Now this should go to OT but I wanted to start it here and get more comments to start.
I copied this from BioD site:
Price of gasoline around the world
Posted by: just in on Thursday, February 14, 2008 - 06:16 AM
Interesting little piece of info:
The Price of Gas Around the World
Country and Price per US gallon
Norway $ 8.67
Netherlands $ 8.52
Belgium $ 8.36
Germany $ 8.06
United Kingdom $ 7.91
Italy $ 7.68
France $ 7.46
Spain $ 7.34
Poland $ 6.55
Japan $ 5.19
Brazil** $ 4.14
United States $ 3.10
Russia $ 3.03
Kazakhstan $ 2.73
Mexico* $ 2.46
China $ 2.27
Nigeria $ 2.23
Saudi Arabia $ 0.45
Iran $ 0.42
Venezuela* $ 0.11
* All prices from November 2007, except Mexico and Venezuela in August 2007
** Brazil is 25% ethanol, so price adjusted downward to be comparable Source: Reuters, November 2007
Source: Fastcompany "Prices at the Pump - Around the World"
This is dated info and I don't have any more current. Wasn't looking for this but it popped up. Question: Name two countries in the world that produce oil that we are nearly at war with at this time? Name three that are actively anti-American? Name the richest corporation on the planet?
Oh Well! This ain't political!
John
Show me $3.10 and I will go fill up.... It's $3.50 to $3.60 in the Tampa Bay area.
Bill
MCI-9 for sale
My question is what the heck are diesel prices doing? What are they 50 cents higher than normal gasoline?
We get what we deserve by electing people by parties rather than electing people that we THINK will do the best job.
We never know who will do the best job but at least lets quit voting for the parties.
FLAME FLAME !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Quote from: TrevorH on March 01, 2008, 12:31:50 PM
My question is what the heck are diesel prices doing? What are they 50 cents higher than normal gasoline?
My guess is higher taxes and the developement of lower sulfer in the fuel has driven up the costs. I might be totally wrong and it is just greed from the oil companies. ;)
World fuel prices are generally driven by the speculators who purchase future fuel contracts. It wasn't too long ago when they were bailing out like crude oil had the plague...but they're back. These are big investors who make money on futures and they don't give a rats' fanny about the consumer. It's part of the free market system. I don't like it...but there isn't too much I can do about it except plan ahead....now let's talk about that.
We don't move up and down the highway like the freight haulers...we move when we wish to do so. That gives us a slight advantage over the truckers and revenue bus operators, like our good friend BK.
We have mostly have 150-200 gallon fuel tanks and know when we're 'tripping'. We can, with a bit of extra effort, fill a couple of 6 gallon jugs on those occasions when we buy gasoline for our trucks and cars and haul a few gallons of diesel back and dump it in the tank. Notice! We're not making a big impact on the market...just a couple of more gallons here and there.
Imagine this: at $3.49 a gallon (today's disgusting price) you've bought 10-12 gallons of diesel. Cost you $34.50 or about $42 bucks. If you do that over a period of time you've filled the tank, made no appreciable impact on the market and insured that your next rally is within your grasp.
For some this will work...for others it won't. Overall it won't have a drastic effect on the prices of fuel but if it drives them crazy trying to figure out what is happening in the market....I'm for it!
Bob
Quote from: JohnEd on March 01, 2008, 11:07:24 AM
Question: Name two countries in the world that produce oil that we are nearly at war with at this time? Name three that are actively anti-American? Name the richest corporation on the planet?
Another Question: Name one country that would be a leading oil producer if their companies were allowed to drill where needed. Now name one country where the price of gasoline/diesel would not go down no matter how much more they pumped out of the ground.
Diesel at Loves Truck stop in Tennessee $ 3.52/9 Road Fuel
At Exxon $ 3.49/9 Cookeville Tn. Road Fuel
At others locally $ 3.48 / 3.49 / 3.60 all +.9 Road Fuel
Farm Fuel $ 3.14/9 $3.05/9 $2.99/9 ( Red Dyed off road )
I just bought 90 gallons for "Farm Use" ... OOOOUUUUCCCHHHH!!!!
I am definately cutting it with Veggie as soon as I can get my filter setup again...
Dave....
Diesel on north side of Chattanooga, TN - 3.399
Diesel on south side of Chattanooga, TN - 3.529
$3.45 in Tappahannock, Va. today
$3.79 in Cambridge, Md. today also
Hello:
Anybody remember when:
Fuel was $1.09 per gallon
Today the price is $ 3.50 and shooting for $4.00
The government had a surplus
Today the war is costing us 400 million per month
What should we do? whatever decision you make I would ask that you obtain facts about the issues;
and not believe everything you read... FACTS are verifiable.
Happy bussin Mike
Mike,
I remember when regular was 17 cents a gallon and "Spur Gas" was 11 cents a gallon. Back then D was always cheaper than regular cause it refines easier and there is more of it in a barrel of crude.....depending on where the crude comes from.
Fantastic advice on believing everything you read. Really good and has stood the test of time and has never worn out.
So few people will go to the trouble to verify what they believe if they are challenged. Asking "why do you believe that" will make you an enemy more often than not. So sad. Heck, I relish learning that something I believe is false cause it means I am smarter now than a minute ago and no longer will be passing on rubbish. I mean it....its good news.
Facts ARE verifiable. So very true. What I usually add is that the other party should be diligent in determining WHO or WHERE they got that data and be on guard with any other tid bits that come from that source. I read an article about this very thing and Rush was brought up as an example. It went on about him being so very wrong about everything but even knowing this they still believed him "cause he had to be right about something and this time was the odds on favorite considering his string of falsehoods". You go ahead and laugh but that "logic" works for some people. Scary? You bet!
unfortunatly facts are like statistics in that if you pick and choose the right parts you can make them say whatever you want, just leave out the parts that dont work in your favor. all the talk about E85 fuels is this very problem. all the treehuggers talk about how great it is and ignore that it take 3/4 of a gallon of real fuel to make a gallon of E85 and then you have to burn more E85 to do the same work as the regular fuel in addition to the other side effects. of course if you leave all that info out then it is a great fuel. the downside to propaganda and hype is that it pulls people away from exploring other avenues that may be a better option than whatever version of the story someone is promoting.
just my .02.
steve
Here in Cape May, N.J. Today..
$ 374.9 gal. Diesel... Lucky Me!
Nick-
Nick,
Holy bat farts Batman! They said it would go to $4/gal but I thought it would take a few months. Funny thing is that the costs to pump and transport haven't gone up a single cent and the amt pumped by each country is the same this month as last and there isn't expected to be a change until this price hike curbs demand. Last month the demand fell and they didn't shut off the flow and prices fell but they are ever honing their reflexes and enjoining each other in treaties and trade agreements. NEVER FORGET that they are our allies and they are joined at the hip with our native bred oil people/industry.
We absolutely MUST solve the medical cost problem cause we simply cannot afford to support the medical industry AND the oil industry as they run amok unchecked or regulated in our financial affairs. Hard to believe that medical would be easier but they aren't as consolidated and they don't have the POWER that oil has so, as the weakest, they will get held to account first....if we are Lucky.
Steve,
When people tell that "facts don't matter" they are really telling you that they don't have any facts to support their argument/opinion. That is really it, honest. This goes along with the guy that doesn't want you to vote telling you that "your vote doesn't matter". Or the guy that wants you to "hate" your government and not participate telling you that "they are all the same" and that usually follows as a rebuttal to one of theirs being found guilty of a crime against you. So why do people tell you that "college professors don't know everything"? Or, We don't owe them **** cause they enlisted to get college money and an "EASY" retirement at the taxpayer's expense. Or, "those ***** treehuggars/ecologists are only trying to save the ....."you can finish that and connect the dots. Facts do matter. The truth can be told. Educated and informed people/professionals can be understood. You can get enuf of the story to make a solid decision even if you never get all the information, as in every scintilla of data, and as you make more and more informed decisions you get better at doing that. The scientific method method of investigation works. The Socratic method of investigation works. Logic and reason work.
Don't give up on us or yourself. We are all worth it. They want you to quit and go away and sulk/grumble, but keep spending and not challenge them. Hang in there Baby.
John
All I know is that at $4.00 + a gallon I will not be going much of anywhere.
I'm as stubborn and die hard as many others but $4.00 may end up being a deal breaker on the bus. :(
You just enjoy Not driving your bus.
the cost of fuel WILL NOT GO DOWN.... EVER!
in a few short years we will be paying Much More per gallon and I for one Am not going to leave my bus parked and miss out on many fmily memories..
Those memories will cost a great deal more into the future
These are the good old days
Chris
We have found that we can have just as much fun going someplace 50 miles from home for a weekend as we do going 200 miles. Fortuanately, from our location in SW Florida, there is much to do and see without driving more than 100 miles. Less fuel /cost and just as much fun!
When we do a longer trip, we try to sachedule it so that we make a loop, visiting severla events and/or friends in big loop. Jack
Hi here in northern Pa I just filled up with diesel and paid 3.99and 9/10s that is just to much. Yes I can afford it but do I want to NO. Bill C
Hate to ruin anyones day, but oil futures for Jan 2009 delivery are US $200 a barrel!
Thats what happens when you appoint a president who has a vice president who are oil men, exxon made more money last year than anyother company i us history, they do as they please since there are no responsible leaders to stop them. enjoy
Frank Allen
Quote from: kingfa39 on March 02, 2008, 04:44:32 PM
Thats what happens when you appoint a president who has a vice president who are oil men, exxon made more money last year than anyother company i us history, they do as they please since there are no responsible leaders to stop them. enjoy
Frank Allen
But of course the democrat controlled congress did so much better when they called in the oil execs last year and grilled them about the record profits didn't they? ;) It took them a whole 3 days to completely drop the inquiry.
The problem is much more complex than simply who is President/VP. It is even more complicated than who is in Congress. I don't proclaim to know the answer other than the citizens/companies taking steps to reduce consumption. But even that won't help that much. China and India are just getting started in the use of petroleum. As they get full into it, remember, they have over 15 times as many people as we do. Most of them don't even have cars yet but before long they will.
Prepare for much higher fuel prices. Notwithstanding higher fuel prices fostered on us by requiring boutique fuels for various seasons and geography, our intrepid congress (led by H. Waxman) has offered up a law that will make most ethanol, coal to liquid, and tar sand extracted oil off limits to the US.
They set the asinine unattainable production standard of requiring that all manufactured fuels not produce more greenhouse gases during manufacture than Saudi oil.
Now I say..who in the hell needs enemies? Our congress is enemy enough.
While ethanol is clearly not the answer, drilling for oil, coal, and oil extracts are 'bridges' to the future. At least they could be a "gap" filler. And so as to not leave any potential fuel relief, congress has also prohibited importation of cheap ethanol.
We are going continue to kiss the asses of the Arabs and the likes of Chavez because our congress wants it that way.
I believe that Bush is going along with this in name of saving our world from "global warming."
We got a liberal Bush presidency, and anti-auto greens and their lacky Democrats running the show. Oh, and now we'll soon have that genuis Obama for president! Cool. I suppose we could rent our buses as smallish condos...if we're not reduced to living in them. High fuel prices are going to trash what's left of our economy.
Don't take comfort when one compares our fuel prices with Europe's pricing...Europe's fuel tax pays for health care and education. It ain't apples to apples.
The greens are going to be disappointed to find that when fuel costs reaches a magic price, po folk, as in third world countries, will burn anything for heat. Get ready to cut some forests down! Po folk drive environmentally unfriendly cars too. This is the law of unintended consequences.
We are suckers. And our leaders are fools that are rapidly reducing the US to third world living standards.
That's what I really think!
JR
BTW, could some of ya'll out their in Cawlifornia help Waxman out of office?
Henry,
Thank God you are alert cause I haven't even heard of this! Can you tell me what the name of that piece of legislation is called and when that Waxman dude voted on it? I still have relatives in Ca. and I would like to give them a heads up. Thanks in advance for the information and may I propose that this piece of legislation be made a board sticky or at least a post of its own so we can all track this thing that will impact us all. If we can do this without calling each other names or branding the posts by political party we should be able to drive this to a conclusion. At least this one point and all get educated.
Great point about Europes gas tax going for education and medical care and just plain to reduce demand and protect themselves from a balance of payments disaster. We started out oil independent so we never did that and BIG oil has been running the show since.
Thanks again,
John
Well.....
Is there a STAND we can take??
I'm sure our little following of 1700+ members can do something together. We have some brilliant minds here. What can we do?
I'm all ears
Nick-
I hope I don't end up in jail for plagerism...or whatever, but this is a post on Fox News "Opinions"
If our mods have a problem with the reprint, feel free to remove it...no problemo.
Enjoy, JR
By Steven Milloy
All the presidential candidates say they're for energy independence. So why didn't they do something about it when they had the chance?
Hillary Clinton rails on her Web site about Americans sending "billions of dollars to the Middle East for their oil." Barack Obama warns that Middle East oil is the "lifeline of Al Qaeda." Republican hopeful John McCain says that, if elected, his energy policy will "amount to a declaration of independence from our reliance on oil sheiks and our vulnerability to their troubled politics."
But Clinton and Obama recently voted for a bill that can only promote dependency on oil from the Middle East. And John McCain went AWOL, not voting on the bill at all.
A little-noticed provision of the ironically named "Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007" that was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bush last December bars the federal government from purchasing fuels whose life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions are greater than those from fuels produced from conventional petroleum sources.
Before we get into the energy independence implications of this provision, it's worth appreciating the obscurity of the provision and the fact that the media doesn't seem to understand its import.
I only learned of the provision while thumbing through the Feb. 15 Financial Times, serendipitously noticing the egregiously mis-titled article, "U.S. risks trade dispute with Canada on fuel." A bit of research turned up no other media reports relating to this particular section of the bill.
The Financial Times article reported on how section 526 of the energy bill prohibits the federal government from buying oil that was produced from Canadian tar sands, a reserve that holds about two-thirds the amount of recoverable oil as compared to reserves in Saudi Arabia.
Because it takes greenhouse gas-producing energy to extract oil from the tar sands, the article focused on the fact that the law could affect billions of dollars of trade in oil, particularly since the U.S. Department of Defense is the world's largest single buyer of light refined petroleum.
But while I give the Financial Times credit for reporting this story, it really dropped the ball with respect to understanding it — this is yet another effort by environmentalists and their congressional henchmen to cause chaos in our energy supply.
Sure enough, it turns out that Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., already are pressing the Department of Defense to comply with the provision. In a recent letter to the secretary of defense, Waxman and Davis asked how the DOD will ensure that the fuel it buys doesn't come from Canadian tar sands or from domestic coal-to-liquid processing.
Waxman and Davis apparently expect the military to expend the Herculean effort of tracing the source of the fuel it purchases and then to refuse North American oil from unconventional sources apparently in favor of oil from OPEC sources such as Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. How's that for energy independence and security?
It gets worse if you're one of those who believe that biofuels are the path to energy independence.
The plain language of section 526 also would seem to ban the federal government from purchasing biofuels like ethanol, since their life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions are greater than that of conventional petroleum.
"Turning native ecosystems into 'farms' for biofuel crops causes major carbon emissions that worsen the global warming that biofuels are meant to mitigate," researchers from the University of Minnesota and the Nature Conservancy reported in Science (Feb. 7). Another study in the same issue of Science projected that the life-cycle greenhouse gas emission from ethanol over 30 years is twice as high as from regular gasoline.
Interestingly, Waxman and Davis specifically excluded biofuels from their letter to the DOD. Not to worry, though, biofuels likely soon will become fuel-non-grata as the environmentalists have already started to demonize them.
Similar to the case of compact fluorescent lightbulbs discussed in this column last week, The New York Times editorial page this week signaled that biofuels soon will become as politically incorrect as the Canadian tar sands and domestic coal-to-liquid fuels.
The Times opined that, "Done right, ethanol could help wean the country from its dependence on foreign oil while reducing the emissions that contribute to climate change. Done wrong, ethanol could wreak havoc on the environment while increasing greenhouse gases."
"Done right" for the Times is what's required in the energy bill — a 20 percent reduction in life-cycle greenhouse gases as compared to gasoline. But, of course, this is a next-to-impossible goal since the life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions for ethanol are projected to be 100 percent greater than for gasoline.
