Politics

Speaking of Iraq, I saw a news report the other day that said their real estate market is up like 67% this year. This is while ours is plummeting. They showed a home that had been on the market last year for $900,000 and sold last week for $1.2. No mortgages over there, all cash transactions.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE? Or is it just me being over sensitive?

There are so many problems in this country right now my head is spinning. We have a wedding to go this Saturday and we will probably spend about $100 just on gas to get there. My grocery bills are insane. Our property taxes are criminal. More and more comes out of hubby's pay check for medical and it covers less as the premiums go up. Homes around us are sitting for sale for months and months. People we know are losing their jobs. College education and book fees are enough to put you in the poor house There is a lot wrong with the picture.

I never would have thought such a huge pertion of our income would go to gas. Would you? Remember that is not something you used to think about. I think it maybe 10% of income or more. And it keeps going up.I mean I really wonder why. Is it because global demand is up. I know China uses much more than they used to.

As far as medical costs I think it sux really bad that certain people get care for free and we have to pay even with insurance. And FC is right the preminums keep going up. Why not have an even playing field here? I am not being prejudice by saying illegals get it free. My SIL is a nurse in Maimi and she tells me all the time this is so. It's not fair.

I have friends in the UK and they tell me their system is not perfect but they don't go bankrupt paying the bils.

Gas was the equivalent of 8-9 dollars per gallon in Italy last November when I was there. It has always been way higher over there for them from my understanding. I don't really know the politics of why, but I assume it is because they don't have any oil production themselves and don't have the buying powere our country does to get the gas over here. People drive tiny little toylike cars, mopeds and motorcycles, and use public transportaion and trains. And walk everywhere. You just don't see many overweight people over there.

I do remember when gas was really expensive way back in the early 80's when we had our last recession... or was that the late 70's? When there was gas rationing and gas lines in California and other major cities. I wonder if it will get to that again. Bottom line is we all need to make some major changes in our lifestyles and tighten our belts, And not get complacent when things get better again and go back to our overcomsuming ways.

It was the 70's, I believe. Late 70's. I think they did something about it on CHiPs, but don't quote me on that.

My friend went to London and she said the same thing about the price of gas. It's at least double ours.

THey had two rounds of gas lines...one in 1973 and one in 1979.
For the life of me I remember the 73 one but not the 79 one. Maybe I didn't drive much in 1979.

1979. Yes, that was it. That's the one I remember. I had no idea about the one in '73. The days of "odd and even". Good Lord that threw people into a panic, didn't it?

Here is a wonderful "Obama" montage done with one of Clay's new songs "Grace of God". It is a powerful montage and the words to Clay's song fit perfectly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdMVayabw0Y

OK, I was looking up funny George Carlin stuff when I ran across this video. I thought it belonged here rather than the make me laugh thread.

It's about why he doesn't vote. It will offend almost everyone, so please beware. It's not Republican or Democrat.

I tried to find one where the audio wasn't out of sync with the video, but I couldn't.

Why George Carlin doesn't vote

I must have some time on my hands or something. Here's a video from "The Daily Show".

Now, y'all know my love for Jared Padalecki. He's my lust boy, but if I had to pick a mate for life. Someone I'd marry tomorrow (if, you know, he didn't have that pesky wife and kids) it would be John Stewart. He's the man I was supposed to marry. If anyone knows someone who looks and sounds just like him, I'll marry him tomorrow.

ANYwho, here's a video about our lovely current Commander in Thief, GWB as THE PROCRASTINATOR!

The Procrastinator

Just so ya know: I have never found George Carlin offensive or shocking. I usually don't actually laugh at his stuff because it just basically makes sense to me, but I always liked him.

Oh, frazz, I don't find it shocking either, but I know there are others here who don't have our sensibility and may find it shocking, especially if you've never listened to him before.

I love how he just says everything the way he wants to and to hell with what people think of him.

It's funny, because I didn't think he really made me laugh either, but then I was watching some of his stuff and found myself laughing pretty hard. Especially that thing about airplane safety.

Richard Pryor in his heyday sometimes really astonished me and jolted me as well as made me both angry and tears streamingly laughingly joyous.

