Sam wrote on Jun 11, 2008 2:26 AM:Unbelievable! Yesterday the Democrats in the Senate, many of whom are as dumb about economics as those who in this day believe the earth is flat are dumb about geography, actually tried to solve the high gasoline prices by raising taxes on oil companies. They show no understanding of how much of the increase is caused by oil speculators, no understanding of how much the OPEC nations are being paid out of this higher oil, no understanding of the effect on our entire economy of the increase in oil. It is making ocean shipping fuel costs double, it is destroying our air transportation system. It is making asphalt roofing used in most of this country greatly increase in price. It is making concrete increase, it is greatly increasing the cost of repaving blacktop roads and highways, it is increasing greatly the cost of farm products produced with tractors and combines and shipped to market in trucks and trains. It is increasing the price of all the synthetic clothing made from oil, and the price of cotton raised on farms, and the price of wool from sheep. Only about half of the barrels of oil go into fuels the rest goes into the products I listed above. The increase in oil prices goes far beyound the effect on motorists at the pump. It is greatly increasing the cost of food. It will soon eliminate the fresh fruit and vegetables shipped here from South America and Australia. Unless we can succeed in getting these "economic flat earth" Democrats out of the senate we are doomed. The very idea they can solve the oil and energy problems by raising taxes on oil companies shows their ignorance and lack of fitness for their high position

Don wrote on Jun 11, 2008 4:37 AM:I believe the marketing system and investors who profiteer are causing a lot of the increase in oil prices from buying and selling oil futures. I read up for several hours about the commodities market, and I think this is how it works. For an example a shipping company makes a contract from another country to buy oil a month later for $90 per barrel for enough oil to fill a tanker. They plan to sell it in New York or another specified port about two months from now. They plan to deliver it to the specified port and sell it at a profit. HOwever they can even sell "shares" of the oil to speculators who own no refinery, no gas stations, and no oil storage facility. The oil is sold on the open commodities market that is something like the stock exchange where people buy and sell shares at bid or offered prices according to a set of rules. The quantity of oil (like a share of stock) is sold and bought in "units of 1,000 barrels" to be delivered at a certain date and port. The speculator in "oil futures" does not have to pay much money for the oil. Whoever owns the "oil futures" about time for the tanker to dock has to pay for it and have arrangements made to unload it. The speculator buys on margin. Maybe the going margin is only about 6 percent actual money and the oil is security for a short term loan
Thus to bid on the minimum share of 1,000 bbl when the price was $100 per bbl (worth $100,0000) would require only a margin payment of $6,000 for anyone with suitable credit signed up with the commodities exchange.
Thus for SIX million dollars to invest speculator gains control of $100 million of oil and gets all the profit if it goes up, but loses a lot if it goes down very much. There are financial institutions with millions and even billions of dollars which they want to make a gain on that can invest in oil and other commodities on a big scale and on margin. Right now investors and speculators are not satisfied with bundles of 1,000 real estate mortgages or with the regular stock market. To continue with the example to illustrate: The oil delivered to New York has been going up in price. One investor buys a lot of the 1,000-barrel shares $100 per bbl from the shipping company that paid $90 per bbl for it after rumors spread that a pipeline in Nigeria has been blown up again. This oil tanker is not in Nigeria, and has not finished loading yet. This speculator decides to not sell for less than $110 if he can get it. He does sell the rest of it of it to a large investor for $115 a week later who also does not have a refinery or storage. He knows he must sell it to an oil company with barges to unload it, and storage facilities or a refinery for whatever the market price will be two weeks from now but not later than two days before the tanker gets to port. The investor now owning the oil future sees another opportunity he likes even better and then some bad news comes out about some problem about Iran and Israel so he sells the whole batch for $120 per bbl while the tanker is in mid-ocean. That is why they are called speculators. The ownership of the oil may change hands several times before the tanker gets to port to unload it, each hoping to make a profit. The marketing system devised to market oil when it was plentiful and supply exceeded demand by a lot simply does not work well when the demand is equal or less than the supply. ALSO there are many speculators who do not have enough money to buy 1,000 bbl shares of oil at a time, but simply invest in "oil index funds" which gathers enough funds to buy and sell the shares that match the price of oil. Thus the index funds gives smaller speculators almost the same gain or loss as the large investors get. ( I am guessing they have a higher margin requirement, maybe 50% to buy ans 30% to hold if it is like other stock, but Iam guessing. ). The government is currently trying to figure out if the index funds are large enough to be influencing the oil market instead of just reflecting it. A congressional committe just inquired about this. Government agencies in several countries are trying to compute the extent to which world wide speculators are influencing the price of crude oil.

Jack_D wrote on Jun 11, 2008 5:33 AM:Re: John Harris' strident attacks on my fellow g.w. skeptics: it was the familiar blathering about "consensus," Harris falsely suggests all scientists believe in man-made g.w. Of course, it wouldn't be a real g.w. polemic without working in those two curse words: Big Oil.
I suggest Mr.Harris read Tom Bethell's April 2007 article in the American Spectator. I'll just quote a few sentences:
Martian Polar Ice Caps Melting:

"Mesas of dry ice at the Martian south pole have been retreating by about 10 feet per Mars year since Mars Global Surveyor arrived in 1999," the journal reported. The "ice," incidentally, is primarily made of the dreaded "greenhouse gas" CO2 not water.



Environment News said in November 2005:

Mars Is Warming, NASA Scientists Report Data Coincide with Increasing Solar Output



By way of a follow-up, here is a headline from the National Geographic News, published only a few weeks ago:

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human Cause for Warming, Scientists Say

Hard to blame these warmings on the oil companies, Mr.Harris, isn't it?

Chuck wrote on Jun 11, 2008 7:24 AM:Why doesnt Hussein Obama just wave his staff over a pool of oil and see what happens to oil prices? It certainly beats raising gas taxes and taxes on oil companies, both of which will just be passed along to us in higher gas prices.