It likely will require nothing short of a technological miracle for ethanol to achieve the energy bill's standards in the near or even distant future.
Now, if the federal government is barred from bio-, tar sand, coal-to-liquid fuels, how long will it be before such a ban spreads to contractors that do business with the federal government, to states and their contractors, and then, by default, to the nation as a whole?
It's hard to take the presidential candidates, President Bush and Congress too seriously on the energy independence issue when none of them opposed a bill that actually makes us more dependent on OPEC.
Steven Milloy publishes JunkScience.com and DemandDebate.com. He is a junk science expert, advocate of free enterprise and an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
SEARCH
Click here for FOX News RSS Feeds
I have sent many e-mails to the gas companies saying that they will have to account for what they are doing to us someday!
When I fuel I make it a point to go in, ask for the manager and I say this; "Will you tell the folks that set these prices that they will have to answer for them someday."
Sometimes I get this; ;We don't set the prices, we have to sell it for what we are told, we only make 3 or 4 cents per gallon!" To them I say; "The guy that drives the get away car is just as guilty for robbing the bank!"
I feel better!
Jack
JR,
That just sounds like standard politics... Isn't that how they all work? Make a bill that is absolete before it's put in place....
Jack, I'm with you!
OK,
What is the route to take here. Do we start a global class action suite against the oil co's??
Or, should we just make it easier for them and just hit ourselvs over the head every 2 hours with a hammer so our money falls out of our pockets even quicker.....
I am a busisness owner and expierence tells me that when a product becomes too expansive, or the quality diminishes, I am forced to either shop for another source,
or in some cases I have had to fabricate that product myself. We have to look at this the same way. We as Americans are being railroaded with oil prices because we are
not able to make another choice as free will.. Even the alternitives are being forced by the wayside. Ethenol/biofuels, etc. as explained by JR's artical. This is a Freedom
issue, we are being taken advantage of because of our dependency on oil. What is next? AIR, WATER, DIRT ?? ??
Just Venting but not dead.
Nick-
Quote from: NJT5047 on March 02, 2008, 06:36:00 PM
I suppose we could rent our buses as smallish condos...if we're not reduced to living in them.
Okay JR-I might be offended if it wasn't so much fun! ;D ;D ;D
As far as sending big oil a message-everyone needs to cut back :o(tough love-I know)
Quote from: PremiumPrevost on March 02, 2008, 08:00:58 PM
Quote from: NJT5047 on March 02, 2008, 06:36:00 PM
I suppose we could rent our buses as smallish condos...if we're not reduced to living in them.
Okay JR-I might be offended if it wasn't so much fun! ;D ;D ;D
As far as sending big oil a message-everyone needs to cut back :o(tough love-I know)
The price for cutting back on oil usage will be even Higher Prices at the pump..... Cant take money out of the pockets of people who are used to it!
It's happening allready, we are in the earliest stages of alternitive fuels in new vehicles and that alone has caused futures to rise uncontrollably..
Nick-
JR,
I am sorry it took me so long to research this answer. I only a few minutes ago read your post about what Milloy said. I regrett I new what i would find when I noted that he is a FOX NEWS contributor. Now sooner or later one of these guys is going to show up LAGIT simply as a matter of statistical probility, but this isn't the case and this isn't the day. Steven Milloy is a registered lobbiest and front man for Phillip Morris Tobacco, EXXON OIL, and other equally reputable concerns. He seems ready to "DEBUNK" anything for a buck and is the originator of the term "JUNK SCIENCE". Global warming, asbestosis, DDT and a raft of other threarts to humanity have been debunked by him and found to be harmless or just a pack of lies. This guy actually has a whole pocketfull of really prestigious degrees form MAJOR US Universities. He is also lashed up with the LIBRETARIANS and they have never stopped pushing for the abolishment of the Fedurale Gummint. This guy is like Rush....he is so bad and has put out so much crap that one hardly knows where to start so I won't. There appear to be web sites devoted to exposing this guy as an embarassment to lagitimate scientists across the globe. They are giving this guy awards for being evil cause there is no excuse for a man this educated putting out this much unadulterated trash. Can you or any expect a paid schilll for EXXON to say anything kind or constructive about energy conservation legislation? Can you? There now, I feel better. Got Milk?
This is what I found with my first search:
Steven J. Milloy is the "junk science" commentator for FoxNews.com and runs the Web site junkscience.com, which is dedicated to debunking what Milloy labels "faulty scientific data and analysis."
Among the topics Milloy has addressed are what he believes to be false claims regarding DDT, global warming, Alar, breast implants, secondhand smoke, ozone depletion, and mad cow disease.[1] Milloy also runs CSRWatch.com, which monitors and criticizes the corporate social responsibility movement. From the 1990s until the end of 2005, he was an adjunct scholar at the libertarian Cato Institute, which hosted the JunkScience.com site. He is currently an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Milloy is head of the Free Enterprise Action Fund, a mutual fund he runs with former tobacco executive Tom Borelli. He also operates the Advancement of Sound Science Center, a non-profit organization which is critical of environmental science, from his home in Potomac, Maryland. Milloy has authored four books.
Milloy's close financial and organizational ties to tobacco and oil companies have been the subject of criticism from a number of sources, as Milloy has consistently criticized the science linking secondhand smoke to health risks and human activity to global warming.[2][3][4][5]
Contents [hide]
1 Educational background
2 Career
3 Junk science
3.1 Secondhand smoke
3.1.1 Links to tobacco industry
3.2 The environment
3.3 Climate Change
3.4 U.S. Surgeon General
3.5 DDT
3.6 Asbestos and the World Trade Center
3.7 Food safety
3.8 Evolution
4 Registration as a lobbyist
5 Corporate activism
6 Responses
7 Books
8 Notes
9 See also
10 External links
10.1 Milloy's Websites
10.2 Tobacco Document Archives
10.3 News coverage
[edit] Educational background
Milloy holds a B.A. in Natural Sciences from Johns Hopkins University, a Master of Health Sciences in Biostatistics from the Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health, a Juris Doctor from the University of Baltimore, and a Master of Laws from the Georgetown University Law Center.[6]
[edit] Career
According to his website, in 1994, Milloy was project leader of the Regulatory Impact Analysis Project, Inc. for the U.S. Department of Energy. The Cato Institute, where he was listed as an adjunct scholar published his work from 1995 to 2005. Milloy began his criticism of "Junk science" as president of the Environmental Policy Analysis Network in 1996. In March 1997, Milloy became president of the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), which later became the Advancement of Sound Science Center.[7] He has been a correspondent for Fox News since 2002.
[edit] Junk science
Main article: Junk science
Milloy defines junk science as "faulty scientific data and analysis used to advance special and, often, hidden agendas." According to Milloy, "the junk science 'mob' includes: The MEDIA, [who] may use junk science for sensational headlines and programming...PERSONAL INJURY LAWYERS, [who] may use junk science to bamboozle juries into awarding huge verdicts," and others.[8] Milloy claims that there are examples of "junk science" which have been identified as wholly without foundation; examples include two papers published in Science.[9] An editorial in the American Journal of Public Health noted that "... attacking the science underlying difficult public policy decisions with the label of 'junk' has become a common ploy for those opposed to regulation. One need only peruse JunkScience.com to get a sense of the long list of public health issues for which research has been so labeled."[10]
[edit] Secondhand smoke
Milloy has criticized research linking secondhand tobacco smoke to cancer, claiming that "the vast majority of studies reported no statistical association."[11] In 1993, Milloy dismissed an Environmental Protection Agency report linking secondhand tobacco smoke to cancer as "a joke." Five years later Milloy claimed vindication after a federal court criticized the EPA's conclusions. However, the court's finding against the EPA was overturned on appeal.
When the British Medical Journal published a meta-analysis confirming a link in 1997, Milloy wrote, "Of the 37 studies, only 7—less than 19 percent—reported statistically significant increases in lung cancer incidence... Meta-analysis of the secondhand smoke studies was a joke when EPA did it in 1993. And it remains a joke today."[12] When another researcher published a study linking secondhand smoke to cancer, Milloy wrote that she "... must have pictures of journal editors in compromising positions with farm animals. How else can you explain her studies seeing the light of day?"[3]
[edit] Links to tobacco industry
While at FoxNews.com, Milloy has continued to criticize claims that secondhand tobacco smoke causes cancer.[2] However, with the release of confidential tobacco industry documents as part of the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement, the objectivity of Milloy's stance on secondhand smoke has been questioned. Based on this documentation, journalists Paul D. Thacker and George Monbiot, as well as the Union of Concerned Scientists and others, have contended that Milloy is a paid advocate for the tobacco industry.[2][4][13]
Milloy's junkscience.com website was reviewed and revised by a public relations firm hired by the R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company.[14] Milloy also worked as executive director of The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), a "front group" established in 1993 by Philip Morris and its public relations firm "to expand and assist Philip Morris in its efforts with issues in targeted states."[2][15][16] Philip Morris memos describe "utilizing TASSC as a tool in targeted legislative battles";[17] a 1994 Philip Morris memo listed TASSC among its "Tools to Affect Legislative Decisions".[18] According its 1997 annual report, TASSC "sponsored" junkscience.com.[19]
The New Republic reported that Milloy, who is presented by Fox News as an independent journalist, was under contract to provide consulting services to Philip Morris through the end of 2005.[2] In 2000 & 2001, for example, Milloy received a total of $180,000 in payments from Philip Morris for consulting services.[20] A spokesperson for Fox News stated, "Fox News was unaware of Milloy's connection with Philip Morris. Any affiliation he had should have been disclosed."[2] Milloy's association with the Cato Institute has since ended; however, as of January 2008, he continues to write for FoxNews.com, where he is described as a "junk science expert."[21] Monbiot wrote: "Even after Fox News was told about the money [Milloy] had been receiving from Philip Morris and Exxon, it continued to employ him, without informing its readers about his interests."[22] Thacker wrote:
Objective viewers long ago realized that Fox News has a political agenda. But, when a pundit promotes this agenda while on the take from corporations that benefit from it, then Fox News has gone one disturbing step further.[2]
The American Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation similarly stated that "...Milloy has made it his life's work to deny scientific studies conducted and published by the world's most reputable and credible scientific agencies... and label their objective evidence as 'junk science'. Milloy has a lucrative and lengthy relationship with the tobacco industry."[23]
[edit] The environment
Milloy has been critical of the Clean Air Act, acknowledging that it has improved air quality but arguing that it has forced Americans to "surrender many freedoms." Milloy argued that "air pollution in the U.S. was more of an aesthetic than a public health problem [in 1970]. That is even more the case today."[24]
Milloy maintains the position that "The ozone hole is another area where knowledge is insufficient to draw conclusions. There is no "hole," but only a thinning of the stratospheric ozone layer over the South Pole. The size and depth of the "hole" varies from year to year. No one knows why ... it is unclear what effect CFC releases have had on the Earth's ozone layer."[25]
[edit] Climate Change
Milloy has consistently argued from the position of a global warming skeptic that human activity has little impact on climate change and that regulations to limit greenhouse gas emissions are unwarranted and harmful to business interests. He has recently offered a prize of $125 000 to anyone who can "prove, in a scientific manner, that humans are causing harmful global warming," stating that "JunkScience.com, in its sole discretion, will determine the winner, if any."[26]
In 2004, when the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment was released by the Arctic Council and the International Arctic Science Committee, Milloy wrote that the report "pretty much debunks itself."[27] Milloy's assertions were disputed by the lead author of the study,[5] as well as by climate scientist Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, who criticized Milloy for taking "one result out of context and present[ing] unwarranted conclusions, knowing that a lay audience will not easily recognise their fallacy."[28]
In April 1998 Milloy was part of the Global Climate Science Team (GCST), which was founded in part by ExxonMobil to work out a strategy to influence the media to "understand (recognize) uncertainties in climate science."[4] The Union of Concerned Scientists reported that Milloy helped develop the GCST action plan, which involved "invest[ing] millions of dollars to manufacture uncertainty on the issue of global warming."[4] In 2005, it was reported that non-profit organizations operating out of Milloy's home, and in some cases employing no staff, have received large payments from ExxonMobil during his tenure with Fox News.[5][2][4] A Fox News spokesperson stated that Milloy is "... affiliated with several not-for-profit groups that possibly may receive funding from Exxon, but he certainly does not receive funding directly from Exxon."[5]
Milloy is the Executive Director of DemandDebate.com,[29] an organization that seeks to eliminate what it calls "bias" in environmental education.[30] A Competitive Enterprise Institute press release says he "coordinated" the group's activities at the recent Live Earth concert in New York, at which a plane circled the event pulling a banner reading, "DON'T BELIEVE AL GORE — DEMAND DEBATE.COM."[31]
CONTINUED
[edit] U.S. Surgeon General
In 1998, Milloy, writing on behalf of TASSC, co-wrote an article which called for the abolition of the position of United States Surgeon General. "We have not had a surgeon general for three years. Has anyone noticed? Is anyone's health at risk," asked the authors.[32][33]
[edit] DDT
Milloy has campaigned against the 1972 ban on non-public-health uses of DDT in the United States and in favour of wider use of DDT against malaria, which he claims could be largely eliminated if DDT were used more aggressively. He has been particularly critical of Rachel Carson, who, he wrote, "misrepresented the existing science on bird reproduction and was wrong about DDT causing cancer."[34]
Milloy's junkscience.com web site features The Malaria Clock: A Green Eco-Imperialist Legacy of Death,[35] which he claims counts up the approximate number of new malaria cases and deaths in the world, most of which he says could have been prevented by the use of DDT. As of June 2007, Milloy's clock stands at more than 94 million dead, 90% of whom are said to have been expectant mothers and children under five years of age. "Infanticide on this scale appears without parallel in human history," writes Milloy. "This is not ecology. This is not conservation. This is genocide."
Critics have argued that the the clock holds Carson "responsible for more deaths than malaria has caused in total,"[36] a charge that a footnote at the bottom of the malaria clock webpage seems to acknowledges, stating: "Note that some of these cases would have occurred irrespective of DDT use. Note also that, while enormously influential, the US ban did not immediately terminate global DDT use and that developing world malaria mortality increased over time rather than instantly leaping to the estimated value of 2,700,000 deaths per year. However, certain in the knowledge that even one human sacrificed on the altar of green misanthropy is infinitely too many, I let stand the linear extrapolation of numbers from an instant start on the 1st of the month following this murderous ban."[35]
Responding to an opinion column relying on Milloy's arguments, parasitologists Alan Lymbery and Andrew Thompson wrote, in 2004:
The use of DDT...is not banned for public health use in most areas of the world where malaria is endemic. Indeed, DDT was recently exempted from a proposed worldwide ban on organophosphate [sic] chemicals. One of the important factors in declining use of DDT was decreasing effectiveness and greater costs because of the development of resistance in mosquitoes. Resistance was largely caused by the indiscriminate, widespread use of DDT to control agricultural pests in the tropics. To blame a reduction in DDT usage for the death of 10-30 million people from malaria is not just simple-minded, it is demonstrably wrong.[37]
In 2006, following a press release by the World Health Organization recommending more extensive use of indoor residual spraying with DDT and other pesticides, Milloy wrote, "It's a relief that the WHO has finally come to its senses."[38]
[edit] Asbestos and the World Trade Center
On September 14, 2001, three days after terrorist attacks destroyed the World Trade Center, Milloy wrote that the World Trade Center towers might have stood longer, preventing many casualties, had the use of asbestos fire-resistant lagging not been discontinued during the Towers' construction.[39] Milloy's article reported that, "In 1971, New York City banned the use of asbestos in spray fireproofing. At that time, asbestos insulating material had only been sprayed up to the 64th floor of the World Trade Center towers," and cited an expert who questioned the efficacy of the asbestos-free lagging that was used on the steel in the upper floors.
