AJC.com > Opinion > Woman to Woman > Archives > 2008 > June > 06 > Entry
Should public education promote single-sex schools?
Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Andrea Cornell Sarvady, a left-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
For years, we’ve done little to stem the tide of boys falling behind in most areas of education. We’ve done well at mending old gender inequities against girls - but some of those very efforts have inadvertently hurt our boys.
In an interview, Dr. Leonard Sax, author of “Boys Adrift: The five factors driving the growing epidemic of unmotivated boys,” shared something he’d recently heard from Princeton’s admissions director: if Princeton had “blind” admission today, 70 percent of those admitted would be girls - they have better grades, test scores and are keener on academics. And national enrollment numbers bear this out. Sax said, “Twenty years ago, 70 percent of those in college were men. Today, it’s only 42 percent. Even fewer men are earning masters degrees. We need to ask ‘where are their brothers?’ Why can’t Justin keep up with Emily?”
One of the most foundational reasons is that boys have come to see education, studying and effort toward good grades as “a girl thing” - uncool. And one of the only solutions to that is single-sex education - especially in public schools.
In an e-mail interview, psychologist Dr. Michael Thomson, author of It’s “A Boy!: Understanding your son’s development from birth to 18”, provided great context. He explained, “As the psychologist at an all-boys’ school and as a graduate of all-boy education, I see that boys cannot outsource learning to girls in that environment. They cannot define school, writing, reading, and so on, as ‘girl stuff.’ If the top student in the class is a boy, then every other boy has to measure himself against that boy. Also, all-boys’ schools have a majority of men teachers. Men who both teach poetry and coach football have an electrifying effect on boys. Women can do a great job teaching boys in elementary school, but they cannot embody learning as a road to masculinity. Only male teachers can do that.”
In response to the obvious need, Dr. Sax founded the National Association for Single Sex Public Education. The idea is controversial, but as he points out, “This is a matter of social justice. If you want to go to a single-sex school, there are lots of options if you have $20,000 to spend each year. Parents should have those choices in public schools.”
Rebuttal
In last month’s clarifying report from the American Association of University Women, an analysis of testing and other data indicates that boys are improving in their academic success, but that girls are improving at a faster rate. Does this constitute a “boy crisis?”
Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that it does. I still remain perplexed by my colleague’s specific rationale for taking a single-sex education remedy into the public school system. In her look at “why Johnny can’t read,” she leaves so many of the usual suspects out of the line-up. Why, video games and absentee fathers aren’t even mentioned here. So whose fault is this anyway?
Surprise! We learn it is girls who are to blame, turning schools into pink ghettos with their intimidating scholarly behavior. One such ruffian lives right down the street from me, taking some poor boy’s rightful place at Yale this fall. I’d call her up to chastise her, but she’s on her way to a summer volunteering in Rwanda. How disappointed her parents must be in this emasculating overachiever.
Listen, some single-sex options might make sense as educators continue to explore ways to work with differing learning styles. My nephew Sam recently graduated from an all-boys middle school and clearly thrived there. Yet I still can’t imagine wanting a radically different classroom environment for him than for my own daughter his same age.
Single-sex education advocate Dr. Leonard Sax disagrees, recommending special accommodations for boys to improve their performance: more classroom movement, learning to read when one is ready, experiential lessons that keep kids focused.
Sounds great, but it’s hardly original theory. It’s called a progressive education, available from enlightened school districts across the country, and it’s great for both boys and girls.
Maybe female students are navigating the waters a bit better in our current educational environment, but that doesn’t mean that we’re doing right by them either. Both genders suffer when imperious state and federal administrators demand that talented teachers strip innovation from an increasingly “teach to the test” curriculum. If Dr. Sax and others truly want social justice in the classroom, they should want it for all.
Comments
By Bruce
June 6, 2008 8:56 AM | Link to this
On this subject I nust agree with Andrea. If we want our kids to preform better in school we MUST bring back parental involvment in the process. We MUST stop looking at school as a babysitter and expect, from out kids, they do at least up to their potential.
I for one am very disappointed when my kids come home from school and have less than an “A” on the report cards and I let them know it. Why, because I know my kids better than anyone and I know they can do better.
By Gandalf, the Grey
June 6, 2008 9:10 AM | Link to this
MUST Bruce? What ya going to do legislate it? That is may be the stupidiest thing I have ever read here. Single sex education is a good idea, and getting parental involvement is too. But MUST? You are barking up the tree of totalitarianism. Silly liberals! Liberalism IS a mental disorder.
By JokesOn
June 6, 2008 9:18 AM | Link to this
I am quite conflicted with this subject.
On one hand I see the potential for increased learning/productivity of students at single sex schools.
One the other hand, that is not an accurate model of the real world and would potentially leave these students unprepared for dealing with the stresses of working with the opposite sex.
Seems like a choice of either long or short term goals.
By Gandalf, the Grey
June 6, 2008 9:47 AM | Link to this
School isn’t a model. Less distraction = more productivity. “From each according to his (her) ability, to each according to his (her) needs.”
By Copyleft
June 6, 2008 10:20 AM | Link to this
It’s odd to see such a comment from Shaunti, the alleged “conservative”:
One of the most foundational reasons is that boys have come to see education, studying and effort toward good grades as “a girl thing” - uncool.
Agreed… and it’s a problem. Then, this:
And one of the only solutions to that is single-sex education - especially in public schools.
In other words, abandon personal responsibility and go running to the government to fix it! Boy, first she wants government promoting specific lifestyle choices (marriage), and now she wants the government to correct boys’ attitudes. What’s next—having the school nurse administer Ritalin?
The problem is right where it always was: with the PARENTS.
(By the way: I notice that Shuanti comments, in passing, on what great strides “we” have made in correcting discrimination against girls. Gee, I wonder who was responsible for that…?)
By USinUK
June 6, 2008 10:21 AM | Link to this
Women can do a great job teaching boys in elementary school, but they cannot embody learning as a road to masculinity. Only male teachers can do that
what a steaming pile of s**.
learning isn’t a road to masculinity anymore than it’s a road to femininity - it’s a road to discovery. full stop.
By USinUK
June 6, 2008 10:32 AM | Link to this
Disclaimer - I have no kids, myself, so this is strictly an observation:
Parents today seem FAR more interested in having their kids be involved in every activity under the sun - as many sports as they can play in, dance, theater, blahblahblah. Kids aren’t little machines - they can’t work hard in school all day, then have an activity for an hour or so every evening, then do 2-ish hours of homework every single night of the week … then have games on the weekend … without something suffering. And, it’s usually grades.
I’m with Copy on this one - the school isn’t the problem - it’s the parents and either their inattention or their focus on everything BUT grades.
By JokesOn
June 6, 2008 10:32 AM | Link to this
School isn’t a model. Less distraction = more productivity.
So your performance after school is moot? Think a little more long term, man.
Schools function should be about socialization as well as facts.
By Bruce
June 6, 2008 10:52 AM | Link to this
GTG,
It’s called personal responsibility! You had the kids now raise them properly. And yes parents MUST raise their kids and part of that is making sure they get an education. I am married to a teacher and I assure you the biggest problem we have with education in this country is THE PARENTS!!!!
I don’t post often so you properly don’t know enough about me to start calling me names.
By USinUK
June 6, 2008 11:01 AM | Link to this
Bruce -
we are in complete agreement on this one!!!
By Archie
June 6, 2008 11:22 AM | Link to this
Schools function should be about socialization as well as facts. I agree with that.
It’s called personal responsibility! You had the kids now raise them properly. And yes parents MUST raise their kids and part of that is making sure they get an education. I am married to a teacher and I assure you the biggest problem we have with education in this country is THE PARENTS!!!! Yes, those are true statements. I won’t post too much because the debate is going real smooth.
By Bruce
June 6, 2008 11:27 AM | Link to this
Yes ma’am we are!
By Newzwyre
June 6, 2008 11:28 AM | Link to this
Shaunti wrote “For years, we’ve done little to stem the tide of boys falling behind in most areas of education. We’ve done well at mending old gender inequities against girls - but some of those very efforts have inadvertently hurt our boys.”
Hogwash!! Gender has nothing to do with it.
The Truth about Boys and Girls - Sara Mead
[snip]
…the truth is far different from what these accounts suggest. The real story is not bad news about boys doing worse; it’s good news about girls doing better.
In fact, with a few exceptions, American boys are scoring higher and achieving more than they ever have before. But girls have just improved their performance on some measures even faster. As a result, girls have narrowed or even closed some academic gaps that previously favored boys, while other long-standing gaps that favored girls have widened, leading to the belief that boys are falling behind.
There’s no doubt that some groups of boys—particularly Hispanic and black boys and boys from low-income homes—are in real trouble. But the predominant issues for them are race and class, not gender. Closing racial and economic gaps would help poor and minority boys more than closing gender gaps, and focusing on gender gaps may distract attention from the bigger problems facing these youngsters.
The hysteria about boys is partly a matter of perspective. While most of society has finally embraced the idea of equality for women, the idea that women might actually surpass men in some areas (even as they remain behind in others) seems hard for many people to swallow. Thus, boys are routinely characterized as “falling behind” even as they improve in absolute terms.
In addition, a dizzying array of so-called experts have seized on the boy crisis as a way to draw attention to their pet educational, cultural, or ideological issues. Some say that contemporary classrooms are too structured, suppressing boys’ energetic natures and tendency to physical expression; others contend that boys need more structure and discipline in school. Some blame “misguided feminism” for boys’ difficulties, while others argue that “myths” of masculinity have a crippling impact on boys. Many of these theories have superficially plausible rationales that make them appealing to some parents, educators, and policymakers. But the evidence suggests that many of these ideas come up short.
more at link - http://www.educationsector.org/analysis/analysisshow.htm?docid=378705
By JokesOn
June 6, 2008 11:44 AM | Link to this
I do not think you can simply say Hogwash!! Gender has nothing to do with it.
But girls have just improved their performance on some measures even faster. As a result, girls have narrowed or even closed some academic gaps that previously favored boys, while other long-standing gaps that favored girls have widened, leading to the belief that boys are falling behind.
If girls improved because of a change, how can you so easily dismiss that change (that had a notable affect on girls) when it comes to boys?
Seems you too dismiss all the possibilities besides your pet ideological issues. Why is it so offensive to you to mention that the change enacted to help girls potentially hurt boys?
Your beginning with Hogwash!! Gender has nothing to do with it, but then go on to say that gender has been part of the issue in schools, which sets up your whole post to sound quite biased and closed minded on the subject. It(was) is an issue for girls, but heck no for boys!
This is what bothers me about gender issues here on the blog and in reality: Many females are defensive from the beginning, sabotaging any honest discovery process of theories or practical solutions.
By Jack
June 6, 2008 11:45 AM | Link to this
After school activities are good for students as that gives them less time for drug use and other unsavory things they do when they have too much time. Parents should expect nothing less than excellent grades from their child given the difficulty of the present day classes in our schools that do not prepare our children for college. Glad you did the disclaimer USinUK. If one has never raised children, they haven’t a clue.
By USinUK
June 6, 2008 12:01 PM | Link to this
Jack -
After school activities are good for students as that gives them less time for drug use and other unsavory things they do when they have too much time
I completely agree with you that after-school activities are good and can keep kids from getting into trouble. However, too many parents have their kids in some kind of activity nearly every night - and then their weekends are completely packed with games.
Not only are the kids exhausted, but the family unit takes a hit because no one can sit down to dinner together and talk about their day. Then, on weekends, mom takes one kid to one game while dad takes the other to a different one.
And kids have a heckuva lot more homework than we had when we were in school (btw … I was a senior when “Synchronicity” came out, if that gives you any indication).
Activities, while great, should be encouraged, but only in moderate amounts so that the kids can focus on school and get some flippin’ rest
By Newzwyre
June 6, 2008 12:29 PM | Link to this
JokesOn - Why is it so offensive to you to mention that the change enacted to help girls potentially hurt boys?
it is not “offensive” to suggest it, but the numbers refute the premise. In fact, studies have shown that “American boys are scoring higher and achieving more than they ever have before.”
It is unfair for you to assume that there is an ideological bias against “blaming” girls for boys falling behind when in truth, boys are achieving as well or better than they have in the past. There is a larger discrepancy between ethnic and socio-economic groups than gender groups.
Facts aren’t ideological.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/19/AR2008051902798.html
[snip]
The AAUW report looks at many indicators of educational achievement, including dropout and disciplinary rates. It analyzes data from SAT and ACT college entrance exams and the National Assessment of Education Progress, known as the nation’s report card, as well as federal statistics about college attendance, earned degrees and other measures of achievement.
Researchers concluded that:
A literacy gap in favor of girls is not new, nor is it increasing. Over the past three decades, the reading gap favoring girls on NAEP has narrowed or stayed the same. Nine-year-old boys scored higher than ever on the reading assessment in 2004; scores for 13- and 17-year-old boys were higher or not much different from scores in the 1970s.
A gender gap still exists favoring boys in math, especially among 17-year-olds on the NAEP.
The percentages of students scoring at higher levels of proficiency on the NAEP are rising for both boys and girls.
Students from lower-income families — families with incomes of $37,000 or less — are less likely to be proficient in math and reading. Gender differences vary significantly by race and ethnicity.
There is virtually no gap between boys and girls entering college immediately after high school.
By Jack
June 6, 2008 1:08 PM | Link to this
Yes there can be excesses to that USinUK. Especially if the parent feels their child is a more talented athlete than average. Push, push, push. Get that scholarship, be a pro athlete. Pay all of our bills.
By JokesOn
June 6, 2008 1:25 PM | Link to this
It is unfair for you to assume that there is an ideological bias against “blaming” girls for boys falling behind when in truth, boys are achieving as well or better than they have in the past.
When your first statement is far from scientific or factual (Hogwash!! Gender has nothing to do with it) there is reason to assume.
The fact that boys are achieving as well or better than they have in the past is totally relative - which says nothing factual about where they could or should be.
A gender gap still exists favoring boys in math, especially among 17-year-olds on the NAEP. But gender has nothing to do with it, no?
My point is that your post starts from a hostile position, instead of calmly stating that “I believe that these criteria listed here have more of an impact….yada yada”
I have also read lots of articles regarding this (mainly because I find it fascinating how complex it really is) and the main thing that irks me is the current catch phrase “Girls Doing Better, Not Boys Doing Worse.”
How would you feel is back in the day before reformations regarding the interaction with girls in school that was the blanket reply? Would you not say “it really does not matter, the system is working better for some than others is the issue?” That is what I am driving home.
There is lots of data that also shows that boys are not doing as well in many areas. What I am suggesting is not a all-or-nothing stance on these but more of a composite; after an inclusive analysis.
For example: * White working-class boys perform worse than any other ethnic or gender group at school, according to a study published today.*
They suffer because their parents fail to talk to them at home and they have a culture in their communities that it is “uncool” to learn, says the report commissioned by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/white-workingclass-boys-are-the-worst-performers-in-school-454171.html)
At one time the culture of schools were (inappropriately) in favor of boys, with all the sports crap and such, and this group did do better back then. I do not think we should ever return to a biased system like that, but isn’t there a way that groups that identify school with negative connotations be remedied? Can that be discussed without hogwash!? Is it wrong to see that one group is doing better and try to get things evened out?
By JokesOn
June 6, 2008 1:49 PM | Link to this
More info:
Some researchers call them the “Lost Boys.” They are the students you don’t see on college campuses.
The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) tracks the enrollment in all degree-granting institutions by sex. From 1992 to 2000, the ratio of enrolled males to females fell from 82 to 78 boys for every 100 girls. The NCES projects that in 2007 the ratio will be 75 males for every 100 females; in 2012, 74 per 100.
In short, your son is statistically more likely than your daughter to work a blue-collar job.
Thomas Mortenson, senior scholar at the Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education, argues that leaving a generation of boys behind hurts women as well. In a Business Week cover story, Mortenson observed, “My belief is that until women decide that the education of boys is a serious issue, nothing is going to happen.”
He believes some women feel threatened by even admitting the problem because “it will take away from the progress of women…What everyone needs to realize is that if boys continue to slide, women will lose too.” (this is the point that I was making that I seem to see over and over in any discussion about a boy’s/man’s issue)
That realization still seems distant among educational experts, who continue to downplay the NCES statistic as well as other data that indicate schools are hurting boys.
Jacqueline King – author of the influential study “Gender Equity in Higher Education: Are Male Students at a Disadvantage?” – is an example. She found that 68 percent of college enrollees from low-income families were female; only 31 percent were male.