Chuck wrote on Jun 11, 2008 7:26 AM:>>>Obama will lose with Clinton>>>

I agree, so he better make a quick phone call to Mrs Foster to see what the advantages of associating with Hillary are, especially if you know some dirt about her

Chuck wrote on Jun 11, 2008 8:07 AM:I see Hussein is having 2 fundraisers over in China. I guess that means the Chinese want the latest and greatest in out nuclear and missile launch technology, since it hasnt been available once Clinton left the White house. In addition, he has another ingenious way of raising campaign funds: Has a day passed when he doesnt offer the freebee taker liberals at least a few hundred billion in new entitlements?? He's using freebees to buy votes, and all the grubbers are lining up to get their share.

Nick wrote on Jun 11, 2008 8:25 AM:And let's not forget that Obama is trying to shove thru The Global Poverty act which will give the U.N. 0.7% of our GNP, which totals $845 billion over and above what the U.S. already spends.
How does Obama plan to come up with all this extra money?
You and I of course. The man isn't even in office yet and he is trying to raise our taxes to feed the worlds poor.
Remember how well The U.N. did with The Oil for Food Program? And now genius wants to give them more free money on the backs of middle class Americans.
Give me a break!

Ron wrote on Jun 11, 2008 8:25 AM:Darrell Beck has nailed it today, with this statment: The liberals in Congress, who hate free market capitalism..."
That's right, they HATE it folks. Just listen to them.
Their current mantle carrier Barack Obama says: We consume too much.
We eat too much, drive too much, heat our homes too much.
And they intend to cut down on what you consume. We are sitting on top of 40% of our own domestic oil supplies, and trillions more of natural gas.
And they won't let us get it. Why?
It goes to how they think about you, this country, and how they intend to "fix it."
Look at what they have said.
Bill Clinton Said: "In order to meet the goals of climate change, we will need to slow down our economy."
How will the Obamaman slow down the economy? He'll take your money, and reduce your consumption. They will then decide how to spend your money, because within the liberal mindset is this idea that; They know better... know better how to spend your money, know better how you should live your own life, and quite frankly.. You should just do as your told. They absolutely believe in a "soft" tyranny.
Both Al Gore & the IPCC believe that we should cut back 80% of our fuel usage to meet the goals of climate change.
What would 80% less electrical power do to your life? What would 80% less driving to to your life? What would 80% less of everything do to your life?
Obama said it: We consume too much, and he's just the guy to stop all the consuming, by you.

American wrote on Jun 11, 2008 8:31 AM:Why can't these stay at home retirees who sit at home in their trailers doing nothing but submitting sarcastic negative blogs and blaming democrats for the faults of this country see that our problems are caused by both democrats and republicans. It's this division that is hurting our country and when this country loses we all suffer, democrats and republicans alike.

Ron wrote on Jun 11, 2008 8:41 AM:Hey "Sam" @2:26 AM. It's not that they don't understand the economics, they understand them just fine. It's an election year, and you must look at the goal. "The Goal" is to gain more seats in the House & Senate this election cycle. Perhaps the White House too. A lib yesterday said it, Once they have a veto-proof majority, plus the White House, nothing will stop them. So, don't get side tracked by this "show" from yesterday. It is a part of the Alinsky model of agitating. The liberals have decided to make Big Oil the boogieman, and tie GWB to them.
They know darn well the world produces 85 million barrels a day, but needs 87 million. They know all this, but it will not help them gain their political goals, by helping the American people now. That would give Bush some credit, and they can't have that. So, in the mean time, Americans will just have to suffer. That is the Democrat plan, to make Americans as miserable as possible, because the hope is that in Novemeber, Voters will be so fed up, they will switch to Democrats. That is the political plan for them this year. make no mistake. They completely understand what it will take to fix this problem, they absolutely know more drilling, liquified coal, and other things they are blocking now will need to be done. But none of these things will be done now, they will wait until after January 09.
You know what this reminds me of? Former Democrat Senator Max Cleland. Do you know that guy voted to send our troops off to war to save his political seat in the Senate? It didn't work, he lost anyways. But just the idea that this guy thought nothing of these brave men & women and would send them off to a war, just so he'd save his own political butt.
So, when you see these liberals running around shouting and screaming, getting all redfaced, and crying Big Oil this, or Big Oil that... just remember, they are holding out on you, and you will pay the price for them to gain more seats, gain mor power, until no one can stop them. Just as our buddy Greenenery said the other day. Cause.. that's the goal. Not your gas price.

Ron wrote on Jun 11, 2008 9:06 AM:Here's the deal, Gil Noble. We are in a drought condition, but that is not why
residents have to cut their water use, or face water rationing.
Ever heard of the Delta Smelt, Gil?
Southern California will lose 30% of our water supply because some kooker judge decided that fish has more rights to water, than your kids do. That's why your facing rationing.
On top of that, the enviro nuts won't let us build Desal plants to offset the water shortage. So, we are kind of stuck. Apparently, in this judge's mind, a fish now has more rights than your kids do. And in the mind of the nutcases in the enviro movement, fish in the ocean have more rights than you, I, or our kids to drinking water.
That's where we stand.

Ron wrote on Jun 11, 2008 9:28 AM:And one more thing about Darrell Beck's letter today.
He mentions Rep. Maxine Waters, when she exposed the left's real agenda by blurting out that if Big Oil didn't reduce prices that the government would "socialize" these companies.
I'm telling you folks, The leftists in this country believe they are so close, they can taste it already. All they need to do for the next few months is Bash Bush, and they think they'll have it licked.
They will let your gas prices rise, while they "appear" concerned, feeling your pain, and bashing the companies who provide our way of life.
One more thing...
When they say they'll take away the "Windfall" profits... Who are they taking those profits away from?
That's right! Americans. Oil companies are 99% owned by individual American citizens. Either by stock purchase, or through their pension plans, be they 401K's, IRA's, or what have you.
So when these lib's promise to take that money, who will they be taking it from? I suggest very strongly that you check your pension, 401K, or IRA.. just to make sure your not invested. Cause they will take away your personal retirement, while at the same time, telling you.. they are saving you.

