple questions to answer if you can.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Jeff- I can't answer all your questions but there have been terrorists for centuries. But there are more now than ever before, unquestionably more than there were five years ago. And yes, we should have focused more on Afghanistan, a war there would at least have had some justification. We just picked the wrong country. And don't get me wrong- Saddam Hussein was a vicious tyrant and I am very happy to see he is just a short time away from his execution, but what we have ended up with is an unwinnable war and no way for it to end. It wasn't wrong to go in and get Hussein, it was just handled abominably and incompetently. And with regard to your other questions, sorry but I don't have the answers.

[Archive]

Posted By: James Feagin

Colt---When the ruling party is in power, there aren't too many who are willing to defend their administration against attack; why bother? During the Clinton years, there was no shortage of well-informed idealogues who catologued a variety of his offenses (outside of adultery). Now of course the same goes for GWB. It is a veritable industry to attack the sitting president, and I find it amusing that each succession will inevitably be dubbed the "worst ever". What I feel is really being missed is that Bush never was a "true" conservative nor was Clinton a Liberal. They are mid-stream politicians, with gobs of charisma, and crossover appeal. What needs to cease is this elitist attitude that the opposition are full of bumbling buffoons. Most Democrats are not bed-wetting, sniveling hippies, who hate God, and are devoid of morals. On the same token, most Republicans are not backwoods bible thumpers who walk in lock-step with the Christian Coalition. To hold to those assertions is narrow-minded.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

That's a good point James. In the end the difference between Democrats and Republicans may not be a big as most people assert. I'm just saying the current group had their chance, failed miserably, and it's time for them to hit the links.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

James, I think you're hitting the nail on the head. Slash and burn attacks against either party by the other is not really helpful at this point in our country's history. Perhaps the more violent attacks could be reserved for, let's say, those who are trying to blow us up? We need our citizens to listen and think without regard to political affiliation. Otherwise you end up with a bunch of people who think that our government was behind the 9/11 attacks and that all of our country's aggression over the past five years is due to oil-based reasons alone.

And Barry, thanks for the thoughtful response. My only question is how do you consider the war in Afghanistan to only have 'some' justification? Consider that every Dem in the country was for that war and still is - they just believe that we have been run thin there due to the war in Iraq.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

You are right Jeff, the war in Afghanistan should have been a high priority. In fact, in spite of my liberal bent, if I thought Osama was hiding there at the time (and he probably was) I would have voted for wiping the country off the map. But for some reason we left there and went into a place that was arguably dangerous but not the focus of our immediate concern. Nobody, not even the most conservative, can honestly say things are going well in Iraq. Even some of our generals want to bow out. But our president feels it is a sign of weakness to admit a mistake, so this is the morass we are left with.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

recent presidential popularity polls show that 1/3 of Americans are comeplete idiots.

If you think the oil in Iraq had nothing to do with the decision to fight there, then you are truely cluess. We have a war on 2 fronts. Guess which one got all the troops and the govts attention? The one with the oil. Afghanastan offers us nothing economically, except opium. Then there is the thought that W wanted to the finish the job that his daddy screwed up.

As Barry pointed out, if we were a less civilized society, I would be very worried about a civil war right now. The division between the haves and have nots is wider ever day. All these ballyhooed tac cuts benefited no one except the very rich. Just more of the failed trickle down economics theory. I saw news report a few weeks ago that showed the parallels between what is happenening in our country and the collapse of the communist block. It's pretty scary.

This board is microcism of our society, to a degree. It is more heavily slanted towards the wealthy, by nature of the value/cost of what we collect. The wealthy have benefited the most from this admitstations tax cuts. I tell you that I have not see one extra penny becuase of the tax cuts and real wages (that is adjusted for inflation) for the middle class and below have dropped 5% since W took office. How is that an economic boom for the country, even if the Dow hit 12k? How about minimum wage? It hasn't been eaised since 1997, yet our leadership can alays find reason to give themselve huge raises all the time and they are the people that need the raise the least.

We used to have a govt by the people, of the poeple and for the people. We now have a govt that is by big business, of big business and for big business.

Jay

I love pinatas. You get to beat the crap of something and get rewarded with candy.

[Archive]

Posted By: Kenneth A. Cohen

Right on!! Workers of the world unite!!!!