Yet King insists there is no “boy crisis” in education despite the fact that data from Upward Bound and Talent Search show a comparable gender gap. (These college-preparation programs operate in high schools and received $312.6 million $144.9 million in tax funding, respectively, in 2005.) Of the students who receive benefits from those college-preparation programs, approximately 61 percent are girls; 39 percent are boys.
(last line and my point that you made for me)
The first step to any solution, however, is to acknowledge there is a problem. We are not quite there yet.
(http://www.lewrockwell.com/mcelroy/mcelroy79.html)
So, back to my premise, why can it not even be discussed and why must people look at these gender issues as zero-sum games when it is discussed?
By JokesOn
June 6, 2008 1:59 PM | Link to this
Yes there can be excesses to that USinUK. Especially if the parent feels their child is a more talented athlete than average. Push, push, push. Get that scholarship, be a pro athlete. Pay all of our bills.
Or, as I often see, the parents use the activities as a daycare for teens. There is a balance. Granted it may be hard and you won’t get a “thank you” until they are in their late twenties or maybe thirties, but that is where the real work is: the grey area.
By Newzwyre
June 6, 2008 2:23 PM | Link to this
IMO it is hogwash to assume education is a zero-sum game in which success for girls must necessarily mean trouble for boys Or that the only way boys can achieve is if they don’t have to compete with girls.
Is it wrong to see that one group is doing better and try to get things evened out?
Isn’t that what is happening? Boys, historically, did better in school than girls. Now that girls have caught up and the field has evened out, the assumption is NOT that girls’ learning has improved, but that boys education has gotten worse (even though they’re testing at higher levels than their historic peers).
lastly, I don’t believe that British attitudes toward education (per your link) has any bearing on the short-commings, or lack thereof, in the American educational system. Their culture is not our culture and their educational system is different than ours. It may indeed skew toward misandry which would validate the complaints of the young men you pointed to. But again, what they do in Britain doesn’t bear on how our boys are educated.
By Gandalf, the Grey
June 6, 2008 2:26 PM | Link to this
Bruce, Sorry, I am a bit grumpy today. My kids get grounded if they come home with a B. No Computer games, no TV for a month. Public schools being what they are, any kid that put in a effort should be able to get an A. Here in GA, they won’t give anything less than a B for fear or the kid not getting HOPE. I am active in the PTA, SCOUTING, sports etc. But you can’t make parents do it.Shame them into it? Sure. Call ‘em names? Sure. But you can’t MAKE them do it, anymore than you can make all the illegals leave Gwinnett.
Socialize your kids somewhere else, leave the schools to Reading Riting and Rithmatic.
By JokesOn
June 6, 2008 2:40 PM | Link to this
IMO it is hogwash to assume education is a zero-sum game in which success for girls must necessarily mean trouble for boys Or that the only way boys can achieve is if they don’t have to compete with girls.
I do not remember saying that. I remember you comparing the two as if they are contingent on each other. What I said is that if the system was change (and it was) and the affect was positive on girls (which it was) and now we have boys lagging compared to where they were (which is the case for many demographics) and the fact that changing the system can help these situations (as proven by the girls issue); why are you and others going to rail against working on helping the boys?
Once again, what your article says is that there is no problem with boys.
I have a problem with you quick dismissal:
For years, we’ve done little to stem the tide of boys falling behind in most areas of education. We’ve done well at mending old gender inequities against girls - but some of those very efforts have inadvertently hurt our boys.”
Hogwash!! Gender has nothing to do with it.
You are going to claim that changes were made to help girls and those changes could in no way hurt boys? If you flip it on it’s end, you get: why change the system to begin with? Girls grades were increasing, just not as much as boys and the boys are simply ahead; and it is hogwash that it is a gender issue.
By Gandalf, the Grey
June 6, 2008 2:46 PM | Link to this
Balance little grasshopper…is the key. Socialize your kids somewhere other than public school, don’t have them do piano lessons, karate lessons, soccer, swim team, school band, baseball and more. Let them do some good old, lets go down to the crick and find muscles, let’s play sword fight in the woods, let’s make a lemonade stand. Watch some TV during the summer, go swimming. Let kids be kids, take them to the park, walk the dog. Sit down and let your kids pull on your ears if they want.
By JokesOn
June 6, 2008 2:49 PM | Link to this
Isn’t that what is happening? Boys, historically, did better in school than girls. Now that girls have caught up and the field has evened out, the assumption is NOT that girls’ learning has improved, but that boys education has gotten worse (even though they’re testing at higher levels than their historic peers).
That is only one way to look at it and I think is oversimplified. By oversimplifying the situation, you omit any compound solution, which is most probably the case.
And, once again, the above statement could be said regarding before reformation. Girls were steadily increasing, not decreasing.
To find one more aspect that impacts the situation is fine, to say that this new solution is the only one and supplants the others is not.
Hobbit Lover, Socialize your kids somewhere else, leave the schools to Reading Riting and Rithmatic.
Sorry, but that is where most of our socialization is learned. You do not have to like it, but put people in a group and socialization occurs. That is like not liking that gravity pulls to the center of the earth - knock yourself out.
By Gandalf, the Grey
June 6, 2008 2:49 PM | Link to this
Gender separate schools is one way to bypass title IX, which is a good thing. Georgia Mens U anyone? Let’s hear a cheer for old GMU!
By JokesOn
June 6, 2008 3:12 PM | Link to this
Link to PBS article as well:
http://www.pbs.org/parents/raisingboys/school.html
Schools, not boys, have changed. Children are now taught to read in kindergarten when many young boys are not as skilled verbally as girls. “At age five, many boys are not ready to learn to read,” says teacher Jane Katch, author of Under Deadman’s Skin. “When I began teaching in the ’70s, children were not expected to read in kindergarten. Some first grade teachers actually preferred that children learn the alphabet in first grade, where they could learn to do it ‘the right way’!”
By Archie
June 6, 2008 3:12 PM | Link to this
Changing the topic a little, please check out Marie C Wilson’s commentary on the “new political movement” started by Hillary Clinton. It was a good article but an infuriating article too because as a Hillary supporter in January I now wonder why the hell I am just now hearing all this talk about sexism and respect. Back in January some of the main people speaking against Hillary were women. The first person that picked at her for crying was a woman in my opinion but now all of a sudden everyone else needs to get with the program, please… The women that this lady talks about are actually considering voting for someone that does not believe in choice and these women are actually considering voting for a guy(McCain) not known for supporting any women’s issues. Rather than blame someone get up and vote for someone that does support your issues!!! Be consistent for a change!!! Hell I voted for Hillary without any arm-twisting!!! I voted based on my issues and my beliefs and I will support Obama in November!! Sorry for the vent.
By Gandalf, the Grey
June 6, 2008 3:17 PM | Link to this
Jokes on: From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.
By kimberly
June 6, 2008 3:39 PM | Link to this
Hey Archie! I’ve learned a lot this year. I’ve learned that there’s a lot more sexism in our culture than I thought, and that women are among the worst with regard to judging, berating, and applying a double standard to other women. I never wanted the “sexism” chip on my shoulder, and naively thought for decades that equality was real, and with rational discourse, we could someday all just get along. Now I understand what “getting along” means: it means we womenfolk need to shut up and keep sweet, even when we’re doing the work and paying the bills. Again, it’s not a belief that I sought, and certainly not an excuse for any failure in my own life. Just a little something my fellow Americans taught me this year.
But you’re a good guy in my book!
By Bruce
June 6, 2008 4:24 PM | Link to this
I know you can’t MAKE them. I guess the confusion came in because I didn’t put the IMO at the beginning. It is my opinion that until parents begin to take their share of the responsibility in the education of their children the said children are going to do what they want to do and expect Mom and Dad to handle the rest.
Somewhere along the line we as a society have forgotten that we are responsible for ourselves and our families. I guess it was when the “It Takes a Village” thingy started.
By Archie
June 6, 2008 4:26 PM | Link to this
But you’re a good guy in my book! Kimberly,thanks but I know I need to improve because I am a man and don’t understand the way women think at times. Hell, everybody knows women outnumber men in this country and yet you’re right that Hillary’s harshest critics were women until now. Now that Obama has won here come the whiners. Let me be clear that I like Obama for a lot of obvious reasons. I did not think this day would come in my lifetime and even if he does not win the country needs to pat itself on the back. At some point the country will pat itself on the back for nominating a woman at the head of a party ticket but I must say this there are men ready to vote for a woman but we gotta drag women along. In the NBA nobody protested when Avery Johnson got fired and nobody celebrates when a minority gets hired in the NBA because it happens all the time. I believe that one day gender or race won’t be mentioned much when it comes to the Dems or Republicans. If you’re a jerk then you’re a jerk but if you’re good I think people will eventually evaluate you as just that.
By kimberly
June 6, 2008 4:34 PM | Link to this
Somewhere along the line we as a society have forgotten that we are responsible for ourselves and our families. I guess it was when the “It Takes a Village” thingy started.
Sorry Bruce, but I was totally with you until you made that boneheaded statement. The premise of “the it takes a village thingy” is that we ALL have an interest in looking out for the people, specifically the children, in our communities. This started THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO when early man lived in tribes. The survival and well-being of the tribe was contingent upon the survival and well-being of its members, since they did not have government to take care of them. Kind of the pre-cursor to the “Love Thy Neighbor” directive…. Just makes sense.
IMO, (notice I added that), the problem with young people in our society can be traced to the advent of the “I’m taking care of mine, I don’t care about yours, you’re on you own” mindset and the elevation of selfishness from a sin to a virtue by the “conservatives” among us. But that’s just my opinion.
By kimberly
June 6, 2008 4:42 PM | Link to this
Archie, I am fully behind Obama’s candidacy, but I will not be patting anyone on the back if John McCain moves into the White House next January. It is imperative that Obama not only triumph as the nominee, but as the President. Whatever we need to do to convice another 50 million Americans of this, we MUST do it! (Now I sound like Bruce…hee hee) Seriously. This is not a time to “hope” that we win. It’s time to make it happen. There’s work to be done.
By JokesOn
June 6, 2008 4:45 PM | Link to this
IMO, (notice I added that), the problem with young people in our society can be traced to the advent of the “I’m taking care of mine, I don’t care about yours, you’re on you own” mindset and the elevation of selfishness from a sin to a virtue by the “conservatives” among us. But that’s just my opinion.
I would like to add that the notion of entitlement is really the culprit. I do not see many people really “taking care of their own business,” they are just hanging in there, if that.
By Bruce
June 6, 2008 4:52 PM | Link to this
Kimberly, I agree with you it does take some to watch yoru back, so to speak. But somewhere we decided that since the village was looking out for my kids that means I don’t have to. Instead of you having my back I have given you all the responsibility.
I like the idea that if my kids are at the movies without me that someone I know will come back and tell me if they get out of line, or a teacher will give me a call if they their grades are not where they should be, etc. But my family is my responsibility, you should be there to HELP ME if I need it not DO IT FOR ME. Thst is my opinion on “It Takes a Village”.
By kimberly
June 6, 2008 5:00 PM | Link to this
JokesOn, The word “entitlement” sure has been thrown arond a lot lately. I don’t know where you live, but the entitlement mentality I see the most is in the kids who think they’re “entitled” to have a new car show up in the driveway when they turn 16, and entitled to a $600 dress for prom. I think what these kids are entitled to, no matter what neighborhood they live in, is a decent public school close by, safe streets and parks, and a place to live where the plumbing actually works and the water doesn’t get shut off because the slum lord didn’t pay the water bill with the rent he collected from the mom who works two or three jobs.
By Bruce
June 6, 2008 5:00 PM | Link to this
Everyone have a good weekend.
By Lyrazel on Sunday
June 8, 2008 2:35 PM | Link to this
Having sex-separate schools is an undertaking few communities can afford but same sex classes could be done with limited costs by rotation of schedule. lacking is the competition girls won’t get when boys play into the equation—its good for future work. I had both types in my school days. Better scholarship will always depend on the parent involvement with their children’s homework and scholarship not the sex of the classmates.
Happy sunday
By JokesOn
June 9, 2008 9:08 AM | Link to this
JokesOn, The word “entitlement” sure has been thrown arond a lot lately. I don’t know where you live, but the entitlement mentality I see the most is in the kids who think they’re “entitled” to have a new car show up in the driveway when they turn 16, and entitled to a $600 dress for prom. I think what these kids are entitled to, no matter what neighborhood they live in, is a decent public school close by, safe streets and parks, and a place to live where the plumbing actually works and the water doesn’t get shut off because the slum lord didn’t pay the water bill with the rent he collected from the mom who works two or three jobs.
I agree that exists, but I am referring to parents having the same notion of entitlement. They do not think that life, even if they are a parent, should be so much work and shilt their responsibilities onto society.
They are gonna get theirs no matter what and even the kids shall not get in the way. Product of pc-ness and a society that has moved into a mentality that believes that everything should be convenient.
By Archie
June 9, 2008 11:06 AM | Link to this
Someone sent me a petition about drilling for oil and my question is it worth my signature? It’s all about allowing more offshore drilling near Alaska and Florida. What are the opinions of the blogger here?
By JokesOn
June 9, 2008 11:15 AM | Link to this
Someone sent me a petition about drilling for oil and my question is it worth my signature? It’s all about allowing more offshore drilling near Alaska and Florida. What are the opinions of the blogger here?
I think it is one of temporary relief (maybe…) versus pushing everyone to conserve and look for alternatives. Even if we found a new source, I doubt it would change the price much or last too long - plus there is still the environmental factor. I think it is time we just take our pill and conserve/innovate.
By gcoker
June 9, 2008 11:31 AM | Link to this
There are definitive difference in brain function between boys and girls. We must take the nature of boys and girls and capatalize on learning styles of the two sexes. It is especially appropriate during the middle school years.
The largest research project with valid data comes from Australia where 250,000 students have been separated using gender as the criteria. Achievement has risen 20-30 percent when the pedogodical approach utilizes the differences in brain function of the two genders.
By JokesOn
June 9, 2008 11:43 AM | Link to this
The largest research project with valid data comes from Australia where 250,000 students have been separated using gender as the criteria. Achievement has risen 20-30 percent when the pedogodical approach utilizes the differences in brain function of the two genders.
If that is the case, the question seems to be do we separate the two groups in different schools? If so, do only males work as teachers at the boys schools and vv? Or do we teach theacher’s how to teach each sex; adding to their already long list of tasks and little pay?
By USinUK
June 9, 2008 11:55 AM | Link to this
Archie -
It’s all about allowing more offshore drilling near Alaska and Florida. What are the opinions of the blogger here?
My £0.02: oh, heck no. First of all, you’re talking about a minimum of 10 years before any oil is actually extracted from any of these locations. Secondly, the money invested to extract it is going to be higher in relation to the smaller amounts of oil extracted - so, really, you wouldn’t see any appreciable reduction in the price you pay at the pump. Lastly, the environmental impact just isn’t worth it (think about what happened to the oil rigs in the Gulf when they were hit by Katrina - do you really want to set up more platforms in “hurricane alley”??)
Nope, what is needed isn’t more petroleum excavation, what is needed is more alternative fuels and pressure brought to bear on Detroit and the other automakers to produce alternative-fuel cars.
But, that’s just my opinion … your mileage may vary.
By tend
June 9, 2008 1:18 PM | Link to this
Andrea references a study: “an analysis of testing and other data indicates that boys are improving in their academic success, but that girls are improving at a faster rate. Does this constitute a “boy crisis?”
So, Andrea, I suppose you would have no problem with a study finding the following: data indicates that female pay in the work place is rising, but that male pay is rising at a faster rate. Does this constitute a “female crisis”.
I bet not!
By Archie
June 9, 2008 1:50 PM | Link to this
Nope, what is needed isn’t more petroleum excavation, what is needed is more alternative fuels and pressure brought to bear on Detroit and the other automakers to produce alternative-fuel cars. Thanks USinuK. I thought the same way but I wanted a second opinion. The guy that sent it to me is a republican and he means well but I just think more along the lines of USinUk and I just wanted a second opinion to see if I was missing something in my thought process. Thanks also to JokesOn.
By chuck
June 9, 2008 2:14 PM | Link to this
Hey everybody. I hope to get around to the topic later today, but I had to answer USinUK’s post on drilling for oil in the gulf. You made a coupel of really FALSE STATEMENTS.
First, if we allowed drilling, it actually only takes 18 months to 2 years to get the rigs on line and producing. It would take somewhat longer in ANWAR because of the remote location for the pipeline, but this is not a problem in the Gulf. If existing undersea pipelines are hooked into, maybe even less than that. Had we done this 10 years ago we would still be paying about $2.00 per gallon now instead of the $4.00 we are paying. We also need to increase refining capacity. While it is wonderful to think that everybody is going to start using public transportation or bikes, it just isn’t going to happen. America is a car culture.