Nick wrote on Jun 11, 2008 9:30 AM:Well said "American". While I don't agree with you that some people only blame the Dems, I think that there are both Dems and Repubs who sit around and blame each other.
The whole Party Afilliation non-sense is just that, non-sense.
I have been saying for a long while, that it is going to take Americans standing together, and NOT along Party lines to lead us out of the path we are on.
I just don't think that Obama and McCain are the ones to do it.
Someone posed the question to me yesterday on what they think I should do, seeing as how Americans are going to either vote Obama or McCain.
I am still working on a good answer to it.
Just know that you are not alone.
Cheers, Nick.

hardtack wrote on Jun 11, 2008 9:38 AM:As regards Don @ 4:37 AM – – Oil futures trading is merely the latest area of the free market that has been demagoged to deflect blame from failed government policies. Our politicians are not that ignorant about the commodities market. Remember the “killing” that Hillery made in cattle futures?

Simply put, commodity speculators try to buy low and sell high – – like, what we try to do when we buy or sell a home. Like home buyers, sometimes commodity speculators make a profit, sometimes they take a loss. Sure, buying a commodity tends to raise its price – law of supply and demand – TRUE. But, before we run off in a tizzy-fit over someone making a profit, consider some other facts.

The relentless law of supply and demand is still in effect when speculators sell – which tends to lower prices. Over all, commodity speculators actually serve the beneficial purpose of providing a dampening to normal price volatility, over the entire supply, demand, price cycle .

Commodity market activity is fundamentally no different than what a farmer does when he stores grain in a silo; or a rancher does when he pastures a herd instead of driving it to market. Each individual farmer’s and rancher’s speculation on future prices not only serves to dampen price volatility, but insulates consumers from feast and famine cycles. The best kept secret among our politicians is: the free market works.

Anyone who blames the price of gasoline on anything but bad government policy is a dupe of Washington demagogues and their media sycophants.

Alf wrote on Jun 11, 2008 9:46 AM:Although from yesterday, this is too important to leave relegated to the past - Well, "to Alf and Nick" at 5:43PM (on the 10th), I agree with most of what you said, especially "many polls have shown that when you put actual issues in front of Americans and ask them their preferences, a large majority tend to line up with so-called "liberals". When you add the word "liberal" to the description, they oppose these exact same preferences.". The reason that I said that Ron Paul, or more generally, Libertarians, represent the American People more than the other parties is that one of the primary platforms of Libertarians is adherence to the Constitution. The other parties are "fair weather friends" of the Constitution AT BEST, and in the case of GWB as well as the PC crowd, totally disdainful of it. He who disrespects, disobeys and treats the Constitution like toilet paper and those who support his position are not representing or respecting the American People. Regards, Alf.

DD Wiz wrote on Jun 11, 2008 9:55 AM:The published letter from Richard Staszak has a serious enough tone, but he's gotta be kidding, right?!
After all the comments about those who can't tell the difference between weather (local, short-term, highly variable) and climate (broad-based, long-term, stable and predictable) he presents a whole letter that confuses the factors that go into weather with the science of climate change.
And yes, Richard (and also the post from "Jack_D" at 5:33 a.m.), it is SCIENCE, not lawyers or journalists, in peer-reviewed academic and scholarly journals, and the consensus is virtually unanimous at this level.
Poor "Jack_D" still cannot tell the difference between Earth and Mars.
Earth to "Jack_D": Mars is a different planet with its own issues and cycles.
And, by the way, no one has ever said that there are not natural cycles, only that at the present time there are also additional human contributing factors pulling the upper (and lower) control limits to record extremes. Especially if we are in a natural warming uptick, we should not be exacerbating it further.

Alf wrote on Jun 11, 2008 9:59 AM:Operating on the presumption that "Nick" at 6:13PM on the 10th is right and we go to war with Iran, we, the American People as well as the U.S., are done for. Our military and our economy cannot sustain the "effort" in Iraq for much longer and the added drain of an "effort" in Iran would be "the second ton of bricks" leading to an overextended military and a complete financial depression that would make the U.S. "Great Depression" and the German depression seem like mild recessions by comparison. In my not so humble opinion. Regards, Alf.

Floyd wrote on Jun 11, 2008 10:17 AM:I had a discussion the other day that was truly frightening: somebody said we needed to raise taxes on the oil companies to punish them. I pointed out that the companies would just raise their prices and pass the tax on to us. "Then we'll tax them again," he proclaimed. When I pointed out that would make the prices go even higher he said "And we'll keep taxing them until they learn their lesson!!" There's a lesson to be learned, all right, but it's not the oil companies that need the education.

Marky Marx wrote on Jun 11, 2008 10:17 AM:I can’t wait till this time next year. Obama will have imposed win-fall taxes on the oil companies or seized control of them, which will drive down gas prices. He will have raised estate and capitol gains taxes and pass it on to those who really need the money, and will also invigorate the economy. He’s going to raise income taxes on the wealthy ( people who make over $250,000 a year), which may not help out the underprivileged like me, but its only “fair”. And as Paul Krugman pointed out yesterday, he’s going to end all the racism cause by the repubs over the last four decades. It may be the first time in my life that I’ll be proud to call myself an American. Power to the Peeps!

