Chuck wrote on Jul 17, 2008 5:00 AM:Now I see where the priorities of the liberals lie. As liberlas refuse to lift the bans on drilling and nuclear power, rhe news reports instead, they decide to triple to $46 billion, the amount of AIDS relief to the AIDS racketeers in Africa. As the debt mounts from sending hundreds of billion to 2 bit oil dictators, as jobs are bing lost by the bushel, as inflation crushed Americans and the peoples pension funds ket killed by the dropping market, liberals say "SCREW YOU AMERICA, and instead fund their ... agenda to the tune of $46 billion

The Bottom Line wrote on Jul 17, 2008 5:20 AM:In her letter, Kristie Young says "The question I pose is, will the oil companies respond by reducing prices if we reduce our consumption? Not in a million years.". She should have said "Not in a billion years (that's a b).". Right now, many water agencies are receiving less money because people are reducing their usage, so what do those agencies do? They increase their rates or their fees to compensate. We all, who do not have our own private well, are a "captive audience". Ya cain't win fer losin'.

Chuck wrote on Jul 17, 2008 6:07 AM:The news is reporting that Seattle sold 5 of its problem-plagued public toilets on eBay. Thats pretty ... But why did they sell them on EBAY?, Seattle is so full of liberals you'd think they'd scarf them up like croissants.

Chuck wrote on Jul 17, 2008 6:09 AM:>>Brian Bilbray has voted nay on every bill that has anything to do with helping the less fortunate,>> No sir, he votes no on passing out freebees that you desperately think should be free to you. Is there anything you think you should have to open your wallet for??

Ron wrote on Jul 17, 2008 6:27 AM:I don't know why Judith Withers has such confidence in Mike Aguirre, as I recall he has not won ... case yet.
He has been wrong on virtually every case he's ever pursued, whether it be pension benefits, the Mt. Soledad cross, whatever. So, I wouldn't get to excited, just yet Judith.

The case against SDG&E apparently hinges on maintaince of these lines. Studies have shown that grid lines, power lines have a life span of 40 years, the particular power lines in question are 46 years old. SDG&E has been prevented from replacing the lines by numerous groups, some enviromental, some NIMBY's, but that will come into court, and I am confident SDG&E will not be held solely accountable.
Not to mention that all power lines, all grids locations, routes are approved by all levels of Government.
So just to say SDG&E decided to place these lines in a known fire area, is just more hype and blame game. The permiting process is so enormous, and detailed that it will be shown by SDG&E that they were directed by Government, and also prevented by groups from updated the grid.
So, don't count them chickens just yet.

And I don't know if Judith saw the article from the otherday, but SDG&E has decided to place solar arrays around the county as a part, of the total mix of electrical power for our region. Realise, it is only a part, a very small part, as rooftop solar will never be the sole power provider.
The technology is currently too expensive for most, requiring at least a $20,000 invest alone.
Surely you can not expect those low income workers to place a panel on thier rooftop, unless the government gives it to them.
Which reminds me, whether Mr. Aguirre is successful or not, the citizens, i.e. the taxpayers will pay for this lawsuit. Should he win, the consumers will pay the fines. If government decides to give away solar arrays to low income people, the taxpayer loses.
As I see this, it is a lose-lose-lose proposition. Now, don't get me wrong, if it can be proven that SDG&E is in fact to blame, soley. Sue em. Just know, they'll nevr pay a dime, you and I will. Cause that's how this works.
Legally you maybe right in going after the "wrong-doer", but financially, the consumer loses cause he/she pays the freight.

Gotta Wonder wrote on Jul 17, 2008 6:51 AM:Chuck[-] wrote on Jul 17, 2008 5:00 AM: Yeah! And how about the two great wars that are nickeling and dimming us to death.

Ron wrote on Jul 17, 2008 6:55 AM:Exactly right, Gordon Cargill!
Can you just imagine {to use a little John Lennon lingo there..} if all these lib's, the 24% who do not want to drill would simply stop using oil today, how much would be free'd up for the rest of us?
Houston, we have a problem.
The problem as I see it, is those who are complaining the most about greenhouse gases, saving Mother Gaya, and filthy oil, are the same people using it?
Could it be that we have some addicts in the liberal class? Refusing to give up their addiction? And angry cause they can't get another cheap fix?
I think so.

So all you liberal addicts, you have to go cold-turkey. It will be painful, I know. but you can do this!
Go out today and buy your bus pass. Heck... splurge a little, buy a regional pass! With all the money you'll be saving, pretty soon, you can go solar! Then buy an electric car, after scrapping your gas guzzler, cause.. you wouldn't want someone else to pick up your bad habit, now would you? that's very key here, don't pass your addiction onto another American.
You must SCRAP your car. No resale, no giving it away, just SCRAP. You'll get a little back on the scrap value, put it in your piggy bank.

You Hit It wrote on Jul 17, 2008 7:34 AM:right on the head Gotta Wonder head. Bush is dimming us down. Dumbed down and dimmed down are some of the best ways to describe those who want us to stay in Iraq.

Quiz shows wrote on Jul 17, 2008 7:58 AM:No coincidence that under the Bush presidency, we have "Are You Smarter than a Fifth Grader?" If McCain wins, I guess we're in for "Truth or Demetia?" (Meanwhile, if elitist Obama is our next President, we'll have to suffer through "How Mensa sees it". Duh, like, how boring is THAT gonna be?!)

Gotta Wonder wrote on Jul 17, 2008 8:23 AM:Chuck[-] wrote on Jul 17, 2008 6:07 AM: At least we know what Chuck would like for Christmas.