Advocates for banning asbestos were highly critical of the article,[39] questioning his motives and disputing his conclusions. The International Ban Asbestos Secretariat charged him with "insensitivity that is hard to fathom."[40]
Laurie Kazan-Allen of the Secretariat wrote:
It takes a certain kind of person to capitalize on a human catastrophe such as the attacks on the World Trade Centre. While the rest of us remained desperate for news, some were plotting how these events could be used to maximum advantage. ... The fact that Milloy chose to make this and other such statements as ground zero was still smouldering shows an insensitivity that is hard to fathom. What decent human being could do anything during those early days but watch and wait as the emergency services worked 24/7 to locate survivors?[41]
[edit] Food safety
Responding to criticism of the safety of the food product Quorn by the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), Milloy accused CSPI of having an undisclosed relationship with Quorn's main competitor, Gardenburger. Writing for FoxNews.com, Milloy said that "CSPI appears to have an unsavory relationship with Quorn competitor, Gardenburger" and called the CSPI's complaints "unscrupulous shrieking".[42] Gardenburger denied Milloy's accusation, stating that Milloy's allegation of an "unsavory relationship" was "untrue and groundless".[43]
[edit] Evolution
Milloy's views on evolution are as follows:
Explanations of human evolution are not likely to move beyond the stage of hypothesis or conjecture. There is no scientific way — i.e., no experiment or other means of reliable study — for explaining how humans developed. Without a valid scientific method for proving a hypothesis, no indisputable explanation can exist.
The process of evolution can be scientifically demonstrated in some lower life forms, but this is a far cry from explaining how humans developed.
That said, some sort of evolutionary process seems most likely in my opinion. But there will probably always be enough uncertainty in any explanation of human evolution to give critics plenty of room for doubt.[44]
[edit]
AND THE REST
Registration as a lobbyist
The United States Senate Lobby Filing Disclosure Program lists Milloy was as a registered lobbyist for the EOP Group for the years 1998–2000.[45] The guidebook Washington Representatives also listed him as a lobbyist for the EOP Group in 1996.[46] The EOP Group's clients include the American Crop Protection Association (pesticides), the Chlorine Chemistry Council, Edison Electric Institute (fossil and nuclear energy), Fort Howard Corp. (a paper manufacturer) and the National Mining Association. Milloy himself was personally registered as a lobbyist for Monsanto and the International Food Additives Council.[47][23]
Milloy denies ever lobbying, and in a 1998 email response to his registration as a lobbyist under EOP he wrote:
I do not lobby for ANYONE. Before I became executive director of TASSC, I did some technical consulting for a D.C. firm which had the policy of registering all its employees and consultants as lobbyists (whether or not they lobbied) pursuant to a new law passed in 1995. I am aware of the listing and have asked it to be corrected since I no longer work for that firm.[48]
[edit] Corporate activism
Milloy and former tobacco executive Tom Borelli run a mutual fund called the Free Enterprise Action Fund (FEAF). The fund has criticised companies that voluntarily adopt high environmental standards. Through the platform of the FEAF, Milloy has criticized a number of other corporations for adopting environmental initiatives:
The FEAF criticized Microsoft for abandoning the use of PVC in its packing materials.[49]
Milloy accused the Business Roundtable, a pro-business organization of CEO's, of being "silent about current threats to business", adding, "Last September, we warned 18 member company CEOs participating in the BRT's 'sustainable growth' initiative to stop wasting corporate resources."[50]
Milloy and Borelli argued that General Electric is harming its shareholders by launching a program to curtail greenhouse gas emissions. They also accused G.E. of ignoring the input of global warming skeptic groups such as the Cato Institute and the oil-industry-funded Competitive Enterprise Institute in forming their environmental policy.[51]
FEAF has been criticised by investment analyst Chuck Jaffe as being "an advocacy group in search of assets." Jaffe concludes "Strip away the rhetoric, and you're getting a very expensive, underperforming index fund, while Milloy and his partner Thomas Borelli get a platform for raising their pet issues."[52]
Similarly, Daniel Gross, in a Slate magazine article, wrote that FEAF "seems to be a lobbying enterprise masquerading as a mutual fund." Gross noted that Milloy and Tom Borelli, the former head of corporate scientific affairs for Philip Morris, lack any money management experience; he also noted that FEAF had badly underperformed the S&P 500 during its first 10 months of existence. Gross concluded that "...in the short term, it looks like Borelli and Milloy are essentially paying the fund for the privilege of using it as a platform to broadcast their views on corporate governance, global warming, and a host of other issues."[53]
[edit] Responses
Milloy and Borelli have defended Exxon against criticism for funding global warming sceptics and others, though without declaring their own financial interest. In September 2006, Milloy's Junkscience.com site reproduced the following excerpt of a piece by Borelli published in Townhall.com, criticising the British Royal Society:
Battle for the boardroom — After over 200 years of independence, the British are still trying to direct U.S. public policy. The Royal Society — the British equivalent of the National Academy of Sciences — recently admonished Exxon Mobil for supporting organizations that question the link between man-made greenhouse gas emissions and global warming.
Notwithstanding the offensive nature of a prestigious organization attempting to silence scientific debate, the Royal Society's letter sheds light on the larger effort employed by agents of the Left to shut-down corporate support for pro-growth political organizations, politicians and policies. By cutting-off the financial supply lines for free-market thought and policies, these agents — labor unions, NGOs, the media — hope to dominate public debate and control public opinion. As these tactics continue to meet with success, liberal policies and politicians will gain a huge strategic advantage.
For those of us interested in promoting pro-growth ideas, loss of corporate support represents a huge threat to sound public policy. There is too much money, power and influence wielded by companies and free-market advocates can't afford to give up that high ground to the Left.[54]
[edit] Books
Milloy has written four books:
Junk Science Judo: Self-defense Against Health Scares and Scams, Cato Institute, 2001, ISBN 1930865120
Silencing Science, Cato Institute, 1999, ISBN 1882577728 (with Michael Gough)
Science Without Sense: The Risky Business of Public Health Research, Cato Institute, 1996, ISBN 1882577345
Science-Based Risk Assessment: A Piece of the Superfund Puzzle, National Environmental Policy Institute, 1995, ISBN 0964746301
Milloy's junkscience.com site lists positive comments, derived from prepublication reviews of his books Silencing Science and Junk Science Judo, published on the back cover (blurb) of those books. Those cited on junkscience.com are the late Philip Abelson, editor of Science from 1962 to 1984, and D.A. Henderson, Dean of the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health from 1977 to 1990. Abelson's review states "Milloy is one of a small group who devotes time, energy and intelligence to the defense of the truth of science."
Others with favourable reviews cited in the blurb of Junk Science Judo are Ronald Bailey, Frederick Seitz and John Stossel.
GUYS, I am sorry but the numbers associated with the notes did not transfer for some inexplicable reason. Just start numbering them from the top and it works out. I hope I am not labeled a careless abuser of the truth and the American way for this failure that wasn't mine.
[edit] Notes
^ Milloy's Website, junkscience.com, accessed 20 Sept 2006.
^ a b c d e f g h "Smoked Out: Pundit For Hire", published in The New Republic, accessed 20 Sept 2006. Also available without subscription at FreePress.net.
^ a b PRWatch.org article detailing Milloy's ties to the tobacco industry, accessed 23 Sept 2006.
^ a b c d e Scientists' Report Documents ExxonMobil's Tobacco-like Disinformation Campaign on Global Warming Science. Union of Concerned Scientists (3 January 2007). Retrieved on 2007-01-11.
^ a b c d Some Like It Hot, Mother Jones article on Milloy
^ Milloy's history and C.V., from his website junkscience.com, accessed 20 Sept 2006.
^ [1].
^ Junk science?. junkscience.com. Retrieved on 2007-07-20.
^ Steven Milloy (December 22, 2005). A Junk Science Christmas Carol. FoxNews.com. Retrieved on 2007-07-22.
^ Samet JM, Burke TA (2001). "Turning science into junk: the tobacco industry and passive smoking". American journal of public health 91 (11): 1742-4. PMID 11684591.
^ Secondhand Smokescreen, By Steven Milloy, March 9, 2001
^ Secondhand Joking, by Steven Milloy
^ PRWatch.com article describing the financial links between Milloy and the tobacco industry, accessed 20 Sept 2006.
^ Activity Report, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., December 1996, describing input from R.J.R. Tobacco's P.R. firm into Milloy's junkscience website. From the Legacy Tobacco Documents Library at the University of California, San Francisco. Accessed 5 October 2006.
^ Philip Morris 1994 Budget Draft, available at the Philip Morris Document Archive. Accessed 5 October 2006.
^ Ong EK, Glantz SA (2000). "Tobacco industry efforts subverting International Agency for Research on Cancer's second-hand smoke study". Lancet 355 (9211): 1253-9. PMID 10770318.
^ Letter from Margery Kraus, president of TASSC, to Vic Han, Director of Communications for Philip Morris, dated 23 September 1993. Accessed 5 October 2006.
^ Philip Morris Corporate Affairs Budget Presentation, 1994, from the Philip Morris Document Archive. Accessed 5 October 2006.
^ Annual Report - 1997, Steven Milloy, January 7th, 1998. Document accessed at Legacy Tobacco Documents Library on July 7, 2007.
^ Philip Morris budget for "Strategy and Social Responsibility", detailing $180,000 in payments to Steven Milloy (pp. 13 & 66). Accessed 5 October 2006.
^ Milloy column on global warming, published 12 October 2006, in which Milloy is described as a "junk science expert." Accessed 16 October 2006.
^ Climate Change: The Denial Industry, by George Monbiot. Published as an excerpt in The Guardian on September 19, 2006; accessed July 23, 2007.
^ a b [2] American Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation article on Steven Milloy. Accessed July 26, 2007.
^ Cato Institute Q&A with Steve Milloy. Accessed 10 October 2006.
^ [3]
^ Ultimate Global Warming Challenge, a Steven Milloy website. Accessed August 24, 2007.
^ Polar Bear Scare on Thin Ice, by Steven Milloy, FoxNews.com, 12 Nov., 2004
^ RealClimate
^ DemandDebate.com Press Release, PRNewsWire.com, Oct 1, 2007.
^ Interview with Borelli on The Young Turks, accessed on www.lastvideo.net, July 12, 2007.
^ Bureaucrash and the "Demand Debate" Campaign Crash Live Earth New York, Competitive Enterprise Institute Press Release, July9th, 2007.
^ An Empty Uniform, by Michael Gough and Steven Milloy, The Wall Street Journal, 10 February, 1998
^ NCPA Idea House: Who Needs A Surgeon General?
^ At Risk from the Pesticide Myth, by Steven Milloy, July 28, 2000
^ a b The Malaria Clock: A Green Eco-Imperialist Legacy of Death
^ Rachel Carson, Mass Murderer? The creation of an anti-environmental myth, Aaron Swartz, Extra!, September/October 2007.
^ The UnAustralian. Retrieved on 2007-06-29.
^ Day of Reckoning for DDT Foes?, by Steven Milloy, FoxNews.com, Thursday, September 21, 2006
^ a b Article: Asbestos Could Have Saved WTC Lives, FoxNews.com. Published September 14, 2001.
^ Criticism of Milloy's comments by the International Ban Asbestos Secretariat. Accessed 11 October 2006.
^ Criticism of Milloy for blaming asbestos removal for the WTC collapses, from the International Ban Asbestos Secretariat. Accessed 16 October 2006.
^ Steven Milloy (2002-08-30). Quorn & CSPI: The Other Fake Meat. Fox News. Retrieved on 2006-05-20.
^ Scott C. Wallace, CEO of Gardenburger. Gardenburger rebuttal to: "The Other Fake Meat" by Steven Milloy. Retrieved on 2006-05-20.
^ Steve Milloy. Q and A With Steve Milloy. Retrieved on 2007-01-11.
^ United States Senate Lobby Filing Disclosure Program, listing Milloy as a lobbyist for the EOP Group from 1998-2000, accessed 28 June 2006.
^ Washington Lobbyists, 1996, Columbia Books, Washington DC.
^ Saving the Planet With Pestilent Statistics, by Karen Charman. Published in the PR Watch newsletter, Vol. 6 No. 4 (1999). Accessed June 29, 2007.
^ "Junk Science and the Art of Spin-Doctoring" Stewart Fist Old Dominion University College of Sciences.
^ Free Enterprise Action Fund press release, criticizing Microsoft for abandoning the use of PVC in its packing materials. Accessed 11 October 2006.
^ Free Enterprise Action Fund press release chastising the Business Roundtable for insufficient vigilance in the defense of capitalism. Accessed 11 October 2006.
^ Free Enterprise Action Fund press release criticizing General Electric's environmental policy. Accessed 11 October 2006.
^ "Strange Bedfellows: Politics and Investment Fund", from the Boston Herald. Published 24 Jan 2006. Accessed 11 October 2006.
^ "Thank You for Investing: A very curious right-wing mutual fund." Article by Daniel Gross from Slate magazine, published 4 May 2006. Accessed 11 October 2006.
^ "Battle For The Boardroom", by Tom Borelli, posted on Junkscience.com. Accessed 17 October 2006.
[edit] See also
Global Climate Coalition
American Petroleum Institute
[edit] External links
[edit] Milloy's Websites
Junkscience.com
CSRWatch.com
The Ultimate Global Warming Challenge
[edit] Tobacco Document Archives
The Legacy Tobacco Documents Library at the University of California, San Francisco.
The Philip Morris USA Document Site
[edit] News coverage
"The Trashman Speweth" and "How Big Tobacco Helped Create "'the Junkman'", at PR Watch
"The Junkman Climbs to the Top", from Environmental Science & Technology, May 11, 2005
"Smoked Out" at The New Republic (also available at Freepress.net), January 26, 2006
"Strange bedfellows: Politics and investment fund" in the Boston Herald, January 24, 2006
"Climate Change, The Denial Industry", The Guardian, September 19, 2006
"Some Like It Hot", article on Milloy's connection to ExxonMobil from Mother Jones, May/June 2005
"If You Seek the Truth, Don't Trash the Science", Washington Post, by John Schwartz, February 21, 1999
Exxon Secrets: Steven Milloy
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Milloy"
PremiumPrevost, in a way I have cut back.
Like Jack Conrad said, we have found places closer to home to camp, and finding really neat places at that.
I also have called several of the places we used to camp in the Outer Banks of NC and said...look, we used to come out ther about 8 times a year, just can't afford it now...sorry. I also suggest they call or write all of the congessmaen and senators in NC and tell them what they are hearing. And beleive me, I am not the only one calling then and saying basically the same thing. (We have not been to the Banks since May last year. At an 800 mile round trip, plus riding around money that's a lot of fuel.)
Not only do the campgrounds lose that money, the local government loses the "Bed tax" money, (Another crap tax we get hit with whether you know about it or not!) the restaurants lose money, the bait and fishing takle folks lose money, the grocery stores lose money, you get the picture!
And of course as I said above I am telling the c-stores and gas companies what I said above.
I have always said, if you don't like something, complain and complain loud...if you don't tell them you are unhappy...they think you are happy!
Jack
WARNING--overly long opinionated posting!
You are wrong if you think out political leaders are fools. They are not; they are just greedy. This administration is driven mostly by greed. Aside from the personal wealth accumulated, they are helping there "friends" accumulate vaster fortunes than they already have. This attitude is not reserved for the Republican Party. Former President Jimmy Carter is virtually a spokesperson of Saudi interests. He tries to act as an impartial statesman while talking on the Middle East, but he, through his business, is heavily subsidized by the Saudis. It is certainly very complex, but I doubt that those with billions of dollars at stake sit back and leave everything to chance; they buy the results they want. At one time, they tried to keep as much hidden as possible. Now they don't even care to do that. Oil companies can gouge the world, and if you want to criticize their obscene profits, you can go right ahead; they don't give a damn. Walmart can run virtual slave factories overseas, try to treat people here the same way, and destroy whole communities, but people will still shop there because, strangely enough, slave production can be cheaper. There was a documentary a couple of years ago called, "The Corporation". The premise was that since corporations are legally people, let's look at what kind of people they are. It became pretty clear that they fit the definition of psychopaths. Think about it, what would you think of a person that was only driven by selfishness and greed and was proud of it-- that related to every other being in the world in terms of what they could get from them and declared it as a natural right to do so. "Nothing personal, it's just business."
Of course there are responsible corporate citizens, but that is not the norm. When the New York City garbage industry was pulled from the hands of the Mafia involving years of life-threatening undercover work, the cost of collection dropped 40% immediately. However, when the larger corporations moved in and took everything over, the price went right back up again. The officer that had risked his life undercover for years to break gang control of the industry commented when interviewed that everything was back to the way it was before he started except that the corporates didn't "wack" each other.