The envy of the world wrote on Jun 11, 2008 10:38 AM:QUOTE TUESDAY, June 10 (HealthDay News) -- The number of American adults who had inadequate health insurance to cover their medical expenses rose 60 percent from 2003 to 2007, from 16 million to more than 25 million people. ENDQUOTE Add this to the millions uninsured and what do you get? Incredibly, with all the talk in the past few years about problems in our system, that system has actually gotten immensely WORSE during that time. This is unacceptable, isn't it? Isn't it?

Alf wrote on Jun 11, 2008 10:48 AM:Well, "Marky Marx" at 10:17AM, the current Democrats seem to be "tax and spend", with the emphasis on SPEND, while the current Republicans seem to be "borrow and spend", with the emphasis on SPEND. The primary difference being where the SPENDING is to be done; Dems SPEND on social programs and te Repubs SPEND on WAR and industry (emphasis on WAR). Our current SPENDING on WAR has yet to include the SPENDING that must be made to deal with the long-term effects on those who are actually doing the fighting. Regards, Alf.

Reardon wrote on Jun 11, 2008 10:49 AM:The Liberals War on the Poor Continues:

Item: Washington D.C. non-voting Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton is supporting an end to the federal 2,000 child trial school voucher program. The program is almost entirely Black and Hispanic, and the average family income is $23,000 – and the program has a 90+% satisfaction rate among participating parents. Holmes is supporting a demand by the national teacher unions that all voucher programs be ended, on behalf of the Union School Cartel.

(Off to speak to a public school three writing class assembly on the subject of writing. Ain't that a hoot?)

Chuck wrote on Jun 11, 2008 10:54 AM:Lets hear it for Marky Marx. His only happiness comes from liberals grabbing money from those who choose to work harder and produce more than him, and provide the jobs for the country. We all knew the liberals agenda was based on jealousy and envy of others.

Refuting Ron wrote on Jun 11, 2008 10:55 AM:Ron fancies himself an Obama Expert telling us every day that he will raise taxes on the poor and make us stop eating and driving our cars. Let's examine some real truth instead, shall we?

Obama calls for a "bottom up prosperity," based upon his version of putting people first. He wants to invest in education and training. He'd generate millions of new jobs in a concerted drive for energy independence. He'll create a national investment bank to rebuild and modernize our aging infrastructure, and put people to work. He'll help make college more affordable. He'll offer middle class families (generously defined as making under $150,000) a tax break, while raising taxes on the wealthy, shutting corporate tax loopholes, imposing an excess profits tax on the oil and gas companies, and using money saved from ending the Iraq war to invest here at home.

McCain, in his speech before the conservative National Federation of Independent Business, he called for not only sustaining the Bush tax cuts which he once opposed, but also adding new cuts (an estimated $300 billion a year) for corporations and the wealthy. He bizarrely emphasized "the estate tax," as "one of the most unfair taxes on the books," presumably because it applies primarily to the wealthiest 2% of America's fortunes.

McCain paints himself as the change largely by posing as the sheriff policing wasteful pork barrel spending, in contrast to the wastrel ways of the Republican Congress and the Bush administration and is now calling for a new round of tax giveaways that are twice as expensive as the original Bush plan and nearly twice as regressive. His policy will spend nearly $2 trillion on tax breaks for corporations, including $1.2 billion for Exxon alone, a company that just recorded the highest profits in history.... At a time when we're fighting two wars, when millions of Americans can't afford their medical bills or their tuition bills, when we're paying more than $4 a gallon for gas, the man who rails against government spending wants to spend $1.2 billion on a tax break for Exxon Mobil. That isn't just irresponsible. It's outrageous.

But then we all understand why Ron is so protective of the Oil Companies, don't we?

Funny no wrote on Jun 11, 2008 10:58 AM:Sam and others, who have been silent about gas prices suddenly spring into action once Democrats have made a proposal. Yes, the Democrat idiots will ruin everything! So all had been going so beautifully under Bush's Republicans? I could've sworn that gas prices have been going up and that oil companies have been making record profits. Clearly the only solution to this is to let the oil companies drill more wells, subsidized by taxpayers, so that they can increase their profits. Oh..what's that you say? Republicans have not promoted this for the 6 years they had control of the government? Really? Well how could that be?

Chuck wrote on Jun 11, 2008 11:02 AM:>>Obama calls for a "bottom up prosperity,">>> We already knew tha. Hussein thinks prosperity comes from rewarding the lazy and grubbers who drain resources instead of contributing> Hussein will use class envy to create a whole new generation of entitlement for the grubbers. And we all know how great countries become when the incentive to be useful to society is stripped away by Marxists

Chuck wrote on Jun 11, 2008 11:05 AM:>>>The number of American adults who had inadequate health insurance to cover their medical expenses rose 60 percent from 2003 to 2007, from 16 million to more than 25 million people>> But they all have multiple cell phones, a couple PS3's, and their precious internet porn, instead

Marky Marx wrote on Jun 11, 2008 11:10 AM:Did I mention Obama will create quality jobs from all that money he'll seize from the wealthy. Right on....power to the Peeps!

nate wrote on Jun 11, 2008 11:16 AM:chuck his mane is Barack. Your ingnorance really shines through when you purposely try to incite racism and falsehoods. I can take a gander at what your middle name is, hannity or maybe o'reilly

Realist wrote on Jun 11, 2008 11:20 AM:Nick[-] wrote on Jun 11, 2008 9:30 AM: I agree with your statements. Those who stand and bicker on party lines are the ones who are hurting our country. We need someone who can unite the parties and get our great country back on track.

Alf wrote on Jun 11, 2008 11:24 AM:A conservative who posts as a hyper-liberal and a liberal who posts as a hyper-conservative, it reminds me of a song by "Stealers Wheel". Regards, Alf.

Asteroid wrote on Jun 11, 2008 11:24 AM:(from American Free Press)
While Washington dithers over exploiting oil and gas reserves off the coast of Florida, China has seized the opportunity to gobble up these deposits, which run throughout Latin America, the Caribbean and along the U.S. Gulf coast.