George I more appreciated in a gentler way. I mean, I just basically seem to agree with him.

But the 7 words?

Five of those words are part of my daily vocabulary:
Fuck, Shit, Piss, Cocksucker, Motherfucker.


Of his other two words, there is only one I really loathe. THe other one, Tits, i just dislike...it is an ugly sounding words when you could say boobs, instead.

Pussy is a lovely word.

I'm not found of "tits" either, but the one that really gets me is the "C" word. That one makes me me crazy.

One of my favorite expressions is "fuckity fuck" so it's pretty much a part of my daily vocabulary as well. Probably "shit" too. I have potty mouth definitely.

Richard Pryor. He was awesome, wasn't he?

Are there any comedy legends anymore? I mean really willing to go out on a limb like that?

The c-word was the one I referred to but did not say.

Although i wrote and intended to perform a theater piece once called "Diary of a Cunt" which was meant fervently to raise people's consciousness about why that word is so hateful in America (it seems to mean much less in the UK, for instance) and how we might go about lessening it's power to cause harm.

I built a little suit with ruffly pink stuff surrounded with a hood on my head and a ring of a lovely brown feather boa.

Nobody would let me put it on. Too radical. I could put it on now, but I don't want to, anymore.

ANyway, I found George Carlin's last in depth interview here:
http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/blog/brainstorm/200806/george-carlins-last-interview

**********

Follow up:

I am midway though reading the interview. Yep. I just tend to agree with him about so many things that I can't really have an opinion...he just sounds like me much of the time.

I believe The Vagina Monologues was made for that reason - lessening the power of those words. I guess you were just too ahead of your time.

He does sound like you. I guess that's why I took a shine to you right off.

OK, then...new surge of interest, and hopefull WE can conceive of some things that the world, America, people, politicians can do to make this financial hemmorage stop.

My best idea is to tax the shit out of everybody making over $300,000 and tax anybody making over $250,000 heavily.

Tax everybody from $100,000 to $250,00 at current rates and give everybody below $100,000 massive breaks.

The economy: How bad is it? I will tell you how bad it is - and I am one of the spoiled people who has enough money to weather this storm. This situation SUCKS.

Yesterday morning. I am getting ready for the work and my door rings. It's one of my neighbors, Sylvia. She and her family were Syrian refugees who came to America. They've been living a bit hand to mouth ever since and Sylvie is always dropping by asking if we've got a frying pan or a little bit of olive oil or an aspirin we can lend her. I remember the phrase "If you do it unto the least of these my brethren, you do it unto me" and I help her.

Well, she's in a STATE, looking very anxious, and she asks if she can borrow a hundred dollars. She begins to chatter very excitedly about how she can pay me back on Saturday and she's willing to sign a paper saying she'll pay and we can get a witness.

I had a hundred dollars in my jewelry box that I stash away for emergencies, so I got it out and gave it to her, and heavens above! I've never seen such crying and hugging and proclamations that she will pray for me.

I don't even know exactly what was wrong. I did not want to pry into her problems, but I know she's out of work and her husband, who cannot speak any English at all, is a mechanic. We'll see if she's able to pay us back or not, but she was SO upset. There is something wrong.

And get this - THE VERY SAME DAY, around one o'clock in the afternoon, a deaf guy arrives in the youth services department at my library, and guess who is on reference at the time. Me. He has a woman who does not speak , and he talks entirely through writing. He wants me to get them help - they are stranded in Fort Worth, they need to get home to Austin, and they need somebody to help them buy a ticket.

I called the Methodist Mission. They referred me to the Homeless Resource Center. I called the Homeless Resource Center. They said they would try to get somebody out there within the hour. Meanwhile, they wanted me to try the MHMR Crisis Line. I call the MHMR Crisis Line. They put me on hold. Then they hang up.

Twice.

I find out the woman can actually talk; even though she has no disability, she has been allowing her deaf male counterpart to handle everything. I find out that her husband, who is not the deaf guy, has thrown her out of their home and she is stranded. So I call the Women's Haven. They refer me to Catholic Charities.

I call Catholic Charities. They flat out say they can't help her.