Anyway this is really longwinded and maybe laden with errors, but that's okay. Former Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once said that "To have doubted one's own first principles is the mark of a civilized man." This stuff does not even come close to being "first principles".
There is one item of interest that has not been mentioned. Globally the price of oil has increased but not at the rate it has in the US. Why? Because of the steady decline of the dollar against many of the world currencies. Our money is deflating and no one (politicians are not talking about it) seems to be making an issue of it. Our money is not worth as much as it once was because investors are worried about our debt and our politician's willingness to put us in even deeper to broaden the dependence on the nanny state. The Republicans and the Democrats both are responsible for the mess we are in. They are in a race to buy votes and see who can outspend each other while screwing our children's future even more. This crushing debt must be worked on or we will see our country collapse from the inside. Don't think our enemies don't know this. If they don't win on the battlefield they are OK with winning by bankrupting us. Ultimately we are responsible for the mess we are in because we (speaking in generalities) are responsible for voting those bastards in, and letting them rape us financially. The only thing we can do to attempt to change this is to be as active as possible in the political processes. I am not a dooms-day person, but I believe that being prepared for the worse brings some confidence and peace in this otherwise screwed up direction we are heading. Get your house in order by doing some simple things. No particular order and not inclusive, this is off the top of my head and I'm sure I could make it longer, or anyone of you could add to it.
This is what my family is working on:
1. Build up a year supply of food and necessitates, grow a garden.
2. Save enough to be financially independent for a year, live within your means, diversify your holdings.
3. Educate yourself; learn a second job or skill that you can fall back on.
4. Where possible store enough energy for a year. (Wood, coal, propane, etc.)
5. Get out of debt.
6. Understand the Constitution and what a great county America is and teach it to others, especially our children.
7. Understand Gods purpose in your life.
8. Be willing to defend your freedoms, family, and right to worship as you see fit.
9. I believe in being armed and that freedom and peace comes from strength not weakness.
10. Become as healthy as possible, you will feel better and it might mean fewer visits to our failing health care system.
In trying to live where I am not dependant on the government for my survival, I feel it helps me make better long term choices. I feel like this stuff is common sense, and even though I am probably in the minority, I know of many out there that share similar beliefs.
I realize that I have strayed off topic but I am frustrated as I watch so many that are willing to flush what makes this country so good down the toilet. May God help us.
I am fortunate to live in Virginia where my family can do what Jack mentioned; take shorter trips. Within a three to five hour drive in any direction I can see and do more than just about anyone. I might have to skimp somewhere else, but the bus will roll on!
I hope I don't end up in jail for plagiarism...or whatever, but this is a post on Fox News "Opinions"
If our mods have a problem with the reprint, feel free to remove it...no problemo.
Enjoy, JR
By Steven Milloy
All the presidential candidates say they're for energy independence. So why didn't they do something about it when they had the chance?
This isn't a "REAL" question. It is an implied statement that "they" did nothing while the accuser stands aside.
Hillary Clinton rails on her Web site about Americans sending "billions of dollars to the Middle East for their oil." Barack Obama warns that Middle East oil is the "lifeline of Al Qaeda." Republican hopeful John McCain says that, if elected, his energy policy will "amount to a declaration of independence from our reliance on oil sheiks and our vulnerability to their troubled politics."
We have sent 7 trillion dollars to the middle east in the last 30 years. I am glad that somebody is finally getting UPSET.
But Clinton and Obama recently voted for a bill that can only promote dependency on oil from the Middle East. And John McCain went AWOL, not voting on the bill at all.
That is a lie.
A little-noticed provision of the ironically named "Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007" that was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bush last December bars the federal government from purchasing fuels whose life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions are greater than those from fuels produced from conventional petroleum sources.
Should we purchase anything that makes the green house gas problem worse just because EXXON was clever enough to make it outside our national border? We have to breath this stuff and adjust for the environment complications NO MATTER WHERE ON THE PLANET the criminals commit the crime.
Before we get into the energy independence implications of this provision, it's worth appreciating the obscurity of the provision and the fact that the media doesn't seem to understand its import.
Maybe they are not jumping on this for another very good reason. That would NOT BE that the media is employed by EXXON as the author is.
I only learned of the provision while thumbing through the Feb. 15 Financial Times, serendipitously noticing the egregiously mis-titled article, "U.S. risks trade dispute with Canada on fuel." A bit of research turned up no other media reports relating to this particular section of the bill.
The Financial Times article reported on how section 526 of the energy bill prohibits the federal government from buying oil that was produced from Canadian tar sands, a reserve that holds about two-thirds the amount of recoverable oil as compared to reserves in Saudi Arabia.
They have been trying to find a way to get that stuff to the surface since I was a kid. It isn't economically feasible till oil hits $100 per barrel. No wait...we are there.
Because it takes greenhouse gas-producing energy to extract oil from the tar sands, the article focused on the fact that the law could affect billions of dollars of trade in oil, particularly since the U.S. Department of Defense is the world's largest single buyer of light refined petroleum.
This clause was to prevent EXXON from using coal to heat the drilling/pumping operation to get the viscosity down to a level where the tar sand could be pumped to the surface.
The major source of fossil fuel pollutants is from the electricity producing industry....then Cars/trucks are second.....the Department of Defense isn't even close. They are mentioned as a consumer only because the author wants to make it appear that congress is anti military and defense. It follows that the congress is in league with the TERRORISTS. Call the NRA...QUICK.
But while I give the Financial Times credit for reporting this story, it really dropped the ball with respect to understanding it — this is yet another effort by environmentalists and their congressional henchmen to cause chaos in our energy supply.
Congressional TERRORISTS again.
Doesn't sound patently STUPID to accuse our US Congress of trying to create "CHAOS" in the United States of America? Congress is BOTH parties. Sort of politically secular.
Sure enough, it turns out that Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., already are pressing the Department of Defense to comply with the provision. In a recent letter to the secretary of defense, Waxman and Davis asked how the DOD will ensure that the fuel it buys doesn't come from Canadian tar sands or from domestic coal-to-liquid processing.
Why is it a "sure enough" thing that Congress asks the DOD to make certain that the DOD is FOLLOWING THE LAW. Why is that a bad thing?
Waxman and Davis apparently expect the military to expend the Herculean effort of tracing the source of the fuel it purchases and then to refuse North American oil from unconventional sources apparently in favor of oil from OPEC sources such as Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. How's that for energy independence and security?
OK, let me see if I understand this and bear in mind that I administered contracts for the DOD. Is the author saying that in a procurement I cannot ask the bidder to provide "Qualified Source" information and documentation. Contractors are paid for E V E R Y T H I N G they do and none EVER charged me to answer that question. It ain't HERCULEAN....is routine and mundane.
It gets worse if you're one of those who believe that biofuels are the path to energy independence.
Every gallon of BIOD we use is a gallon of Dino we don't. Nobody ever said we could "switch" to BIO. That is ludicrous.
The plain language of section 526 also would seem to ban the federal government from purchasing biofuels like ethanol, since their life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions are greater than that of conventional petroleum.
"Turning native ecosystems into 'farms' for biofuel crops causes major carbon emissions that worsen the global warming that biofuels are meant to mitigate," researchers from the University of Minnesota and the Nature Conservancy reported in Science (Feb. 7). Another study in the same issue of Science projected that the life-cycle greenhouse gas emission from ethanol over 30 years is twice as high as from regular gasoline.
This guy is finally correct. Ethanol is very much a bad deal for the environment. It is the corn lobby and the chem industry that are lobbying for more ethanol. If we converted our excess it would make sense but ADM and Purina smell profit here so we are going all out. The mid west farmers are now be touted as being opposed top Bio. Really!
Interestingly, Waxman and Davis specifically excluded biofuels from their letter to the DOD. Not to worry, though, biofuels likely soon will become fuel-non-grata as the environmentalists have already started to demonize them.
Similar to the case of compact fluorescent light bulbs discussed in this column last week, The New York Times editorial page this week signaled that biofuels soon will become as politically incorrect as the Canadian tar sands and domestic coal-to-liquid fuels.
LA has passed an ordinance that all incandescent lamps are outlawed except for special permit. They expect to cut electricity production and oil fired generators by a bunch. They really worry about their air quality cause they can SEE their air. EXXON says that isn't a bad thing and one shouldn't trust air one can't see". That's a quote
The Times opined that, "Done right, ethanol could help wean the country from its dependence on foreign oil while reducing the emissions that contribute to climate change. Done wrong, ethanol could wreak havoc on the environment while increasing greenhouse gases."
"Done right" for the Times is what's required in the energy bill — a 20 percent reduction in life-cycle greenhouse gases as compared to gasoline. But, of course, this is a next-to-impossible goal since the life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions for ethanol are projected to be 100 percent greater than for gasoline.
It likely will require nothing short of a technological miracle for ethanol to achieve the energy bill's standards in the near or even distant future.
Now, if the federal government is barred from bio-, tar sand, coal-to-liquid fuels, how long will it be before such a ban spreads to contractors that do business with the federal government, to states and their contractors, and then, by default, to the nation as a whole?
It's hard to take the presidential candidates, President Bush and Congress too seriously on the energy independence issue when none of them opposed a bill that actually makes us more dependent on OPEC.
YA SEE, It is the whole darn GUMMINT....Libertarian!!!!!
Steven Milloy publishes JunkScience.com and DemandDebate.com. He is a junk science expert, advocate of free enterprise and an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Barn Owl,
Sounds like a good plan to me. God bless you and yours.
I have heard it said that the nicest people in these United States live in Northern Virginia. I can certainly vouch for that special group. Southern Va. wasn't all that bad either. Nice place! Lucky you!
John
Lin,
I have heard it said that much of today's problems are routed in a "conservative" Supreme Court judgment that declared Political contributions an example of people exercising free speech. It then declared Corporations as having the "same rights" as people. ERGO...Corps have "THE RIGHT" to make political contributions. In no other democracy is that held true. Many say it is our Republics UNDOING. I think it is a serious situation, anyway.
Thanks,
John
quote....The price for cutting back on oil usage will be even Higher Prices at the pump..... Cant take money out of the pockets of people who are used to it!
It's happening allready, we are in the earliest stages of alternitive fuels in new vehicles and that alone has caused futures to rise uncontrollably..
Nick-
unquote
First of all...if you sell a product and the demand is greater than it can produce or knowing it going to run out...naturally common sense business practice is to price it according to the demand.....right. That is what we all human being business person do since Adam & Eve. This price increase is going up because the world is asking more fuel.
Think about China.they are one of main reason our fuel price are up because they are buying up all the fuel they can get their hands on right now.
So what it means is that we (including me) have to be patience while we get independent from world problem light Brazil is already doing since 1980s or be more energy efficient with fuel or use less of it.
I always try to check from the horses mouth before to believe or not to believe whatever their claims are.
A part from JohnEd post about damaging greenhouse-gas "as not all are more environmentally friendly than fossil fuels"
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080207140809.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080103144404.htm
2007
http://biopact.com/2007/10/expert-chinas-biomass-power-plants-to.html
http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2006/08/xethanol_corpor.html
http://seekingalpha.com/article/14058-xethanol-s-new-ethanol-plant-leverages-pfizer-investment
Over 75 differences News Paper Articles about propose biofuel in Florida that happen during 2007.
http://www.grainnet.com/info/search.php?site=GRAINNET&q=Florida&literal=true
Feb 2008 meeting about Lynx Transit converting 290 buses to biodiesel fuel.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/orange/orl-lynx2708feb27,0,21976.story?track=rss
About first ethanol storage terminal in USA Jacksonville, FL
http://www.grainnet.com/info/search.php?site=GRAINNET&q=Florida&literal=true
Firm's goal: Yard waste into usable fuel from Florida
http://www.dtn.com/news.cfm?content=06news/91106&sidenav=sn_innews
Florida's grants to encourage getting Fuel Ethanol Production from Citrus Waste Biomass
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/energy/energyact/files/02.11.2008-Award%20Winners%20Summaries.pdf
our leaders are doing whats best for big money, they say they want us independent but shut down nearly all our oil wells in the country. Exxon makes millions while we pay the price. what a joke. Democrats have done there fair share of damage as well but the Bush chenny crowd has done nothing but get us in a illegal war (times 2) and bankrupted us , the war on middle class is in full swing, if anybody thinks thes people are acting in our best interests you deserve what you get. as for me i want to throw up every time i get into all this.
We own an independent gas station. We retail gas, diesel and propane under the Petro Canada brand. We set our own prices, taking into account our cost (set by Big Oil), and our competitor's prices in our market area. So yes we drive the get-away car, but we feel as entitled to make a living as you Jack or anyone else. Before pointing the finger, look at how you made or make your living. Anybody in business charges as much as they can within their market. Sometimes you can make good money, other times you just brake even. If you work for wages, you always asking for more. If you can't afford the fuel for your bus, you'r in the wrong hobby. Buy a tent and go camping with a bicycle. I hear people bitching about the price of gas every day, but I don't see them trading in the Escalade for a VW diesel or a Smart car. So unless you'r living naked in a tree, you are not in position to blame me or the next guy for the world's troubles.
There, I feel better now after venting this.
JC
JC, out of due respect, I get paid the same as I have been being paid for the past 8 years, it has not gone up. Fuel has more than doubled and is close to trippling in that time. Motels and food costs are about 10% higher as a rule.
Now what galls me is how they annouce a price increase and the fuel can jump 20 cents overnight...now get this...on fuel already in the ground!
We are being gouged...plain and simple.
Maybe the driving the get-a-way car was a bit harsh...and maybe flat out wrong. I am sorry for putting it that way.
Maybe I don't like being ripped off as I am getting!
Jack
PS...I could be making about 5 times what I am making now doing expert wittness work for plaintiff attorneys in bus and truck crashes...however I like to sleep well at night! I gave that up quickly and choose to o defence work only!
Just for your information, in Quebec, the diesel cost 1.256$ a "liter", average 4.69$ US gal. I think seriously that the next summer will be difficult for me to ride with my Prevost. Actually, I have a VW New Beetle diesel for going to my job. When I bought this car, 2001, fulling the thank costed 28$ CND. Now, 55$ CND.
So, let me throw in my 12 cents here (inflation, you know).
I believe that the single most critical thing driving oil prices is this stupid, ill conceived war in Iraq. We are spending bazillions of dollars on credit, financed by foreigners, who may very well be our enemies in the future. The very profit that are making off us will drive up there own fuel consumption. The military is a very large user of fuel, if not the largest, and they don't care what they pay for it. After all, it is "wartime", you know.
Of course, if you believe that the Iraq invasion ever had anything to do with terrorists or terrorism, or 9-11, then my beliefs won't have much impact.
The country is being run by people with their hands very deep in our pockets, and it is not for the common good. If I am going to be taxed to death anyway, then I would rather my money went to help those less fortunate than me and not to help the very rich get very richer.
Back on topic, mol, the idea of using any food crop for fuel is just stupid, there cannot be a better word for it.
Now, using waste such as sugar cane bagase, tree trimmings, manure, garbage, methane, etc. etc. makes much more sense. It also makes more sense to me to use these things to fuel stationary uses like power plants and large buildings, and leave the petro for transportation.
There, I feel better. Surely this will go OT now.
Len
JC, I don't blame independent fuel retailers, I know the margins are slim. I know that big oil raises your wholesale price instantly based on oil futures 3 months out. But I will point my finger at the next guy, that being Big Oil.
I believe in our nation's free market economies. But free market economies require a modicum of self restraint in areas of "must have" products/services. Runaway greed on products that people can't really do without can bring a free market economy to the ground. The petroleum/medical/pharmaceutical industries are taking advantage of consumers need of their products to ramp up profits to an extent previously not even contemplated by more responsible generations. Unfortunately, short of putting a bag over the industry executives heads and charging them $1 million per breath, I don't see any way of showing teaching them responsibility and restraint of greed.
