Now
Fair
14°
High
27°
Low
10°
Full Forecast

Jobs

Cars

Homes

Rentals

Alerts

Subscribe
Home > Opinion > Letters
Bookmark Us   •   Make Us Your Homepage

Letters, 7/11: Consider all the options

Comments 46 comment(s)  
E-mail Story E-mail Story
Print Story Print Story
Share  Share
Text Size: 
Tools Sponsor

Friday, Jul 11, 2008 - 12:19:24 am CDT

Both sides of the partisan divide need to wake up and recognize what is best for our country and not the party. I am a Democrat who is becoming more conservative as I get older, but I won’t vote Republican yet.

We need to look again at nuclear power and offshore drilling. Before we open any more offshore drilling, we must demand to know why the oil companies are not drilling on the 68 million acres of leases they already own on federal lands. The portion that would be open to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is only about three square miles in footprint, but we should monitor drilling closely, because I don’t trust the energy companies.

Nuclear has made many advances in the past 30 years, and the only place it shouldn’t be used is the West Coast because of earthquakes. Again, we monitor them closely, because I don’t trust these people one bit.

We need to move beyond NIMBY and make a lot of hard choices. Yes, we have to do wind, solar and all the others. Coal-to-gas needs to be explained better, because right now it doesn’t sound like a good thing to me from an environmental impact point of view.

Jeff Stone, Lincoln

Clean up trash in town

The call for a cleanup of the trash on our streets and in the parks needs more emphasis, more drive, more energy. Someone needs to head it up and keep it before the public.

I have been picking up trash about four days a week on the bike trail and especially out of the lakes and waterway between Pine Lake Road and Old Cheney Road. I take out two to three grocery bags full each time.

Our waterways are floating with plastic bags, chip bags, snack wrappers, cans, beer bottles and plastic water bottles, to mention a few of the items. Our lake shores have this debris floating around the edges. Even now there is an area in the Pacific Ocean the size of Texas that is solid with floating plastic stuff.

We are drowning our community and the planet in our wastefulness. Folks must be more careful to secure their trash in proper bins, and for heaven’s sake recycle everything possible. In the complex where I live, the dumpster bins are full of furniture, beer cans and so much that can be reused or recycled.

A decade ago we fought for recycling, realizing that our planet is not our trash can. I hope we keep that awareness alive and keep our environment alive and clean!

The Rev. Carole M. Lunde, Lincoln

Tax cut = more revenue

I read the following in the Saturday Journal Star: “Despite historic tax rate cuts passed in 2007, the cash reserve will be $574 million this summer as the state begins a new fiscal year, more than double the 2006 level.”

This is just another example of the economic ignorance of today’s society. And it is so nice to see this ignorance perpetuated by journalists.

Why is it such a surprise that a cut in tax rates would lead to an increase in revenue? Since the early 1970s this economic principle has been popularized as the Laffer Curve. It is also a principle that has been noted for centuries across many cultures.

Kevin Van Cott, Lincoln


$1 Sunday Delivery - Subscribe Today!
Letters > Back to Top of Story

Post Your Comment

Standards and Rules
All posts to JournalStar.com are subject to our Terms and Standards.
Your posted comment will appear after it has been approved.
Frequently asked questions about story commenting.
(optional)
   
Hide Comments Hide Comments   Newest First Newest First  
CW wrote on July 11, 2008 12:57 am:
" Great group of letters today. The first two are simple, reasonable calls to action that put some great problems of our day into perspective--the first is spot on in that it calls for a broad but yet feasible plan of action. However the oil companies will continue to drag their feet because they've invested too much in EVERY Washington politician. I like the thoughts however.

The second letter is pretty straight forward. I can't understand why someone would be so lazy as to throw their trash into anywhere but a trash can. It's positively ugly to see all that garbage where it shouldn't be. Certainly it's not too much to ask for everyone to dispose of trash properly. "

 HC wrote on July 11, 2008 6:32 am:
" Thank you Kevin! I made that very comment on journalstar.com. "

 Bill In Lincoln wrote on July 11, 2008 6:38 am:
" ...right on Jeff Stone. Why don't we just vote for the best person and get rid of Independants, Green Party, Republican, and Democrats? Use your name and your track history for a platform and quit the never ending squabbling and nothing getting done!!! Right now when our Country is seemingly in a big rut plus a lot of apathy going around, we don't focus on what can be fixed, but burn energy pointing fingers. Come on people...isn't this obvious? I hope Obama is the needed movement this Country is in need of. It doesn't have to be Obama....but just a big movement to turn this Country around. Any comments.? "

 roxy wrote on July 11, 2008 6:51 am:
" It's amazing how ignorant some people are about economics. Tax cuts promote investment and growth. So, when big bad Bush cut taxes "only for the wealthy," the little guy was a main beneficiary. The big guys create jobs for the little guys. In order for our economy to grow, someone has to get rich. "

 dhdnpl wrote on July 11, 2008 7:00 am:
" They aren't drilling on those leases because there isn't enough oil there to justify it.