Gotta Wonder wrote on Jul 17, 2008 8:27 AM:"Fortunately, I would guess that by now, regular letter readers would only glance at the headline and a few words, then look below for the author's name and save the time of reading the same old ... garbage generated almost every two weeks." Wozer!
Let is what I do whenever I see a D. Beck letter.

Greener Than Arnold wrote on Jul 17, 2008 8:34 AM:Ron: Good News! In both the House and the Senate there are bi-partisan groups working to get an energy bill passed over the objections of the House and Senate leadership.

The Christian Science Monitor several days ago had a great article on this movement – and one of the “Drill here, Drill Now" Senators said they had 10 Democrats on board and several were “well-known liberals.”

This is a "Bottom-up" movement, and in the Senate apparently includes 10 members of the Original Gang of 14, who have pushed the Senate before on stopping a threatened filibuster on approval of judges.

Yes, Senators and Representatives read the polls. Look for favorable action rather quickly.

Meanwhile, did anyone notice that in the two days since the president announced the ending of the presidential off-shore ban, we have had two days of the largest, and the second largest drops in crude oil prices in the last 19 years?

Coincidence?

Mark wrote on Jul 17, 2008 8:35 AM:There was a report last night beringing into question why the Oil Companies,who currently own 68 million acres of land that they have yet to attempt to drill into, need more land at this moment? Anyone know why the oil companies would need more land when they have 68 MILLION acres that they have yet to tap into yet?

Chuck I know neoconservatives like yourself have trouble understanding how the world functions, unless you are scaring people with your "War on Terror",but people with knowledge about the world know the danger of an epidemic in the world. Like Reagan, I am sure it would make you feel better to sweep AIDS under the rug and ignore it, I mean after all it is a gay disease, right Chuck? Unfortunately the largest number of AIDS victims in Africa are young children. I would rather spend 46 billion trying to eradicate AIDS in the world, than 400 billion, or whatever astronomical number it reached today, fighting a war that shouldn't have been fought. I don't believe that any child in 2008 should die from AIDS while the world watches, just as I don't believe any soilders life should have been lost on the Iraq Sham. Iran has been the threat for years, but since we have spent so much time and money on Iraq, we will not be able to successfully wage a campaign against Iran if it comes to that. America isn't ready for another bloody conflict now as it is. You see Chuckles, closing your eyes does not make a problem go away. It just makes you ignorant.

You are actually right today about something. Americans need to decide, drill more, accept high gas prices, or find alternative means. Americans always want the easy answer, and unfortunately when it comes to oil, the solution won't be perfect for everyone. Solar panels are a great option for homes, but as Ron said, the average investment is 20,000 dollars, up front. Americans have been warned, for years, that oil was going to be a problem in the future, yet our government have failed to create new sources.
And finally, Chuckles, the huge debt, the dropping financial and housing markets, lost jobs, diminishing retirement funds, inflation, etc... are all results of Bush's failed economic plans. Since you have supported the man, it is fair to say you and the Bush supporters hate America. If you loved America, you would not have let Bush screw up our nation the way he has for the last 7 1/2 years.

Question for Greener wrote on Jul 17, 2008 8:47 AM:Coincidence? As a student of the energy world and of economics, tell us, how could that announcement lead instantaneously to that drop in oil price? I'm curious. Thanks in advance.

Gotta Wonder wrote on Jul 17, 2008 8:48 AM:Chuck[-] wrote on Jul 17, 2008 5:00 AM:
Just got to ask. Why didn't the Republican Congress from 2002 thru 2007 lift the ban?
Gotta wonder why Republicans hate our country?

Bottom up wrote on Jul 17, 2008 8:49 AM:Yes, good old bottom up "movements". All you need for one is some price manipulation, an injection of fear, a portrayal of a scapegoat (the liberal environmentalists who must be causing the skyrocketing oil costs), and a promise of a magical solution (Drill Now! Drill Here! Drill Everywhere!). Voila! A bottom-up, "grass roots" movement. LOL

Gotta Wonder wrote on Jul 17, 2008 8:51 AM:The Bottom Line: You are so right. They would drill for American oil on American land or off shore leases. Next, the oil companies would either sell it to us for the world price market or sell it on the world market. Gotta Wonder.

Greener Than Arnold wrote on Jul 17, 2008 8:54 AM:Ron – liberals going “cold turkey” is not in the cards, their basic hypocrisy aside.

The food on their table came from farmers driving tractors using, well you know FILTHY FINITE FOSSILE FUELS, and was delivered to the store by trucks burning FFFF. The food came wrapped in plastic made from FFFF, the store is lighted by FFF...the list is endless. Liberal environmentalists are like vegetarians who wear leather belts!

Remember the basic premise: "The homeless have zero carbon footprints, therefore we must emulate them."

While I am not quite where I want to be with a carbon footprint, everything is relative and I remain Greener Than Arnold, AND Greener Than Gore.

(But then, so is just about everyone.)

Ms M wrote on Jul 17, 2008 8:54 AM:Speaking of oil - I think it is time to find out exactly what was planned for US in the very secretative energy meeting that was held by Cheney and the oil guys. I always thought it was strange that the big oil folks (who have billion dollar profits) were the ones to make our "energy" policy - but it's pretty obvious now with the cost of gas and why we are at war in Iraq. Greed is killing America.

Greener Than Arnold wrote on Jul 17, 2008 8:58 AM:Mark: GOOD QUESTION!