Unlike many who try to convince people that personally cutting back will make the difference, I am not convinced that America cutting back on its consumption will lower world crude prices. Up until recently that would have worked. But now that China and India are ramping up their consumption, I don't believe America can influence the price it pays for oil imports. The United States population is 300 million. The combined population of the European Union countries is 490 million. The population of China and India combined is over 2.5 billion. The populations of China and India are now coming up into the petroleum age. As they do so, there will more demand from those two countries than the rest of the world combined. If 300 million Americans do completely without oil, it won't lower the price one penny compared to what it is now.
So what is the viable solution then? I believe alternative fuel sources are the long term solution. Like Len expressed, I'm not sold on using food crops to make fuel. But there are a lot of other good ideas out there. I believe that tapping all available domestic sources is the only practical short term solution. I don't want to see the ecology suffer more, but I don't want to see the United States collapse into a third world economy either.
Since I earned quite a bit of money from the oil industry, as a supplier and as an investor since retirement I suggest that you all buy shares in "Big Oil" and share in the huge profits. You can then drive your bus to the annual meeting and tell the board of directors to lower the price. If the meeting gives you a headache, use your dividends from your drug company shares to buy a painkiller.
If you live in a capitalist country and don't participate, it is like living in a democracy and not voting.
Quote from: Stan on March 03, 2008, 10:06:22 AM
Since I earned quite a bit of money from the oil industry, as a supplier and as an investor since retirement I suggest that you all buy shares in "Big Oil" and share in the huge profits. You can then drive your bus to the annual meeting and tell the board of directors to lower the price. If the meeting gives you a headache, use your dividends from your drug company shares to buy a painkiller.
Interesting idea. But I think I'll pass, I don't want to have to get a hearing aid after the damage to my ear drums that would be caused by the shrill volume of the board of directors laughter at the demand from a few "little guys" in their meeting. Even a few 1000 shares in companies of that size doesn't give you a viable voice in the stockholder votes. Besides, just speaking for myself, I would find benefiting from business practices that I contempt to be too hypocritical for my conscience.
Quote from: Stan on March 03, 2008, 10:06:22 AM
If you live in a capitalist country and don't participate, it is like living in a democracy and not voting.
I have spent most of my life participating in capitalism either as an owner or manager and in democracy as a voter. However, I, and in those times I was a manager, my bosses, never felt the need to rape the public for all we could get just because people wanted or needed our products/services. We believed in a fair profit margin, quality of goods and services, creating higher volume sales to increase profits and being a good citizen of the community.
Have you not seen the damage done to companies by organizations like Greenpeace and Sierra Club. They buy one share and then demand to be heard at the annual meeting. The media loves it and it makes the 6 o'clock news and the front page the next morning. Corporations don't like bad publicity.
If you feel that you can't win with Big Oil then participate in small oil. There are literally thousands of small oil companies in the world, some only in exploration and production but lots of integrated companies.
There is littler doubt that most oil companies are doing well these days so I am merely suggesting a way to earn the money to pay for the fuel. Investing in the old rust belt companies that are going down the tube isn't going to pay you much in dividends.
China is currently a big importer of oil, but they are doing a lot of off shore drilling and have discovered some fields. If they proceed with oil development like their manufacturing they may turn into an oil exporter.
QuoteWe believed in a fair profit margin, quality of goods and services, creating higher volume sales to increase profits and being a good citizen of the community.
This is a very commendable quality and if you consistently sold your goods below market price you would have cornered the world market. Very few companies are so charitable that they don't set their price close to what their competitors are charging even if they have a fair margin of profit. That is simply the way the free market system works and everyone decides what they consider a fair margin.
Sojourner,
Those are some GREAT references you posted. I only read some of them but I feel that they back me up. I don't think I can read them all but I will certainly read more of them. Thanks again.
John
Stan, there is a lot I could say to your comments...however I would hope that if we met somewhere out here we would be friends. Then again...with your views...I doubt it would be for long. What you are saying is basically this. If you can't fight 'em...join 'em. Or maybe this...if you don't like being the rapee...be the raper.
To do what the oil companies have done is wrong!
Only someone profiting from the oil companies could defend them!
I was brought up being taught there is a right and wrong...and to fight wrongs! That's why I respond as I do.
Jack
This is the stort of discussions that will cause me to remove this site from my favorites list.
Lee, not to stir anything up but I commonly disagree with things that are said on forums. That doesnt make them good or bad forums. If you dont like the particular post, DONT READ IT.
Lee,
I have to ask why?
No one has made you open the page that has to do with this thread, it has been educational, it is not flaming anyone.
If you feel you need to leave the BBS, that is up to you, but all of us have different things to contribute.
The way I see it is that the only person that is going to be hurt by leaving this board, or BNO, or MC-8.com or 4104.com or any of the various bus/RV/Historical/Diesel/et. al. boards is the one that is leaving.
We'll miss you.
Dallas
Quote from: Lee Bradley on March 03, 2008, 02:19:02 PM
This is the stort of discussions that will cause me to remove this site from my favorites list.
Quote from: Stan on March 03, 2008, 11:52:26 AM
QuoteWe believed in a fair profit margin, quality of goods and services, creating higher volume sales to increase profits and being a good citizen of the community.
This is a very commendable quality and if you consistently sold your goods below market price you would have cornered the world market. Very few companies are so charitable that they don't set their price close to what their competitors are charging even if they have a fair margin of profit. That is simply the way the free market system works and everyone decides what they consider a fair margin.
That is why the large company I was a manager in became the market share leader in their category. They achieved sales in excess of $1 billion per year while selling at 33% to 50% of their competition's retail price. They employ over 6,000 people nationally and distributed their products through a network of 3,000+ independent wholesale distributors, most of whom carried the products as their sole product line. In over 40 years of operation, they showed consistent growth and never had to lay off workers. They are to this day a Christian family owned private corporation. The company held tight to the religious values of its ownership to such an extent that they still shut down completely on their sabbath day and prohibit employees from voluntarily doing company work on that day. That company is McKee Foods Corporation (http://www.mckeefoods.com/Business_Philosophy/Default.htm), makers of Little Debbies snacks.
And we haven't even begun to discuss the biggest example of a company not running with the pack on pricing, although not as noble in its modern incarnation as it was in its early days, it is undeniably the preeminent example of high volume at low prices. Of course in this second example I am referring to an unpopular little company named Wal-Mart.
To stick to your principles is almost a lost trait. Too often we see people swinging back and forth as the polically popular stance changes but one common truth will always be stable, the difference between right and wrong. I was brought up to believe that there is no gray area, something is either right or it's wrong and to trust you gut on it. I believe that the profits being posted by the large oil companies are examples of a greed unprecedented in recent history and that to me is wrong. I realize that a company's goal is to make money and how much is too much can be found in the end result, the people that can no longer afford the product. We used to be respected as a country that stood on ethics and principle, I can't help but question that when I see what is happening in Washington and in the board rooms across the nation. When I see people loosing their pensions that they worked so many years to get, when I see the elderly going back to work because they can't afford simple health care in their "golden" years, I'm saddened. Something is wrong here, it's not just the unheard of profits being posted by the oil companies it's so much deeper.
Way back, in this thread, I offered some insight as to the role of speculators and their role in the world prices of crude oil. If I felt, or conveyed, that they were the only factor in these prices I would be misleading all of you. The Administration, whose financial anchors are and have been in 'big oil' for at least a couple of generations, changed the rules and allowed big oil to run free as far as profits on refined products are concerned. Please don't ask me to quote chapter and verse...but I will and can if necessary.
My point though is this. It is the free enterprise system in action. All the majors have stockholders. Some are retirement funds for Firemen, Teachers, some are funds in which some of us have investments. The point is that it's the stockholders who show the returns on investment from profits...pretty much like Stan stated. It is the foundation on which this country was founded. Private investment has made the economy of this nation. Government investment usually equates to high overhead costs and poor service.
Not wishing to turn this thread political I'll close with a reminder of what happened in the 70's when then, President Richard Nixon, placed caps on the retail price of gasoline and diesel fuel. Do you remember the shortages and long lines? Sure, it was a hustle and we were the pawns in the game...but the point is that we just have to work within the system. When sales drop, and they will, the prices will come down.
Unfortunately there are working families who are going to be hurt, and hurt badly. That's a shame.
America offers more choices for success than any other nation in the free world. If you live in poverty. or even near the poverty line...it's a matter of choice....not economic circumstances.
FWIW
Bob
Quote from: NCbob on March 03, 2008, 03:28:41 PM
America offers more choices for success than any other nation in the free world.
I agree America has been the land of opportunity. And I don't disagree that there are still better opportunities here than most places. But those opportunities are going away at a phenomenal rate. This is still on topic as the cost of fuel in its various forms is a large component of the drain on both personal and business economics either directly or indirectly.
Quote from: NCbob on March 03, 2008, 03:28:41 PM
If you live in poverty. or even near the poverty line...it's a matter of choice....not economic circumstances.
So an 84 year old woman with health problems getting $604/month is way below the poverty line as a matter of choice? What choice was that? Retiring when her health no longer supported working?
A hard working man develops a health problem and can no longer work. Social Security decides that they will give him $1,034 per month (near poverty level) to live on and severely limits what he is allowed to make extra when he can. What choice was that?
A man's long time business fails due to a combination of economic and life circumstances taking his home, good car and credit rating with it, plus still owes a debt to the IRS. He can't even get a "good" job because credit reports are now used as the universal measure of a person. So he makes $270 per week before taxes (near poverty level). What choice was that?
These are
not hypothetical situations. I personally know each of these people. They didn't choose poverty. They aren't lazy. They aren't career welfare recipients. They don't want handouts. They are good people. They were productive citizens doing it "right" when circumstances happened.
Then I read about people at the top of big oil directing the rabid greed of the oil industry making far more money per hour than these people get all year and it makes my blood boil.
I commend all who are involved in this thread!
This in maybe the only 4 pg. + thread that has Not ended up in a flameing war..."YET" and I hope it wont.
Very good discussions here, keep it up!
Nick-
Well, as a individual or as a society, the only thing we can do is reduce our fuel consumption. Drive the smallest car that will get us around, start using alternative fuels, etc, etc. The fact is though, that people will keep driving their big cars untill the price of fuel goes a lot higher than it is now. Us bus-nuts will keep driving our busses untill we can't afford the fuel anymore. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think we can do much else. That's about all the influence we small people can swing. As a retailer of the stuff, I'm in the thick of it every day, but feel as powerless as anyone else about the price.
I don't think that Big Oil should be allowed to retail the fuel in gas stations. It gives them too much control on the street over the price. Let them extract it and/or import it and refine it, but let independents buy it at the rack for retail. The playing field would then be level. This I feel would greatly diminish the price gouging, and the price wars that the corporate gas stations can afford, that are so tough on the little independents. Prices would be a lot more stable and fair if only independents bought the wholesale fuel at the rack. This is a good thing our governments (Canadian and American) could do to help us consumers.
As has been said earlier, it is driven by a global market system, and by oil companies that are bigger than most small countries.
My thoughts,
JC
This in maybe the only 4 pg. + thread that has Not ended up in a flameing war..."YET" and I hope it wont.
Very good discussions here, keep it up!
Nick-
[/quote]
No flames yet Nick just a little smoke
A couple of probably non needed points.....
But for the grace of God anyone can become poor. Societies ills and downfalls are all of our
responsibility. Please do not shun the poor or the oil companies for we all will be judged
in the end.
Each does the best as the circumstances allow. Granted it can be a tough world out there
but it really doesn't matter as long as I keep focused on what matters.
Just a silly almost old fools prattle. and I would be more worried about the Euro being the traded monetary
system for oil than just the price :)
Skip
Quote from: HighTechRedneck on March 03, 2008, 06:03:44 PM
So an 84 year old woman with health problems getting $604/month is way below the poverty line as a matter of choice? What choice was that? Retiring when her health no longer supported working?
A hard working man develops a health problem and can no longer work. Social Security decides that they will give him $1,034 per month (near poverty level) to live on and severely limits what he is allowed to make extra when he can. What choice was that?
A man's long time business fails due to a combination of economic and life circumstances taking his home, good car and credit rating with it, plus still owes a debt to the IRS. He can't even get a "good" job because credit reports are now used as the universal measure of a person. So he makes $270 per week before taxes (near poverty level). What choice was that?
These are not hypothetical situations. I personally know each of these people. They didn't choose poverty. They aren't lazy. They aren't career welfare recipients. They don't want handouts. They are good people. They were productive citizens doing it "right" when circumstances happened.
Then I read about people at the top of big oil directing the rabid greed of the oil industry making far more money per hour than these people get all year and it makes my blood boil.
Do not wish to seem argumentative, but exactly what would you do to relieve the above examples of financial pain? And who's money would you use to do it?
Unfortunately, no matter how you shake it up, it isn't "greed" that motivates the management of big oil. Or any other super successful effort...it's smart people being focused in ways that the average person doesn't appreciate. If you removed thei rich guys wealth, distributed it to all us poor folk, within a short time, they would have their wealth back in their banks.
I tend more to agree with NCBob. The largest number of poor never gave retirement any thought, or considered saving a dime. They made one bad choice after another. They aren't to be 'blamed' for their situation, but who should be responsible..and, who should pay?
Regarding the "greedy" oil company magnates, I don't recall anyone wanting to bail them out when gasoline fell to a buck a gallon 4 years ago. They were losing their butts...drillers..everyone. Most were forced out of business.
Oil companies are not going to build refineries while the American government is attempting to put them at a market disadvantage. Our foolish government is subsidizing ethanol producers, while raising taxes on oil companies. The greens (Democrats) prevent drilling for oil in the US.
The oil managers are planning for their retirement. They ain't stupid.
Considering the price of a barrel of crude, the federal fuel blend requirements, and federal and state taxes, gasoline is a bargin...relatively speaking. Don't look at what the oil companies profit may be, look at the percentages of profit over a 5 or 10 year period. And compare that number to what banks, construction, and investment companies earn.
The global-warming charade has created an environment that will surely lead to our third-world status.
I seem to be the opposition on this debate, but since we get a rather large percentage of our oil from the mideast, and the OPEC cartel sets the prices for oil, and Iraq invaded Kuwait, made war on Iran, and planned to invade Saudi Arabia, we probably have a rationale to be in the Middle East. And as long as we are dependent on OPEC for survival, we probably should stay there.
If you want to see Americans dying in the streets, cut the fuel supply off. This is the reason I think our federal government apparatchnik are fools. They understand this conundrum, pay lip service to it, and then do nothing...other than work on getting voted back into office. It isn't greed that drives them, its power.
And the Democrats require the support of the greens (Sierra Club, etc) to remain in office. So the Dems end up quashing any new drilling in Alaska, the continental shelf, Gulf of Mexico and anywhere in the interior of the US. Now they are adding that any fuel that generates more greenhouse gases during manufacture than OPEC petroleum cannot be imported. AND, the Dems (Greens) are totally against nuclear energy. Go figure.
But hey, I got an electric car, and when push really comes to pull, I got a horse too. And it looks as though I may need the horse! The greens are gonna love horse emissions!
When does the revolt begin! Just joking. I'm old enough to retire..not about to leave the great Teat in the sky now!
Alas, I rant. Must go find medication......it's in a can...pop the top. JR ::)
FWIW Everyone knows there is a finite amount of Dino in the ground. What then? On the flipside, there is an almost infinite amount of solar energy in the sky. So I ask of all the smart folks on this forum, does anyone have blueprints for converting a DD to solar? 8)
Funny Nick...I thought my last post would be deleted in a hurry...and me banished to the hitherlands...or forced to drive a short schoolie till I paid my pitance!
Does my blood boil about this subject...you bet. Me and Kyle bought $600.00 in diesel fuel last week. Two weeks ago the same fuel would have cost $518.00, a year ago about $408.00, the year before that about $300.00. (In 1879 when I started driving trucks about $90.00.) If it goes to where they are saying about $700.00 by summer!
I can think of nothing else that has rison like this. (Diamonds...however I think we all know that Debeers props demand up to sell the crap. I can talk about it...I just got married last year!)
And for all of those that say if we can't afford the fuel....we should have the bus...that's not the point. The point is that we are being ripped off big!
I liked Cody's post. I am reminded of Emron, BellSouth, Worldcom or whatever it was and others...they stole millions of dollars of our, (Your mom, dad, grandparents, neighbors, and maybe even yours) pensions...because of unchecked greed. Actually some of it was checked, some of the accounting firms were saying those companies were the best thing since sliced bread...and they were not following normal and legal business practices!