[Archive]

Posted By: James Feagin

Barry,

That is assuming that most real conservatives actually supported the war. Many of whom, did not. I will use this quote which explains it FAR better than I ever could, from the American Conservative...

"James Traub contends, “Today’s Republican Party is arguably the most extreme—the furthest from the center—of any governing majority in the nation’s history.” This is the Republican Party that has embraced as its own every liberal initiative, from Lyndon Johnson’s Medicare to Jimmy Carter’s Department of Education to Bill Clinton’s AmeriCorps. This is the Republican Party preparing to enact a Medicare drug benefit that would represent the largest expansion of the welfare state in 40 years. This is the Republican Party that is increasing federal education spending as if doing so had something to do with the quality of local schools. This is the Republican Party that is increasing spending faster than during the Clinton years. Right-wing extremists? For the Left, liberal means centrist, and moderate conservative approaches fascist. Really conservative is off the spectrum.

Let's add spending billions on a failed war, a dilema regarding immigration, and other domestic misdeeds. At the same time, we live in an era of hyper-prosperity (hence this board), but live in a society that is going more the way of the ancient Roman empire.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dylan

Well I havent been following this thread so skipped some of the messages so forgive me if i say anything already said, but the reality is were not going anywhere. We are staying in Iraq in an attempt to "stabilize" the middle east. Has anyone seen how many US military bases are being built to this day in Iraq? If Iraq had the oil reserves of oh say Syria would we have gone and occupied? I dont think so. And from everyone ive heard that isnt A bush spindoctor Saddam was embroiled in inner state affairs the last years of his reign. All that talk of him uniting the middle east under one flag and taking control of its vast oil reserves, not since the iraq iran debacle. Iran was weak militarly when the Shah abdicated and the situation fell in Saddams lap but the whole reason Kuwait was even invaded was to pay the massive war debts from the iraq iran conflict, not another attempt to conquer the entire middle east. installing governments favorable to our needs in crucial places, like Afgahnistan (hotbed of terrorism) and Iraq(hotbed of oil). Too bad the Shah was kicked out of Iran, was good while it lasted though. But hey we still have the Saudis wrapped around our little finger so it cant be too bad, and everyone still has to trade in dollars when it comes to oil for now anyways. Get the Iraqis on their feet and get the military out of there. Honestly without a brutal dictator in Iraq the country is going to be in constant turmoil. Remember India. Everyone moved to their own segregated area, and now you have India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. These people in Iraq should just form three sovereign states and be done with it. Its better then babysitting a bunch of religous fanatics whove been fighting for 1200 hundred years, think that ****s gonna stop cause we said so?

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob Pomilla

Great points, James. People seem to ignore the fact that the old-line, true conservatives, not just the "liberal weenies", mostly have opposed this war right along. The neo-cons and the dems are mostly indistinguishable and merely servants of the Corporatocracy. The idea of George Bush being a conservative is laughable, for all the points you mentioned.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

Please recall that shortly after the tragedy of 9/11 we went into a War-footing in Afghanistan
and in pretty quick time we rid this country of the Taliban and Al Queda. These band of
warring terrorists were no match for our military might. We were victorious in just a few
months (a feat that the Russians with all their might, could not achieve for many years).
We freed 25 Million people and enabled them to set up a Government. An election took
place which chose the current President, Mr Karhzid. We started deploying our troops
as the UN (or NATO) troops took over to safeguard the people of Afganistan. And unfort-
unately, the UN (or NATO) troops cannot keep the peace.

As for Osama....Mr Clinton had a least four opportunities to get him throughout the
late 1990's; when, he very visible. After 9/11 he was no longer visible, and has been
in deep seclusion, wherever. To blame the current administration for failing to get him
is the height of hypocrisy.

But, don't you worry, Osama and his 2nd in command, Zahawari, are dying a slow (hopefully
tortuous) death. Just compare the recent videos of either of them with the pictures of them
just a few years ago. Their faces are gaunt, their eyes look lifeless, and their facial hairs
have the look of dying men. Fate will get them before we do.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

Ted, it's laughable to suggest that we defeated the Taliban in Afghanastan. The Taliban just came out of hiding. We left there before the job was done and outside of Kabul we control very little of what is happening in that country. Maybe if you watched something besides Fox news you would know that.

Yeah....yeah....I know....It's all Clinton's fault.