There has been a lot of writing on this blog about existing oil leases. One of the things least understood is the difference in leases: Most are exploratory – and then a NEW lease must be signed to DRILL, and that new lease requires all sorts of governmental permits, including an environmental impact report,

Can I mention the Destin Dome – and the source of my information is the NYTimes of May 30, 2002. in an article called US May Buy Back Oil Rights. (They did,)

Here are the facts. In 2000 Chevron bought the mineral rights to explore the Destin Dome for $10,2 million, in a huge section of Florida and in the Gulf off Pensacola from the US Government. Some of the land was private, and some federal government, but the government negotiated for all parties

Over the years Chevron spent about $100 million, and found natural gas in huge quantities. Reportedly 2.6 TRILLION cubic feet, or enough to provide for a million families for 30 years. The contract they had was to explore, not to pump, so they applied to pump – and the request sat in governmental desks for two years before it was DENIED – remember that Bush was president, and Jeb Bush was Governor. Appealed – denied.

Eventually, the US Government in the Florida/Gulf area under Clinton bought back $200 million in drilling rights, and the Bush administration bought back $235 million in drilling rights.

Chevron found billions of dollars in actual oil and actual natural gas, lost money, and both the oil and the gas sit there, undrilled and untapped.

That is a non-partisan lesson in oil leases.

But Mark wrote on Jul 17, 2008 9:00 AM:The one fallacy that you inadvertantly presented in your 8:35 a.m. post is the use of an either/or in "Americans need to decide, drill more, accept high gas prices, or find alternative means.". Truth be told, it is not an either/or situation at all. That's what some from both sides continually say, one or the other, not both. My question is - Why must it be presented as a one or the other choice?

Asteroid wrote on Jul 17, 2008 9:03 AM:Touché, Galen Kuenast. I have a little daily exercise where I scan the letters as you said, and it only takes a few words to recognize the garbage generated by a member of the North County Forum. It’s really sad that these people have nothing better going on in their lives that they can waste so much of it competing with each other for honors at their silly annual letters award diner.

Greener Than Arnold wrote on Jul 17, 2008 9:10 AM:To Question: The answer is basic Econ. 101. The promise of future supply in a tight market will end upward speculation in that market.

The delivery of that future supply (whether through conservation or product) will overwhelm the demand, and drop the actual basic per unit price, but the prices will tend lower throughout the promise of that supply so that the market-clearing price will coincide with the promise and actual delivery at approximately the same time.

When the threat is of future shortages, prices move higher. When the threat is for future glut, prices move lower.

Here endeth today's lesson. (We have GOT to get further than Econ. 101!)

But Greener Than Arnold wrote on Jul 17, 2008 9:12 AM:you just gave a perfect reason for not drilling off-shore. The oil companies have already "gone through the first set of hoops" on land, leaving only one more set of hoops to go. All the while off-shore drilling has both sets of hoops and presents a far greater potential for spills and other disasters.

Ron wrote on Jul 17, 2008 9:14 AM:Now, remember what I said the otherday.. "Greener Than Arnold"
@8:34 AM, and Mark my Words.

The political pressure by average Americans just trying to work & provide for their families do not want to hear anymore about seals, and polar bears, or some snail.
They want real solutions, and these fine men who are putting together this caucus know they will be in deep do-do if they do not act.

It was only a matter of time before these anti-drilling folks caved in, and some common sense was allowed to rise to the surface.
But, mark my words...

Pretty soon, your gonna hear from the Messiah, Barack Obama, that this "bridge" to the alternatives, was really part of his energy plan all along. He'll flip on this, like he did FISa, and then take credit for his great and novel ideas.
I say: Better late, than never.

Ron wrote on Jul 17, 2008 9:22 AM:Hey "Mark" @8:35 AM, let me help you out with a clue, ok?
No one's buying that baloney. Gas is skyhigh, it's affecting the lowest incomes hardest, and no good liberal is gonna be able to take the heat, when people can't warm themselves in winter. I said the otherday, you really think a Vermontian is gonna ask is the oil or coal he's burning to stay warm, is clean or not? I don't think so, my friend. And this, is how they say, the rubber hits the road. Your reality, is conflicted by the real reality.

And as far as AIDS goes. It is THE most preventable disease known. Heck, with all the public school education you guy's have been handing out, I would expect by now, that those numbers would be all but eliminated, if you hype about "education" has any merit.
Woudn't you think so?


.."the Iraq Sham."?
You better go have a chat with the 25 million who are putting their lives back together. Your on the losing end of that deal too. We are winning, my friend. How come no death stats today?

Iran is a problem, even the passive Euro's think so.
You seem to be departing from the reality again.

Ron wrote on Jul 17, 2008 9:25 AM:Interesting point there.. "Greener Than Arnold" @8:54 AM.
Anyone know how Birkenstocks are made?
If made with oil, I'd say walking is out of the question, unless barefoot.

DD Wiz wrote on Jul 17, 2008 9:26 AM:The published letter from Gordon Cargill unintentionally comes closer to the mark than what he intended, though the posted reply from "Ron" (6:55am) does not.
I am not usually one to take suggestions from the victims of Big Oil propagandists who don't know what they are talking about (or do, which is disingenuously even worse), but the suggestions to stop fueling our cars with gas (or lower consumption to the level that can be satisfied by domestic production, if the mandates to sell oil from federal leases first to domestic use are reinstated from the 1992 repeal by papa GHW Bush) and to remove our houses from the natural-gas powered electric grid (or stay connected to the grid but provide more than you use). It is possible to do all these things and still live a high-quality lifestyle, and this is feasible NOW.
Where Cargill goes wrong is pushing for more drilling, which won't produce any new energy for at least a decade, which won't ensure that new drilling goes to domestic consumption first, and doesn't take into consideration that oil companies are already "sitting on" tens of millions of acres of viable oil lease lands that they need to develop first, again with the mandate restored for selling first to domestic markets.
And let me ask "Ron": do you, or do you not, support reinstating the mandate that if the Big Oil bullies who perpetuate our dependence on non-renewable FINITE FILTHY FOSSIL FUELS, receive the corporate welfare of being allowed sweetheart deals to drill on PUBLIC federal lands, that they then be required to acknowledge that public debt by being forbidden to sell to any foreign market until all domestic consumption is first satisfied?
Can you just see why liberals are a tad suspicious when an oilman president allows Big Oil Bullies to sell oil from OUR LAND to the highest bidders on the international market instead of giving US first priority on OUR OIL?
Yes or no, "Ron," yes or no.