The Congressional record
ANWR Exploration
House Republicans: 91% Supported
House Democrats: 86% Opposed

Coal-to-Liquid
House Republicans: 97% Supported
House Democrats: 78% Opposed

Oil Shale Exploration
House Republicans: 90% Supported
House Democrats: 86% Opposed

Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Exploration
House Republicans: 81% Supported
House Democrats: 83% Opposed

Refinery Increased Capacity
House Republicans: 97% Supported
House Democrats: 96% Opposed
God bless democrats and their enviro-mental constituents

Realist wrote on Jun 11, 2008 11:26 AM:Here are some easy ways to get out of the oil crisis: [1] Reestablish the 55 mph speed limit and enforce it. [2] Start drilling off the coast of the Gulf of Mexico. It is a shame that foreign countries drill off our coast while we sit here and twiddle our thumbs. However, this would only be a short term solution so that we can get alternatives up and running, which leads me to [3] domestic fuel creation - solar, wind and biodiesel. By that time gas will drop to a comfortable level, along with the lowering of food prices. Simple.

Floyd wrote on Jun 11, 2008 11:26 AM:One of the unstated benefits of the current warming cycle is that the ladies don't have to bundle up as much when they go outside. It follows that they'll need complete new wardrobes, which will attract attention from the guys, who will take them out for dinner and a movie, thus providing a big boost to the economy. Instead of panicking, we should be enjoying, no -- celebrating! -- this warming trend before it reverses itself again.

We had an wrote on Jun 11, 2008 11:27 AM:interplanetary meeting yesterday with 10 planets attending, and all agree, yep the sun is warming things up all over the solar system.

sdraoul wrote on Jun 11, 2008 11:37 AM:What a laugh the Obama people are and provide.

The man allegedly has a degree from Columbia U. yet he tells ABC that the Capital Gains tax must be doubled or tripled to be "fair."

When Charlie Gibson pointed out that when that tax has been lowered, more revenue came in than before Obama continued to insist that it would be in "fairness" to raise that rate.

We know that one third of the American people have investments of one sort or another that are coverd by the capital gains tax and that most workers benefit from investments that create and mintain their jobs.

Given those facts, how in the world can this Saul Alinsky-leftist-radically trained "community organizer" (Washington Post, March 25, 2007) have the gall to campaign for "doubling or tripling" a beneficial low tax that benefits almost every single person in the country.

What's worse are the Obama kool-aid drinkers who post their silly notes here without a scintilla of knowledge of economics or public finance.

gil wrote on Jun 11, 2008 11:40 AM:Ron at 9.06-I get your smelt, but that's not the point of my letter.

Sam wrote on Jun 11, 2008 12:00 PM:Polar Bears and oil! Remember a month or so ago environmental groups had sued the government to list the polar bears as a threatened species. The government did list them as threatened because of the rapidly warming Arctic climate and not because of any danger from oil exploration. Now the same environmental groups gave notice on Monday they intend to sue because the bears might not like to see and hear people looking for oil up there in Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. This is not in ANWR. It is in the federally managed outer continental shelf off the northwestern corner of Alaska in the Chukchi Sea. The government recently sold by bid some oil leases for $a total of $2.66 billion. $2.1 billion of the bids were by Royal Dutch Shell. BP already has some leases there and is proceeding to develop them so there’s will become the first producing Alaskan oil field located entirely in Federal waters. .

Laurian wrote on Jun 11, 2008 12:08 PM:Marky Marx, are you here just to stir things up or do you really believe in Marxism (hence, your moniker)?

Just wondering.

(By the way, you are hardly entitled to any monies I make if you are capable of making a living.)

Asteroid wrote on Jun 11, 2008 12:38 PM:I just read that China, with the help and cooperation of Cuba will be drilling for oil almost within site of Key West Florida. Of course the democrats and their enviro-mental wacko constituency won’t allow any type of reasonable effort for us to gain energy independence from our enemies in the mid east.
This is the congressional record :
ANWR Exploration
House Republicans: 91% Supported
House Democrats: 86% Opposed

Coal-to-Liquid
House Republicans: 97% Supported
House Democrats: 78% Opposed

Oil Shale Exploration
House Republicans: 90% Supported
House Democrats: 86% Opposed

Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Exploration
House Republicans: 81% Supported
House Democrats: 83% Opposed

Refinery Increased Capacity
House Republicans: 97% Supported
House Democrats: 96% Opposed

Concerned One wrote on Jun 11, 2008 12:57 PM:FYI on global warming to John Harris: I've surfed in both hemispheres in four different decades and I can tell you, the oceans are not rising. Don't give me your the ice caps are melting because satellite images don't lie crap. Hey, John, nobody lies. There are no agendas in the enviro-nut-job contingent, and be sure to hide your tooth under your pillow tonight. And for all you "it's climate" not weather nut jobs. Weather makes up climate and you can't have it both ways. Here's the deal, look at recorded weather patterns and compare them with current conditions. Don't base your peer-reviewed BS on computer models that are as about as accurate as a dart board. Regards, C-1.

Patriot wrote on Jun 11, 2008 1:04 PM:Alf at 10:48 nailed the problem, which is bipartisan: overSPENDing. Look at what years of borrowing and deficit spending in Washington has done to the value of the dollar, and the price of oil in dollars.

Ms M wrote on Jun 11, 2008 1:52 PM:Patriot
[-] wrote on Jun 11, 2008 1:04 PM:Alf at 10:48 nailed the problem, which is bipartisan: overSPENDing. Look at what years of borrowing and deficit spending in Washington...um didn't we have a surplus at the beginning of Bush's term?