They are going to have to pry my steering wheel from my cold dead hands.
Second, the environmental issues you brought up would not be a problem. Almost without exception, the spillage that occurred (minimal as it was) came from wells drilled before 1988. The government changed construction regulations in ‘88 and rigs built after that weathered the storm quite well.
The truth of the matter is, that while we ban companies from drilling within our 100 mile boundaries, CHINA is drilling 45 miles from the Florida coast AS WE SPEAK. You see the boundary is split half way when there are 2 countries in close proximity. Since Cuba is only 90 miles away, China is drilling on their side of the line. The longer we wait, the higher the price of oil will go. Any alternative to oil is still years, if not decades away. There is enough oil in Nevada and other western states and the gulf coast to supply our oil needs for over a thousand years at current consumption levels. We should be drilling for it.
By Gasp
June 9, 2008 2:22 PM | Link to this
The government changed construction regulations in ‘88 and rigs built after that weathered the storm quite well.
GASPING - you mean that holiness The Market didn’t take care of it?
By chuck
June 9, 2008 2:26 PM | Link to this
What alternative fuels are you referring to USinUK? ETHANOL? If so, that causes way more problems than it solves. First, it takes 1.25 gallons of GASOLINE to produce 1 gallon of ETHANOL. Diverting corn to the production of ethanol also increases the price of milk and beef (feed costs more) and other food as well. The technology to “revolutionize” the fuelindustry just isn’t close to being ready. You also have to take into consideration that any “alternative” would have to work in the current 300 million vehicles on our roads now.
By chuck
June 9, 2008 2:31 PM | Link to this
Actually, the market did take care of it in a way. The improvements in construction techniques came about as a result of responsible corporations CHOOSING to take responsibility for their environmental stewardship. The government’s role was in mandating that those techniques be used by those less responsible FOREIGN companies.
By NYer
June 9, 2008 2:33 PM | Link to this
Chuck,
I’d like to see an article that corroborates your statement about the quantities of oil in Nevada, other western states and the Gulf to support current consumption levels for 1,000 years. Can you provide a link or point me in the right direction - I’m somewhat skeptical.
By JokesOn
June 9, 2008 2:42 PM | Link to this
I’d like to see an article that corroborates your statement about the quantities of oil in Nevada, other western states and the Gulf to support current consumption levels for 1,000 years. Can you provide a link or point me in the right direction - I’m somewhat skeptical.
Yeah…that’ll happen.
No matter how you slice it, oil is a dying resource and the longer we hold on to it the harder the pill will be to swallow.
Chuck does not care about that though. It is not is problem, but your sexuality and what you do in your bedroom is…
By Archie
June 9, 2008 3:07 PM | Link to this
My coworker actually did send me a link about the China drilling that Chuck mentions but I am still skeptical. However, Chuck did explain his position but I always think if the answer so obvious what’s the holdup. I am not an environmental nut but my common sense button says if I am making a 40 billion dollar profit I am not going to work too hard to mess that up. Consumers can only be gouged so much before someone finds a bootleg angle.
By NYer
June 9, 2008 3:29 PM | Link to this
Drilling in the Gulf wouldn’t take 10 years to get the oil to market because massive amounts of infrastructure already exist. Other locations would be longer depending on what infrastructure is in place.
The Gulf is the most heavily drilled offshore area in the world, with a significant proportion of the worlds offshore drilling rigs located there.
I am just highly skeptical that there are tremendous amounts more oil to be extracted from the Gulf. The amount of money being spent on new deepwater semi-submersible rigs and their deployment in some of the harshest drilling environments in the world tell me that people are looking elsewhere outside the GoM to get oil. Given the disparity in the construction cost and dayrate of a semi and a jackup, it doesn’t make sense to me to see so much investment in deepwater drilling if there was still so much oil to be extracted cheaply from the shallow Gulf.
Beyond oil extraction, one needs to consider refining. Since a run up in capacity during the 70’s, the US hasn’t increased its refining capabilities materially over the last thirty years. We can still refine about 17mm barrels of oil per day. This number has fluctuated some over the last twenty years, but it was essentially at the same level during the Carter administration.
The other thing is that impacts pricing is that the blends of gasoline differ by region of the country. We can’t take excess gasoline in Georgia and send it to California. Different states have different regulatory requirements concerning gasoline, which can further exacerbate local pricing problems.
I would agree with Chuck that ours is a culture based on the automobile. But I think we’re more in love with money than we are with our cars. And I think we’re more addicted to cheap natural resources more than anything else. Earlier on the blog, people were talking about the word “entitlement”; I think that much of the US believes we are entitled to cheap energy, cheap gas and cheap natural resources. We’ve constructed a portion of our lives around plentiful, cheap energy.
At the end of the day I think we need to have a transition from petroleum based fuels to other sources, both as fuels for our vehicles and the electricity in our houses. Today’s infrastructure is too heavily dependent on fossil fuels for us to simply cease extraction activities any time soon, but we need to start making the transition to other sources.
When all the dust settles, we need to ask ourselves: if we have the opportunity to invest in renewable energy sources to make them economically viable replacements for burning fossil fuels, with all the associated environmental and geo-political benefits of doing so, how can we not do it?
By RF
June 9, 2008 3:42 PM | Link to this
Alternative fuel technology exists and has existed for some time. The oil companies have traditionally bought patents and shelved the ideas since such technology threatened their profits. The alternative fuel cars that are out there now seem to work (natural gas, hydrogen, bio-diesel), but the market for these hasn’t increased enough to make them profitable to the big auto makers. Will it happen quickly? NOPE, not until the oil companies have seen the profitability of diversifying into other energy sources and the public demands the vehicles and sources for the fuels. In the meantime, we need to access, with as little disruption to the environment as possible, the available crude supplies we can verify. In the next ten to twenty years I see energy companies and oil companies working out the profitability and market availability of other fuel sources.
In other words, get used to high gas prices. We’re not going to start drilling in ANWR anytime soon, we’re going to let China have the Gulf, and it will take up to ten years or longer to get vehicles in production that will be affordable and use other fuel sources. Until then, take MARTA and forget the drive to Disney World.
By NYer
June 9, 2008 4:01 PM | Link to this
Archie - I’m actually interested in seeing the volumes that Chuck is talking about.
I sense some frustration towards the oil companies. I would be careful about making Exxon and the other big oil companies the boogey men in all the talk about the cost of gasoline. I’m not going to go overboard defending them, but I think they are a convenient scapegoat for many.
The fed, state and local governments combine to take a far bigger chunk out of your dollar at the pump than the oil companies do. And remember, the profit made by the oil companies is then taxed by the government.
Sure, XOM made a $40B profit in 2007 - they also had a $30B income tax expense.
As a point of reference, MSFT averaged over a $4B profit per quarter over its last fiscal year - and makes far higher profit margins than XOM. Where is the outrage about consumers being gouged over the price of software?
By RF
June 9, 2008 4:05 PM | Link to this
When all the dust settles, we need to ask ourselves: if we have the opportunity to invest in renewable energy sources to make them economically viable replacements for burning fossil fuels, with all the associated environmental and geo-political benefits of doing so, how can we not do it?
Good question. The problems are many, though. Fossil fuels are profitable and drive a lot of political wrangling in the world. Divesting ourselves of the need for them will put the Middle East into a state of economic turmoil that could up-end the world with what those fanatics would do. Then, the oil companies and auto makers have to work out transitioning to other fuels and making it work for their bottom lines. The most important need, IMO, is to adjust the mindset of people to drive less. We need more public transit that is safe and cost-efficient, we need to move from the burbs if we work in the city, and we need to seriously adjust our attitudes towards cars and their uses in our lives. That will take a couple of generations to make happen. Sorry- got a bit long-winded to offer my opinion!
By NYer
June 9, 2008 4:45 PM | Link to this
RF,
I don’t downplay any of the items that you mention. In fact, I would agree that there are many obstacles to solving my question. Nevertheless, it has become quite apparent to me that the status quo is neither a sustainable, nor a particularly wise course to maintain.
Indeed, there is much invested in maintaining the status quo. But the displacement of the old (technology and infrastructure) as it is replaced by new is a constant struggle in a primarily capitlist economic system. We’ve seen it time and again throughout history. The oil industry, automakers and convenience store retailers on every block will have to learn to adjust to a new paradigm.
A transition of this magnitude doesn’t occur overnight, but to retain their position in the economic food chain, oil companies will have to be more innovative than they have been in the past. I welcome this. If people are smart enough to extract oil from 10,000 feet below sea level, while floating on the ocean’s surface a mile above the ocean’s floor, then surely we’re smart enough to develop renewable sources of energy.
And I’d be pleased to see a Middle East that wasn’t consumed with oil. Our involvement in the region could be more honest, and more importantly, Middle Eastern countries would know that our interests in the area weren’t conflicted by petroleum.
By chuck
June 9, 2008 5:01 PM | Link to this
Sorry NYer, when I calculated initially I misplaced a decimal. I should have written over a HUNDRED years. We have in the U.S. oil KNOWN oil fields that hold approximately 800 billion barrels. At our current consumption of 21 million barrels a day ( 7.65 billion per year) we have about 104 years of oil THAT WE KNOW ABOUT.
http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/oilgas/publications/oilshale/HeavyOilLowRes.pdf
Canada and Mexico have over 2 trillion barrels in addition to our supplies.
Using current technology we can recover about 30% of our oil supply, but there are several promising developments in the extraction of shale oil that should drive that up to nearly 100% in the next decade. In other words. We need to DRILL HERE, DRILL NOW, and PAY LESS.
This article estimates even higher numbers and talks about how the currently unrecoverable oil will be recoverable in the future:
http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/oilgas/eor/index.html
Large volumes of technically recoverable domestic oil resources remain undeveloped and are yet to be discovered in the United States, and this potential associated with CO2-EOR represents just a portion, albeit large, of this potential. Undeveloped domestic oil resources still in the ground (in-place) total 1,124 billion barrels. Of this large in-place resource, 430 billon barrels is estimated to be technically recoverable. This resource includes undiscovered oil, “stranded” light oil amenable to CO2 enhanced oil recovery (EOR) technologies, unconventional oil (deep heavy oil and tar sands) and new petroleum concepts (residual oil in reservoir transition zones).
At 1.124 Trillion barrels in this article, that would stretch our supplies to 146 years.
By kimberly
June 9, 2008 5:02 PM | Link to this
I’ll be honest: I also love the feeling of power, control, and independence that is unique to gripping the steering wheel of my own V-6 powered automobile. (If you don’t have at least 6, move the bleep over and let me pass.) Especially when I’m out of traffic range and can get a sense of solitude, crank up the stereo, and feel the finely-tuned Japanese technology performing smoothly to my every command.
BUT I AM HAPPY TO TAKE MARTA when it actually goes where I’m going — usually into town for concerts, ball games, jury duty, etc, and to the airport. If it went to my job, I’d take it there too. In some cities, transit actually IS rapid, and you can take rails and buses all around in Europe, anywhere you want to go. Build it and WE WILL COME!
It is actually possible to love your automobile and NOT be a totally back-azz-ward selfish d—- who thinks future generations can just suck on a filthy planet where the only people who have any fuel or transportation are the criminals like in those Mad Max movies… I care more about my progeny than that, and think we owe them a better future than never-ending oil dependence, but that’s just my opinion.
By JokesOn
June 10, 2008 8:35 AM | Link to this
At 1.124 Trillion barrels in this article, that would stretch our supplies to 146 years.
So we simply pass the buck (and by that time the problems would be exponential)?
Why not take our pill now so future generations can focus on other big issues that will surely arise?
Whats your resistance to change, the convenience?
By NYer
June 10, 2008 9:07 AM | Link to this
Thank you for the links, Chuck. I found the reading interesting. However, having read the article and much of the report, I remain unconvinced that many of the unconventional sources that are discussed in your links represent a near-term or viable solution. I think if you objectively review your own material, I expect you will conclude, as I have, that your evidence probably does not add up to DRILL HERE, DRILL NOW, PAY LESS. Simply put, oil shale, while a gigantic potential opportunity, is a total wildcard and we are years away from making it commercially viable. Both shale and oil sands will require significant new infrastructure in the form of pipelines and refining capacity that will take years and billions to build. Heavy oil has been produced in the US for decades and current production levels are in decline – for a reason – it trades at a discount to crude yet costs more to build and operate a heavy oil facility. All three use natural gas as a source of energy to get the oil out of the ground, so operating costs and investment returns are highly correlated to natural gas. The report itself speculates that given the high cost and increasing demand for natural gas, its use in extracting unconventional sources of oil may not be the best use of natural gas reserves.
Oil has historically been both plentiful and cheap, and so we have built an economy that has cheap oil as a major input. That is no longer the case, and just looking down the road at burgeoning middle classes in China and India, the increase in demand for energy over the next two decades should be substantial. I think the advancements in technology, the increasing price for energy through higher demand, and the geopolitical conflicts that are wrapped up in petroleum have combined to present us with a unique opportunity: we can invest in more extraction infrastructure (with the hope that gas returns to $2/gallon) or we can invest in completely new technology and infrastructure, and begin the transition away from oil dependence.
If you could wave your wand and fast forward ten years, where oil shale was commercially viable and gas had returned to $2/gallon, but it meant that we were still going to be extracting and burning fossil fuels for the next fifty years, would you do it?
By Here's a fresh idea:
June 10, 2008 9:29 AM | Link to this
ATLANTA, Georgia - One week after earning the endorsement of the Georgia AFL-CIO, democratic candidate for U.S. Senate Rand Knight was the clear winner, among six Senate candidates, in a forum, today, sponsored by the League of Women Voters of Georgia and Delta Sigma Theta Metro Atlanta Alumnae Chapters.
A businessman, with a PhD in Ecosystems Analysis, Knight took a hard stance on plans for making the United States an energy independent nation, with Georgia at the forefront of the movement.
“The price of oil is affecting everything you touch, it’s a national security issue and should be taken seriously,” Knight said. “The number one industry in Georgia is agriculture and agricultural waste can be made into diesel and gasoline for less than a dollar a gallon.”
When asked what makes him qualified to be a Senator, Knight noted that throughout his nearly 20 year career as both an ecologist and a salesman for a national security software business, he has been dealing with complex, emotionally charged problems that can have unintended consequences - much like the issues which face congress.
Knight made a clear distinction between himself and Senator Chambliss, by illustrating support for those Americans who struggle to make ends meet. Knight proposes the creation of new, family-supporting, career-track jobs to lift people out of poverty. Such jobs would build a revenue base for improving education and infrastructure and expanding access to healthcare. This is a stark contrast to Senator Chambliss’ focus on the richest 1% of the country and his commitment to corporations.
“We need fresh blood, not business as usual,” Knight said. “The sun is setting on Saxby Chambliss, it’s Knight time.”
By DimsloveOPEC
June 10, 2008 9:51 AM | Link to this
No drilling. No shale exploration. No coal. No nuclear. No windmills that disrupt the Kennedy’s views. We needs to FORCE the country to accept our ways. To hell with the economy. To hell with household budgets, we have many billionaire Middle easterners to support.
GO OPEC!!! We loooove you. Stick it to us. We deserve it. We are rude, stupid Americans.
We just want your countries to be polluted, ours will always be a place where smiling rabbits and squirrels can play and be happy. Sure, we will be broke, but so what? Money is evil.
It may take 20-30 years before the new technologies can start to take over for the oil and coal that we hate, but what the hell, Obama will give us hope. And our own oil will take at least 18 months to access. I can see USinUK’s logic. No, really I can.
The snow 1,500 miles away from civilization should stay white.
Nevada should keep it’s oil underground. So what if we have more oil than Saudi Arabia? So what if our children need to continue to fight wars to secure our access to foreign oil? OPEC is kind to us. We all know that they will continue to play fair, just like they have done in the past.
Only foreign drilling should be allowed off our shores. That way, tornado ally will only have drilling rigs that won’t need to stand up to our environmental standards. Just think about it: when globs of oil is washing up on the Florida Keys, we will know that it wasn’t our drills that caused it. And we all know that the Chinese will clean it all up. They are sooo easy to deal with.
We don’t need no stinkin’ domestic oil. We have hope. No change: OPEC still owns us, but we do have that hope.
Go OPEC. Go OPEC. Go OPEC!!!
Stick it to us. We deserve it.
I just hope we can take over The White House before those stupid Americans get so desperate that they start putting their own lives and the lives of their children before the wsnts and needs of our sacred, beautiful, intelligent political party.
Go Democrats!!!! Go OPEC!!!! Acba Allah!!!