Nick wrote on Jul 17, 2008 9:33 AM:I have been on holiday for a few weeks and since I have returned, I have noticed some of the same old things being talked about.
One of these is folks still crying about oil company profits.
Apparently folks are O.K. with the disgustingly huge profits recorded by Big Pharma, Banks and Investment Institutions, but instead choose to complain about oil company profits.
Let's break it down a little for you folks. Oil companies only make about 8% on the dollar for profit.
Now consider that Big Pharma makes 19% on the dollar, Banks about 18%, and Diversified Financial Services about 13%.
Oil Company profits pale in comparison to other U.S. businesses.
Why is it that none of these folks ever complain about being ripped off by Big Pharma or our Banking Institutions?
People like to complain about what they are paying at the pump, but not about what the are paying in interest to the Banks or the assinine price for drugs or medicines.
The biggest group of lobbyists in Washington are Big Pharma. The funniest part is that Dems used to be Big Pharma's worst enemy until Big Pharma started pumping millions into the Democrat Party and now Big Pharma controls both sides.
I guess it boils down to what you really care about, cheap gas or cheap medicines.
From the posts on this subject over the last year, it is very apparent what is more important to people.
Cheers, Nick.

Mark wrote on Jul 17, 2008 9:39 AM:But Mark,

Point taken.

Greenergy wrote on Jul 17, 2008 9:40 AM:Greener (not) evades the question I left him with last night. With a typically nonsensical conservative non-sequitur, he complained that liberals "hate the poor" because no programs exist that help the poor receive help in being able to afford solar electricity and/or electric cars in a political environment where an obstructionist president and senate would immediately block any effort to offer such a plan.
I responded that, as a liberal, I would enthusiastically welcome massive incentives, offered on a sliding scale to favor low and moderate income consumers, to help them achieve energy independence, and asked him to either join me in broad cross-ideological support for such an effort (that he brought up) or admit that he is really the one who hates the poor.

And meanwhile, Ron at 6:55 a.m. and Greener (not) at 8:54 a.m. show their all-or-nothing extremist thinking as they demand immediate, complete "cold turkey" withdrawal from an oil addiction forced on American consumers by obstructionist oil barons and auto manufacturers, who for decades have blocked real alternatives that have been around for years. Their insistence on unrealistic, immediate, extreme 100% "cold turkey" shows they are simply unable to respond credibly to the real issue: substantial, phased-in transition to alternative energy sources as rapidly as is feasible (with "feasible" being much faster than what their propaganda admits).

Gotta Wonder wrote on Jul 17, 2008 9:43 AM:Why are people so ready to believe that offshore drilling will lower the price of oil? Any oil recovered will be sold on the World Market and will only marginally affect the price. The only benefit for offshore drilling goes to the Oil Companies. Try not to be such a sucker. Release the oil reserves for lower prices now!

Greener Than Arnold wrote on Jul 17, 2008 9:43 AM:To But: (Sigh) NO SUCH THING!

What this example shows is that even "oil men" are sensitive to the wishes of the public -- and Floridians did not want the drilling. Then! (They do NOW!) (When the then Governor Bush signed off on ending the drilling, one wag remarked in the NYTimes “16 million Floridians opposed the drilling. Gov. Bush just made it 16 million and ONE!”)

The Katrina Hurricane blew out scores of undersea wells -- washed huge structures ashore!

No oil spills! None! Zero! Modern technology, "But," modern technology!

Think of all those wells in the North Sea -- one of the roughest patches of water on earth!

“But” Russia is drilling off Alaska. China will be drilling off Florida. Had you rather have them, with their technology drill, or us?

Had you rather have their government company take the profit, or our private company?

(I am almost afraid of the answer.)

Chuck wrote on Jul 17, 2008 9:52 AM:Liberals are demanding immigration reform. In case you dont know that equates to $hundreds of billions of free citizenship, free education, free medical, etc, etc. And at they same time, they are bashing Bush and the miltary for spending on the war against terrorism. Thats the difference- Conservatives want to fight terrorism and protect America, liberals want to open the borders to drain the treasury, they dont want to drill or nuclear plants and prefer to send our treasury to the oil cartels, and now they want wide open border for AIDS refugees from Africa

Nick wrote on Jul 17, 2008 9:52 AM:A question for you "Ms M". I see you are concerned about the secret meeting between Cheney and the oil company folks.
Why are you not concerned about the secret meeting between Obama, Hillary and The Bilderberg Group?
Another thing I find strange is that not 12 hours after winning the Democrat Party nomination, Obama, Hillary, McCain and 300 Senators and members of Congress rushed off to the AIPAC conference (American Israeli Political Action Committee).
What exactly was so important about this conference ?
Google Obamas speech at this conference and you will find it to be the most rear-end kissing speech ever given to AIPAC.
Just saying......
Cheers, Nick.