[Archive]

Posted By: Kenneth A. Cohen

When did we leave Afghanistan? Did the NATO forces leave too?

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

Your are a "presumptious dude"....you don't know what I watch or where I get
my news from. You don't know a darn thing about me.....but, your mindset is
typical LIBERAL, who thinks they know what's better for everyone. FYI, I get
my news primarily from the Internet. Sports are about the only thing I watch
on TV and an occasional movie.

You view Afghanistan as a failure, tell that to 25 Million people there, who
are trying to develop a free society. Your main problem is that can't see the
bigger picture, all you have is this "negative" viewpoint on life....I feel sorry
for you....just lighten up a little.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Ted- I agree with Dan that despite our diligence after 9/11, and we were rooting them out for some period of time, the Taliban have regrouped and are stronger than ever. And Clinton has publicly apologized for letting Osama slip through his fingers. He knows he made a mistake. Would Bush ever apologize for anything? Not in a million years.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Ted- Could you do me one little favor, as one friend to another? Please stop referring to people with differing opinions than yours as "typical liberals." You and I are good friends but know we disagree politically, and I respect your right to have an opinion contrary to mine. I likewise believe you have put much thought into it and stand by your convictions. But name calling doesn't help bridge the differences. Thank you.

[Archive]

Posted By: James Feagin

I recently saw a bumper sticker amidst a myriad of other anti-Bush and anti-Christian rants which said "If you aren't outraged, you aren't paying attention." I definitely pay attention, like to think of myself as aware of the worlds plight, and problems; however, I refuse to be angry or outraged. Anger, vitriol, all other ugly university-indoctrinated attributes have never been constructive, nor will they ever be. Those who are angry rarely serve to help others, and smell of self-loathing selflishness. I recently was watching "Link TV" which airs programming such as Democracy Now, tributes to Noam Chomsky (yawn), and other anti-corporate rhetoric. I couldn't help but laugh when they slotted a single 30-minute program per week called "Positive News". Even they know. I'm not advising "lightening up" or becoming unaware, just the opposite. However, the biblical admonition which holds true, even if you don't believe, is the allusion that we should not be given the spirit of fear, but of a sound heart and mind. That applies to conservatives, liberals, and all other shades or mindsets.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

I should have learned my lesson from 10+ years on usenet that these types of discussions never lead to anything productive and only tend to create animosity.

Ted and Scott I am sorry if I offended you. You are completely entitled to your views. We probably have more in common than we do differences and it is our commonalities that we should be sharing here. Sorry. I have made my last political post to Net 54.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Maybe it's time for all of us to take a deep breath and count to ten.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joann

Yes - the country is very split today. It even causes trouble between me (almost 100% liberal) and my much more conservative family that thinks GWB is doing a great job, and any thinking to the contrary is a result of the liberal media. I have yet to have any one of them state an actual fact. "We're doing well in Iraq" is an opinion, not a fact. Not one person can state one fact. I can state one fact (more actually). Eric Shenseki, then Chief of Staff of the Army, recommended we go into Iraq with 400,000 troops, give or take. But that was completely contrary to Rumsfield's vision (founded on ... what expertise ... I don't know)of a small and agile conquest. That was the end of Shenseki's career. Now he's on the golf course when he's not watching kids get their a$$es shot off on CNN.

But the split of the country is kind of interesting to me. I remember not all that long ago - a few decades - when people didn't vote at all, and polls overwhelmingly showed that they didn't think it made any difference at all who you voted for for President. Because both guys were the same. Really. I know some of you remember too when it seemed like there was very little to truly distinguish two Presidential candidates.

I don't like the split, but I think the genericism of 20 years ago was also unhealthy.

Joann

[Archive]

Posted By: Cobby33

Contrary to what the "Typical Conservatives" want to believe, Clinton tried many times to stop Bin Laden and was BLASTED by the very people who are trying (unsuccessfully, I might add) to do the same thing.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Jay wrote: "If you think the oil in Iraq had nothing to do with the decision to fight there, then you are truely cluess." [sic]

This was in response to Adam's comment to which I responded. Adam wrote: "the reality is that Bush invaded Iraq for one reason and only one reason: oil." I responded: "[T]o suggest that we invaded Iraq solely for oil is really very Jimmy Carterish. ... But I also believe that a very large part of the reason Iraq was invaded was because Saddam was playing cat and mouse with the UN weapons inspectors, refused to cooperate, had fomented terrorism in the middle east, and had previously used chemical weapons against his own people."