By chuck
June 10, 2008 9:56 AM | Link to this
Jokeson, Can’t you just accept statements for what they are without reading your own prejudices into them? In my earlier post I said:
The longer we wait, the higher the price of oil will go. Any alternative to oil is still years, if not decades away.
I’m all for searching for alternatives, but we have a PROBLEM NOW. Your biggest problem joke, is that you project YOUR ISSUES onto everybody else. I guess making those ridiculous little comments allows you to feel worthwhile. Maybe one day you’ll learn how to discuss the issues without all the little snide personal remarks. Until then…BITE ME.
NYer, to answer your question, I don’t have any problem with that scenario. I think that we will almost certainly be using gasoline in some form for at least 50 years. I honestly think that the most promising development is hydrogen fuel cells, but the infrastructure changes that will require are ages away.
I do think, however, that the price of gas has just about gotten us to the place where we will have to make serious efforts to find alternatives. I would much prefer that we find them sooner. I PERSONALLY HATE SENDING ANY OF MY MONEY TO THE SAUDIS. As a pragmatist though, I just don’t see it happening as quickly as we would like.
RF, yesterday you said:
Alternative fuel technology exists and has existed for some time. The oil companies have traditionally bought patents and shelved the ideas since such technology threatened their profits.
Could you expand on this statement? As I recall, and maybe somebody could correct me if I’m wrong, patents run out after 17? years or something like that. If as you say the oil companies bought those patents, wouldn’t some of those patents be open to other people by now? Wouldn’t those patents be on file and be something that individuals could access for themselves? I would think that if there are modifications that could be made to current automobile technology that would greatly improve efficiency, people would be accessing those patents and using them “under the table” so to speak, even if they haven’t expired.
I have been trying to find a video that appeared on NBC News about 3-4 years ago. A guy made a modification to a conventional combustion engine that enabled it to get over 100 mpg and it cost less than $100 to modify the engine for this improvement. The question is, if this is true, and if the patents are on file, why aren’t people using them?
By JokesOn
June 10, 2008 10:31 AM | Link to this
I’m all for searching for alternatives, but we have a PROBLEM NOW. Your biggest problem joke, is that you project YOUR ISSUES onto everybody else. I guess making those ridiculous little comments allows you to feel worthwhile.
That could be it. Or it could be that like usual you do not answer the real questions like I just asked. the few times you ever answered a direct question without a huge cut/paste job, you were laughed off the blog.
Back to my question:
Why should we keep barking up a tree that we know is going to fall on us (or our children?)
Plus, the weak dollar is the main factor hurting our economy. Granted, the rise in gas prices will compound that. But if that was the key factor, why are other countries $, who’s gas is some cases costs 2x ours, not feeling the same effects?
Gas is a relatively small later on the cake that is hurting us.
By Archie
June 10, 2008 11:02 AM | Link to this
You want two high character people then check out Gennifer Flowers and Paula Jones and their new business venture. For 1.99 they will tell all the details of their sexual encounters with Bill Clinton. My,my 10 years plus after their stories have died down these two people are still trying to make a profit off of past sexual encounters. Isn’t this just great in that you too can have an affair or encounter in with someone and profit from it even if the person’s spouse is still around and of course you have to claim some type of victimhood. You gotta love it!! Jones and Flowers really do care about women issues, you just have dig deep to see the relevance.
By chuck
June 10, 2008 11:08 AM | Link to this
Sometimes I have to wonder if your IQ is really high enough to participate in a meaningful discussion of the issues Joke.
YOUR QUESTIONS:
So we simply pass the buck (and by that time the problems would be exponential)?
Why not take our pill now so future generations can focus on other big issues that will surely arise?
Whats your resistance to change, the convenience?
My answers:
I’m all for searching for alternatives, but we have a PROBLEM NOW.
I do think, however, that the price of gas has just about gotten us to the place where we will have to make serious efforts to find alternatives. I would much prefer that we find them sooner. I PERSONALLY HATE SENDING ANY OF MY MONEY TO THE SAUDIS. As a pragmatist though, I just don’t see it happening as quickly as we would like.
Any QUESTIONS?
By Lyrazel
June 10, 2008 11:09 AM | Link to this
Why should we keep barking up a tree that we know is going to fall on us or our children?
Alternative energy is grand until we consider that oil makes a host of product. One being the car itself, the train—its seats—the skippy tires we use and the asphalt we drive on—the prescription pill bottles & amputee prosthesis, surgeon tools, dental tools, window seals & sealant…. In the cosmetic industry oil is used to provide a number of perfumes and cosmetics—their containers, toothbrushes and bristles, toothpaste containers what else can I think of beyond those damn blister packs? Ammo & guns, computer disks, television parts and blah blah blah plastic is made from petroleum down to the very hoses one pumps gas with. Maybe the little screw covers on outdoor furniture or the 3-leg box rest in a pizza do not have to be there—and yeah, American’s could recycle more products but lets not assume all oil makes fuel. Look around at your work space. Can you really say: we can use alternative sources—when in the broad spectrum we are far more reliant on petroleum for more than oil fuel?
By chuck
June 10, 2008 11:19 AM | Link to this
BTW fool, I answer direct questions all the time. When you learn how to construct a complete and comprehensible sentence and actually come up with an original idea, we’ll talk about who’s laughing at whom? You might notice, that I am still here, that I have debated everyone who has EVER wanted to discuss the issues, and that I actually enjoy it when intellectual midgets such as yourself try to poke holes in anything that I have said. If you don’t want to read my answers to your ill-formed simplistic questions, then by all means, QUIT ASKING THEM.
By USinUK
June 10, 2008 11:29 AM | Link to this
sorry - only have a moment to post today (hate it when work gets in the way) …
chuck - looked through your links - you realize that this study was produced by big oil, right? you realize that they have a vested interest in saying that there’s LOADS of oil in them thar hills and that they’d be able to get it out of the ground in no time and at little environmental expense.
yeah. right.
sorry, but even the gov’t halved their estimate of the oil reserves we have in the US.
as for the time needed to excavate, do you REALLY think that, once the ink dries on the Executive Order allowing the companies to drill at will, that they’d be able to go wherever they please and drill? sorry, but before they put the first hole in the ground, they will spend YEARS with environmental engineers doing impact reports. and, then, they’ll spend YEARS in the courts trying to support them.
so. yeah. 10 year minimum before the first drill goes in the ground.
as for the idiot above. yep. you got it about right. we Dems just love OPEC. we’ve been seen walking hand-in-hand through fields of Texax bluebells with Saudi princes … oh, hey, waitaminnit, that’s YOUR guy that does that.
lastly, ethanol is a stop-gap - it isn’t the solution. so is natural gas and hybrids. electric cars like Smart cars and hydrogen cell autos are where we need to be putting our $$$ and effort.
okay … heading back to spread sheets … GAH!
hasta la pasta
By Lyrazel
June 10, 2008 11:49 AM | Link to this
I think if you want to make a change start with the state you live in first before pretending to want to solve global problems. Georgia does not have any state-wide recycling program, does not even recycle drink bottles because of legislators (other states get 5¢ for all bottles, milk jugs, peanut butter jars, etc), does not have a water supply development measure—and suffering continues as they build in an ever continuing drought increasing the megawatts of power needed in summer. With dependance on electricity no one is mentioning nuclear waste anymore—no one mentions the plants are OLD and will need to be replaced..but damn them arabs, right? Look at the highway system being supported—but mention a train alternative and suddenly no one has $. Its so easy to blame others… Georgians take a bow!
By DimsloveOPEC
June 10, 2008 12:24 PM | Link to this
A perfect example of the liberal left logic:
Dems just love OPEC. we’ve been seen walking hand-in-hand through fields of Texax bluebells with Saudi princes … oh, hey, waitaminnit, that’s YOUR guy that does that.
Bush wants to take power away from the Saudis by giving US the power to produce our own energy, but because we can’t drill here, he is forced to deal with OPEC and the Saudis. So because of that. it is “YOUR guy” that deals with the Saudis. What what a crock.
Get a clue. Tell the Democrats in Washington to STOP SUPPORTING OPEC BY PREVENTING OUR OWN COMPANIES FROM MAKING US INDEPENDENT OF OPEC.
USinUK: Here’s an idea: Instead of twisting arguments to fit your agenda, ADDRESS THE FACT THAT EVERYTHING THE DEMOCRATS ARE DOING IN CONGRESS IS GIVING OPEC MORE AND MORE POWER.
Can you do it? Can anyone do it?
How about you, JokesOn? You have all the answers. Addrees the fact that democrats are giving OPEC more and more money and power and giving the American People less power and money.
Can you do it? Can you leave out the personal attacks? Can you actually discuss facts?
And the Windfall profit tax… Are democrats really this dumb? I can see it now:
Speech at the Exxon stock holders meeting:
Exxon Executive: Well, they caught us. The democrats caught us charging too much for gas, so now they are going to punish us. Everybody get out your checkbooks because we need to pay those windfall profit taxes.
Voice from audience: Why don’t we just tack the taxes onto the price of gas.
Exxon Executive: Done!!! Cocktails on the veranda!!!
Yea Democrats, Yea OPEC. Akba Allah.
By Snidely Buttright
June 10, 2008 12:46 PM | Link to this
You can always tell when “TOJ” takes on a new name can’t you? Hyperbole, hysteria, juvenile insults, and outright lies. Just can’t miss it.
By DimsloveOPEC
June 10, 2008 1:06 PM | Link to this
Snidlely Bullsh*T
And this is why this is such a lame, brainless forum. Bullsh*t personal attacks are all that most of the posters are smart enough to produce.
We are paying almost $5 a gallon for gas. Yesterday I saw a new BP station with a brand new sign. There is a place for the “ten” digits, i.e. plan on paying $10 a gallon. But the democrats want to give more and more power to OPEC.
Tell me why, brainless twit. Can you think at all? Why can’t we drill off the coast? China is. So the environmental question is bullsh*t, like most of the excuses the democrats are teachong you sheep to give.
One more try to get liberals to THINK.
Why are you sup[porting leaders that give more power to OPEC while taking away power from the American public? Do you deny that is what they are doing? Can you at least attempt to address this?
By NYer
June 10, 2008 1:39 PM | Link to this
Not trying to pick sides in this, but USinUK, this part of your post made no sense to me:
chuck - looked through your links - you realize that this study was produced by big oil, right? you realize that they have a vested interest in saying that there’s LOADS of oil in them thar hills and that they’d be able to get it out of the ground in no time and at little environmental expense.
You must have looked at different links than the ones Chuck posted in response to my question.
The first link was a study done by the Utah Heavy Oil Program, which is part of the University of Utah. Their report said things far different than you seem to think it said, as I’ve alluded to in my response to Chuck this morning. Their findings strike me as far less sanguine than Chuck would have liked.
The second link is directly from the DOE website. It has nothing to do with drilling in them thar hills - it discusses using new technology to extract additional oil from existing wells.
By JokesOn
June 10, 2008 1:40 PM | Link to this
Can you really say: we can use alternative sources—when in the broad spectrum we are far more reliant on petroleum for more than oil fuel?
Huge difference. All of the products you list re-fix carbon into a solid state. The few that dont are insubstantial compared to the tons of carbon we release into the air useing gas as a fuel.
I’m all for searching for alternatives, but we have a PROBLEM NOW.
Really? What major problem is that? Gas is more expensive than you would like?
Back to reality: most countries have been paying what we are, or more, for years.
You want relief that means something? Stop the govt from borrowing $ from other countries to fund the war and start using it here to get the US more efficient.
BTW fool, I answer direct questions all the time. Yeah, right.
When you learn how to construct a complete and comprehensible sentence and actually come up with an original idea, we’ll talk about who’s laughing at whom?
Statements end with a question mark now? hmmm. Picking on grammar in a blog is the last argument of a loser.
By Here's a fresh idea:
June 10, 2008 1:47 PM | Link to this
“The Democrats WANT to give more power to OPEC.”
That’s clearly retarded parrotting. I’d say it was retarded thinking, but there’s no thinking involved, only the endless regurgitation of GOP talking points from the same wellspring of deception that keeps getting Republicans elected in spite of the fact that the leaders of this country are IN BED with Saudi Royals and other wealthy Arabs, peforming all manner of sodomous acts, the pain from which the taxpayers feel in our own respective backsides. (Owwww!)
Did anyone watch Kucinish on C-SPAN last night? His list of egregious offenses of this administration took HOURS to read. If you’re wondering why our dollar is in the toilet (No it isn’t! It’s performing well against the nickel!), and why our budget surplus has turned into generations worth of debt to nasty, un-Democratic nations, and we’re paying more for everything and earning the same, if that, look and see how much went to big oil companies, defense contractors, and other friends of Bush & Dick. This gluttonous orgy has been going on for years while our FINE HONORABLE soldiers have been dying, and for what? So you can bend over, spread your cheeks, take some more like the big man you are, and tell us this is all the “Democrats’ fault!” Right, the Republicans said “NO” to taxing big oil profits because they care about you, love you, and promise to call you in the morning to schedule that steak dinner you didn’t get last night.
Do yourself and the rest of us a favor and start shooting high-grade heroin in your arm today. You’ve done enough “thinking” on our behalf, thanks.
By Lyrazel
June 10, 2008 2:02 PM | Link to this
Dimbulb, We get more petro from Venezuela & Mexico & Canada than Saudi Arabia=FYI. Bush lost a lot of money like many people did out west when drilling ceased because of LOW PRICES on imported oil. See with oil more expensive to drill and refine in the USA—it was not DEMOCRATS OR REPUBLICANS—but American Capitalists who sought out cheap oil. They did not stop drilling because of environmental issues but for the almighty profit margin. One of the reasons why we do not say drill off the florida coast (we have some rigs in the gulf) is because some dim bulb president declared special areas Natl. Parks… I believe it was Ford.
If you want to be part of the BUY USA oil—then use Kerr-McGee gas or Marathon Oil both American based petro companies (of course they buy from other countries=Capitalism) but BP is not a USA company. So watch where you spend, Dimlit Bulb. Put your $ where your (fill in) is.
By chuck
June 10, 2008 2:05 PM | Link to this
I have yet to see ANYONE explain how TAXING OIL COMPANY PROFITS IS GOING TO LOWER THE PRICE OF GAS. As truth said, the cost of these “windfall profits taxes” will fall directly on the shoulders of consumers through price increases.
BTW, the Author of this absurd idea Barack HUSSEIN Obama, has been roundly criticized by both Republicans AND DEMOCRATS, and by all manner of non-partisan economists. It’s a stupid idea.
By DimsloveOPEC
June 10, 2008 2:11 PM | Link to this
Here’s a fresh idea:
So where was the fresh idea? You just did what a brainless twit would always do. You avoided addressing the point and turned it into yet another attack on the messenger.
Let me make this easy for you. I’ll just ask some direct questions. Maybe you can handle that.
Do you support drilling off the coast of Florida?
Do you support Drilling in ANWAR?
Do you support exploration of shale oil in the American West?
Do you support drilling anywhere off our domestic shores?
Do you support the use of Coal?
Do you support the use of Nuclear Energy?
Do you drive a vehicle with a gasoline powered engine? If so, how soon will you switch to a solar or wind powered automobile? (Electric cars are actually coal, oil or nuclear powered cars, depending on where your electric provider gets their fuel)
Do you understand that alternative energy methods that would make a real difference in our gasoline consumption is 15-20 years away?
I hope this helps. Now lets see if you can take a stab at facts, and answering questions about the policies that you blindly support. I expect more slobbering attacks while ignoring the very simple and obvious facts. Let’s see if I am right again.
By Snidely Buttright
June 10, 2008 2:13 PM | Link to this
DimsloveOPEC (aka TOJ aka Truth) - “And this is why this is such a lame, brainless forum. Bullsh-t personal attacks are all that most of the posters are smart enough to produce.”
Pot, meet Kettle. Bullsh-t personal attacks are your specialty so I guess you’d know one when it’s thrown at you, eh? But I bet you’ll never ever admit that you started the insultfest though.
By DimsloveOPEC
June 10, 2008 2:25 PM | Link to this
Lyrazel
but American Capitalists who sought out cheap oil. They did not stop drilling because of environmental issues but for the almighty profit margin. One of the reasons why we do not say drill off the florida coast (we have some rigs in the gulf) is because some dim bulb president declared special areas Natl. Parks… I believe it was Ford.
I see. So is China allowed to drill in our National Parks? How about Brazil? Argentina? They are all drilling in the gulf. We are not. And that is a direct result of environmental policies of our government.
You seem like a smart, rational guy, but how many excuses will you make for the brainless policies that continue to cripple our economy? I think the oil companies are the most evil people on earth. But unfortunately, they own both parties. They need to be regulated, but no politician has the stones to make that happen so we have to deal with them.