OBAMACAN wrote on Jul 17, 2008 10:02 AM:Not surprisingly, there goes Ron again at 9:14 a.m., showing that since he has no argument based on issues, his sole basis for anything he says is to make fun of people's names or invent irrelevant hyperbole or outright made-up "facts".
He repeats the "Obama as Messiah" thing that no Obama supporter has ever said, but only comes from those trying to ridicule a talented politician when they can't find anything of substance to address.
:::::::yawn::::::: So typical.
As for the FISA thing, again, no flip from Obama. He said he was against the telecom immunity and still is. He explained that in a compromise, you agree to some concessions that you don't agree with to get others you do. I don't consider him infallible, and I disagree with him in this instance as to where he drew the line. But it is not a flipflop. Wanna talk about flip flops?
I notice you were awfully silent about your guy:
Voted against the Bush tax cuts for the richest elites, now says they should be made permanent.
Was against torture, before voting to allow it.
Was against offshore drilling before he was for it.
Sponsored the Kennedy-McCain immigration amnesty plan, now opposes it.
Gives lip service to environmental and climate change issues, but missed 22 chances last year to back up that lip service with actual votes.
Called Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell "agents of intolerance" before reversing himself and going hat-in-hand to them seeking their endorsements.
Voted against requiring insurers who cover Viagra to offer contraceptive parity for women, now his spokeswoman Carla Fiorina says he supports that.

And a little update from yesterday: Obamas Interpreter at 9:44 p.m. last night complains he doesn't like my "arrogance" because "it's unattractive, no, it's downright ugly." Guess what, little man, little insecure man, no one here is trying to impress you. And I doubt anyone ever linked the arrogance and intractability of George Dubya Bush, another little, insecure man, to his "attractiveness."
I agree with what TFB said earlier in the day yesterday:
"A man of quality (of which there are many) is not threatened by a woman of equality."
And, little man, you're no man of quality.

Gotta Wonder wrote on Jul 17, 2008 10:03 AM:Gotta Wonder[-] wrote on Jul 17, 2008 9:43 AM: Gotta Wonder why some people use other people's handles on this blog. Gotta Wonder if they are cowards? I think that this bird has a big yellow tail!

Gotta Wonder wrote on Jul 17, 2008 10:07 AM:Chuck[-] wrote on Jul 17, 2008 9:52 AM: The only thing that conservatives and business wants to do is make huge profits from the war. If conservatives wanted to protect Americans from terrorism, they would have never invaded Iraq but stayed in Afghanistan. Liberals will support alternative fuel sources for the future. All this oil you guys yak about will not be available for five to ten years at the world market prices. Big smelly smokescreen.

Chris wrote on Jul 17, 2008 10:08 AM:I see our flyboys killed another eight civilians in Afghanistan. That is on top of the 47 civilians they killed sunday. Now of course you don't see much of that if anything in the NCTimes but if it was a carbomging it would be front page. Just maybe this is why the Afghanistanis are supporting the insurgents more and more. The problem is that whenever we send our troops somewhere they make a bloody mess out of it.

hardtack wrote on Jul 17, 2008 10:09 AM:Kristie Young asks: “Does anyone really believe that a single company needs $160 billion a year in profit to survive?”

I don’t know, and I don’t think Kristie does, either. Not being an oil company insider, I don’t know what their R&D, real estate, building, equipment replacement, technical, administrative and legal budget runs, annually – but I can see $160 billion is possible.

On the other hand, I have read the Constitution of the United States, and I cannot believe that our federal government needs $3 trillion to perform their limited duties. I think Kristie Young is looking for gluttonous excess in all the wrong places.

Taxpayers are people too wrote on Jul 17, 2008 10:11 AM:Apparently Ron Susi doesn’t think looking out for the tax payer is part of Brian Bilbray’s job.

to Eric Parrish wrote on Jul 17, 2008 10:14 AM:observer[-] wrote on Jul 17, 2008 8:49 AM:To Eric Parrish

How is it that you call it an illegal occupation since 1967. The fact is, the Arabs attacked Israel, and the Israelis defended themselves heroically and soundly defeated their aggressors. As a result, areas like Gaza, the West Bank, Golan Heights were won as a result of that battle. This is historically known as the "spoils of war". Had the Arabs chosen not to attack Israel, and instead taken the peaceful path YOU describe, they would not be crying today. Obviously the Arabs still have not learned their lesson and continue to bomb civilians and so it is only a matter of time till the Israelis beat back the aggressors again just as they have several other times.

Ms M wrote on Jul 17, 2008 10:17 AM:Nick
[-] wrote on Jul 17, 2008 9:52 AM:A question for you "Ms M". I see you are concerned about the secret meeting between Cheney and the oil company folks. Why are you not concerned about the secret meeting between Obama, Hillary and The Bilderberg Group? Nick - did you really read my question - it's about oil, that's what we are writing about - why are you changing the SUBJECT matter?

Apples and Oranges wrote on Jul 17, 2008 10:20 AM:“The Bottom line” compares a water utility monopoly with a competitive free market entity. Pardon the pun, but the analogy doesn’t hold water.

Apollo wrote on Jul 17, 2008 10:27 AM:Re: Nick (9:52 a.m.)
Here come the tinfoil hats! With no evidence, no dates, no NOTHING, Nick alleges "secret meetings" between Obama, Hillary and "The Bilderberg Group." Oooh, scary stuff. The boogey-men are loose again!
Guess what, Nick, we have the dates, times and places of Cheney's meetings with the oil companies. There is even video going in and out. The only thing secret about it is the content once they closed the doors, and Cheney violates the Constitution by illegally setting the Executive Branch above the other two co-equal branches, when he refuses to turn over the notes, videos and any other records of these meetings when subpoened by Congress.
Don't you think it is funny, Cheney meets with Enron and all his major oil donors and cronies, and comes out and the result is a tripling in gas prices (and oil company profits) and public hysteria getting the public to demand that we cave in and give the oil companies everything they want, including more oil leases to sit on.
As has been said here, they've manipuled (most of) us right where they want us.
I applaud DDWiz and Greenergy for giving the middle digit to the oil companies and telling 'em, "we don't need your stinkin' oil" and hope more of us will / can follow suit.