See, Jay, here is the problem with hair-trigger people such as yourself. You're so heavily emotionally invested in hating Bush and the current administration that your reading comp skills deserted you in reading the above comments. Clearly I did not suggest that oil "had nothing" to do with the war in Iraq. I merely suggested that there were other, very significant reasons for invading Iraq (mentioned above). This is the problem in America right now: people are so deeply invested in one side v. the other that they are unable to listen, reason, read intelligently and thoughtfully and instead are quick to demean, insult and attack (and even call someone "cluess" - whatever that means and I'm sure it's not a good thing).

You can be conservative and be against the war. You can be liberal and be for an aggressive stance against terrorism that does not include appeasing. Really. But to simply shut off to the other side's way of thinking without rationally addressing it and listening to it is really dopey and harmful to all of us.

[Archive]

Posted By: ScottIngold

Cobby,

I could be wrong . But i believe the only place i heard that was from Slick Willy himself

Notice the smiley face.

I still like Clinton for welfare reform though.

Jay,

I don't see how the tax cuts have not benifited the majority of lower middle class. If by know other means then the child credit alone.
I in no way consider myself wealthy (commercial fisherman) But have seen a huge difference in my/our stock portfolio's in the past 4 years.

For someone in the low 6 figures ( Which is only middle of the road nowaday's ) I for one see a change for the better since the tax cuts.

[Archive]

Posted By: James Feagin

Jeff,

One of your statements evoked memories of a 20/20 special hosted by Stephanopolous (sp?) It was a candid look at "America divided". There were profiles on a "Liberal" city in New Jersey and a "Bible Belt" city in Tennessee, and their world views. With voting patterns, certain districts have trended to becoming having more of a consensus with voting. The analysis was that in this country we tend to be more independently minded until we reach a "group" situation. The extremes in the group will neutralize minority views who can look at "both sides" of an issue. The thought is that as a country we tend to be very lazy mentally. The art of the debate is lost and the "shouting heads" reign supreme. Try rationally sticking up for your religion on a college campus (I did). Alternately, try rationally defending a ban of prayer at school in the bible belt; the lazy shouting head mentality will be victorious. As a country we have all of our media catered to what we believe, so much so, that we never have to test and analyze our beliefs, or attempt to listen to what the other person has to say.

Tonight, I am going to dinner with a very good friend, a former president of the BYU Democrats (A Mormon democrat is very rare). We have a history of spirited debate, but it is never vitriolic, lazy, or knee-jerk. I have no problems with a person who believes the way they choose, even if different from my opinions. The only thing I ask is for them to have a well thought-out position, a reason, and in the end I will respect them more than ever.

[Archive]

Posted By: James Feagin

"For someone in the low 6 figures ( Which is only middle of the road nowaday's ) I for one see a change for the better since the tax cuts."

I live in the third wealthiest county in the country. Medium income for a family of four is $90K (My family brought that figure down . I seriously doubt for the vast, and I mean vast, portion of this country, that is "middle of the road". It might be for this board, but cut that figure by more than half, and we will truly see what "middle of the road" is. We do live in an era of "hyper-prosperity", but the gap between the haves and have nots is growing.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ted Zanidakis

I respect your opinions and I simply want to respond to something you stated in your post.......

......."watching kids get their a$$es shot off on CNN."

For those who are not aware, Anderson Cooper on CNN is showing actual video footage of
fire-fights between our serviceman and the terrorists in Iraq. In it our soldiers are getting
get hit by enemy bullets. This footage was not filmed by our military....but is video that the
ENEMY has filmed......and the ENEMY is providing it to CNN. And, CNN has no qualms about
showing it.

Americans (who are unaware of this) and view it could possibly see their sons and daughters
being wounded or even killed. This is what CNN has now resorted to, it is the most despicable
programming by a "so-called" news network that has ever shown on TV.

How do you feel about this.....JOANN ?

[Archive]

Posted By: ScottIngold

Jame's ,

I truly believe we get what we put out.

I also have a family of 4 to support.