Sam wrote on Jun 11, 2008 1:53 PM:Here is another comment about oil. I do not have much money to invest, but got curious recently and read about several small oil companies that are exploring for oil. Then I bought some shares of six of them. They hope to find some oil, drill some wells and sell the oil. I do not feel like a speculator like the ones ravaging the futures market, I feel like I am helping the little hard working persons and helping in a small way for there to be more gas and oil. It seems like on days when the market goes up, these stocks go down. When the market goes down these go up. All are established small companies with years of experience and about 300 employees each, except one has about 3,000 employees, produces and sells natural gas with a good 5 year record of steady growth. So you can see I am not talking about "BIG OIL". Today was typical of when all six went UP: 2%, 4%, 1%, 1.3%, 5%, and 1.6% while the major market indexes went down a little, and so did Costco, PG&E, Edison, Florida Light and Power, Home depot, Lowe’s, Lockheed and Boeing and many more down a little,not a lot.

Marky to Laurian wrote on Jun 11, 2008 2:23 PM:You say I’m not entitled to any of your “monies”, yet obviously you have so much you say monies instead of money. When Obama gets in, he’ll decide how much is enough. It’ll be a collective system, a fair system, where no one goes without. Capitalism, NO. Marxism, YES! Power to the Peeps!

OBAMACAN wrote on Jun 11, 2008 2:29 PM:Editor: please stop skipping over mine! There is nothing wrong with this post, responding specifically to SDRaoul's!
Submit 12:04 p.m., again at 2:21 p.m.

Perhaps SDRaoul at 11:37 a.m. can enlighten us as to why taxing unearned income from investments at a lower rate than from labor is "fair."
Yes, lots of people have investments.
Lots of people have jobs, too.
What was the point?
He mocks the education of Obama, which is much better preparation for running the economy than languishing in a POW cell.
SDRaoul can only mock "Kool Aid drinkers" while he drinks from the poisoned quill of Charles Keating-trained McCain, running as flip-flopper of the year for Bush's third term.

Marky Marx wrote on Jun 11, 2008 2:32 PM:Ron
[-] wrote on Jun 11, 2008 9:06 AM:
Hey Ron, FWI; there is technology available now for converting toilet water to tap water. So what it cost 50 times as much to build and operate, at least we won’t be hurting the environment. I have to sleep out there. I wish you neo-cons would stop trying to destroy it just to fill your pockets with more of the peoples money.

Question for Asteroid wrote on Jun 11, 2008 2:33 PM:Great job on the Congressional voting data. Now give us the record on these issues for the years 2000-2006 when Bush and his Republican majorities could do as they wished. Or was reliance on foreign oil not a real problem until the Democrats won the Congress? Looking forward to hearing from you.

Apollo wrote on Jun 11, 2008 2:57 PM:Re:Asteroid (12:38 p.m.)
Please be specific as to exactly which bills (number and title) you were referring to so we can decide for ourselves whether or not we agree as to your interpretation of what they represent.

Watch em at work wrote on Jun 11, 2008 3:01 PM:It's instructive to read the posts of Marky Marx and Ron, to some degree. They have a cartoon image of communism and they paint a picture of Obama desiring to fit that image. Look how they talk about what our country will be like if Obama wins! They want us to believe that one man at the helm can transform the USA into Cuba, lickety split. To say that this is a preposterous lie is an understatement, but once you know that they are spouting fear-mongering propaganda and just look at their posts as specimens of such, you can only scratch your head in wonder.

Winning the hearts and minds wrote on Jun 11, 2008 3:33 PM:From the AP QUOTE WASHINGTON - Whoever was to blame, the U.S. airstrikes that may have killed friendly fighters in Pakistan have inflamed the already touchy relations between Washington and Islamabad and could set back the struggle to stem violence along the Afghan border. The bombings fueled anti-U.S. sentiment in Pakistan and raised fresh questions about cooperative efforts to root out terror suspects in the lawless region that American military leaders believe could spawn a new major attack against this country. ENDQUOTE I don't believe that this was a sin. If the wrong people were killed, I am positive it was an accident or error. The problem is that wars ALWAYS have errors. The relationship the US has with its "allies" in the Muslim world is already on such thin ice, and the stakes in keeping these allies (and in keeping the right allies) are enormous. Makes you wish we had a leader with judgment you could admire and count on. Ain't Bush. Ain't McCain. Too frivolous about using shock and awe, too lost in the macho war game to see the bigger picture.

sdraoul wrote on Jun 11, 2008 3:40 PM:Obamacan, for your information, unearned income is the driving force behind job-creating investment. Jobs don't come about by a wave of a magic wand, they come about because investors put their money up. Why should there be any tax at all on capital gains? Japan and many other countries don't tax those gains. We do and we are among the highest such taxers.

Obama and McCain are not runing for Chief Economist, they are running for Commander-in-Chief, Obamacan. For that job, languishing in a prisoner of war camp is far better preparation than working as a Saul Alinsky-created-community organizer (see Washington Post, March 25, 2007) or for ACORN the fraud perpetrating voter registration group that has attempted to register hundreds of thosuands of non-existent voters. Obama actually worked for thsoe crooks.

Obama's desire for tax "fairness" should extend to lowering all taxes so productive people can keep the money they earn not to turn it over to the government so social workers like Obama can give it to non-productive people.

McCain calls for fairness in taxes by pushing for a flat income tax that can be filed on a post card (Thus eliminating much of the IRS). Obama wants to raise capital gains taxes, Social Security taxes, income taxes for small business owners and professional people who earn their money the hard way.

Alf wrote on Jun 11, 2008 3:51 PM:Well, "Ms M" at 1:52PM, for so long as there is a National DEBT, there can be no such thing as a "surplus". We, the U.S., might have a "surplus" for a given annual budget, but you have to ignore the repayment of the National DEBT in order to delude yourself into thinking that we have any "surplus". Anything that is left over after operating expenses are paid MUST go toward repaying at least part of the National DEBT, a DEBT that has increased virtually every year for decades. The current National DEBT (National Debt Clock) is $9,413,190,990,000.00. That is about $30,950.00 for each and every citizen, be they man, woman or child. The total National DEBT is increasing by about $1.58 Billion dollars per day. Don't you just love the way that actual debt and interest just keep adding up? Regards, Alf.