Gotta Wonder wrote on Jul 17, 2008 10:28 AM:Chuck[-] wrote on Dec 31, 1969 4:00 PM:
I know. I know. It is NSA survelence.

Asteroid wrote on Jul 17, 2008 10:44 AM:I don't know what a "flyboy" is, but if chris doesn't like them, they must be doing a great job. Go flyboys!

Mark wrote on Jul 17, 2008 10:46 AM:Ron,
In typical fashion you don't pay attention. Probably why you think we are 'winning" in Iraq. 25 million people ? There are no 25 million people putting their lives back together. If you actually research, you would find that presently, through Iraq, the people are scared. Afraid to come out of their homes. The American soilders are doing what they can, but even they feel overwhelmed. Most of the soilders are on 3rd and 4th tours of duty, and are worn out mentally and physically, but they push on. But I forgot, as a Republican, you don't care about the soilders and what happens to them. As long as you can say we are winning and wave your flag(a true sign of a patriot, of course) you are happy. Keep living in your dream world, the rest of us will deal with reality, as hard as it is sometimes. Outisde of mindless Neocons like yourself, most people realize that the conflict in Iraq is far from ok and the hardest times are ahead. No deaths in Iraq today. Look at the news for the last week and you will see the bodycount. As for the price of oil, I never said that the people in Vermont would care about clean or dirty fuels. What I said, pay attention Ron, was that the poorest members of our society will be the hardest hit if oil continues to stay at present prices. That is not political hyperbole, it is reality. You don't like facts? Sorry. Republicans the last 7 1/2 years have not been good with facts anyway.

Again Ron, pay attention, we were talking about AIDS in Africa. I agree American children are educated on AIDS. Unfortunately, in AFRICA, education on AIDS has been difficult to distribute and supply. Again, children have been hit hardest in Africa, and there is no excuse that anyone can give, that excuses allowing children, foreign or domestic, to suffer and die, just because you don't like supporting it. This isn't a gay, straight, or drug based issue. It is a human issue. You have been blessed. You are an American. Don't take that for granted Ron. Have empathy for others. It is what makes us truly "human".

Mark wrote on Jul 17, 2008 10:47 AM:Greener than Arnold- Thank you for the info.

Alf wrote on Jul 17, 2008 10:48 AM:Welcome back, "Nick". Per your 9:33AM post, which is more money - 8% of 100,000,000 gallons at $4.50 per gallon ($36 million), 8% of 100,000,000 gallons at $3.00 per gallon ($24 million), 8% of 100,000,000 gallons at $5.00 per gallon ($40 million)or 18% of $100,000,000 ($18 million)? For gasoline the primary unit is 1 gallon and its price is quite variable. For banks the primary unit is 1 dollar which costs 1 dollar today, yesterday and tomorrow although its buying power seems never to do anything except go down. What I'm getting at is that when you sell lots of something at a fairly low profit margin you can still make more money than someone who has a higher profit margin but they don't sell as many. Your thoughts?? Regards, Alf.

Well Reardon wrote on Jul 17, 2008 10:55 AM:Reardon gleefully points out that Prez Bush's announcement of cancelling the off shore drilling ban has dropped the price of oil. So where is the drop in the price of gasoline, Reardon? More bs from the oil mongers. It kills me that people are still willing to believe anything the liars say just because they refuse to give up their oil gutting lifestyles.

If only wrote on Jul 17, 2008 10:58 AM:From the NY Times QUOTE Former Vice President Al Gore said on Thursday that Americans must abandon fossil fuels within a decade and rely on the sun, the winds and other environmentally friendly sources of electric power, or risk losing their national security as well as their creature comforts. ENDQUOTE Uh oh, such a proposal might create tens of thousands of jobs, billions of dollars of revenues, and independence from middle eastern oil. Can't have that with oil employees Bush and Cheney in charge. And this might really upset the Saudis. Quick! Everyone insult Al Gore repeatedly ASAP. Distract! Distract! My oil stocks! Think of my oil stocks!

Greener Than Arnold wrote on Jul 17, 2008 11:03 AM:To Gotta Wonder (If that is really the same Gotta Wonder); Drilling offshore will not lower the price of oil. Supply of energy, from any source -- offshore, onshore, coal, natural gas, coal shale, solar, conservation, nuclear, wind, geothermal, methane from cows -- ANY source when in excess to demand, will lower the price of oil!

Offshore drilling is not THE answer. It is ONE answer!

Ron wrote on Jul 17, 2008 11:14 AM:That's right, "Wizzer" @9:26 AM, "It is possible to do all these things and still live a high-quality lifestyle, and this is feasible NOW." For a price, some simply can not afford it, as you can. Some, I would imagine, hoped in the back of their minds, this was another passing trend that wouldn't hold. But my point is directed at those who believe in the technology so much, that they preach {and that's the right word} Preach gettin off oil altogether.
If you truly believe that they are filthy, that they are evil and destroying the enviroment, causing global warming, then Yes.. YOU should be the first to deploy these technologies.
That's why I admire you, Wiz. We maybe on different sides of this issue, but I admire a man who does what he says.
My thought is, many of the rest who echo your thoughts may not be "so clean:", one might say. For those who preach the hypocricy, I say ENOUGH!
Either get on the alternatives, or shut up. Nothing worse than a man or woman who does not live up to their own expectations, then insults the rest of us by demanding we do.

As to "...oil companies are already "sitting on" tens of millions of acres of viable oil lease lands..."