We decided we wanted a certain lifestyle for ourselves. So we went out and worked our buts off to get it. All the while doing the normal family stuff (football,soccer and baseball ).
Yes the day's are hard, But if you want it in this country . It's certainly there for the taking.

Sometime's i feel that is whats missing from many people's thinking nowaday's. People like O'Reilly try to promote some self responsibility.

This is not a knock on anyone. To each there own. But whether through hard work or education most of us control our own destiny's.

On the other side we have the "take from the workers and give to the nonworker theory"
Don't worry about anything the government will cover you. Or my favorite "It takes a village to raise a child"


No thanks !!!!!!

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob Pomilla

"we rid this country of the Taliban and Al Queda. These band of
warring terrorists were no match for our military might. We were victorious in just a few
months (a feat that the Russians with all their might, could not achieve for many years)."

Can hardly compare the Russian's inability to subdue the Taliban to our success against them. While we removed the Taliban government from Kabul, we eventually found ourselves in a situation analogous to what the Russians were faced with: fighting an insurgency in support of the Kabul government. A situation, judging by the resurgence of the Taliban (we've hardly "rid this country of the Taliban and Al Queda (sic)"), that we, nor the U.N., will soon pacify. An impossible situation for anyone, given the type of country it is.

Recall also, that at the time the Taliban were "Freedom Fighters" and were aided by us in such tangible ways as being given stinger missiles in order to shoot down Russian helicopters. Missiles which they then turned into a quick profit by selling to the Iranians.

[Archive]

Posted By: James Feagin

Scott,

I also truly believe we get what we put out as well, but that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with money. I applaud folks who want to give their family financial support, I don't support materialism though. Everything we have is on temporary loan to us. As a former missionary, I've been to many places and visited many people in rural America, many of whom are much more talented and responsible than you and I, but also don't realize the possibilities that are out there. I don't believe in a system that trickles down, but rather helps people elevate themselves. However, any way you slice it, six figures is not "middle of the road". Maybe amongst us or our peers it is, but not for 95% of this country.

[Archive]

Posted By: ScottIngold

I see this as a choice between Victory or appeasment/hostage.

If we win the "war" on terror. Our future and childrens future looks fairly bright.

Appeasment = Alway's looking over our backs ala Isreal. Just because we leave the middle east does not mean we will not have suicide bombers in our streets.

Maybe simplistic but i believe this is the reality.

[Archive]

Posted By: ScottIngold

James,

"but also don't realize the possibilities"

I have a hard time seeing this as reality in today's world. How many programs are offered for just such people ?

Educational, financial + many many more.

In today's world what does being materialistic even mean ?

And i have no problem with materialisim as long as you earn it .
Spend your money how you like in other words. Just not mine.

[Archive]

Posted By: Cobby33

Hi Scott
Point well taken, but if you go through the archives from Bubba's administration, you will see that there were efforts to put a stop to Bin Laden. It obviously wasn't as high-profile (or newsworthy) then (and obviously the efforts were not as high of a "priority" as they are now), but Clinton DID in fact make efforts to stop that faction and truly was criticized for it.

[Archive]

Posted By: Kenneth A. Cohen

I think the "lazy shouting head mentality" was impeccably put on display further up the thread with "recent presidential popularity polls show that 1/3 of Americans are comeplete idiots."

Yea right - everyone who disagrees with you is an idiot. That's the mentality that's done more than anything to poison the political climate.

[Archive]

Posted By: ScottIngold

Cobby,

correct.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Scott is a smart guy and should be listened to. Personal responsibility is crucial. And he's also right about America being the land of opportunity and choice: if you want it you can get it if you're willing to work very hard. You can't decide that you don't want to work hard in order to have a stress-free lifestyle and also demand more financial breaks from the government. There's a reason why the welfare system doesn't work.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimCrandell

This is the first time I have glanced at this thread and let me say from having spent my career involved with the oil industry that some of the theories espoused here are nothing short of ludicrous.
We happen to be in a very tight supply/demand situation worldwide as low oil prices over the past 20-plus years have not created much of an economic incentive to find new supplies. Compound this with the green crew trying to resrict access to the vast tundra in Alaska known as ANWR and offshore the US coastline and that helps explain why we are in the tight situation we are in today. Oil should be $60-$70/bbl. Gasoline prices are of course directly linked to oil prices and the former results from the latter.
As far as future remedies, we need to stop restricting access to prospective areas and realize that higher prices are going to be with us for some time to come. International oil companies, US independents and state-owned companies have ramped up exploration and production spending and we should see non-OPEC supplies steadily increase in the years ahead. I think everyone agrees (except it looks like a couple people from this board) that price controls and windfall profits taxes are recipes for disaster.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

did we ever figure out why Jeff was on TV?