Well is what Exxon, Gulf, Mobil, Hess, Flying J, etc. doing not the same thing. Think morals here folks. I know some will say that what they are doing is legal. To them I will say that Blackbeard and his ilk called pirates were plying their trade legally too...but could it be defended morally?
Jack
Quote from: skipn on March 03, 2008, 06:48:05 PM
A couple of probably non needed points.....
But for the grace of God anyone can become poor. Societies ills and downfalls are all of our
responsibility. Please do not shun the poor or the oil companies for we all will be judged
in the end.
Each does the best as the circumstances allow. Granted it can be a tough world out there
but it really doesn't matter as long as I keep focused on what matters.
Just a silly almost old fools prattle. and I would be more worried about the Euro being the traded monetary
system for oil than just the price :)
Skip
I agree Skip. The poor are our problem...not the federal government's problem. I would make a much better choice as to who received handouts. I'll guarantee healthy working age males wouldn't.
Fear the Euro not. It's going to come down...like a rock. Although you point out another possible dent to US prestige...the possibility that some other currency may become the global market's choice.
Reckon how much AirBus is going to lose doing business with the Pentagon selling the KC-45 (A-330) tankers? Billions. Bet that deal was struck prior to the dollar deval. Big problem for the EU.
We're paying for oil with devalued dollars which means we're importing oil for about $70. a barrel. Welcome to the problems of third world countries.
JR
First I'm humiliated by being reduced to living in my bus, and now I learn after all these years that people were laughing behind my back when I drove my 28' schoolie through town! >:(This thread is starting to get my blood boiling, PP
Will, You have a beautiful bus I wouldn't consider it "reduced to" plus you have more writing talents
than I could ever hope to have.
Amarica's dollar has been the system for global trading for years. Because of several reason way to
long to post. The thing that happens is that by being the world monetary system for trading there
was a certain amount of leverage that was placed on foriegn countries to do what we wanted. The
snake pit is worried spitless that if the world goes to the Euro (and yes it will take a down turn but
will it be as much as us remains to be seen) that America will(has) lose its leverage over the Opec
consortium. (bullets don't sway a country food and money does though) We have used food and money
as our major sway over every other country but guess what, we are losing that capability thus the Opec
countries can now set what ever they want and get the money. ergo high bucks for feul
A ramble I'm sure but not in left field (may right field) :)
Skip
PremiumPrevost, 28 feet aint a 'short' schoolie! LOL ;D
Jack
Thanks Skip
Quote from: PremiumPrevost on March 03, 2008, 07:17:16 PM
First I'm humiliated by being reduced to living in my bus, and now I learn after all these years that people were laughing behind my back when I drove my 28' schoolie through town! >:(This thread is starting to get my blood boiling, PP
PP, don't be sad. If I had a Premium Prevost I'd be very happy! If I had any old nice H3-45, or a 4 stroke LeMirage XL45, I'd be happy. F'ing ecstatic! ;D
I identify with your humiliation...Hell, people laugh at my horse. Major bummer. At least it's a plan? ;)
Don't let this OT stuff get to ya! It's a product of boredom. :)
JR
Quote from: PremiumPrevost on March 03, 2008, 07:17:16 PM
First I'm humiliated by being reduced to living in my bus, and now I learn after all these years that people were laughing behind my back when I drove my 28' schoolie through town! >:(This thread is starting to get my blood boiling, PP
Sir, You are not alone in living in your bus. Did that for 6 years, got several more buses
and then my MC9, moved into a house, sold the house due to way too many taxes.
Escaped from Florida... Too broke to build a house now but I own my property..
And all at 200% below poverty level... My new home consists of a bus, shipping container some storage trailers and a barn and 17 acres of paid for land...
I figure I have room for another 200 buses here...Just hanging on....
Dave....
Just to help us go for the record here. Did you know that part of Walmart's employee orientation includes information on applying for welfare and medicare since they pay so low that their employees can qualify? These people are known as the working poor. The "low prices" are therefore subsidized by tax money. Walmart proudly claims that most of its employees are "full time". They define "full time" as 28 hours/week. The founder, Sam Walton, may have been a different sort of a person than his heirs, but their business model has surpassed mere greed and reached into the realm of evil. See if you can find the documentary "The High Cost of Low Prices" and prepare to be scandalized.
What's this got to do with the price of fuel? Just that it is driven by the same severe character flaws. I will note that I have known many regular people that express extremely harsh views regarding the poor and marginalized in our society. The interesting phenomenon though is that most of these people would never personally treat anyone unkindly They would willingly help others in need and save their seemingly cold-hearted opinions for the hypothetical. I would venture to guess that most of the contributors to this board are truly compassionate and charitable in that, no matter what they say, they would act with humanity. It is ultimately the motivation and action that counts. I have also known people that, though they have high-minded opinions, would step right over you if fell in front of them on the street.
GREAT post Lin!
Jack
PS...what was that saying..."Your charactor is what you are...when you are alone!"
I guess I owe an apology to a lot of board members for making statements that so upset them. Especially to Hightechredneck who worked for a church owned cookie company. I would sincerely hope that such a companies motives would be different than the conventional shareholder owned company.
I stopped posting because there is such a litany of incorrect information that it would take pages just to provide the links to all the financial statements and legislation to refute it. Fifty years ago I was told that the glory days of capitalism were past and there was no more opportunity for the little guy to make it big. There are more millionaires and billionaires than ever before but the same large number of people who think there is no opportunity.
For those who aren't familiar with my background - Thirty six years ago my wife suffered a cerebral hemorrhage and I had the choice of putting her into an institution and letting the government care for her or selling my business and becoming a full time care giver. I chose the latter course and with a lot of therapy we have had a pretty good life, without government assistance. For twenty one years we full timed in bus conversions as the best choice for her, following the sun so that she could get outside. We would still be doing that if my vision problems hadn't forced the sale of the bus.
Stan...I admire you for taking your stands to give your wife all your supports and your heart to give what you have and able. It take a great gentleman who is strong to keep a marriage commitment of for better or worse on earth. Many men thinks worse is unbearable, however this only last a zap of time spend living here on earth but for those that know the Savior and repended will spend eternity in heaven. Isn't that awesome! No pains and no troubles!
My e-mail is in profile and would like to hear from you.
Sojourn for Christ, Jerry
Stan, I commend you! I volunteered for the Multiple Sclerosis Society (MS) for years. Turns out that the instance of men leavig women when finding out they have MS is extreamly high. I would suspect the same for other debilitating disabilities.
Again, I comend you for sticking to the vows!
Jerry said, "for those that know the Savior and repended will spend eternity in heaven. Isn't that awesome! No pains and no troubles!"
When I SCUBA dive I look at the beauty around me and think, if this does not even touch what Heaven will be...WOW!
Jack
Kind of getting away from the topic here but I'll take a moment to give my wife credit, when I was diagnosed with parkinsons and had to retire, I had to leave a state job that paid in the 6 figures for an unknown future. She has stood by me thru out the bad days and helped me enjoy the good days, she has taken the time to wait for me when I couldn't keep up with her in a store, she smiled patiently when I told her I wanted to buy a bus and we'd go off and see America, then she saw what I dragged home and didn't slap me silly, tho I know she would have prefered something that at least had a floor in it lol. Life is good lol.
Quote from: Stan on March 04, 2008, 06:04:29 AM
I guess I owe an apology to a lot of board members for making statements that so upset them. Especially to Hightechredneck who worked for a church owned cookie company. I would sincerely hope that such a companies motives would be different than the conventional shareholder owned company.
Stan, no apology needed, you didn't offend me. I simply chose to point out that greed isn't required for success in a free market economy. And you are right, a truly Christian company should be visibly different in its operations. There are others that do so to varying degrees. (i.e. Voortman's Cookies and Chick-Fil-A)
BTW, contrary to popular belief, the SDA church doesn't own McKee. The McKee family owns it fully and makes all decisions. Sometimes those decisions are not in lock step with what the church wants (i.e. their sponsorship of a car in NASCAR). But they are deeply committed to their beliefs. While I am not SDA, (Baptist myself) I deeply respect their committment to their faith and the way they run their business according to their beliefs.
Quote from: Stan on March 04, 2008, 06:04:29 AM
For those who aren't familiar with my background - Thirty six years ago my wife suffered a cerebral hemorrhage and I had the choice of putting her into an institution and letting the government care for her or selling my business and becoming a full time care giver. I chose the latter course and with a lot of therapy we have had a pretty good life, without government assistance. For twenty one years we full timed in bus conversions as the best choice for her, following the sun so that she could get outside. We would still be doing that if my vision problems hadn't forced the sale of the bus.
You have my utmost respect sir. I am doing about the same thing for my mother. We full time in my bus and I take care of her. It has been very good for her condition and I have enjoyed it a lot.
HighTechRedNeck...Low TechRedNeck here, you said..."Sometimes those decisions are not in lock step with what the church wants (i.e. their sponsorship of a car in NASCAR)." Not being argumentative here...thought I would relay something most folks don't know;
While not a Seventh Day Adventist I do know that the agreement with the Woods Brothers is that from Sundown Friday to Sundown Sat, they have to cover anything that says McKeee or Little Deddie. That includes the hauler.
That's part of the reason for the Air Force and other assciate sponsors.
I still get a kick out of Chick-fil-A, years ago the malls told them they would have to open on Sundays, Mr. Cathy said no...if they had to move from the mall, that would be OK...he wasn't going to open on Sundays. And didn't!
Jack
Stan, you said, "I guess I owe an apology to a lot of board members for making statements that so upset them"
No apology needed here, we all have our opinions and thank goodness we can say them here. If we were all alike think how boring it would be!
Jack
Until yesterday I had never heard of Mckee Foods so I did what every computer user does and googled McKee. This is what Wikipeedia says and I have no other corporate information because private companies don't make much news in the financial press. On re-reading this article it does not say 'owned by' but rather that it is 'run by' ...... A rather unusual term when referring to a business.
QuoteMcKee Foods Corporation is a privately held United States company headquartered in Collegedale, Tennessee. McKee Foods is run by members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Because advertising is considered a form of business, and they believe that they should not do business on their day of rest, the company chooses to have the NASCAR team it sponsors cover up all logos from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday.
That is actually the McKee family's ruling on all advertising. A friend of mine is the Marketing Manager responsible for getting McKee into the NASCAR sponsorship. That is the stipulation that was made from the beginning by the family.
Wikipedia is a great tool. Sometimes verbage can cause confusion. I can assure everyone, McKee is owned by the McKee family, with the shares held by many members of the family. O.D. McKee founded it. His sons Ellsworth and Jack came to head it up later. Ellsworth and Jack are still involved, but now day to day leadership is into the third generation with Mike, Debbie (yup, the original "Little Debbie"), Rusty and Chris holding key leadership positions.
Stan, I know this off topic but I admire and respect very few men on this earth but what you and Sonnie Gray have sacrificed for your wife's you both have all I can give. Short story about Sonnie he was called into the teacher office about his grandson and he thought the worse, but the teacher told him that they had quiz on who was the most respected man they knew his grandson answer was it's my grandpa for the way he takes care of my grandma
Well! I'll have you know that I disagree with nearly EVERYTHING and EVERYONE in this thread. Am I spelling that right? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Amazing!
When I posted the story about my wife, I wasn't looking for any sympathy or attaboys. I just wanted to show what a hardhearted SOB I really am. Some of the comments were quite personal and I didn't want to say anymore until things cooled down.
QuoteStan, there is a lot I could say to your comments...however I would hope that if we met somewhere out here we would be friends. Then again...with your views...I doubt it would be for long. What you are saying is basically this. If you can't fight 'em...join 'em. Or maybe this...if you don't like being the rapee...be the raper.
Incidentally, in all my traveling, I always stayed at private campgrounds. I support the free enterprise system.
I don't apologize to people for the stock I own in a couple of the major oil Co's just a good investment on your part Stan.I spent 13 years in Venezuela for Stewart and Stevenson and I know people look at the 11 cents a gal for fuel and say wow aren't those people lucky but the problem with it you need a car and the 11 cents to buy it with, that hundreds of thousands don't have living there.
Can one of you guys answer a question for me if oil is a 100 dollars a barrel (42 gals) and a barrel will make 19.5 gallons of gasoline thats 5.00 dollars a gallon just for the oil how can we buy it for 3+ dollars or does this mean that it will be 6 or 7 dollars in a week or two.I need help on this the math is not right
The other 22.5 gals are used to make other things like road tar, plastics etc.
It is like the old way of the west no part of the animal goes to waste :)
Skip
Skipn, does diesel fuel come out of the same cracking process for that barrel of oil
This site breaks it down pretty well:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/gasoline/whats_in_barrel_oil.html
Thanks, Hightech they make big bucks off a barrel being they lose only the smell from a barrel oil
While following this thread I have tried to sit back and consider all sides of every opinion offered and honestly, I've come to the conclusion that we have some pretty intelligent people in our ranks. Each and every one has offered some information or thought that only proves one thing. America is still the greatest nation in the free world.
Nick thought that we might have set a new record for pages of dialogue without a flaming fight. With all due respect, we're all adults and have weathered more arguments than we'd like to repeat. Personally, I thank you all for your thoughts.
Where from here? If the powers that be finally realize that we're married, for probably the next couple of generations, to oil and its' byproducts I pray that they'll stop the foolishness and let the farmers raise grains to feed our people and not the potential coffers of their dreams of tax money.
This is the very first year of my 72 year old life where I see our country finding that we HAVE to import grain from another country because we're so caught up in this Ethanol thing that we cannot feed our own people!
Take a hard look at this last sentence gentlemen. Is this where we want America to go?
We have been the breadbasket for the world for generations. Are we going to let Politicians reduce us to a 3rd World Country in their quest for power?
I'm not going to answer my own question. My wife and I have only a voice each...which we can exercise only every two years...and then, seemingly, only in opposition to our own children.
We are going through a period of tremendous potential political turmoil. All are asking for 'change'. From the known to the unknown? We've been there so many times before, but have always pulled together as a nation, to secure the freedoms we were promised in the Constitution.
Would you wager a tank of diesel fuel today....on the future?
Bob
Thoughtful post, Bob. Thanx,.... and I pretty much agree with you. What price " change," eh?
RCB
Someone said it earlier in the thread that these are the 'Good Ol Days'. Sad but true. :'(
Bob, I'm scared now, I find myself agreeing with some of the things your saying, luckily I'm comforted by disagreeing with a few of your statements. This year we will have the chance to make a decision that we will have to live with for the next 4 years, not to be taken lightly. Your right, at this time we stand a chance of slipping into third world status for probably the first time in our history. It used to be easy for this country to wield the economic hammer and sway other countries to our way of thinking but in a global economy this is becoming encreasingly difficult, with other countries rising into the power circles, we have to adapt or fall behind. I realize that a military campaign in another part of the world has merit in many respects but I cannot help but think of what the 400 million dollar a month cost would do for our highway infrastructure, or the educational system or in other area's if it had been directed in that direction. I see capped oil wells sitting, and undeveloped oil fields, no new refineries built in the last 30 years, so many other area's that could be of a national interest to us. For us to have to import food when we have the potential to feed the world and now we can't even feed ourselves without help from outside the country is a travesty made real by unwise choices. Techologically, we have always had the edge but now we see other countries taking the forefront in area's of alternate power, and new product develpoment, jobs are going overseas at an unpresidented rate, something is radically wrong in the best nation on earth and it's correctable we just have to get back to the ideals that made this country great, not only to give us back the edge we always had but to regain the respect of the other countries.
How about this for our politicians looking out for our countries best interest:
Machinists Union Blasts Tanker Decision
Machinists across the country are calling for congressional action following the decision by Air Force officials to award a $40 billion aerial refueling tanker contract to a team led by the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co. (EADS), parent company of Airbus.
"The Air Force's decision is a serious blow to a key American industry," said IAM GVP Rich Michalski. "President Bush and his administration have denied real economic stimulus to the American people and chosen instead to create jobs in Toulouse, France."
The tanker competition was mandated in 2003, allowing a heavily subsidized European manufacturer, EADS, to bid against Boeing, a U.S. firm that received no subsidies.