Ms M wrote on Jun 11, 2008 4:04 PM:Alf
[-] wrote on Jun 11, 2008 3:51 PM: Thanks Alf for the National Debt/Surplus 101.

Watch em at work PS wrote on Jun 11, 2008 4:10 PM:Oh, I forgot to mention raoul, who (at 3:40) adds to the propaganda. Look! He says Obama's going to take away so much of your hard-earned money and give it away to people who choose not to work! Really? Ya think? Or is this another piece of fear-mongering propaganda? I'm pretty sure I know the answer to that one. LOL

Oh raoul wrote on Jun 11, 2008 4:18 PM:Can you really believe that sitting in a POW camp for a long time is good preparation for becoming the Commander-in-Chief? Are you serious? McCain suffered a great deal of pain and humiliation. He must've had enormous loyalty to his compadres and his country. He must've been packed with accumulating scars and resentment of his enemy. He did a lot that was admirable. But how do these things serve as good training for the C-i-C job? When there is a possibility of using our military, are you sure you want someone in charge with that experience? With that idea of war? With those memories of torture and injustice? With that resentment and anger? If you look at the combat vets pouring through the vet centers with their nightmares and their insecurities about being able to live as civilians, fearing their own fear and hair-trigger rages, would you say: any of these men have obviously had the experiences they need to have their fingers on that button? Man, I sure don't. I want someone who is NOT battle-scarred, whose mind is not packed with feelings of debts that should be paid off. But then, I really hate war, the death and destruction of humans. That's just me.

Taxes in Japan wrote on Jun 11, 2008 4:29 PM:Funny that raoul should mention that Japan is so much better about not taxing capital gains. Did you know that Japan's government provides universal health care? No, really! I wonder where the money for that comes from. I have a feeling it's from other sources of taxation, don't you? It may be that Japan doesn't tax capital gains. Do they tax income more or less than we do? Look it up.

Nick wrote on Jun 11, 2008 4:31 PM:Since my good buddy "Alf" is helping out "Ms M" with the National Debt, I will throw in my 2 cents as well.
The national debt has more than doubled under George W. Bush, from $4 trillion to just under $9 trillion. Roughly 70% of it is intragovernment debt, structured in the form of loans from the Social Security fund and treasury bonds. But roughly a quarter is foreign held.
The majority of the foreign held debt is safe. $615 billion is held by Japan, who would certainly not leverage it against us as a reprisal for changes in our energy market.
But $123 billion is held by OPEC (Perhaps tellingly, the US Treasury does not even list the OPEC countries separately. Are they afraid of the American people finding out how much paper on the debt is in Saudi hands?). You can fairly assume that Saudi Arabia holds the vast majority of that debt. Every time we print up more treasury bonds, it is in their best interest to buy them up, or else inflation drives down the value of the dollar that they do business in.
If we wised up and stopped purchasing oil from Saudi Arabia tomorrow, then by Wednesday, they’ll have shortsold every bit of US currency they own. How much would they have to shortsell before the dollar loses its value?
So before we can make a move, we need to buy back $123 billion in treasury bonds. That might well mean a rollback of the Bush tax cuts— We simply cannot keep increasing expenditures, not taxing enough to cover them, and hoping it all turns out for the best.

In terms of the raw percentage of our national debt, $123 billion does not sound like a lot. But a mere $30 billion shortsell in our currency could cost us 20% of the value of the dollar. Shortselling the entire debt load could throw us into a tailspin. There is currently $771 billion in American currency in print— Turning $123 billion loose into the world economy at a shortsold price could leave us in a situation where we have to stop and figure out how many wheelbarrows of dollar bills it takes to buy a loaf of bread.
Cheers, Nick.

Nick wrote on Jun 11, 2008 4:32 PM:More on the National Debt:
While purchasing back the portion of the national debt owned by OPEC should be the top priority, the overall goal should be repayment of the national debt to all sources. While the federal government does not charge itself interest, we are paying interest on 1/4 of the national debt— $2.2 trillion. That interest is the third largest expenditure in this nation. Our economic policy has become reckless in the Bush years, becoming the equivalent of the consumer that shuffles debt back and forth between five credit cards and watching the interest grow out of control.

Our interest so far for FY2007 has added up to $359 billion. Without that debt, the Iraq War would almost be paid for rather than a massive red mark on our books. Can you think of a better use of $359 billion? I can.
Cheers, Nick.

DD Wiz wrote on Jun 11, 2008 4:42 PM:The post from "sdraoul" (3:40pm) fails miserable on two main counts:
First, he goes straight to the heart of why economic indicators are consistently more favorable under Democratic administrations than Republican administrations. He does not have the slightest idea of how the economy works! Investment income is not what drives the economic income. Wealthy people do not go around creating jobs out of the goodness of their hearts. If there is a clear opportunity for substantial profits, they will invest; if not, they won't. It does not matter all that much how much cash on hand they have. If the economy is depressed and there are few good opportunities, they would rather put their money in cash or hard assets, not invest in jobs, no matter how much they have. If there are lots of great investment opportunities, they will invest, even if they don't have the cash -- they will borrow it if necessary. What drives the economic engine is DEMAND -- and putting more cash in the pockets of consumers, the largest sector of which is also working people, is what drives the economic engine. Democrats understand that economic growth does not "trickle down," it "bubbles up."
Second, he never actually answers the question in the post from "OBAMACAN" (2:29pm). Why is it the least bit fair to tax UNEARNED investment income at a lower rate than EARNED income garnered by the sweat of one's brow? Unless you just believe in special privileges for those who need it least?