You want to negotiate with Iran but work out some compromises with domestic oil? No way.
I keep hearing that Democrats want change. How is continuing to support policies that make OPEC extremely wealthy and powerful while crippling our economy, a change?
Democrats are giving more and more power to OPEC. And WE are paying the price.
I did notice that you avoided talking about the windfall profits tax. Good move. How could anyone defend that?
By Archie
June 10, 2008 2:27 PM | Link to this
Dimbulb, We get more petro from Venezuela & Mexico & Canada than Saudi Arabia=FYI. Bush lost a lot of money like many people did out west when drilling ceased because of LOW PRICES on imported oil. Wow I am glad I started this topic about drilling,Lyrazel!!! You and others are posting so much information and I wish I had time to impartially, impartially research it all. When my coworker sent me that email about China then the petition I thought about it but I know he is hugely partisan so I sought a different viewpoint and man did I get it. I am trying to read the posts from the left and the right because quite frankly, I just want gas cheaper than it is now. Right now I am leaning left.
By DimsloveOPEC
June 10, 2008 2:33 PM | Link to this
Snidely Bullsh*t
Bla, bla, bla, bla.
Yea, prove me wrong by continuing to do what I said you would do. But again, if you had the brains to address the issue, you would, now wouldn’t you?
By JokesOn
June 10, 2008 2:35 PM | Link to this
I have yet to see ANYONE explain how TAXING OIL COMPANY PROFITS IS GOING TO LOWER THE PRICE OF GAS.
Where is that stated as a premise anywhere on the blog? (maybe you have trouble with my posts simply because you cannot read?)
Chuck and DimsloveOPEC,
Why do you two fixate on such a non-issue like the price of gas and not making this country more efficient in general, which would actually solve issues?
You both post totally inane topics/points. Even if gas was $2 a gallon, this country would be in the same trouble. You two, and other bushites, would simply be able to have an even more convenient life. Selfish imperialist: “Screw real issues that keep people from having a full life! I want my cheap gasoline to go four wheeling in a wildlife (ex)preserve.”
By Here's a fresh idea:
June 10, 2008 2:40 PM | Link to this
Math, stupid. The lower the dollar falls in value, the more of them we’ll have to use for everything, especially stuff on the world market, and the fewer of them we’ll have in our pockets, so the less we’ll put back into our own economy and then fewer jobs we’ll have here and the less we’ll have in our pockets. This argument works well when you’re trying to say taxes are bad. (They’re bad, bad… not prudent. So is debt according to Dave Ramsey.) Now say, for example, we had industries here in Georgia that were geared toward the future of newer, greener technologies. Just suppose for a minute that all the working folks thrown out of jobs when the auto plants closed, etc., and those whose local economies consist of WalMart and Hardees, could actually get jobs in meaningful industries here in Georgia creating something that (a) we need, (b) others would buy, and (c) constitutes forward motion economically, technologically, and ecologically…. why, they’d start having more money in their pockets to put back into our economy and to tax.
Would this in and of itself lower the price of gas? Heck NO! The price of gas aint never comin’ down. What’s the point? Moving in the right direction and earning a living while weaning off the middle east teet might just be good for Georgia and good for America. I believe in our labor force. I think we could do that here. Personal responsibility and all that.
By JokesOn
June 10, 2008 2:44 PM | Link to this
BTW fool, I answer direct questions all the time.
Still waiting for those answers…
By JokesOn
June 10, 2008 2:58 PM | Link to this
Yep. Those repubs are definitely not for gas companies…
Democrats fell nine votes shy today of 60 needed to proceed to debate. The White House Office of Management and Budget today threatened a veto of the measure.
The proposal, announced last month, would have imposed a windfall profit tax of $10 billion to $12 billion this year on oil companies, according to Senate Democrats. It also included new margin requirements on oil-futures trades, and aimed to outlaw price gouging.
alternative energy production, was also defeated in the Senate, victim to partisan disagreements over whether the tax credits should be accounted for by raising tax rates on hedge fund managers.
By JokesOn
June 10, 2008 3:09 PM | Link to this
Would this in and of itself lower the price of gas? Heck NO! The price of gas aint never comin’ down. What’s the point? Moving in the right direction and earning a living while weaning off the middle east teet might just be good for Georgia and good for America. I believe in our labor force. I think we could do that here. Personal responsibility and all that.
I thought this was obvious. Maybe we need to take a number of steps back in the logic for our two friends. We are assuming too much.
By DimsloveOPEC
June 10, 2008 3:23 PM | Link to this
Here’s a fresh idea
I’m glad you brought up Walmart. Why do you think Walmart is now offering such great deals on most of their products? It’s because the dollar is very strong in the Far East. Weak in Europe, Strong in China. Sorry about your Mercedes.
So how was the dollar in 2005 before the dims took over Congress?
By NYer
June 10, 2008 3:30 PM | Link to this
JokesOn,
Are you in favor of additional taxes on the oil companies? If so, why? I’m genuinely curious.
Personally I think a lot of the clamor about the oil companies is populist scapegoating. The oil companies are nobody’s friend, but they’re an easy target.
By DimsloveOPEC
June 10, 2008 3:36 PM | Link to this
Hey Chuck. I’ll give it a shot. Lets see if Einstein will answer the same question he keeps avoiding that you keep asking:
JokesON
Please explain how the windfall profit tax will lower the price of gasoline. You posted the press release, so it wasn’t us that brought it up. Or better yet, please explain how it won’t raise the price of gas even more?
I get that you can’t understand the difference between a society like Europe who have been paying twice what we pay for petroleum for generations and our economy. The damage that (in a gasoline oriented society like ours) doubling the cost of a necessary commodity is doing is apparent in every aspect of our lives. Inflation has doubled in a year.
Please don’t tell me that you believe that the price of gasoline does not affect the rest of our economy. Or is this going to be another case where you are so resolute in the nonsense you post that you would claim that our school system and the pornography industry are equal in the way they abuse children. Is it going to be another one of those, Joke?
By DimsloveOPEC
June 10, 2008 3:47 PM | Link to this
NYer
You’re making too much sense. Try this. Find a really good concrete wall. Put your head down and run as fast as you can into the wall. While you are still woozy and can’t get your brain to function, think these words:
Oil company bad.
Politician do bad thing to oil company.
Politician good.
Repeat until you regain your senses. If your logic and/or reasoning get any deeper than sentences like the three above, you will get in a lot of trouble here.
By JokesOn
June 10, 2008 3:48 PM | Link to this
Are you in favor of additional taxes on the oil companies? If so, why? I’m genuinely curious.
Yes. If, it is, as I currently understand it, when they are basically price gouging and making tons of profit while all else is going to the crapper.
Personally I think a lot of the clamor about the oil companies is populist scapegoating. The oil companies are nobody’s friend, but they’re an easy target.
It may be simplistic, but when the oil companies are making record profits and nearly all other industries are wallowing, something should be done.
Not really any different than the limits that are on power companies. I would rather a free market system working it out, but in this case there few competitors and lots of demand which can lead to troubling the economic situation more.
I do not think this is a major factor of our situation though and should not be a focus really. It does not matter what the price of gas is if joe has no job or is already in a sinking situation. That leads back to the legislation part: it is a long term solution to the question of where to get money to put into our flailing infrastructure.
By JokesOn
June 10, 2008 3:51 PM | Link to this
So how was the dollar in 2005 before the dims took over Congress?
I also happened to have the stomach flu the day the dollar began to falter - so that must be a part of the equation.
By Copyleft
June 10, 2008 3:59 PM | Link to this
alternative energy methods that would make a real difference in our gasoline consumption are 15-20 years away
Hey, here’s a funny coincidence: The oil and gas companies (and auto makers) made that same objection 20 years ago! They used it to thwart any attempt to develop alternative energy methods, arguing that oil and gas were cheaper in the long run and “maybe someday, alternative energy will magically appear with no help or funding whatsoever.”
And, sonuva gun, it DIDN’T! That’s certainly an excellent reason to make that same excuse, and pursue that same failed policy, once again, isn’t it?
I’m glad Jimmy Carter lived long enough to see himself vindicated. America HATED him for promoting conservation and alternative energy, and he was right all along. Take your medicine, America; cheap oil is a thing of the past.
By DimsloveOPEC
June 10, 2008 4:01 PM | Link to this
JokesOn
Are you in favor of additional taxes on the oil companies? If so, why? I’m genuinely curious.
Yes. If, it is, as I currently understand it, when they are basically price gouging and making tons of profit while all else is going to the crapper.
So … where do you believe they will get that money to pay those taxes? They aren’t regulated, like the power companies. So will they:
Go to the stock holders meetings and ask for donations?
Sell oil company cookies to pay the taxes?
Have all the multimillionaires that run the oil companies pay the taxes out of their grand-children’s trust funds?
How about this: They do what they always do and pass the taxes on to us to pay. Can you at least attempt at giving me a single reason why that wouldn’t happen?
Have you ever read on a gasoline pump where it tells you how much taxes YOU ARE PAYING when you buy gasoline. Not the oil companies. Not their stock holders. YOU ARE PAYING.
By Archie
June 10, 2008 4:07 PM | Link to this
Yes. If, it is, as I currently understand it, when they are basically price gouging and making tons of profit while all else is going to the crapper. Amen JokesON. It may be simplistic, but when the oil companies are making record profits and nearly all other industries are wallowing, something should be done. Not really any different than the limits that are on power companies. JokesOn I had this conversation with my coworker a week ago and I said similar things to what you have said. It defies common sense not to do something and here in South Carolina the major power company really has a monopoly but they can’t raise rates without the approval of a commission. They usually get their rate increase approved but if they make too much in profit the money is given back to the customers. Every state has gouging laws because they know some folk are just plain greedy and it’s another built-in protection against subjugation.
By JokesOn
June 10, 2008 4:09 PM | Link to this
Please don’t tell me that you believe that the price of gasoline does not affect the rest of our economy. Or is this going to be another case where you are so resolute in the nonsense you post that you would claim that our school system and the pornography industry are equal in the way they abuse children. Is it going to be another one of those, Joke?
Called yourself out. Seeing as the economy began to fall BEFORE gas was rising should be evidence enough for dims like you to see a bigger issue is at hand and gas is not the answer; but that would be assuming too much.
Seeing as you ran off crying and came back as I said you would under another name makes me wonder WHY I would even think you can process anything besides your narrow views, but I am generous like that and pity you.
Please explain how the windfall profit tax will lower the price of gasoline. You posted the press release, so it wasn’t us that brought it up. Or better yet, please explain how it won’t raise the price of gas even more?
First,I would think that having a penalty for price gouging would curb the desire by companies. Second, it would take money AFTER windfall profits (not at point of sale tax) and taxed money goes to social endeavorers like bettering schools/infrastructure (bridges anyone?), etc.
You posted the press release, so it wasn’t us that brought it up. I know order-of-operations are not you and bushites thing, but I brought that up after you guys were screaming that dems like the gas companies, although they are the ones trying to curb their reign.
Ran away crying about name calling when you start the disrespecting every time, come back under new name calling names… Grow up. You have been flat wrong on citing people’s posts (mine included) and refused to acknowledge it; and even more-so with complex issues like economy and gas.
Everyone else here besides you and chuck can give at least a little when called out (most can admit is totally). Even dog, who could be extremely arrogant, will admit when he is out of line (a huge plus in my book for we are all wrong some times) and state so with out slurs or run off crying “unfair!.” This is THE reason I (and all else here) have no respect for you two - not because of your political affiliation.
By DimsloveOPEC
June 10, 2008 4:16 PM | Link to this
Copyleft
I’m glad Jimmy Carter lived long enough to see himself vindicated.
Yes, Jimmy Carter sure did. And that is why his own party turned their back on him.
Here’s a news flash: Washington (Congress, you know, the lawmakers)has been run by Democrats for more years than Republicans since 1976. So where are the incentives and laws that encouraged “green” policies?
Do all democrats really believe that history started in 2001?
America HATED him for promoting conservation and alternative energy, and he was right all along.
No. Conservative America was in the boy scouts, getting off their butts and actually doing something to clean up the environment while slobs like Al Gore was living in his Daddy’s hotel suite. That is, before the loony left decided that Scouts were bad for not wanting gay men to be taking adolescent boys into the woods for sleepovers.
By JokesOn
June 10, 2008 4:22 PM | Link to this
How about this: They do what they always do and pass the taxes on to us to pay. Can you at least attempt at giving me a single reason why that wouldn’t happen?
Well, when hotels got taxed more for gouging, why didn’t those fees get passed onto us? Because it is not in their interest since they are already making record profits. You think the stockholders will be fine with making less because the company got greedy? sheesh.
Have you ever read on a gasoline pump where it tells you how much taxes YOU ARE PAYING when you buy gasoline. Not the oil companies. Not their stock holders. YOU ARE PAYING.
Assumed you understood those are a totally different type of tax. You see, the tax legislation is proposing is after a company makes windfall prices, not a standard x% on a gallon.
All questions and no answers from you. One gets blasted, no acknowledgment; only more questions. You remind me of the borg: exhaust all the energy from the good guys so nothing decent can be talked about)
Ohh yeah, to tap into (possible) oil that the gas companies say is there so they can make more money in 10-20 years, if the technology to use the type of oil exists at the time and is cheap to apply……if…if…if. The one constant is they will have more oil to sell us at whatever price is the going rate. Sounds great for them and maybe, if all the stars are aligned and no one sneezes, will save us a couple dollars a month.
Save all of us the routine: leave now crying for the waaaambulance. You have no capability or desire to talk or be honest.
By Logic Skool
June 10, 2008 4:24 PM | Link to this
Economic gains in the economy are the direct result of the previous administration or congress’s policies when the previous administration or congress was Republican and the current one is Democratic. Economic downturns in the economy are the fault of the current administration or congress if it is Democratic and the not the previous one if it’s Republican.
Any attacks on the WTC by terr’ists are the fault of the current administration if it’s Democratic, but not the previous if it’s Republican, (93) but such attacks are indeed the fault of the previous administration of it was Democratic and NOT the current administration if it’s Republican (01).(If Al-Q attacks us again, if will of course be Hillary’s fault, an assertion supported by all Republicans and half the Democrats.)
Borrowing to spend spend spend is bad when you do it, and good when your government does it when your government is Republican, and bad when your government does it and your government is Democratic. Balancing the budget is good when you do it, but bad when your government does it when your government is Democratic, and no one has ever seen a Republican government do it, as that experiment has not been conducted yet.
Any questions?
By DimsloveOPEC
June 10, 2008 4:25 PM | Link to this
JokesOn
When you actually call me out instead of just running your ignorant mouth, I will admit it. You claim victory when you manage to put together a sentence. You have yet to prove a single point. Most of the time, you embarrass yourself beyond anything I could do so I leave it alone.
You still haven’t answered the question. Where are the oil companies going to get the money for the taxes, Einstein? Take a stand. Have a spine. Tell me Bozo. Pleeease tell me that we are not going to pay for it at the pumps.
I come back just to watch you lose your sh*t, Joke. You are the complete liberal: all mouth, all emotions a complete lemming and not a brain to be found.
By Stop it!
June 10, 2008 4:31 PM | Link to this
BOY SCOUTS? Hahahahahaha! Hahahaha! Seriously, Boy scouts????! LMAOLMAOLMAO! ROFLROFLROFL!
This guy is good, people. HAHAHA! And here we thought he actually MEANT this drivel he spouted all day. HAHAHAHA!! GOOD ONE! roflroflrofl boy scouts LMAOLMAO!
By JokesOn
June 10, 2008 4:34 PM | Link to this
JokesOn I had this conversation with my coworker a week ago and I said similar things to what you have said. It defies common sense not to do something and here in South Carolina the major power company really has a monopoly but they can’t raise rates without the approval of a commission. They usually get their rate increase approved but if they make too much in profit the money is given back to the customers. Every state has gouging laws because they know some folk are just plain greedy and it’s another built-in protection against subjugation.
But haven’t you seen power prices skyrocket because of that? (sarcasm)
I still think this is a relatively moot area to exercise. Either way gas will steadily rise over the rest of time and it does no good for the earth or its people. Might as well get used to it and put money into infrastructure and exploratory alternative fuel research; especially if that money could come from the gas companies that are making record profits.
With people like dimboy and chuck running things, we will see other countries in 20years having other sources and infrastructure that insults ours. Taiwan, for example with their healthcare/infrastructure/etc. India will be done with reformations soon also and we will not be able to compete with that large of powerhouse. All while old crusty white entitlement folks like the twins cry for the waaambulance in real life.