"This decision means billions of taxpayer dollars will be used to create jobs in foreign countries, rather than here in the United States," said IAM International President Tom Buffenbarger. "Giving this contract to EADS further hollows out America's industrial base and rewards a company that has already used $100 million in European government subsidies to grab nearly 50 percent of the U.S. commercial aircraft market."
The IAM represents nearly 35,000 Boeing employees in Washington state, Oregon, Kansas and locations across the country.
I am a IAM member, and the above was taken from their website:
http://www.goiam.org/publications/imail/imail_03_04_2008.htm
How about this to add to our problems (a little long, but watch the whole thing):
http://youtube.com/watch?v=n7WJeqxuOfQ
>:( >:( >:( Think we have problems now? >:( >:( >:(
Do any of you follow the metals market? Do you think Silver and Gold are around the top or do you think Silver/Gold is going to go up a lot?
They are selling some Chinese gold at Walmart cheap. Of course, as many things from China, it is made of lead.
I believe the Airbus tankers are going to be built in Georgia. And Airbus is moving the A330 production (or some major assembly thereof) to Ga also.
Feel free to correct my post, but we are becoming a less expensive place in which to manufacture due primarily to the deflated buck. And we have the skilled workforce to do the job unlike most third world countries. Airbus is hedging their losses by manufacturing in the US.
I've got a new Turbo Meca plant right down the road. French helicopter engine plant. Big potential employer in this area. They send everyone to France for initial training.
So much for the trade imbalance on the Airbus fuel tankers?
JR
Quote from: Barn Owl on March 04, 2008, 08:34:00 PM
How about this to add to our problems (a little long, but watch the whole thing):
http://youtube.com/watch?v=n7WJeqxuOfQ
>:( >:( >:( Think we have problems now? >:( >:( >:(
Amen!
Too bad that some of our American government officials are letting the foreigner into our English speaking land without even getting citizenship and learn to speak our language. Even our government allows their own children to not speak English as main language in every stores & products & manuals.
The one Barn Owl posted the "you tube" link is EVEN MORE STOCKING than above.
From that alone will never stop increasing fuel cost.Thanks for the update Barn Owl..... hooot hooot!
Sojourn for Christ, Jerry
JR,
Great info and long overdue. We are the land of opportunity and fair competition and that is WHY we are number one. We aren't letting these foreign corps into the country, we are welcoming them and the capitol (remember capitalists?) they bring "back" (pretty much") into our nation. Surely to Chr**t you will have no trouble whatsoever finding negative examples but the theory holds and it is our Gummints responsibility to inflict law and regulation on EVERYONE. Levels the playing field.
A french Corp bought the old Rust Belt mill he retired from. They had talked a lot about how they were going to "revive" the mill with contracts they had in Europe. Less than a year after they acquired the company the truth began to unfold.....First, they announced they were having difficulty making ends MEET, Then they announced that they would have to sell of machinery to get the capitol to purchase the new equipment that they needed to turn around the negative cash flow. Many wondered out loud about why these people were being "blind sided" by problems any man on the street knew about.....Turns out the plant assets had been "used up" by the original mill owners before they transferred the manufacturing off shore. There were NO ASSETS that could be liquidated and if there had been the PO would have sold them and taken the cash off shore.....Then the Frogs played their trump card. The Pension Fund would have to be raided and pensions reduced to half so the funds could be made available for corp investment......Ahhh Sooo!.....The court stopped this rape based on their being a contract between the corp and the retirees that it would be maintained. It also came to light that the fund was rich and would always have funds for the original deal and that while it was arguable that the funds should be distributed at an accelerated rate the fund managers, corp people, fought this because the residual funds reverted to the corp. Inflation ate their pensions and the retirement income became a joke after many years. My Dad is dead now and the Principle that provided the interest that paid his paltry pension has now been converted to a unfettered Corp asset acct. That mill stays buttoned up as tight as ever and no amt of funds (deaths) has started a single machine. From what I know of finance, they corp could always have borrowed against their "proven" income from those "conversions"(deaths) but they never did.
I don't have much info on this but a French outfit that specializes in WATER TREATMENT is purchasing up water plants and distribution systems world wide. I understand that many municipal operations have been "privatized" and sold to them and others for the purported purpose of achieving "the efficiency" that the market brings to any enterprise. Sure, and then the additional profits will be passed along to the consumer. There are a lot of people high fiveing and celebrating the riddance of those GD Civil Servants that "never did a days work in their life and were just sucking a living out of hard working folks like you and me". Get ready to get real thirsty!
The best selling compact sedan in the world is manufactured in Tenn. It is the 4 door Toyota Camry. Or was. That car is shipped back to Japan where it enjoys a reputation as one of that country's most reliable and best seller. The two door version is still made in Toyota City in Japan and is equally respected as a high water mark in value. Both our nations benefit from arrangements like this. It can be done and it must be done for us to survive in this new economy. We just have to be sure who it is that is negotiating for us. Transparency in Gummint is critical and critical review is essential and public access to those reviews is the ONLY thing that gives them any value. Now lets hear it for why "the Pres needs to have private consult cause people won't offer really candid advice if the public finds out". Who do you think is high diving that. I like the old system of checks and balances and "open" Gummint "of and for the people"....you know, the CONSERVATIVE values.
The Air Force is the most progressive of the services. They most closely follow the Defense Acquisition Regulation (DAR). That document requires that ALL Acq be a competitive process and that the award be to the highest qualified bidder. The biggest bang for the tax dollar is is the rule and mission will never suffer from that process. The Air Bus contract will have a clause in it that the aircraft will be domestic manufactured and that those manufacturing assets will remain domestic for life cycle support. We will never let a foreign country have control over the maintainability of out military aircraft. That would be just plain stupid. That is how we deal with the rest of the world that buys our military hardware, however. Except Germany got the rights to build the F104 and I think Israel got a "favorable" deal also but I forget what it was. Ceaser Chavez wanted to be able to mfr his own rifles but we wouldn't sell him the guns or the mfr. licence so he bought from the Russians. Probably got a worse deal from them cause he paid with Dollars he got from selling oil to us. We could have gotten a lot of that money back and the jobs we need. Why would we care how many assult rifles he has to fend off an invader????? I would sell him all the rifles he could carry back there. Those Boeing workers will get jobs working for Air Bus and we all know that the Europeans have better health care and pensions so why wouldn't they pay the same here unless our Gummint doesn't require that?
Love ya,
John
QuoteEuropeans have better health care and pensions
I respectfully disagree,
Laryn
Does anyone know about the "Fair Tax"?
John,
I think you mean Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. Caesar Chavez was the founder of the farm workers union in California. Water in private hands can be a problem. In a deal with the World Bank, Bolivia had to turn over all water rights in one of there states to Bechtel. It became illegal to get water from anyone else and was even a crime to gather rainwater. That is one of the amazing abuses of corporate power, allowed by those in power, that has led to Bolivia's current leftist government.
The world price of crude is not driving the US fuel prices or the oil company profits would not be where they are.
We have the fuel prices we have because we are willing to pay that price. But why that price? Because there has not been a new refinery built in the US in decades and the refineries we have are operating at capacity 24 7. We have all the supply of fuel we are going to have until the government and action group allow more to be built. So what you say. Well our population keeps growing and they all want cars and the good live. But no more fuel is available so demand has to be driven down. What tool does big oil have to drive down demand; prices. They have to keep raising prices because we get used to the higher prices and go back to using fuel like its a good deal. The hearings in congress lasted three days because they know the real story and the hearings was a PR stunt. Also driving demand down fits the policy of many of those politicians. That is one of the reasons there has been no new refineries. The oil company execs are no happier than most of you over their record profits; they know those profits put a target on their backs and they are called every name in the book because they are doing what is required to keep fuel at the station when you want it. If they didn't drive down demand with high prices, the demand would outstrip supply in no time and the tanks at the stations would be empty. You think people are complaining about high prices; let the tanks go empty and they would be demanding that the government nationalize the oil companies for the public good. There is no problem that can't be made worse by government intervention.
I know most of the board members wouldn't post on how to rebuilt a Detroit or wire a bus without studying the subject or reading a book. If you are going to discuss economics, please buy or borrow from your library a copy of Thomas Sowell's 'Basic Economics' and read it cover to cover. It is a text book but very readable and Mr. Sowell covers everything from centrally planned economies to wide open capitalistic economies.
QuoteDoes anyone know about the "Fair Tax"?
I am a huge proponent of the fair tax. It will place the power back in the hands of the people and anytime that happens it is a good thing.
Quote from: Lin on March 05, 2008, 02:15:41 PM
John,
Water in private hands can be a problem. In a deal with the World Bank, Bolivia had to turn over all water rights in one of there states to Bechtel. It became illegal to get water from anyone else and was even a crime to gather rainwater. That is one of the amazing abuses of corporate power, allowed by those in power, that has led to Bolivia's current leftist government.
As an aside, check the laws regarding gathering snow in areas of Colorado. Same as you say. Don't get caught gathering snow to water indoor plants. Now I have no idea how they police this, but this is what I read.
Regarding a 'fair tax'...the middle class will never have a 'fair tax.' Before jumping on that wagon, one should study what you are actually paying now. The only 'tax' that would be offset is the federal income tax. We'll still be paying for SS, and all the other sundry taxes leveied on our pitiable :'( existance. Now I'm paying a "Video Service Tax" of $5 bucks a month on a $60 DirecTV statement to North Carolina. They don't miss an opportunity!
The numbers being kicked around are around 23% to 30% and no deductions. While I really dislike the existing income tax scheme, not sure that I would be happy with a 'fair tax' scheme. The underground economy is huge now...wait till everyone pays a flat rate....well, no, that won't happen. Only the middle class and rich will pay. And contrary to popular belief, the rich do pay. Don't make no no-how to me...I'm going to retire and let 3 someones pay ME! My tax liability is going to go way down. If fuel prices go much higher, a lot of other peoples tax liabilities are going to be reduced. There will be a major jobs contraction. No problemo...that will take care of a ton of illegals..! ;D Cool. They don't want to get sideways with crowds of hungry gringos. Reckon how much fuel would be saved by removing 20 million drivers of junk vehicles? ???
Health care issues have no resolution. Most of us have excellent health care. Best in the world. And the most expensive. We can give up the 'excellence' for universal healthcare, or we can slog along as it is. It is an interesting problem. The Canadian model would not do as well if the US healthcare services were not so readily available.
Just reading the latest on Hugo Chavez...the guy never quits! I'd bet the US could remove the 'profit' from all the narco states by legalizing hard drugs and allow the farming for such in the US. Tax the hel out of it. Treat it like alcohol. Drug trafficking is the mainstay of the leftist govs in South America and the Middle East. That's Afghanistan's cash crop.
How's that for flight of ideas? ;) JR
You really need to read up on the Fair Tax before you form an opinion. The follow in an excerpt from fairtax.org (http://fairtax.org)
The FairTax Act (HR 25, S 1025) is nonpartisan legislation. It abolishes all federal personal and corporate income taxes, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, and self-employment taxes and replaces them with one simple, visible, federal retail sales tax administered primarily by existing state sales tax authorities.
The FairTax taxes us only on what we choose to spend on new goods or services, not on what we earn. The FairTax is a fair, efficient, transparent, and intelligent solution to the frustration and inequity of our current tax system.
There is a ton of information on their website it is worth your time to take a look.
Quote from: Lee Bradley on March 05, 2008, 04:52:21 PM
There is no problem that can't be made worse by government intervention.
AMEN!! There are days when I feel that I understand how the last days of Rome evolved. Watching the daily incompetence of our federales leaves me wondering how long we'll be around.
We got an invasion of 20 million illegals and our congress is worrying about doping in baseball??? Gads.
JR
Quote from: buddydawg on March 05, 2008, 07:12:49 PM
You really need to read up on the Fair Tax before you form an opinion. The follow in an excerpt from fairtax.org (http://fairtax.org)
The FairTax Act (HR 25, S 1025) is nonpartisan legislation. It abolishes all federal personal and corporate income taxes, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, and self-employment taxes and replaces them with one simple, visible, federal retail sales tax administered primarily by existing state sales tax authorities.
The FairTax taxes us only on what we choose to spend on new goods or services, not on what we earn. The FairTax is a fair, efficient, transparent, and intelligent solution to the frustration and inequity of our current tax system.
There is a ton of information on their website it is worth your time to take a look.
I'm familiar with the concept. Boortz has been hawking this idea for a while. We'll see. I prefer Walter Williams take on this item. He says that it'll start off at 23% and rapidly increase to about 40%. All under the guise of 'revenue neutral' since they are replacing lost revenue.
I'm gonna go google Thomas Sowell and see what he has to say about the fair tax.
As it stands now, I am able to deduct diesel fuel as a business expense...the fair tax would have me losing my deduction and then paying another....cough..23% :o...I'd have to walk! ;)
Cheers, JR
You will pay the sales tax on the fuel after the current fuel tax and all other imbedded taxes have been removed. I encourage everyone to read the details of the plan before they go trashing it. Most of the negatives i hear about the Fair Tax are due to misinformation.
Last year, talk-show host Neal Boortz and Congressman John Linder co-authored "The FairTax Book: Saying Goodbye to the Income Tax and the IRS." It turned out to be a No. 1 New York Times Best Seller. In 2005, the Fair Tax bill was introduced in both the U.S. House of Representatives as H.R. 25 and the U.S. Senate as S.25. Rep. Linder plans to re-introduce the bill next year.
If enacted, the Fair Tax would eliminate: the federal individual income tax, alternative minimum tax, corporate and business taxes, capital gains tax, Social Security and Medicare taxes, and estate and gift taxes. These taxes would be replaced by a 23 percent sales tax on all goods and services sold at the retail level. The Fair Tax would be revenue-neutral in the sense that it would replace the revenue from current federal taxes; thus, it would change the way government is funded.
Our current tax code is an abomination, and we desperately need that change. The time Americans spend simply complying with our tax code comes to 5.8 billion hours of record-keeping, filing taxes, consulting, legal and accounting services. Breaking those hours down to a 40-hour work week, it translates into a workforce of 2.77 million people. That's more than the workforce of our auto, aircraft, computer and steel manufacturing industries combined.
The Fair Tax has much to recommend in its favor, such as being a more efficient form of taxation. It would go a long way toward protecting our privacy and preventing Congress from using the tax code to micromanage our lives. The Fair Tax is an excellent idea, but only under three conditions: first, the repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment that created the income tax; second, a provision fixing the tax at, say, 23 percent; and third, a constitutional amendment mandating that a tax increase requires a three-fourths vote of Congress. Notwithstanding any provisions within the Fair Tax, if the Sixteenth Amendment weren't repealed, down the road we'd find ourselves with a national sales tax and an income tax.
You say, "Williams, it sounds as if you don't trust Congress." I don't trust Congress any farther than I can toss an elephant. During the debate prior to ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment, congressmen said that only the rich would ever pay income taxes. In 1917, only one-half of one percent of income earners paid income taxes. Those earning $250,000 a year in today's dollars paid one percent, and those earning $6 million in today's dollars paid 7 percent. The lie that only the rich would ever pay income taxes was simply propaganda to dupe Americans into ratifying the Sixteenth Amendment.
Here's my prediction: The Fair Tax will never become law. The two most powerful congressional committees are the House Ways and Means and the Senate Finance committees. These committees write tax law, and as such they are able to confer tax privileges on some Americans at the expense of other Americans. The Fair Tax would reduce or eliminate this form of congressional privilege-granting power and, subsequently, campaign contributions from the beneficiaries would dwindle.
The method used to finance the federal government is very important, but I've always argued that government spending is the true measure of its impact on our lives. If there were a Fair Tax, what's to stop Congress from deficit spending or inflating the currency? Deficit spending and inflation are simply alternative forms, albeit less obvious, of taxation.
You say, "What's Williams' solution?" My solution is an amendment limiting federal spending to a fixed percentage, say, 10 percent of the gross domestic product. You say, "Why 10 percent?" If 10 percent is good enough for the Baptist Church, it certainly ought to be good enough for Congress.
Dr. Williams serves on the faculty of George Mason University as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics and is the author of More Liberty Means Less Government: Our Founders Knew This Well.