Ron wrote on Jun 11, 2008 4:47 PM:I want you all to read another great socialist post by our friend, "Marky Marx" @10:17 AM. He adimts within the post that although he may not be the receipiant of any "windfall" from the Obamaman's economic policy {secretly he hopes he will} but, its only “fair”.
This will tell you everything you need to know about how these guy's operate. You see, they don't care about good economic policy, or what will actually work, or tried and true practises, it is only about "fairness." Fairness is ideological, not fact driven, not evidence driven, and certainly not based in sound economic theory.
This is an ideology based upon what he has, and what I don't have. It is the politics of envy and hate. Politicians who practise this kind of politics do not offer you hope or change. What they offer you is the hope that they will steal from your neighbor, to give to you. And the change they speak of, is that change to be left in your neighbors pocket, after they are done picking it.
Finally, as to race. Obama said it himself. He knows he has so many whilte liberals itching to pull the lever for him, just to relieve themselves of their white guilt. Pulling the lever just because the guy is a certain color, is racism in reverse. Like I said the otherday, it's Mascot Politics. It is meant to say more about you, than him. Look at me everyone, I voted for Obama, so that proves I'm not a racist.

Karl wrote on Jun 11, 2008 4:50 PM:Marky Marx on Jun 11, 2008 10:17 AM:

Way to funny duuuuuuuude. Especially the sentence before "Power to the Peeps!"

Power to the people right on!!

Concerned One wrote on Jun 11, 2008 4:57 PM:For the record, I think Marky Marx is a prankster with no real aligence. He's too good. That remark at the end o his first comment :"first time I've been proud to be an american." Sound familiar? I get it Marky, power to the peeps! Regards C-1.

John wrote on Jun 11, 2008 5:06 PM:Hey Watch em at work 3:01... Like your comments. Seems to me that Ron and Marky Marx are just blame America first conservatives. It's Carter's, or Clinton's or the next presdient's fault, it's congress' fault, It's liberal Americans, it's Commies, it's because we are too free!!! Come off it guys. Communism is so 80's. They are all capitalists now - just visit a Walmart and read the label. Welcome to 2008. Obama - the next president of the United States - will have the support of a majority of Americans and will lead with honor. I know that will be a hard pill to swallow with that kink in your intestine.

Ron wrote on Jun 11, 2008 5:09 PM:It is quite obvious, I'm pushing the buttons of the Obamaites, as I'm beginning to get blowback from people like "Refuting Ron" @10:55 AM.
Just the fact he feels the ned to come to the aid of the Obamaman should tell you I'm hitting pay dirt.
In short:
"bottom up prosperity": I've never gotten a job from a poor man.
"invest{ing} in education and training:
$4,000 bucks, and you gotta work for the government to get it.
"He'd generate millions of new jobs":
Now unless your talking about "government jobs", then No the President can't create a single job.
"concerted drive for energy independence": Let me see.. no nuclear, no hydroelectric cause you can't build dams, No drilling, no digging for coal.
Sounds like a receipe for less power and higher costs.
"national investment bank to rebuild and modernize our aging infrastructure"
Now this really puzzles me, cause don't they already get .18 cents a gallon for just this very purpose? Where's THAT money?
"He'll help make college more affordable" that's funny cause I don't see him or this Congress interogating College Presidents, like they did the Oil Exec's. Maybe I missed that one?
"He'll offer middle class families (under $150,000) a tax break: Last I heard, it was $1,000 bucks. Wow! I will almost be able to pay one car payment for 2 months!
"while raising taxes on the wealthy: The Same Guy who your employed by?
"shutting corporate tax loopholes:
I hear in California they consider your mortgage interest deduction a "loop-hole" too.
"imposing an excess profits tax on the oil and gas companies": No he's not. He's imposing that on investors in these companies. Like I said earlier, you might want to check your 401K?
"using money saved from ending the Iraq war to invest here at home": Question?
If it's ALL borrowed, where is the money?
And finally... Why do you hate my country?

Reardon wrote on Jun 11, 2008 5:16 PM:NPR November 10, 2005:

(Quote) Throughout this whole time, Oliver Leavitt was lobbying in favor of drilling. "We couldn't get it passed in the Senate for a long time because of the threat of a filibuster; you need 60 votes to break the filibuster," recalled Leavitt, chairman of the board of directors of the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, which represents some of the native Inupiat people in northern Alaska.

When Republicans took charge of both the House and the Senate in the mid-1990s, they put the measure in the budget package, which can't be filibustered.

"We thought we had it passed back in 1995. It went through both the House and the Senate, and of course President Clinton vetoed it," Leavitt added.
(Unquote)

Alf wrote on Jun 11, 2008 5:27 PM:A "Breaking News" story entitled "Iranian leader calls Bush a 'wicked man'" inspires me to say "Duh!". Regards, Alf.

Karl wrote on Jun 11, 2008 5:39 PM:Alf my friend, thanks for the update on the national debt. My wife and my recently graduated from college son according to your figures owe $92,850.

I would be willing to double that amount to $185,700 to make up for 1 family that is not as fortunate as myself to have had a good career. If all of us "rich" or "wealthy" citizens would do the same, our Country would presto be back on it's financial feet. I am serious, I would have to go back to work to replenish the supply of cash but I'm in. All that I would ask for in return would be that the left and right quit spending my tax dollars like drunken sailors and apply my over payment to a family in need instead of dreaming up new taxes to punish folks like me who have been successful by working our fannies off.

I am in no way "rich" or "wealthy" but think it is about time that the government (the sorry dems and reps)starting looking elsewhere for an economic bailout financed by me "the middle class" who have worked our friggen' arse off to make sure our families and our Country are taken care of.

Peacefull Regards, Karl

Rea