By DimsloveOPEC
June 10, 2008 4:40 PM | Link to this
Joke
Well, when hotels got taxed more for gouging, why didn’t those fees get passed onto us? Because it is not in their interest since they are already making record profits. You think the stockholders will be fine with making less because the company got greedy? sheesh.
Yea. I gotcha. I Understand. LOL!!
The oil companies are going to say: Yep, we are just making too much money. Let’s just pay these taxes ourselves. Yea, I can see them doing that. LOL!! Do you have any sort of grasp of reality?
Assumed you understood those are a totally different type of tax. You see, the tax legislation is proposing is after a company makes windfall prices, not a standard x% on a gallon.
OK. try to stay with me here, OK.
Gas company gets fines in the form of windfall profits tax.
Gas company actually has accountants who decide if the gas company raises the price of gas X amount, the cost of the windfall profit tax will be absorbed without any loss to the oil companies.
Oil company wins.
We lose.
And they get to make the decision.
I know that is really complicated, but print it out and find any conservative and they will explain it to you.
By DimsloveOPEC
June 10, 2008 4:44 PM | Link to this
Stopit.
Imbecile.
By NYer
June 10, 2008 4:51 PM | Link to this
JokesOn,
as I currently understand it, when they are basically price gouging….
Over 70% of the cost of a gallon of gas is to cover the cost of crude. Government taxes take up about 12%, refining takes about 8%, and the remaining 8 to 10 percent goes to the convenience store that sold you the gas.
The government gets a bigger piece than anybody else, JokesOn.
Take a look at XOM’s financials and their profit margin, and then look around - lots of companies have much higher profit margins than the oil industry. Take MSFT or GE for instance. MSFT’s operating margins are more than double Exxon’s - are they gouging us as well? GE’s operating margins are 8 to 10 points higher than Exxon’s - what about them?
I do not think this is a major factor of our situation though and should not be a focus really. It does not matter what the price of gas is if joe has no job or is already in a sinking situation. That leads back to the legislation part: it is a long term solution to the question of where to get money to put into our flailing infrastructure.
I agree.
Not really any different than the limits that are on power companies. I would rather a free market system working it out, but in this case there few competitors and lots of demand which can lead to troubling the economic situation more.
I disagree. Apples and oranges. The transmission and distribution portion of a disaggregated utility is a natural monopoly - that is why it is heavily regulated in terms of the price it can charge local ratepayers. The oil business, clearly, is not a natural monopoly.
I appreciate your honest response.
By FarmerJoe
June 10, 2008 4:57 PM | Link to this
Man walks to his neighbor’s house because his neighbor has a fish pond and his neighbor will sell him a fish.
He pays the neighbor 1 dollar for the fish and takes the fish home.
He comes back the next day to buy another fish. In fact he come s back every day for years.
But almost over night, the neighbor wants more for the fish. A lot more. So the man’s wife tells the man that they should grow a garden instead of eating fish. But the man says that they have no seeds and no plows and no tractor. But he does have a fishing pole and that lake that is on his own property is full of fish. But the wife says that the man shouldn’t fish in that lake. The man says “but everyone fishes in that lake? Why do we need to learn to farm while everyone is taking our fish?”
Then the woman ran for office as a democrat.
By NYer
June 10, 2008 5:03 PM | Link to this
Archie,
South Carolina the major power company really has a monopoly but they can’t raise rates without the approval of a commission. They usually get their rate increase approved but if they make too much in profit the money is given back to the customers. Every state has gouging laws because they know some folk are just plain greedy and it’s another built-in protection against subjugation.
You’re really comparing two different animals when you compare the oil industry to your local utility. The government knows that the distribution of electricity is a natural monopoly - that is why it is heavily regulated, usually requiring utilities to have rate increases approved by the local utility commissions or some other governmental body. The oil industry is certainly not a natural monopoly.
By RF
June 10, 2008 5:08 PM | Link to this
chuck- to answer your question about patents, I don’t know for sure but I’ll be googling that this evening. I do believe that once you own a patent, you have the right to renew it perpetually. If you don’t renew it, then it is open to use by others. I have read in articles past that there is technology out there that will either reduce the need for crude oil or offer other fuel alternatives. But, the trick is to sell an idea and get it into mass production to bring down the cost. Now unless BP, Exxon, etc. want to invest in alternatives, they’re certainly not going to sit back and allow or encourage an engine to be built and used that will get high mileage. Until they see the potential for long term profits in other fuel sources, we won’t see them in mass production. That’s just good business sense for them, not paranoia from the left—LOL
The other issue here is the potential environmental impact of alternative fuels. How many currently known burn significantly cleaner than fossil fuels? How about production of rechargable batteries? That is a chemical nightmare!! I’m all for exploring the alternatives, but I want to know about the long-term effects of producing and making such alternatives on the environment and air we breathe. Hydrogen burners sound good, but what goes into producing the hydrogen canisters and how does this affect the environment? It’s a bit like a dog chasing his tail. Will we ever find a useful fuel source for our transportation needs that isn’t harmful?
How’s the summer? I got roped into teaching summer school (good money, but DANG I need a break!!)
By JokesOn
June 10, 2008 5:12 PM | Link to this
The oil companies are going to say: Yep, we are just making too much money. Let’s just pay these taxes ourselves.
is that what the power companies did? The hotel industry? Nope. These are basically fines that come from their bottom line. Re-couping it through increased prices would cut them deeper. Talk about being a dolt.
When you actually call me out instead of just running your ignorant mouth, I will admit it. You claim victory when you manage to put together a sentence. You have yet to prove a single point. Most of the time, you embarrass yourself beyond anything I could do so I leave it alone.
That’s it!
For example: When you freaked out because people referred to christians as xians. It was explained to you that a christian coined the term and it was universally accepted; not a slur.
Or how click-through sites works? (pssst - remember the lawsuit filed by sites for deep linking? What was their case?)
Or, yes the porn industry, that puts child porn on the shelves to sell? (ohhh yeah, you changed the term child porn to include the rare 17yo)
Or that the Bots were not humans spamming this site?
or how they (the BOTS) would just have many windows open so they can post after 5pm?
Or how xians are not the ones being limited since they can display what they want on they yards, just not on government property?
AND….
What did you do?
Apologise? No. Aknoledge your err? No.
You ran away and hid. Then came back 20 mins later to whine about something else. You are a child with a bad temper is all. I have yet to freak out or “lose my s**.” Childish antics are not worth it and I know that one can never win a screaming match with a child. You put them in the corner, as we did with you, and watch you turn red and freak out.
By Truth
June 11, 2008 8:11 AM | Link to this
JokesOn
is that what the power companies did? The hotel industry? Nope.
Wrong. That is exactly what they did. Yes, you know what a “bot” is but you are completely ignorant of how a business works. You set on your fat a*s everyday being paid for posting on this forum when you should be working so I know that you do not own your own business. I own three.
For example: When you freaked out because people referred to christians as xians. It was explained to you that a christian coined the term and it was universally accepted; not a slur.
The only person that freaked out was the emotional little girl called JokesOn. You always freak out. Chuck had to try to calm your hysterical little self down yesterday. You can’t make a post without it being an emotional rant. Get it under control, little girl.
Or how click-through sites works? (pssst - remember the lawsuit filed by sites for deep linking? What was their case?)
I knew how they worked before you started your sermon. What you didn’t seem to understand (even though I explained it over and over) I did not go to thumbnail sites. I went straight from the search engine to the site. Perhaps if you could calm down for a minute, you could absorb what others were saying.
Or, yes the porn industry, that puts child porn on the shelves to sell? (ohhh yeah, you changed the term child porn to include the rare 17yo)
So now 17 year olds are being exploited. Already changed your stance? Maybe someday you will admit that many children are exploited. But we all were really impressed with your extensive knowledge and support of child porn sites. You must be very proud.
Or that the Bots were not humans spamming this site?
Oh jeeze. You have said one thing that I didn’t already know and you can’t let it go. I thanked you when you told me, but you KEEP blathering on about it. I guess if it were the only thing that I have ever gotten right, I wouldn’t let it go either.
Or how xians are not the ones being limited since they can display what they want on they yards, just not on government property?
Again. YOU were the slobbering, name calling idiot, like you always are. You were the one that called me a fundy because I believe that religion had influenced governments throughout history. You didn’t understand the conversation because you never understand the conversation. In the 10-15 years I have attended blogs, you are, by far, the dumbest person I have ever encountered. You are an emotional little girl that is helpless without your gulag girls that blindly support you, no matter how idiotic your stances are. They weren’t here yesterday, so here you are blathering on and on because you can’t hold your own without the help of women.
Chuck said it yesterday you cannot stage an argument without insults. You can’t do it. You have never done it.
What did you do? Apologise? No.
Apologize to you for your supporting child porn and losing your emotional, hysterical little temper. Kiss my a*s you complete imbecile.
Now have fun collecting a paycheck for setting on your fat a*s, preaching at others. I will be working today, for one of the three companies that I OWN, manage and reap the profits.
So the next time you want to try to preach at me about how businesses are run, try running one, first. Then grow a brain. Then get an education, learn to use a spell check, get your little girl temper under control and come on back. If I can spare the time, I’ll be glad to slap you around a little more.
By Copyleft
June 11, 2008 8:36 AM | Link to this
Looks like the hilariously misnamed “Truth” has lost it again—while complaining that OTHER posters can’t control their tempers!
That’s a mighty big beam in your eye, mister.
By USinUK
June 11, 2008 8:46 AM | Link to this
another fly-by day for me, so this will probably be it for today …
fwiw: right now, the oil companies are benefiting from a combo of weak dollar and futures investments causing the px/barrel to rise - it’s not that they’re gouging, this is just a simple case of market fluctuations
imo, no, I don’t think there should be a “windfall” tax on them any more than I think there should be a windfall tax on lottery or casino winnings (US has it, UK doesn’t)
however, I do think that they should have their tax breaks revoked (corporate welfare at its worst) In 2005, oil companies received $7 billion in tax breaks when they were already making record profits.
okay … off to training
By WhyIsThisAnIssue
June 11, 2008 9:01 AM | Link to this
One size fits all is not a good approach for anything much less public education. Some people may benefit from a single sex school while others would not. We have ‘magnet’ schools so why not single sex schools?
By Truth
June 11, 2008 9:06 AM | Link to this
Copyleft
Here’s an idea. Instead of running your mouth, try debating what I said. Too much to ask?
You and Joke. Birds of a feather. You must be very proud. Do you also support child porn?
By Jack
June 11, 2008 10:08 AM | Link to this
A teacher in Elmira, New York asked her 6th grade class how many of them were Obama fans.
Not really knowing what an Obama fan is, but wanting to be liked by the teacher, all the kids raised their hands except for Little Johnny.
The teacher asked Little Johnny why he has decided to be different..again.
Little Johnny said, ‘Because I’m not an Obama fan.’
The teacher asked, ‘Why aren’t you an Obama fan?’
Johnny said, ‘Because I’m a Republican.’
The teacher asked him why he’s a Republican.
Little Johnny answered, ‘Well, my Mom’s a Republican and my Dad’s a Republican, so I’m a Republican.’
Annoyed by this answer, the teacher asked,
‘If your mom was a moron and your dad was an idiot, what would that make you?’
With a big smile, Little Johnny replied,
‘That would make me an Obama fan.’
By Gandalf, the Grey
June 11, 2008 10:45 AM | Link to this
Copyleft: America still hates Peanut Boy! He is a traitor to this country and should be tried for treason. America’s darkest days were under his tutelage.
Kimberly: If your big eared boy becomes President, don’t expect to be driving around in the sweet V-6 of yours anymore. No Gas, No Job, but you will have government cheese and socialized medical care. Really you should trade in your Jap iron for an American made vehicle. It take a village? It takes a village idiot to believe that crap! Where in the constitution does it say that we the American taxpayers are responsible for the mistakes you make in your personal life? Take care of you own darn children, do not expect us too! People like you will be the downfall of this great nation!
By Lyrazel
June 11, 2008 10:50 AM | Link to this
Dimbbulb—So is China allowed to drill in our National Parks? How about Brazil? Argentina? They are all drilling in the gulf
Ah, check your facts please the USA does not own the gulf. Mexico owns a larger chunk than we do BTW. China would be drilling along the cuban shores and nothing the US can do about it or other nations and who they let drill—or not. Sorry, but we have rivals for oil now and while we felt zero need to save and conserve we are now faced with having to play catch up with nations that did invest in their oil resources (we filled big cars instead of researching & developing new fields like canada, norway, britain, sweden, denmark, russia did). One thing Europe did is tax their oil/gas so to develop alternative modes of transportation & fuel to be used by its citizens—and now most Europeans have a grand public transport. Germany is two decades ahead with solar development. Iceland tapped into its geothermal resources to heat homes & business & provide energy—what did we do? We laughed and poked fun at companies that wanted to promote alternative fuels & energy. Why right now business tax-breaks for alt. energy (wind solar geo) are ending BUT tax breaks to auto and oil will be continuing. Score a big, eh! for our government idiots.
Now, a bigger better question is now that Cuba can make $$$ off foreign investment in their country—did those years of sanctions actually work?
We owe a lot of money! Japan tops the list (with $644 billion), followed by China ($350 billion), United Kingdom ($239 billion) and oil exporting countries ($100 billion). So if they ever wanted to collect on debts by claiming US resources it was government policy to make these loans and American folly to buy cheap goods and sell out our entire industrial base—to look good in the stock market profits.
I did not mention windfall profits tax because it is empty legislation—bunch of re-election chicken dances for the camera. Just like that tax-rebate that was paid with borrowed money there is very little the USA can do to foreign oil companies with their US ceos and HQs. All these companies know is that USA has the lowest taxes to business in the world even with the windfall profits tax.
By Copyleft
June 11, 2008 11:32 AM | Link to this
Oh, I’m sure you hate Jimmy Carter, Gandalf—but you hate him because he was RIGHT.
30 years ago, he tried to introduce conservation and alternative-energy development, and America (by and large) hated him for it. But he was RIGHT. And that’s what REALLY gets you mad, isn’t it?
By Gandalf, the Grey
June 11, 2008 12:12 PM | Link to this
Copyleft: Nope, not at all, I hate him because he’s a traitor! He negotiates with terrorists, and loves Islam, and hate Isreal. Other than that and his failed economic policies and weak foreign policies, he’s ok. His failure to react to IRAN back then is why we are in the place we are now. IT’S ALL JIMMY’s Fault! Weak a* little liberal wanna be. Nobel Peace prize! OMG shows how much that little liberal award is worth. HE SHOULD BE SHOT FOR TREASON!
By NYer
June 11, 2008 12:15 PM | Link to this
Copyleft,
People hate Jimmy Carter because he was right? Now I’ve seen it all.
Here are the real reasons people don’t like Carter:
Double digit inflation.
Double digit interest rates. The prime rate was 21.5% for crying out loud.
High unemployment.
People waiting for hours in lines to get gas.
Low economic growth.
Iran embassy.
Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
The malaise speech and the subsequent request for everyone in the cabinet to resign.
Now he tools around and provides false legitimacy to rigged foreign elections.
In fairness, some of Carter’s problems were his fault, and some of them weren’t. That being said, you’re the first person I’ve ever heard try to explain that the reason people don’t like Carter is because he was right about conservation and alternative fuels and Americans didn’t want to hear it.
That’s a new one. Were you alive in the 1970s?
By Jack
June 11, 2008 12:25 PM | Link to this
We hated him for what he did to our enconomy. Obama will be Carter times 5. Better start saving now. ALL of the politicians are like dirty diapers and ALL need to be changed. Want lower gas prices? Every voter should call/e-mail their representative and tell them you and your friends will not vote for them if they don’t do something. Taxing Oil will doing nothing but raide OUR price. The diapers can afford it because taxes pay for their gas. Geez.
By Wimmin's Issues Plagarized
June 11, 2008 12:44 PM | Link to this
When McCain returned to America in 1973 to a fanfare of publicity and a Nixon handshake, he discovered his model-wife had been disfigured in a terrible car crash three years earlier. When McCain came, she had gained a lot of weight and bore little resemblance to her old self.
Playboy McCain started playing the field, but, a family friend said, “Carol didn’t fight him. She felt her infirmity made her an impediment to him. She justified his actions because of all he had gone through. She used to say, “He just wants to make up for lost time.”’
Indeed, to many in their circle the saddest part of the break-up was Carol’s decision to resign herself to losing a man she says she still adores.
For nearly 30 years, Carol has maintained a dignified silence about their divorce. But last week, she told how McCain divorced her in 1980 and married Cindy, 18 years his junior and the heir to an Budweiser distribution fortune, just one month later.