I call the Homeless Resource Center. They say they can't get anybody out to help these people, but if they are still there, I can call the police and have them removed.

Here's our social safety net, folks. Well, I'm not allowed to give patrons train fare home while sitting on the reference desk, and as you might recall, my emergency stash is a bit depleted for the day already.

So after two hours of attempts to get help for these people, they left the library with... nothing.

Boy, I felt horrible about that.

How bad is the economy?

Yep. It is that bad.

Thank YOU, Abrahammy for doing such good things, and trying and finding out how difficult it is for people to get help.

It is harder than ever for the really destitute to get help because there are such increasing numbers and less and less money to support services. At AIDS project L.A> they have had to cut in half their bus pass program that gets clients to the clinics.

It is also harder and harder for people with jobs to pay for essentials.

CA's governor Schwarzeneeggr is proposing to cut state workers pay to minimum wage. You could work 80 hours a week and still not be able to rent an apartment and eat in L.A. for that rate, let alone buy gas or take the bus!

YES IT IS BAD!!! Things have to change. HAVE TO! Read this and see what you think:



http://www.pickensplan.com/

I think he has some good ideas. We have to come up with some alternative energy ideas in this country. Of course this should have been done years ago!. I am furious that over 705 of our oil comes from the middle east. I am also furious that we owe billions of dollars to China to help fund this war. We should be boycotting the Olympic Games. no wait China should noy have been awarded the games in thie first place.

I couldn't agree more about the games! I was stunned that China won the honor . I myself am boycotting and will not watch. Doubt that does any good except to make me feel better. I'll read about who wins what on-line.

YES! Energy here! We need to stop depending on the middle east!

I am not surprised Abrahammy by the fact that government agencies just passed the buck. It is what they do. I had plenty of go arounds with the VA and SS on behalf of my Dad. Bitched out the VA in person as well as on the phone.

I am surprised about Catholic Charities though. They are usually pretty good. Maybe that was just not the type of situation they involve themselves in. It does sound more like a womens shelter issue.

That was kind of you to give the $100 to your neighbor. I doubt you will get it back, maybe, but I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't. Hopefully the feeling of helping out a neighbor in trouble will be all the reimbursement you need.

Quote :

I am surprised about Catholic Charities though. They are usually pretty good. Maybe that was just not the type of situation they involve themselves in. It does sound more like a womens shelter issue.

They had already been stranded for a week when they came to me. I wonder if maybe the young man could earn the money at the Day Laborer office. Certainly NOBODY was going to just buy them a ticket. Here's the other thing. What's it like to be in a situation where there is not one person in the world who can wire you fifty bucks in an emergency?

Quote :

That was kind of you to give the $100 to your neighbor. I doubt you will get it back, maybe, but I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't.

I am not holding my breath.

I can't imagine . But then I have always had my folks if ever I was in real need. Also Rob's mom would help if we really needed anything. I have a few close friends I know I could count on, as well as a couple of cousins I am extremely close to. It must be horrible to feel so lost and alone.

May Dad used to say "Never loan out money if you couldn't afford to make it a gift because chances are you won't get it back so you might as well consider it a gift to the person".

abrahammy wrote:

What's it like to be in a situation where there is not one person in the world who can wire you fifty bucks in an emergency?

I think that situation is increasingly common.

I love the idea fo the wind energy plan.

I can't see a major downside to it.

I truely believe there are two sides to every political story and that there are pros and cons to every economic solution. i choose to look at all sides and the facts before I make any assumptions based on political rhetoric....Here is some info I came accross on the Americansolutions.com site...and yes it has a republican based following.
I still have not researched this in enough depth to make a final conclusion, but I will get all the facts eventually. This really requires an in depth background in economics and engineering to fully know where the truth lies and I have neither, but do have a fair share of common sense and critical thinking skills so hopefully I will be able to sift through the biases and get to the truth.

Quote :

Why a "Drill Here, Drill Now" Approach Will Help America Pay Less at the Pump

Is more drilling for American oil an essential part of lowering energy costs and freeing us from dependence on foreign sources of energy? The typical response of critics is a resounding “NO!” and includes several common arguments, which are not supported by the facts.