Thanks to Dr. Walter Williams
I think the national sales tax is a better system than we have now. Just think of all the money that would be gained from tapping the underground and illegal economies that are fax-free at present. One thing that I don't like is that people, who have already paid income tax on their savings, will be taxed again on it when they start spending it during retirement. There seems that there should be some way to avoid that. By the way, there is a good case to be made that the 16 amendment was never actually completely ratified, but the government implemented it anyway. I think that Ron Paul actually acknowledges that the IRS does not really have the legal authority to collect taxes; they merely have the physical power to do so.
QuoteThe Air Bus contract will have a clause in it that the aircraft will be domestic manufactured
Wrong! They will only be assembled in America, they will be manufactured in Europe!
Lin,
Of course you are right....I did mean "HUGO" Chavez. I shouldn't write on this board when i am tired. Really not fit to do so. So thats writing and sex when I am really tired. I keep forgetting.
Your info about Bolivia is heart breaking. It isn't any wonder that our cherished, and rightly so, economic system of free enterprise is so distrusted and held in such low contempt. We have branded the Bolivian government as LEFTIST. I think it would be more properly described as being fundamentally conservative and Patriotic with a full focus on the well fare of its people. The new government seems to be of the people, by the people and for the people. Corp abuses fired up the populace to vote out the previously corrupt and corp dominated government. As a nation we seem to prefer to deal with dictators. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
When Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected he was vilified in the press by the most powerful newspaper man in the country. That would be William Randolf Hearst....the Rupert Murdock of his day. As payback for his having used his news papers, then thought to be a sacred part of the American fabric, in what was considered a disreputable way, FDR struck back the only way he could. FDR pushed Congress to enact an income tax to help with the Gummints being broke and their being a depression in process. Congress would only agree in principle and was loath to tax anybody/the rich. FDR scaled back his demands and settled for a tax only on income that exceeded $100K. The only person/rich guy in the nation that actually paid himself a high salary was WRH and his salary was exactally $100K so the first year it was enacted there was only one person paying. I thought it was an interesting tale, and NO, it didn't come out of U. history 101.
I thought Flat Tax was dead. Sorry to see that is still being kicked around. I never could see why anyone with a working knowledge of ARITHMATIC could buy into this fairy tale. Without any thought or serious consideration I was insulted when I first heard that it was seriously being considered by anyone. Insulted! It isn't rocket science. You only have to look at who is proposing this farce. CORPORATIONS would no longer pay ANY TAX. Gee, why would they pay good money to deceive the many on this matter. There would be no ESTATE TAX. The way the Estate tax was written before this current crop of revisions, Bill gates, with a fortune of $40 Billion to leave his only daughter, would have seen $20 Billion be consumed by estate taxes. Now she is a sweet girl, i am sure, but to those that MUCH IS GIVEN, much is expected. They enacted the estate tax because the rich accumulate so much money that it is a power unto itself and their estate perpetuates itself without their raising a finger or contributing to society. These are ROYALTY by another name as they have hereditary POWER/wealth. To get that money back into play, the case that is made for reducing taxes, the Congress enacted the estate tax. At that it only kicks in if the estate is worth more than $3Million. The purpose was to relieve the tax on the middle class and HELP the economy. The ultra rich despise that tax and for that reason alone WE, the middle class, should be screaming that it be kept. Then there is capitol gains. Reagan had the entire country believing that the Gummint actually TOOK 75% of the capitol gains as tax. It was actually a 25% of your Capitol income was tax free. He increased that to 75% is tax free. That is income that you did not WORK for.....your money made it for you...or you holdings. Most of the Capitol gain income is distributed among the rich so why is the middle class screaming that they get a completely FREE RIDE? We should be screaming that capitol gains on less than some amt per year be taxed at a lower rate instead of relieving the ultrarich.
When you look at the Flat tax be assured that to keep Gummint functioning at its current level the flat tax needs to be 40% of income. For this national sales tax to work it would have to create the same money and would represent as stupid a rate to let all the other tax payers completely off of the hook. Our national budget is spent primarily on entitlements. Read that as Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security. They have been untouchable in the past. All will have to be drasticall cut to reduce the sales tax to a rate that you can stomach. We spend nearly everything we make to subsist in the middle class. The more money you make the more discretionary income you have. Read that as yachts and private aircraft and speculative investment. How can anyone in the middle class climb on that band wagon? We struggle to keep our buses and buy fuel...at least in comparison to those really rich Dudes that say "if you have to ask about its milage than you can't afford it".
Check this theory: The higher the income tax rate has risen the better it has been for the economy as a whole. When their taxes go up the rich get down to business and work a 6 hour day instead of putting in a grueling 3 hour shift with breaks. They are the only ones that can adjust their income by working harder. And they deserve to profit in accordancewith their effort. You work twice as hard and your income remains the same. Now try it like: drill twice as many wells, or build two more restaraunts, or increase your truck fleet by 30%. Get it?
I need to be able to afford to run and drive my bus. That would be FAIR. In the first year of the Regan revolution, mentioned only as a time frame reference, corps paid 60% or 40% of all the taxes in our nation. Today the rate is 15% or at least less than half. Somebody had to make up the difference and you know who that is. Now we can fix that by letting the absolutely most fortunate among us completely off the hook to help in any way. THIS IS A POST ABOUT THE COST OF FUEL and how I can afford more of it. I hope we are connecting dots.
Here it is. The explanation you have all been waiting for. It comes from Uncle Joseph Stalin. He said "the very first thing that a man does when he is given freedom/rights is to barter them away in order to deprive some other group of the same rights." Now Vladimir Illyavich LENIN is also known for predicting the failure of democracy with "when the middle class finally learns that it can vote itself out of the responsibility of paying taxes to support its government it will simply disappear". It gets replaced with an Oligarchy or Tyrant and then the belts tighten.
Those economists are the ones that proved mathematically that you must have a progressive income tax to redistribute wealth or there will be no wealth in circulation that will inspire men to succeed and achieve. Russians were the worst motivated people on earth, except slaves, because they were limited and without hope. It is to perpetuate the economic model of capitalism that we tax the rich. It keeps the country running and it really doesn't cost you a dime, comparatively speaking. Your Daddy paid 30% tax and look how well he lived. If I cut your income tax to 15% would you be living better than your Daddy? Remember, Mom stayed at home. Who loaded you with this stuff about taxes being the root of your problem....or those welfare moms....or the Mexicans....or those cursed college professors. Which dictator was it that killed off all of the college professors? Answer.....all of them!
See it to late for me to be up and armed with a computer to embarrass my self with. Lin....help!
John
It's interesting that you choose people that kill others that opposed them as support quotes for your position :(
Fewer taxes on everyone, helps everyone. You are trying to convince everyone that we should receive the benefits of someone elses labor, that's really what wealth redistribution is about isn't it?
You also state "I need to be able to afford to run and drive my bus. That would be FAIR."
How is driving and owning a bus a right? As a group I think all of us have made financial concessions to "run and drive our busses"
The current economic problems we are facing relate directly to spending. The ferderal, state, and local govt. have an insatiable desire for more money and spend more than they can collect in revenue. So do most people, look around we have smaller families and yet larger houses, I rarely see a car ten years old or older, etc...
Bottom line if you want to be able to pay for the future, start saving and planning now.
Just to pick up that comment about bigger houses. My wife talked about needing a bigger kitchen. I told her that I believed that kitchen growth and waistline growth may be related since, I think, that if you plotted kitchen size in America and obesity in America on a graph, the curves would run pretty close. Some of us could even do a self survey on this. How does the growth of your kitchen and waist compare? Actually, I have since seen curves done on house size and waist size and they were the same.
Lin: An interesting concept, but the waist size is more related to the fact that many people aren't aware that their house has a kitchen. Eating healthy foods at home is not the cause of obesity.
Quote from: Lin on March 06, 2008, 11:42:14 AM
Just to pick up that comment about bigger houses. My wife talked about needing a bigger kitchen. I told her that I believed that kitchen growth and waistline growth may be related since, I think, that if you plotted kitchen size in America and obesity in America on a graph, the curves would run pretty close. Some of us could even do a self survey on this. How does the growth of your kitchen and waist compare? Actually, I have since seen curves done on house size and waist size and they were the same.
Having:
- grown up in a very poor part of town
- lived on extremely low income a couple times in my life
- lived in Los Angeles
- spent time in the poor parts of several major cities
- personally known a few elite rich with kitchens bigger than some of the entire homes I have lived in
No offense intended, but I would question the validity of the data for such a graph. My observation has been that obesity and poverty often are related, probably due to culture and the types of food typically eaten. While a trim waistline is more common to those with healthy eating habits and excercise regimens, which are more prevalent among the middle class and upwards, as are larger kitchens.
Well this would be an amazing phenomena. As the more affluent get bigger kitchens, the poor get fatter. So I will have to convince my wife that she should avoid a bigger kitchen not merely for our own health, but because it is the socially responsible thing to do. After all, we don't want to cause more underclass obesity.
Quote from: Lin on March 06, 2008, 12:13:46 PM
Well this would be an amazing phenomena. As the more affluent get bigger kitchens, the poor get fatter. So I will have to convince my wife that she should avoid a bigger kitchen not merely for our own health, but because it is the socially responsible thing to do. After all, we don't want to cause more underclass obesity.
Sorry, I'm not saying that if you get a bigger kitchen, some poor person will gain weight. I'm just saying that if you can afford a big kitchen and she has a desire for it, the odds are in your favor that you already eat healthier foods and will continue to do so. On the other hand, people in poorer neighborhoods with over glorified closets as kitchens tend to eat high fat, high starch diets resulting in weight gain.
Best advice I can give: If she wants a bigger kitchen, get one for her. They say money can't buy happiness. But it can buy a bigger kitchen. It she wants it, she will be happier with it. If she is happier, your bus budget will have a better approval rating, making you happier. Hence, in this case, money just might buy happiness for both of you - a pretty good investment in my opinion. ;)
Hightech is correct, people below the poverty line in the US are more likely to be overweight than underweight.
In the rest of the world it is a whole different story. On another note if you live at the poverty line in the US you are better off than the vast majority of the peoples of the world.
Paul,
I am a patriot too. Really! I am always disappointed, however, when i hear that there are places in the world that are "worse" than our great nation. Infant mortality is something that sickens me as a stat. in particular. A few short years ago we were WORSE than Bulgaria. BULGARIA! That is a third world nation that sucked hind teat in the Soviet union. We have come up a notch or two but not much. I know without a shadow of a doubt that there were some that said, when they heard that part about Bulgaria, "well look here, we are better than the SUDAN or Nigeria." That someone is lower should never be our defense. That we are not number one is a travesty. We are the United States of America and we have no excuse given the degree to which we have been blessed and our history of pride and achievement.
That Bulgaria stat put us in the 80th place or some revolting/shamefull position. Our life span is many years shorter than Europe as a whole and the French in particular. I think the number is that 1 in four children go to bed hungry. People will actually start talking about "why" we can't do better. How can this be? One way we can PREVENT improvement is to flat deny the numbers or their validity.
This denial also happens in the FUEL COST subject. All sorts of discussions about why we can't do anything. Gas is 11 cents a gallon in Venezuela and no I don't want to move there....just understand why that is. There are other places with cheaper fuel and why is my question there also and of course WHY CAN"T WE DO THAT....whatever that is.
Thanks guy, This isn't a rant though it might read like one. This is a FLAT MEDIUM and subject to gross misunderstanding.
John
Infant mortality went into decline when the sexual revolution of the 60s started. Teenage girls having babies with no idea who the father might be and in some cases only eleven or twelve years old. In many cases they keep the pregnancy hidden from their parents as long as possible so they get no pre-natal medical care. The use of tobacco, alcohol and illegal drugs during pregnancy makes the situation worse. The numbers are made worse by all the illegal women who are reluctant to seek medical care, during pregnancy, because they might get deported.
In your research on infant mortality, did you get the numbers for babies born into stable marriages, maybe with a comparison between rich, middle class and poor?
Hey guys the Fair Tax is not the Flat Tax. The Fair Tax is a national retail sales tax where the Flat Tax is an Income Tax. Two different things.
Quote from: JohnEd on March 06, 2008, 11:15:39 PM
This denial also happens in the FUEL COST subject. All sorts of discussions about why we can't do anything. Gas is 11 cents a gallon in Venezuela and no I don't want to move there....just understand why that is. There are other places with cheaper fuel and why is my question there also and of course WHY CAN"T WE DO THAT....whatever that is.
There are three reasons that come to mind.
First is that in Venezuela the oil is state owned and refined. They don't pay the market price. They only have the cost of getting it out of the ground, storing it, refining it and distributing it.
Second, as someone else pointed out earlier, the value of 11¢ there is vastly different than 11¢ here. Incomes are much lower and 11¢ is a
LOT higher percentage of somebodies income there than here. Googling it reveals that the per capita income in Venezuela is less than $5000, with some sources saying $4000.
Third, since the state is selling it to the citizens, do they tax it? I don't know, but it wouldn't make much sense.
Quote from: JohnEd on March 06, 2008, 11:15:39 PM
. There are other places with cheaper fuel and why is my question there also and of course WHY CAN"T WE DO THAT....whatever that is.
John
Well, the quick and dirty answer is that the environmentals don't want any folk but themselves spoiling the view. And air.
The greens and democrats have effectively limited energy production in this county. They don't want to burn or liquify coal, don't want drilling, many don't want wind farms in their backyards (Kennedys), don't want to build additional refinery capacity. And they really don't want nuclear energy production.
A better question would be what do the greens want us to do for energy? What is the "Green" view of a modern world?
I believe that their is plenty of oil. The oceans are awash with the stuff. It's everywhere. We just so lucky to have a political system that makes it legal, to pander to green groups such as the Sierra Club for votes.
Anwar is a classic loss of opportunity...as is the lack of refinery capacity.
May I suggest that the quality of life is directly tied to the cost of energy. And we are on a slippery slope.
Our Democrats and their green supporters are quite happy having us bend over for OPEC.
Oh well. A good world financial contraction will loosen up some oil.
Technology will resolve our oil dependence given time. Nothing drives new energy technology like high priced energy. And I hope the Arabs and Chavez can survive on 25 dollar a barrel oil.
Maybe that's the plan and I misjudge our fool congres? Maybe they plan to push OPEC beyond their peak oil source and then we'll dig our oil up? Homey don't think so.
Still, one must consider that hidden in this oil price mess is the fact that our pols are allowing the dollar to slide against other world currencies. That makes the adjusted cost of a barrel of oil about $75 bucks. Our idiots in Washington are directly responsible for a good bit of our energy pain. I know there's a plan.... ???
JR
Ok guys now you got me all corn fused again, I thinking on the statement that when a rich person makes a bigger kitchen, a poor person gets fat, now we built a small kitchen in the bus, does that mean I made a rich person fat? lol
Well Cody, since we all know how rich you are, we will just have to watch your waistline and see. :)
Frank
JR,
Democrats? Don't go there! We will get locked up sure. No more posts will be allowed if this devolves to a political rant and I agree with them, the moderators. This must be the longest thread ever tolerated on this loosely restrained of a topic and we all show up well for it. Its the economics of fuel costs that make a palatable subject. The political as is OH SO VERY valid and makes up a really long discussion all by itself. Not here though. Actually, I don't seek this discussion, with you in particular as an individual, anywhere. I value your input here and i know I and many others profit from your knowledge shared and your hunches are way better than mine on matters bus. It is a relationship I value and hope to keep.
I will sign off this topic with a loose biblical quote: "And Satan's GREATEST TRICK was to convince them that he himself didn't exist." Sojourner can keep me honest on this.
With respect,
John
Yes Cody,
Haven't you noticed that Chenny has put on weight?
Well, here in WV we have generally the lowest average income and the highest number of obese people in the country. A trip to the local Wal*Mart on the day the welfare checks come in will display the most god-awful group of grossly obese people, with belles belly's hanging down almost to their knees, that you would ever want to see.
Richard
Sorry Richard
That's not bellies your staring at...........
Oh my eeo training for me :)
Skip
Quote from: skipn on March 07, 2008, 02:54:43 PM
Sorry Richard
That's not bellies your staring at...........
Oh my eeo training for me :)
Skip
Thanks Skip. I got it fixed.
Richard