Didn’t McCain take a vow before God to stay with Carol “thru sickness and in health?” Did his wedding vows say, “Unless some young, rich hottie catches my eye?” I know those five years in Hanoi Hilton were horrible, but imagine Carol sitting there, wondering what kind of torture the man she loved was going thru each day. And when he finally comes home, she’s less than perfect, so he dumps her.
By Jack
June 11, 2008 12:53 PM | Link to this
Wimmin’s Issues Plagarized. McCain is a politician. What do you expect? I had to laugh when the Ex-Govenror of NJ who was gay told the judge at his divorce that he fullfilled his marriage contract so his wife was not entitled to half his stuff. Hahahahaha!
By Copyleft
June 11, 2008 1:21 PM | Link to this
NY: yes, I was around in the 1970s, and I recall the loud conservative outrage over his energy policies. Right-wingers were FURIOUS that a president dare to suggest that Americans change their lifestyle, or treat unlimited cheap energy as anything other than their God-given birthright.
Pretty much what they’re saying today. Remember the reassurances right after 9/11? “The American way of life is not negotiable.” (Damned if we’ll change OUR ways!) “Everybody, go shopping.” (The economy is all that matters, so keep spending foolishly!)
It’s time to make PERSONAL sacrifices, gang. Cut back on your energy wasting ways. Conserve. Carpool. Control the thermostat. All that tree-hugging crap, which turns out to be absolutely, 100% ESSENTIAL for our survival.
Not to mention vital to our national security. Jimmy tried to show the way, and he was shouted down for it. But he was right. Whatever other complaints you have about his alleged “treason,” his policy on energy was right—and America wasn’t ready to hear it.
I hope we are now, because we can’t keep bullying our way around the world to keep the oil flowing.
By Archie
June 11, 2008 2:38 PM | Link to this
Didn’t McCain take a vow before God to stay with Carol “thru sickness and in health?” Did his wedding vows say, “Unless some young, rich hottie catches my eye?” I know those five years in Hanoi Hilton were horrible, but imagine Carol sitting there, wondering what kind of torture the man she loved was going thru each day. And when he finally comes home, she’s less than perfect, so he dumps her. I can’t bash McCain given the scenario you use. Five years in captivity and you just gloss that over!! Are you crazy?? I don’t like McCain politically and I think he cheated on his current wife but the poor-little-Carol thing I am not buying it. Poor-little-Carol had freedom and no torture. Sad that she had an accident but hell, even if she didn’t there’s a good chance he would have divorced her. When it comes to relationships a number of women and men don’t have the best character but people move on.
By NYer
June 11, 2008 3:17 PM | Link to this
Copyleft,
No disrespect, but you’re missing the point of my response - you said people hate Jimmy because he was right about energy. Your own words: But he was RIGHT. And that’s what REALLY gets you mad
For the record count me in the camp that wants to start getting serious about energy independence. But let’s be honest, energy policy is NOT the reason people don’t like Jimmy. It was his handling of the economy, foreign policy problems like Iran and his perceived weakness as a leader (even within his own party) that doomed him to his fate as an unloved President.
By Newt G.
June 11, 2008 3:57 PM | Link to this
Archie, MY MAN! You are so right. A woman’s love and loyalty are important, sure, and much appreciated when she sticks by her man through bad times, like an absence with no foreseeable end. A woman’s youth, good looks, and money are more important, though. Let’s keep our priorities straight! A man’s got to do what a man’s got to do! And sometimes that means DUMP HER! These b!tches need to learn not to take things so personally.
By Archie
June 11, 2008 4:27 PM | Link to this
NewtG, I stand by what I said. Do you understand what torture means. McCain was in a foreign land for years being tortured and help captive. No one knows if poor-little-Carol was faithful all that time. If you want to say McCain is a dog fine, but don’t give me this poor-little-Carol thing. I can’t believe you’re equating 5 years of captivity with someone waiting around in love. Hell,the man wasn’t on vacation. My point is that the divorce rate is 50 percent so whether she looks good or looks bad there is a chance they would have divorced. Suppose the situation had been reversed and she found a rich guy after she had been held captive for FIVE years and he had an accident and you know, couldn’t perform? Would you emphathize with him? Suppose she slept with a guy for 5 years then claimed she was brainwashed to do it? Like I said in relationships women and men don’t have the best character but they move on.
By Newt G.
June 11, 2008 4:59 PM | Link to this
Archie, why so hostile? I’m on YOUR side! I agree 100 percent. Marriages are made to be broken. Stuff happens. Opportunity knocks. A smart man knows when to let go of one thing and grab on to something better. So she waited five years for the man she loves to come home. What does she want, a medal or something? She’s a skeez anyway for talking to the reporter.
By RF
June 11, 2008 5:09 PM | Link to this
Not to be a “librul’s advocate”, BUT if you check the facts Jimmy Carter actually pushed and got auto makers to increase average fuel efficiency from around 12mi/gal. to 25+ (I actually remember that and have heard him speak on it recently in an interview). Of course, the grand 80’s and the SUV craze dropped that right back as SUV’s were exempt from fuel efficiency requirements. He also was the only president to actually set the White House thermostat at 78 in the summer and 68 in the winter to encourage energy conservation. I’m not saying the guy was a great president, but he wasn’t ALL bad. If we had stuck to his standards, our gas-luvvin’ SUV’s just MIGHT actually be drivable right now and we just MIGHT not be sucking oil down by the tanker full, IMO
By USinUK
June 12, 2008 8:45 AM | Link to this
Archie -
hate to burst your bubble, but even John McCain doesn’t blame being a POW for his misconduct: “My marriage’s collapse was attributable to my own selfishness and immaturity more than it was to Vietnam, and I cannot escape blame by pointing a finger at the war. The blame was entirely mine.”
And, let’s be honest here - Cindy wasn’t the first person he had been unfaithful with.
By JokesOn
June 12, 2008 9:13 AM | Link to this
You show up again with a derogatory name wanting decent debate and conversation. Please stop lying and be honest: You are here for one reason only, as you stated before, to be childish and start fights.
You and Joke. Birds of a feather. You must be very proud. Do you also support child porn?
Yep. Support child porn is what you have to say to be cutting and feel superior. Guess you cannot read the “rare” (psst…meaning it rarely happens) in the post, or you just like lying. You must be a lowly kid to have to come here for that gratifying push each day.
By Archie
June 12, 2008 9:14 AM | Link to this
USinUk you can’t burst my bubble because I never suggested him being a POW was cause his misconduct. Please read:I can’t bash McCain given the scenario you use. Five years in captivity and you just gloss that over!! Are you crazy?? I don’t like McCain politically and I think he cheated on his current wife but the poor-little-Carol thing I am not buying it. NOW, do you get it? I also said:When it comes to relationships a number of women and men don’t have the best character but people move on. Please tell where me where I blame his conduct on anyone but him?
By Lyrazel
June 12, 2008 9:15 AM | Link to this
Wimmins Issues Plagiarized: I can tell you are a man mainly because you post issues that are irrelevant but say this is a woman’s issue. This is of course ludicrous. Most (voting) women do not consider on election day why a candidate chose to divorce 30 years ago. Women are more concerned with the policies that will affect our life now—the living costs of war, the debt, the atrocious state of America’s infrastructure, the state of America’s schools, medical programs, housing and a variety of other issues not happening in a man’s life 30 years ago. Statistically, military marriages are some of the most fragile and the escalating numbers of divorce because of the Gulf War & Iraq war & Afghanistan war severs families in ways non-coms fail to comprehend. Sexual affairs only become relevant when candidate is in office thus the retire for the family plethora of excuses lingers in media spotlight. What does not make the spotlight are how many families are broken by war—and women feel it it should be brought to our national attention as more sons and daughters, husbands and wives are deployed more and more often. Your way is not a way to approach any kind of meaningful lasting change or discussion.
Also—after 30 years married to the same woman—aren’t you a little goofy playing the sexist stereotype of the second woman the slu!t who ruins the family? How about giving the woman some credit due for her abilities? 30 years is a nice long marriage for anyone! She has fine kids, a nice life, a husband she is proud of. End your bigoted stereotypes of second wives—and grow up!
By USinUK
June 12, 2008 9:25 AM | Link to this
NYer -
Just a couple of things on your laundry list … (in no particular order) …
Did you know that Zbigniew “Vanna Can I Buy a Vowel” Brzeznski advised Carter to support Afghani mujahideen back in 1978 in an effort to draw the USSR into what he called “their Viet Nam”? http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html and, in effect, their war in Afghanistan did more to escalate the bankruptcy and dissolution of the Soviet Union than even Reagan’s arms race.
As for interest rates, the President has NOTHING to do with that. The Fed operates independently on monetary policy. Prior to Volker’s appointment in August 1979, inflation was high, but still in single digits (when Carter took office, inflation was 6.-ish … when Volker was appointed, inflation had risen to 9.ish). It was AFTER Volker’s appointment and the second OPEC oil crisis that inflation hit the double-digits. Once OPEC increased production, oil prices fell, causing inflation to fall back to normal. Lastly, it was AFTER the election of 1980 that fed rates shot up to 18-20%, not before.
Unemployment fell during most of Carter’s tenure (started at 7.1, then fell to 5.8 in 1979 before rising back to 7.1 in 1980) - it wasn’t until 1982-1983 that unemployment rose to 9.7% and 9.6%, respectively.
I agree with you that president Carter wasn’t our best effort, but if you’re going to hate him, at least be accurate.
By USinUK
June 12, 2008 9:32 AM | Link to this
Archie - when you say things like “Do you understand what torture means. McCain was in a foreign land for years being tortured and help captive” it sounds like you are attributing his behavior to the war and not him not controlling what’s in his pants.
By Archie
June 12, 2008 9:44 AM | Link to this
Also—after 30 years married to the same woman—aren’t you a little goofy playing the sexist stereotype of the second woman the slu!t who ruins the family? How about giving the woman some credit due for her abilities? 30 years is a nice long marriage for anyone! She has fine kids, a nice life, a husband she is proud of. End your bigoted stereotypes of second wives—and grow up! Thank you Lyrazel, I said two times that people move on. I said once, that McCain may be a dog but I am not buy the poor-little-Carol schtick.
30 years is a nice long marriage for anyone! Yes m’am it is. You need to post that statement again because there are so many behaviors that men have to deal with just as there are behaviors that women have to deal with and when you think about it in that context you understand divorce is very possible in any relationship.
By Archie
June 12, 2008 9:53 AM | Link to this
Archie - when you say things like “Do you understand what torture means. McCain was in a foreign land for years being tortured and help captive” it sounds like you are attributing his behavior to the war and not him not controlling what’s in his pants. READ THE ENTIRE POST!!!! I read the entire post of bloggers before I respond and I don’t respond to everyone because I don’t read their entire posts!!! My post was not about McCain’s conduct, my post was about equating a POW with someone sitting at home in love. Go back and reread the posts they weren’t that long.
By USinUK
June 12, 2008 9:53 AM | Link to this
Archie -
please stop calling it the “poor-little-Carol schtick”. She didn’t have a fender-bender. She had two smashed legs, a broken pelvis, broken arm, and a ruptured spleen. She spent six months in hospital, and over the course of the next two years had 23 operations as well as extensive physical therapy. So, during the last 3 years of McCain’s imprisonment by the VC, I don’t really think she had the time in her social calendar for an affair - or, frankly, the physical ability. During the first 2 years, she was busy caring for a 3-year old and the 2 children from her first marriage.
so, fercryingoutloud, zippit with the condescension.
By Archie
June 12, 2008 10:34 AM | Link to this
I really feel for poor-little-Carol but McCain has been left with permanent injuries as well. The man can’t raise his arms above his head. He also had extensive physical therapy. When he was first injured he didn’t have access to any real good treatment so during the 5 years in captivity McCain was not on vacation. The man was in chest cast at times. UsinUk, you never acknowledged that you didn’t read my entire post.
By kimberly
June 12, 2008 10:55 AM | Link to this
I have learned so much from my fellow Americans this year.
By USinUK
June 12, 2008 10:56 AM | Link to this
Archie -
This isn’t a contest of whose injuries were the worst. I don’t particularly like John McCain and I definitely don’t agree with his current stand on his policies (but, like London weather, give him 5 minutes and they’ll probably change), but I do respect him for what he went through.
I have read your entire posts on the subject - in particular: McCain was in a foreign land for years being tortured and help captive. No one knows if poor-little-Carol was faithful all that time. If you want to say McCain is a dog fine, but don’t give me this poor-little-Carol thing
you made the point that we don’t know if she wasn’t out catting around in his absence. That’s one of the reasons I replied with the extent of her injuries and treatment - to clarify that, for at least the last 3 years of his imprisonment, she more than likely was NOT out and about with the blokes as she was in and out of hospitals. The first 2 years, she had little kids to care for. I’m not saying that she had it easier/harder than McCain, I’m just saying she wasn’t catting around.
Poor-little-Carol had freedom and no torture. Sad that she had an accident but hell, even if she didn’t there’s a good chance he would have divorced her.
I agree with you that PTSD is a primary cause for the end of a lot of military marriages - however, if he wanted to make up for lost time or sew some wild oats or whatever it was he was trying to do, then he should have divorced her FIRST.
By USinUK
June 12, 2008 11:05 AM | Link to this
SOW wild oats … criminey, my spelling is atrocious today.
By Bruno
June 12, 2008 11:10 AM | Link to this
Howdy bloggers. I’m back to working 6 days per week, so no life once again. I miss chatting with USinUK, Mara, Archie, and JokesOn.
Question for the Obama supporters: How in the world is raising taxes significantly going to stimulate the economy? While I appreciate the compassion which underlies all of Obama’s “give-away” programs, it appears to me that he is trying to “buy votes” with his unrealistic proposals (free college tuition, etc.). The bottom line is that there’s no free lunch in this world, and, IMO, we should be wary of those who offer us one.
By Bruno
June 12, 2008 11:18 AM | Link to this
Special prayers for the unhappy, negative bloggers…..Happiness begins on the inside.
By Archie
June 12, 2008 11:21 AM | Link to this
however, if he wanted to make up for lost time or sew some wild oats or whatever it was he was trying to do, then he should have divorced her FIRST. I already said the man was a dog what else could I say???
I never said a word about Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Never in all my posts. I also said he has probably cheated on his current wife!!! So what else do you want me to say???! Why not concede the point?
Although I did not agree with JokesOn, it is starting to look as if he was right that y’all get defensive whenever the male/female thing comes up.
By USinUK
June 12, 2008 11:29 AM | Link to this
Bruno -
My guy!! how’s the new gig?
it appears to me that he is trying to “buy votes” with his unrealistic proposals (free college tuition, etc.)
what do you call tax cuts? that’s nothing but buying votes, as well.
as far as raising taxes, it’s something that’s going to have to happen - the deficit is WAY too high and will have to be brought down, speaking of “no such thing as a free lunch” you can’t throw a war and not expect the bill to come due.
right now, the US is forecast to have low growth through the next year (2008 GDP 1.2% and 2009 GDP 1.1%) with an unemployment projection of 5.4% for 2008 and 6.1% for 2009. Whoever takes up residency at Penn Ave is going to have one helluva mess to clean up.
By Archie
June 12, 2008 11:32 AM | Link to this
Hello Bruno,While I appreciate the compassion which underlies all of Obama’s “give-away” programs, it appears to me that he is trying to “buy votes” with his unrealistic proposals (free college tuition, etc.). His tuition program is designed to provide 4,000 dollars not the entire tuition and Hillary’s program was designed to provide 3,000 dollars toward college tuition. Let’s get the facts straight Bruno. Bruno people have different political views you know that but I would like to see if Obama’s ideas work. Hell, we’ve had 8 years to see if Bush’s ideas worked and he is perceived to be the worst president of alltime. Also, Bruno let me say this I do like the republican attitude that we pay too much for college tuition. It is mainly republicans that are concerned enough to do something about getting the tuition down in the first place so although I am liberal I don’t believe we have all the answers. I have not seen much of that attitude on this blog or in the real world. Good question Bruno!
By USinUK
June 12, 2008 11:34 AM | Link to this
Archie -
Why not concede the point?
concede what point?
By Archie
June 12, 2008 11:50 AM | Link to this
concede what point? The point that I never mentioned anything to defend McCain’s cheating!! Another point is that the scenario that Wimmins-issues poster gave could not be used to bash him. The third point which I made very clearly was that men and women don’t always have the best character in relationships.
Also Bruno, information on McCain’s or Obama’s ideas can be found on their websites. I mean at this point people are making excuses not to know what these guys stand for. Bruno I have called out democrats on this blog and others and I will continue to do so.
By Bruno
June 12, 2008 11:52 AM | Link to this
how’s the new gig?