MYTH: Oil companies currently have 68 million acres of leased public lands that contain large amounts of economically recoverable oil available. Drilling in these areas could generate 4.8 million barrels a day so opening up more land is not necessary.

FACT: The estimates on the amount of oil available in those 68 million acres have been derived by assuming that the unused acres can produce the same amount as those acres being used. However, much of the land leased to oil companies has already been explored and determined not to carry enough recoverable oil to justify drilling. This is in stark contrast to the other 97% of currently banned offshore resources and areas with shale oil, where enormous quantities are known to exist.

That opponents to greater U.S. exploration believe they understand better than petroleum engineers how we obtain oil from drilling is absolutely ridiculous.

MYTH: Drilling will not provide any short-term relief in the price of oil because it will take many years before new drilling will lead to new supplies.FACT: This same argument has been used for the past several decades to prevent us from using more of our American oil, leading to our current dependence on foreign oil and the supply crunch we are currently experiencing. Does this mean critics of greater American energy exploration were wrong 10 years ago, 20 years ago, and 30 years ago but are suddenly right today now?

Drilling more now will increase supplies in the future. And higher supplies lead to lower prices. Currently, the world is operating at or near full capacity, so there is very little slack in the system, and any disruption causes spike in price. This is partly why commodities and other investors have invested so heavily in oil, driving up prices. They recognize demand will continue to increase and that current supply has artificial limits, especially in the United States.

Opening up new oil fields in the U.S., even if new supplies won’t actually reach our gas tank for several years, would immediately impact the amount of upward speculation on long-term commodity investment in oil. Oil speculators will see a greater supply ahead and will see that the future of oil is less constrained on the supply side. Moreover, fears of Middle Eastern turmoil or South American unrest that could disrupt supply shipments will be much less of a reason to drive up the price of crude if a stable U.S. can supply millions of barrels of additional oil. Which represents a more stable source of oil, Colorado or Caracas?
Finally, nobody is suggesting that our nation’s energy strategy should be solely dependent on domestic production of oil. We all recognize that alternative energy sources – such as wind and solar - need to be developed. But more American oil must be a part of an American energy solution.

MYTH: The U.S. only has a small percentage (from 2-6%) of the world’s oil supplies, and since oil is a global commodity, our increased production won’t affect prices much if at all.

FACT: This estimate of 2-6% of the world’s oil supplies does not hold up to scrutiny.

In oil shale alone, found in the Green River Formation in parts of Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming, the U.S. has approximately 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil, or over three times the proven reserves of Saudi Arabia. This comes from a midpoint estimate in a 2005 RAND study done at the request of the Department of Energy, and a higher end estimate puts the number at over one trillion barrels.

Furthermore, there are vast areas of the United States and its outer continental shelf where it is illegal to even look for oil. Exploration routinely yields additional resources far larger than initial estimates.

Resources from oil shale and additional oil resources that are likely to be discovered are not included in the estimates of American oil supplies.

MYTH: Drilling offshore will lead to ocean spillage, damaging wildlife and beaches.

FACT: In fact, virtually all of the pollution and “spillage” comes from large tankers transporting oil from other countries and natural seepages. Thus, drilling for our American oil would actually reduce the risk of oil pollution by reducing the number of international oil tankers entering our ports.

Offshore spills have occurred, but offshore drilling companies have an exceptional record of preventing spills and minimizing environmental damage, due primarily to technological innovation. Norway, which is a major exporter of oil and acquires all of it from offshore, also has an outstanding record of drilling in the sea, and there’s no reason why we would take fewer precautions than the Norwegians. Everyone promoting offshore drilling wants to do it in compliance with environmental safeguards, which in the United States are some of the most stringent in the world.

This is unlike other nations, such as China, which announced a partnership with Cuba in 2006 to start drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico. That nation’s dismal environmental record should force Congress to make a decision: Do we let another nation drill for oil near us and risk major environmental catastrophe, or do we do it ourselves with better environmental protection?

MYTH: The price of oil has increased due to “over-speculation” by energy commodities traders and outlawing or heavily regulating energy trading is the best way to dramatically reduce the price of oil.