What we need to do is demand higher mileage in vehicles, stop subsidizing the oil industries with our tax dollars (where are the free marketeers on that one) and properly subsidize energy saving measures (why the tax incentive for hybrid cars is capped at 60,000 of each model is beyond anyone's intelligence to fathom), and create a Manhattan Project type attitude about alternative renewable energy development.

A modest increase in vehicle mileage would wipe out a large portion of our oil needs, yet the powers that be strenuously resist any effort to increase vehicle standards and to bring exempt vehicles like certain trucks and SUVs into the fold. The tax code has been written to incentivize the largest possible vehicles (under IRC 179) and actually limits tax incentives on higher mileage hybrid cars. Either our leaders are stupid or they are intentionally putting policy in place to drive up vehicular oil consumption. I happen to think many of those in power are astoundingly, breathtakingly stupid, but I recognize that they may not be complete idiots, in which case they are intentionally doing this.

We the people pay the oil industry, the most profitable industry on earth, approximately $120 billion a year in tax credits, subsidides and other pork. You don't want windfall profit taxes? Fine. The oil patch can pay its own way without tax welfare. Where are the supposedly anti-government "conservatives" on this?

It also astounds me to no end that seemingly intelligent people would rather destroy our oil supplies instead of conserving them for the future when they may be really important to the nation. Forget the wildlife, why on earth would you want to tap out our domestic oil supplies, depleting what oil we have on hand, when we can reduce consumption painlessly to ameliorate more domestic demand than the oil in those areas could fill? I say leave those areas to our kids and their kids and use up the rest of the world's resources now.

The shortage argument is wrong. Oil is not in short supply. Cheap oil is in short supply. Once oil reaches a certain price lots of proven reserves become economically viable to tap into. There is enough oil sand in Canada and the US to supply our needs for generations provided it is economically feasible to extract it. Which it now is given the current price of oil.

[Archive]

Posted By: ScottIngold

Thanks for the compliment Jeff.

Lawyers are A-OKAY in my book

Adam.

He was talking about the Lynn Stewart sentencing.

[Archive]

Posted By: Kenneth A. Cohen

Well put Jim. The way I figure it, if Bush et al were powerful enough to repeal the laws of supply and demand, they'd have cleaned up Iraq ages ago.

[Archive]

Posted By: ScottIngold

This has really turned into a very diverse thread.

Jeff,

One of my issue's with the Dems is there apparent willingness to coddle the lazy.
It seems like we are becoming a country of people who watch the media and expect to live the good life as seen on T.V.

I am amazed by how the teens and young adults think they can live life like a rap video while not putting out any effort to earn the $'s needed to get the "Bling" as the youngens say.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimCrandell

Just what we need--more regulation and the government stepping in to impose their solution--anyone want to predict how this would turn out?

There is no end in sight to supplies as long as the economic incentive is there and the industry is not restricted from deveoping them. Just look what the US industry has been able to do in deveoping coal-bed methane, oil shale and tight sands onshore. In Canada as was pointed out there is the great potential of oil sands--take the shackles off of the oil industry and watch how quickly our energy "problem" improves.

[Archive]

Posted By: JK

Why is it that we can go on and on in off-topic threads (such as those on politics, bonds, etc) while actual on-topic threads get two or three responses and then die a slow death? That is really kind of pathetic.

[Archive]

Posted By: Al C.risafulli

It's a way for people to get to know each other better.

-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Well, Josh, I suppose in the end our security is more important than baseball cards. Hard to believe, but true. I am sad, however, to have to read about this stuff on this site. One of the reasons we come here is to AVOID thinking about these serious issues, even for a brief time.

[Archive]

Posted By: Josh K.

Going to the National is a way for people to get to know each other better. This seems more like a way for people to argue and take shots at one another. Not to mention, the same topic has been rehashed on countless other off topic threads. Heck, Im beginning to think there are more posts about politics lately than good old fashioned psa bashing.

Jeff - no question our security is more important.