Let me say this. It would seem to me that your thought is right, we should develop what we already have leased.
But here's the problem. For the last 14 Congresses, and the last 3 Presidents, we have "corral'd" where we would allow drilling. We don't know how "Viable" these leases really are. In fact, no one really does until you tap the hole. Geologists make pretty good guesses, and according to most geologists I'm reading, they say these off-shore reserves are known. Kind of like looking for a needle in a haystack, and I'm willing to allow them just a little more haystack to look in. I think Congress will too, and very soon.
They can not hold back this anger Americans are feeling right now. And just as you may say drilling may be years down the line, so will alternatives. Just because Honda leased 24 cars this year, does not mean the technology is ready. Solar will not affect gas price. Bio-fuels, maybe if you got a diesel engine.
For most Americans, their car will not need to be replaced for about 9 years. That's the national average to replace 1/2 the national fleet, which is about 240 million cars & trucks.

And as to your last question, I've said it before. NO..
I don't not like corporate welfare of any kind. I don't like subsidizing industries. One of the key economic problems we have in this country is that we give money to subsidize otherwise failing industries.
Let the market work. If alternatives are truly cost competitive with oil at $3 bucks, then I see no reason to subsidize them either. Working towards new technology, fine, I get it.
But outright giving money to companies. I don't think so.

Obamas Interpreter wrote on Jul 17, 2008 11:16 AM:OBAMACAN
[-] wrote on Jul 17, 2008 10:02 AM:And a little update from yesterday: Obamas Interpreter at 9:44 p.m. last night complains he doesn't like my "arrogance" because "it's unattractive, no, it's downright ugly." Guess what, little man, little insecure man, no one here is trying to impress you". OUCH! You got me OBAMACAN, LOL That was funny, As Redd Foxx (Sanford & Son,TV 1972-77)used to grab at his heart and say,"This is the big one, you hear that Elizabeth, I'm coming to join you honey!". See ya down the road OBAMACAN. Good day!

The Bottom Line wrote on Jul 17, 2008 11:26 AM:Sorry, Apples and Oranges, I'm not. Do you get your domestic water from other than the local water district? Do you get your gasoline from anywhere other than a gasoline station? There is not any real competition and you know it. Is there any station that sells significantly lower priced than the other, like 50 or 60 cents or a dollar or 2 dollars less? If not, why not? Please give me some indication that they are independent or being competitive in any significant way?

Nick wrote on Jul 17, 2008 11:27 AM:"Ms M", it is not changing the subject. It has everything to do with the price of oil.
I am only assuming that you, like "Apollo", seem to think that the oil companies are the ones dictating the price of oil. Both of you couldn't be further from the truth. If they were, they would be making way more than the measly 8% that they are making.
"Apollo" can cry boogie-man all he wants, but there is more than enough evidence out there to show the power wielded by The Bilderberg Group, The Trilateral Commission and The World Bank.
There are greater powers manipulating our politics and the price of oil than just the oil companies.
Do your homework and find out for yourself.
Cheers, Nick.

Hello Moderator wrote on Jul 17, 2008 11:32 AM:Why does the comment from Chuck say that it is "Dec 31, 1969 4:00 PM"?

Whats up wrote on Jul 17, 2008 11:34 AM:Chuck
[-] wrote on Dec 31, 1969 4:00 PM: What's up with this date?

Nick wrote on Jul 17, 2008 11:45 AM:Thanks "Alf". You pose a very good question amigo.
When put in a perspective such as the one you pose, I am only assuming here, that Big Pharma sells more pills and drugs than oil companies sell gallons of oil.
For the first time ever, in 2006, global spending on prescription drugs topped $643 billion, even as growth slowed somewhat in Europe and North America. The United States accounts for almost half of the global pharmaceutical market, with $289 billion in annual sales followed by the EU and Japan.
In regards to the banking industry, worldwide assets of the largest 1,000 banks grew 16.3% in 2006/2007 to reach a record $74.2 trillion. This follows a 5.4% increase in the previous year. EU banks held the largest share, 53%, up from 43% a decade earlier. The growth in Europe’s share was mostly at the expense of Japanese banks whose share more than halved during this period from 21% to 10%. The share of US banks remained relatively stable at around 14%. That 14% amounts to about 14 Billion dollars a year.
I hope this helps out a bit.
Cheers, Nick.

sdraoul wrote on Jul 17, 2008 11:48 AM:Obamacan is at it again. Issues? Obama is wrong on each issue addressed by his web site even after its "scrubbing."

Issue, Obama was against the "surge" from the beginning and has claimed it has not worked from the first day.

Let's see, idiot congressmen declared 18 goals the Iraq government must meet in order for Congress to vote money for Iraq. So far the Iraqis have made satisfactory progress on 15 of the benchmarks, fifteen. Does Obama know that, apparently not.

Ten provinces have been turned over to the Iraqi Army for security with 8 to go.

Obama has been wrong on the surge so much that his web site that Obamacan always points us to has been cleaned up and his embarrassing surge position has changed and the old attacks on it on the surge are gone.

He is now "refining" his position because he knows the Iraqis are demanding a longer presence of Americans in Iraq even as they want a "timeline." Good source say Iraq wants at last 60 months, not 16 Obama months.

Even if he becomes President and orders a 16-month withdrawal, it isn't possible. Any veteran knows that but hsi community organizing experience doesn't have moving thousands of tanks and vehicles by sea out of a war theater.

Of course, we can always just leave it there and write off billions in equipment. That's the Obama way.

That is far more significant than McCain’s change on tax cuts that took place over 8 years, not 8 days as with Obama.

Obama promised to "filibuster" the FISA bill if it contained immunity for telecom companies. When the time came, he tucked his tail between his legs and voted for the bill because he knew a filibuster would do no good and that, in fact, he would have been shut down within minutes. It was a huge defeat for Obama.

Then came the New Yorker magazine cover. Obama apparently has no sense of humor..