Hey gorgeous! I guess like everything, it has it’s pluses and minuses.
what do you call tax cuts? that’s nothing but buying votes, as well.
Possibly, but I’m more comfortable with people keeping the money that they earn themselves than with any income redistribution scheme, which appears to be the heart and soul of Obama’s vision for America.
as far as raising taxes, it’s something that’s going to have to happen - the deficit is WAY too high and will have to be brought down, speaking of “no such thing as a free lunch” you can’t throw a war and not expect the bill to come due.
My strong preference would be to cut spending rather than to raise taxes. IMO, that was one of Bush’s biggest sins.
Whoever takes up residency at Penn Ave is going to have one helluva mess to clean up.
To be fair, the Bush team inherited quite a mess as well, and were able to get us back on track pretty quickly. Can you give credit where credit is due?
By Lyrazel
June 12, 2008 12:01 PM | Link to this
Um Bruno, just how does a country so much in debt provide FREE anything to its citizens?—Even if the repeal of the don’t-tax-the-rich program is implemented just where is that kind of money going to come from? China? I wish politicians understood the most important thing elected politicians can do is begin to re-pay the national debt and fix the decaying infrastructure of our nation before goofy give-aways.
In the US we provide a free Pre-K to 12th grade education. We have the highest drop out rate in the world meaning those who get their free education do not value it much. Maybe paying 4k per student to complete high school would be better for this country than pretending we are all entitled to have the funds for college.
By Bruno
June 12, 2008 12:04 PM | Link to this
Bruno people have different political views you know that but I would like to see if Obama’s ideas work. Hell, we’ve had 8 years to see if Bush’s ideas worked and he is perceived to be the worst president of alltime.
I give Bush a lot of credit for (1) Reinvigorating the economy after the dot.com bust of 1999-2000 and (2) For taking a strong stance against terrorism. One day we may find out how many attacks on the US were thwarted under his watch. On the flip side, I vehemently oppose the Patriot Act and think we’ve wasted a lot of time and energy harassing airline passengers. While I applaud the Bush tax cuts, he and Congress need to bow their heads in shame for the runaway spending.
Also, Bruno let me say this I do like the republican attitude that we pay too much for college tuition. It is mainly republicans that are concerned enough to do something about getting the tuition down in the first place
Here in GA, public University tuitions are very reasonable, but private college tuition is out of sight.
so although I am liberal I don’t believe we have all the answers. I have not seen much of that attitude on this blog or in the real world.
The degree of polarization in our country is sad, Archie. None of us has all the answers, so we all need to be humble and listen to everyone’s ideas. All the demonization is getting us nowhere.
Good to hear from you.
By USinUK
June 12, 2008 12:08 PM | Link to this
Archie -
The point that I never mentioned anything to defend McCain’s cheating!!
I never said you defended his cheating, just that it sounded like you were giving him “air cover” citing his experience as a POW
Another point is that the scenario that Wimmins-issues poster gave could not be used to bash him.
That McCain slept around on then divorced his wife after her crippling car accident? hrmmm … I’m not so sure I’m willing to concede that one.
The third point which I made very clearly was that men and women don’t always have the best character in relationships.
No argument there. However, I do take umbrage with your insinuation that Carol may have been out catting around - not because we wimmen are so morally superior (we’re not) - but because she was in and out of hospitals for 3 of his 5 years as a POW and caring for toddlers the other 2, so the chances that she was having an/multiple affairs during his absence is somewhere between slim and none.
This isn’t a man/woman thing, this is a let’s-look-at-the-facts-of-the-situation thing.
By Bruno
June 12, 2008 12:09 PM | Link to this
Gotta run, enjoyed the brief chat.
By Archie
June 12, 2008 12:16 PM | Link to this
For taking a strong stance against terrorism. One day we may find out how many attacks on the US were thwarted under his watch. I don’t give him credit for that and I think he just showed exhibit A of the superiority complex. No matter who’s president attacks have been thwarted and will be because there are people employed to do that job. Bush lied about Plame and he lied us into war. If he was taking a stand on principle then there would be no need to lie. Also Bush had a balanced budget when he took office and since the economy runs in cycles do we give the blame the downturn that’s going on now??? I give Bush credit for giving me back some of my money twice in his 8 years in office and I give him credit for going after Bin Laden.
By Archie
June 12, 2008 12:18 PM | Link to this
For taking a strong stance against terrorism. One day we may find out how many attacks on the US were thwarted under his watch. I don’t give him credit for that and I think he just showed exhibit A of the superiority complex. No matter who’s president attacks have been thwarted and will be because there are people employed to do that job. Bush lied about Plame and he lied us into war. If he was taking a stand on principle then there would be no need to lie. Also Bush had a balanced budget when he took office and since the economy runs in cycles do we give the blame the downturn that’s going on now??? I give Bush credit for giving me back some of my money twice in his 8 years in office and I give him credit for going after Bin Laden.
By USinUK
June 12, 2008 12:22 PM | Link to this
Bruno -
ahhhh … my sparring buddy!!
I’m more comfortable with people keeping the money that they earn themselves than with any income redistribution scheme
and I’m more comfortable paying for the services we use. you know, like the Dept. of Defense.
To be fair, the Bush team inherited quite a mess as well, and were able to get us back on track pretty quickly. Can you give credit where credit is due?
um. no. not when you’re talking economics.
When Clinton left office, inflation was 3.4%, it’s currently 3.9% after hitting a high of 4.7% in 2005
When Clinton left office, unemployment was 3.9%, it’s currently at 5.5% and, as mentioned above, is expected to rise further still
During Clinton’s 8-year tenure, the average GDP was 3.75%. Bush’s average to date is 2.38%.
So, the question is will YOU give credit where it’s due?
By Archie
June 12, 2008 12:42 PM | Link to this
That McCain slept around on then divorced his wife after her crippling car accident? hrmmm … I’m not so sure I’m willing to concede that one. That’s your convenient interpretation. That Wimmins-issues poster equated sitting at home in love with being a POW. My point was please…I could not bash him given her scenario. If he was home while she was laid up for 5 weeks then bash him all day long for cheating. His looks changed too. Also that poster implies Carol is still in love with the guy and after 28 years as Lyrazel says it’s time to give his current wife some credit. McCain acknowledged his wrongdoing,straight up and that’s more than Lewinsky, Karrine Steffans, and Gennifer Flowers have done. Those “ladies” have tried to cash in at the expense of people like Carol. Also, years had passed before McCain started his affair with his current wife,in other words, he lived with Carol long enough to fallout with her just like many people do with their spouses before having an affair. That Wimmins poster made it seem like the man come home completely normal and started having an affair. McCain he simply did what many women and men do.
By USinUK
June 12, 2008 1:06 PM | Link to this
Archie -
That’s your convenient interpretation um. no. actually, that’s a fact. he’s even acknowledged that he slept around on her before his divorce. it isn’t an interpretation of the facts. it’s just the facts.
Wimmins-issues poster equated sitting at home in love with being a POW. Wimmen said: I know those five years in Hanoi Hilton were horrible, but imagine Carol sitting there, wondering what kind of torture the man she loved was going thru each day. And when he finally comes home, she’s less than perfect, so he dumps her.
That’s not equating her experience with his. Equating it would be “sitting at home worrying about your husband being tortured is just as bad as being tortured yourself.” THAT would be equating.
Also, years had passed before McCain started his affair with his current wife,in other words, he lived with Carol long enough to fallout with her just like many people do with their spouses before having an affair
years passed before McCain started his affair with his current wife, but she wasn’t the first person he had extra-curricular activities with. From all accounts, he was out fooling around for 3 years before he met Cindy.
Also that poster implies Carol is still in love with the guy and after 28 years as Lyrazel says it’s time to give his current wife some credit
I don’t see where you’re getting the “still in love” thing … as for 28 years with his new wife, glad to know he’s learned to keep it in his pants … but, then, marrying a multi-millionaire can inspire people that way, I guess …
By JokesOn
June 12, 2008 1:14 PM | Link to this
To be fair, the Bush team inherited quite a mess as well, and were able to get us back on track pretty quickly. Can you give credit where credit is due?
There are a few things bush did do, but the bulk of it overshadows those occasional points. In general, the majority of his wake is a huge mess.
By Mara
June 12, 2008 1:50 PM | Link to this
Bruno wrote “Possibly, but I’m more comfortable with people keeping the money that they earn themselves than with any income redistribution scheme, which appears to be the heart and soul of Obama’s vision for America.”
hey Bruno. Nice to hear from you and glad that you’re happy in your work :^)
However…I’m wondering if you’ve actually gone to the Obama site and looked at his fiscal and economic plans. While one may not agree with everything Obama proposes,I most certainly don’t…, I’m not sure how you can characterize his policies as “income redistribution”.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/
Fiscal - “The cost of our debt is one of the fastest growing expenses in the federal budget. This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and states of critical investments in infrastructure like bridges, ports, and levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in education and health care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they have counted on … If Washington were serious about honest tax relief in this country, we’d see an effort to reduce our national debt by returning to responsible fiscal policies.”
Economic - As president, Barack Obama will implement a 21st century economic agenda to help ensure that America can compete in a global economy, and ensure the middle class is thriving and growing. He will increase investments in infrastructure, energy independence, education, and research and development; modernize and simplify our tax code so it provides greater opportunity and relief to more Americans; and implement trade policies that benefit American workers and increase the export of American goods.
— “I believe that America’s free market has been the engine of America’s great progress. It’s created a prosperity that is the envy of the world. It’s led to a standard of living unmatched in history. And it has provided great rewards to the innovators and risk-takers who have made America a beacon for science, and technology, and discovery…We are all in this together. From CEOs to shareholders, from financiers to factory workers, we all have a stake in each other’s success because the more Americans prosper, the more America prospers.”
Of course these quotes don’t outline the actual *policy proposals” but they do suggest that he isn’t a “just tax the rich” redistributionist. He believes in the free market as an economic engine, in balanced budgets, and fiscal responsibility. Not the kind of tax-and-spend lefty dinosaur that the right has tried to portray him as.
By Archie
June 12, 2008 2:19 PM | Link to this
From all accounts, he was out fooling around for 3 years before he met Cindy. Yeah, I believe that but isn’t that what women do as well? The point is, an assumption is being made that he did that stuff because her looks changed but my point is affairs happen even when the spouse looks like a king/queen. That’s not equating her experience with his. Equating it would be “sitting at home worrying about your husband being tortured is just as bad as being tortured yourself.” THAT would be equating. Check out that Wimmins first post and that’s exactly how she made it seem. If you read my entire post you will see that’s what I mentioned earlier. If you felt like I was wrong about her post why didn’t you say that the first time around?
don’t see where you’re getting the “still in love” thing “Indeed, to many in their circle the saddest part of the break-up was Carol’s decision to resign herself to losing a man she says she still adores.” I got it from the posts that you won’t read because you might have to concede a point. In slang terms when a man is called a dog it means he fools around. So you couldn’t make that point with me because I said that in my very first post. It’s as if you’re trying to make a point that does not need to made. The first post you made at 8:45 am had nothing to do with anything I posted. When people here in America say a man is a dog that means he fools around with more than one woman, UsinUK.
By Archie
June 12, 2008 2:25 PM | Link to this
Good job Mara and I say that because I know you are a libertarian but pat yourself on the back for being honest about what you disagree with. Frankly, I did not want say this but I think some of my fellow democrats have more problems with the man’s skin color than they do with experience or his policies. Sorry but I just don’t feel like dressing things up. Mara if you can be honest I don’t understand why democrats can’t be honest. Please all the typos that I have had today,jeez, I have had so many of them.
By Archie
June 12, 2008 2:41 PM | Link to this
Please excuse all the typos that I have had today,jeez, I have had so many of them.
Anyway Mara I have done what you did and I am looking at McCain’s website in another window as I type this so I don’t have to worry about distortion of his positions and of course I have visited Obama’s website too.
By NYer
June 12, 2008 3:42 PM | Link to this
USinUK,
What I was saying was not why I disliked Carter but rather why most Americans disliked Carter. Subtle, but rather significant distinction.
To the large majority of people it matters not exactly when an interest rate peaked, or whether it was before or after Volcker that inflation reached a certain number. For many it was simply that the economy sucked, seemed to be getting worse, and Carter was incapable of turning it around. On Afghanistan, at the time it looked like the Soviets were continuing their militaristic expansion and that Carter was powerless to stop it. Let’s face it, when talking about politics, facts and popular sentiment don’t always intersect.
That leads me to my next point. You must have glossed over the part where I said “some of the problems were his fault and some of them weren’t”. Trust me, I get monetary policy and (in general) the independence of the Fed, but remember, whether deserved or not, many American blamed Carter for the general economic malaise of the late 1970’s.
To be clear - here’s my take: Most Americans go overboard and attribute far too much economic success or failure to the President without considering the other factors that impact GDP growth, inflation, interest rates, wage growth, corporate earnings, etc.
Another point I’d like to make is that when people examine economic statistics and credit them to a particular President, they look solely at that President’s time in office. I think that’s wrong. In the real world the results of any economic policies, or changes made to fiscal policy aren’t felt immediately. There will be a time lag between when a President comes to office and when it is really that President’s economy.
You bring up an interesting topic regarding the independence of the Fed. What do you think of the current situation where two seats on the Fed’s board of governors sit vacant, with another governor signaling his departure in August? At a time when the Fed needs its full leadership, I am dismayed by the politics being played here.
By NYer
June 12, 2008 4:05 PM | Link to this
USinUK,
During Clinton’s 8-year tenure, the average GDP was 3.75%
Perfect example of what I was talking about in my prior post, both in the credit and when results are measured.
By RF
June 12, 2008 4:06 PM | Link to this
Frankly, I did not want say this but I think some of my fellow democrats have more problems with the man’s skin color than they do with experience or his policies
I really wonder, Archie, if that’s true. I’m sure there are a few, but I’ve been pleasantly surprised at how little the “race issue” has really been an issue. I think, IMO that many out there are over that or getting past it. I honestly expected that to come up as a point of contention in the mainstream very early on, but it didn’t. I think the truly predjudiced have either found a way to get past it or have kept their mouths shut about it. I think people had a harder time with a woman running than they did an AA man. I gotta give the man credit for his ability to appeal to a diverse electorate, many of whom are younger and simply don’t see race as a consideration. From what I’ve seen, read, and heard, he won on his merits as a candidate and people didn’t consider race, or really even gender for that matter. I truly think, IMO, that this was a race that could have gotten ugly, but it didn’t because the candidates led the charge to keep it clean and focused on the issues…most of the time anyway.
As a teacher, I’ve noticed in recent years that traditional problems between racial groups have really lessened in many places.
By USinUK
June 12, 2008 4:30 PM | Link to this
Archie -
I got it from the posts that you won’t read because you might have to concede a point
I have read the posts … all of ‘em … and the “the man she still adores” referred to how she felt in 1979 when they divorced … not today.
you and I are mostly arguing the same point - I just felt like you were giving him air cover because he was a POW and felt like you were being incredibly condescending about the accident Carol McC had. Like I said earlier - if he wanted a divorce, he should have gotten one, not fooled around first.
By USinUK
June 12, 2008 4:38 PM | Link to this
NYer -
To be clear - here’s my take: Most Americans go overboard and attribute far too much economic success or failure to the President without considering the other factors that impact GDP growth, inflation, interest rates, wage growth, corporate earnings, etc.
You and are not only in the same church and pew, we are singing from the same song sheet, as well - I believe that very few actions by Presidents and/or Congress have much of an impact on the economy.
I just hate historical revisionism “unemployment was so much worse during XX than YY, inflation was so much lower when so-and-so was president … things were so much better” when, in fact, they weren’t.
The only thing I have liked about this current administration is the appointment of Ben Bernanke (I’m sooooo not a fan of Greenspan). As for the vacancies in the Fed, I’ve been surprised about it, but not really. Bush has never had a strong economic team, so it doesn’t shock me that pushing Fed appointments through isn’t his top priority.
Okay, off to hang with the hub … have a good night!
By Archie
June 12, 2008 4:45 PM | Link to this
really wonder, Archie, if that’s true. I’m sure there are a few, but I’ve been pleasantly surprised at how little the “race issue” has really been an issue. You are already getting defensive please note I said SOME OF MY FELLOW DEMOCRATS. So what are you wondering about RF? Check out the Cnn website and check this newspaper and the stories on democrats. RF you didn’t read what I posted and you haven’t read this newspaper very carefully. Now,let me see if you will admit your small mistake.
By kqilcmn bcmt
November 20, 2008 4:13 AM | Link to this
wtyencr qcgmdn zegnhrjiw fkxabzhj ctaoxj bkmoajxp uhbzmpgwk