FACT: When analyzing the effect of speculators on the price of oil it is important to distinguish between the activity of a healthy commodity futures market and “over-speculation.”

A healthy commodities futures market responds to the supply and demand realities of actual commodity suppliers and consumers. As Robert Murphy from the Institute for Energy Research explains, a healthy futures market can be a stabilizing influence on oil. By buying when prices are low and selling when prices are high, speculators actually push up the low prices and push down the high prices. America wants a healthy futures market on the price of oil.

So oil speculation does play a role in the price of oil. Single-day price spikes from supply disruption fears, for example, are often the work of speculation, but the price typically readjusts. The key question, then, is if “over-speculation” is occurring. “Over-speculation” in a futures market is when activity in the speculative markets themselves cause an artificial, higher demand for a commodity that does not reflect the demand of actual consumers. This causes an artificial, real-world price increase.

So have oil speculators distorted the global demand for oil, leading to the sharp price rise?

The data suggest not. If the price of oil truly was above the natural level dictated by supply and demand, we would see an increase in global inventory of oil. This is because when prices rise, production increases and consumer demand falls. If the speculative markets were adding extra demand to the market, all that oil purchased would have to be stockpiled somewhere. However, there is no evidence of any such hoarding, meaning that commercial consumers are purchasing every barrel produced. By definition, that means that the price is in line with real-world supply and demand. Despite the rise in prices, consumers continue to buy, meaning supply and demand fundamentals are in line. This means the speculative markets are functioning as they should and are not having a distorting effect on the price of oil.

Furthermore, long-term bets that the price of oil will rise rather than fall on the New York Mercantile Exchange have dropped over four fold since the price of a barrel went above $100. Traders are now shorting oil almost as much as they are betting on its price increase in the long term. Again, this data suggests that the speculative markets are functioning as they should.

So if the energy futures markets are operating as they should, passing new laws outlawing or more heavily regulating these markets will do nothing to lower the price of oil in the intermediate or long term. In fact, it would likely have two effects that could actually drive up the price of oil.

First, new regulations would reduce the stabilizing impact futures markets play on the price of oil described above. Second, they would likely drive energy futures markets outside of the United States, where they would be even less regulated than before. The loss of this financial activity would hurt America’s already sluggish economy, weakening the dollar even more. Considering that the decline of the value of the dollar has been estimated to account for as much as 30% of the recent surge in oil prices, the long run effect of would be to raise the price of oil even more.

So if you want the price of oil to be more volatile and ensure that Dubai and Singapore become the future centers of commodities trading, passing new laws heavily regulating the energy futures trading is a great idea. However, it will not lower gas prices.

MYTH: Drilling for unconventional sources, such as tar sands or shale oil, is too costly and creates a large carbon footprint, among other environmental problems.

FACT: The aforementioned RAND study demonstrated that if the price of a barrel of oil was as “high” as $90, current technology would make oil shale competitive in the market. With a barrel of oil approaching $140, the notion that extracting oil from shale is too expensive is simply untrue.

The environmental footprint argument would make more sense were it not for recent innovations by companies like Shell Oil, which has developed an in-situ method for extracting shale oil that would use relatively little water and does not involve making creators on wide portions of land. Instead, heating rods are stuck into the earth that heat the shale and then oil falls into a pool below to be collected. It should also be noted that early research suggests this method could be competitive even if oil was as cheap as $25 per barrel.

However, opponents of oil drilling are blocking further attempts to innovate through an amendment to an omnibus spending bill from December that prevents any further leasing on public lands with oil shale.

It is telling that opponents to greater U.S. exploration would choose to block shale oil development through a rider to a several hundred page spending bill instead of through separate legislation that could be debated purely on the merits of the specific proposal.

FAQ | Privacy Policy | Contact Us | Copyright 2008 American Solutions, All Rights Reserved Paid for by American Solutions for Winning the Future. Not authorized by any candidate, or candidate committee

See, I would place more stock in this if it was an independent study as opposed to trying to achieve an agenda.

While I realize there aren't many "objective" views out there, I find that you can argue back and forth on each side in this same vein. If it's from a political party, there's a political agenda. That's just a given.