Apples Oranges wrote on Jul 17, 2008 11:57 AM:The Bottom Line, have you taken your “information” to the FTC and told them you have evidence of price fixing and restraint of trade? Go for it.

Gotta Wonder wrote on Jul 17, 2008 12:00 PM:Oil: 8% profit. Boo Hoo for the oil companies. Conservatives like to use the percentage rather than the profit dollars.
Americans are more concerned with oil profits because oil drives the economy.
Gotta wonder why they always like that percentage quote instead of profit dollars?

Ms M wrote on Jul 17, 2008 12:06 PM:Nick
[-] wrote on Jul 17, 2008 11:27 AM:...Nick you have attempted to change the subject. Obama and Clintons visit to the meeting earlier this year has blip to do with the oil mess we are in. Now the ENERGERY MEETING has EVERYTHING to do with this mess. I don't dispute the fact that outside forces influence our policy, it's more than obvoius looking at what has happened to our country in the past 7 years. The cons have belonged to these organizations for years - why now are you having such heart burn over this?

Greener Than Arnold wrote on Jul 17, 2008 12:23 PM:Gotta Wonder; Because % is the only thing that matters to an investor -- like your 401K!

The amount of money you get on that % depends upon how much you invest.

Same with a corporation, which is an entity like a "person."

Here endeth today's Second Lesson of Econ. 101 -- but we MUST get out of the 101 series! Public school graduates MUST get a grip of subject matter so we can move on to more sophisticated subjects! Honest!

OH PLEASE wrote on Jul 17, 2008 12:39 PM:sdraoul[-] wrote on Jul 17, 2008 11:48 AM:
The Iraqi War has been one big write off since its initiation. It took them nearly 8 years to reach 15 of 18 expected bench marks? When was the first date, that those bench marks were to be meant? Was it after 1000 of our men were dead or was it 3,000 or was it 4,200 KIA? Ten provinces turned over to Iraq in almost 8 years. Eight more provinces in Iraq to go. That could mean at least another 8 in Iraq while our men are being killed in Afghanistan, the real war against terror. A good source says that the Iraqis want 60 months. Don't buy it. Let's hear what the Iraqis want publicly from them and not some imagined source. We will not be losing or dumping billions of dollars when we leave. Our newly trained Iraqi Army will need that equipment. They can pay for it or accept it as a gift. I am vet and everything that we want to take with us can be done in 16 months. In fact, I have great confidence in our armed forces than sdraoul. We can move just as fast out of Iraq as we did when we invaded. Whadda ya thinkin?

question for raoul wrote on Jul 17, 2008 12:41 PM:Since your astute journalistic eye never misses a candidate's change of position, might you list the changes in position of one John McCain? And I see, too, that you note when a candidate is right a wrong, bragging about how right McCain was about the surege (by the way, raoul: in 2002 and in the early days of the invasion, Mccain stood with those who scoffed at the generals who thought a larger force would be needed; then he changed his mind, as usual). Obama, of course, was right about Afghanistan (McCain was wrong) and right about Saddam (McCain was wrong) and right about whether an Iran invasion was justified (McCain, enchanted by Ahmed Chalabi, was wrong). But don't worry, raoul: your guy is coming around to agreeing with Obama about increasing the force in Afghanistan, finally, where our actual attackers are.

Concerned One wrote on Jul 17, 2008 12:53 PM:Wow, I was going to comment on the Ron vs DD posts today, but then I noticed Chuck's time/space continuum. Dudes, where are the tin foil hats? This on the same day Nick returns (welcome back). What's next Harry awakes to ring the liberal bell? What a day! Regards, C-1.

Alf wrote on Jul 17, 2008 12:54 PM:Shore did, "Nick" at 11:45AM. You gave some dollar figures that provokes thought, especially when one gets into the hundreds of billions and into the trillions. Pharma is helped along by hospitals in a way, the price of one pill dispensed in a hospital is often the same price as 1 whole month worth when bought at a drug store.
As "Gotta wonder" at 12:00PM points out, percentage profit "don't mean doodly", it is the total bucks that count.
As a side note, whatever happened to the comment by "Chuck" has made it always be "the last word", perpetually "on Dec 31, 1969 4:00 PM.
Regards, Alf.

Fact Checker wrote on Jul 17, 2008 12:57 PM:The Washington D.C. Silly Council is trying to circumvent the SCOTUS decision on the ownership of guns – by changing as few of their onerous gun ban as possible.

Obstructionism is the main tool of liberals, everywhere. (Green= Obstruct) In this case they have taken a page from the Colonies, who perfected the art of making laws, knowing that those laws must be confirmed by the British Parliament – and that overturning the Colony Law would take a year of sailing and talking before the law could be overturned…by which time the Colonists had a newly worded law!

In this case, the Silly Council keeps the limit on semi-automatic clips, trigger locks, locked storage, etc. – and I am not certain how that comports with the decision that guns are for individual self-defense. If it isn’t quickly available, it can’t be used for self defense – but, you know liberals!

The Washington D.C. Silly Council knows it may take a decade to have the new law overturned. That is 10 times longer than the days of sailing ships!

Ain’t progress grand?

Chuck tell the whole truth wrote on Jul 17, 2008 1:04 PM:Chuck
[-] wrote on Dec 31, 1969 4:00 PM:The news is reporting that "Dozens of catfish walk through Florida neighborhood". Chuck, That's not entirely true, I saw the video, some are seen running!!:)

Above the law wrote on Jul 17, 2008 1:12 PM:From Reuters QUOTE WASHINGTON - President George W. Bush, asserting executive privilege, has rejected Congress’ request for documents on FBI interviews with Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney from a probe to find who leaked the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson.

The Bush administration said on Wednesday that turning over such records would violate the president’s rights to counsel from his staff.