But hey, it's big oil, they must be lying just to screw us. "

 dont forget wrote on July 11, 2008 7:11 am:
" Cigarette butts are litter too! "

 Environmental quality will improve wrote on July 11, 2008 7:20 am:
" I've seen on the history channel the huge islands of garbage in the pacific ocean (caused by being surrounded by ocean currents and collecting in the middle). It is quite a site to see and really just makes me sick at the abuse this planet has taken the past 50 years with various foams and plastics for packaging. One good thing is that the technology is now there where much of this packaging will be created with soybean oil and is biodegradable after a few months in water/soil. Kinda like how much of the foam of your car seats in hybrid vehicles are made now with soybeans as well as the packaging "peanuts". "

 Environmental quality will improve wrote on July 11, 2008 7:28 am:
" There has been test wells run in the atlantic/pacific. One main reason there hasn't been a big push is much of the oil is considered "bad oil" due to having a high content of sulfur. If pumped it will need to be refined and you will have an expansive amount of sulfur dioxide as a biproduct, and I'm pretty sure anyone with a 3rd grade education knows that sulfur in the air is about the worst thing possible. The technology is there but it is very very expensive. Don't continue to listen to the media about "offshore drilling". They just keep throwing words at you and you continue to eat them up without doing your own research. Alaska does have the prime oil like Saudi Arabia, etc. But there is just not enough of it to make a difference other than a few more pennies in your pocket. So we might as well just put our money to our expansive technological advantage in this world and go for a renewable fuel infrastructure in Hydrogen stations. Cause in reality, hydrogen cars are ready to go. It's just that we don't have the hydrogen stations available like gas stations and they are trying to figure out how to distribute them. "

 Zoomie wrote on July 11, 2008 7:35 am:
" Before we start drilling offshore in currently prohibited areas (which account, FYI, for only 1/3rd of the known oil reserves, meaning 2/3rds of the known oil reserves can ALREADY be drilled but aren't being drilled), perhaps we should make clear what every economist has said, and even the oil industry admits - it will takes YEARS to actually get any of this oil (indeed, at least 10 for ANWR), AND it will AT BEST only lower the price of gas at the pump a few cents. No economist or oil industry expert, anywhere, is saying we will ever see $1 or even $2 per gallon gas again. Not unless someone discovers a new energy source that does away with our need for oil entirely! In fact, most are predicting a slow but steady rise to over $5 per gallon over the next 5 or so years, as we compete more and more with the expanding industrial economies of India and China for that oil, which will always go to the nation willing to pay the most. And this doesn't even look at the effect John McCain's wish to bomb Iran would have on oil (hint: it'll go up several dollars per gallon at the pump within weeks)! People need to understand: the US uses 25% of all the oil used every day in the world, but ALL the known or suspected oil reserves in the US total only 3% of the world's reserves! We will ALWAYS be dependent on the price of oil from foreign nations, until we're no longer dependent on oil. "

 Zoomie wrote on July 11, 2008 7:48 am:
" Mr Van Cott repeats a mantra of basic GOP religion: all tax cuts result in more revenue than a tax increase! Of course, even Laffer says that's hogwash (he himself pointed out his famous curve only works when you reduce prohibitively high tax rates -- ie. 70-80% -- down to more reasonable levels -- ie. 20-30%. THEN you see revenue increases with a cut). However, when you have low rates (ie. high 20% - low 30%) and you only reduce rates 5-10%, there will be NO increase, only a decrease. And that is exactly what has always happened! Every instance conservatives point to as "proof" of their claim always has secondary actions which explain the result (ie. after Bush's 2001 tax cuts corporate revenue did increase...for TWO years only! Why? Because there was a tax law change allowing them to avoid billions in corporate taxes from several sources but only if taken advantage of in 2001/2002...thousands of companies did exactly that, generating a short-term gain in revenue, which has since vanished). And its pure fact, per the US Treasury and Census Bureau, that roughly 60% of the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 went to less than 20% of taxpayers (the richest...DUH!). Indeed, a recent chart by the non-partisan CBPP shows the ONLY piece of "economic expansion" in the last 7yrs has been corporate profits (while GDP, investment, wages, and employment have all declined), and another chart demonstrated that over the last 6yrs the only quintile of American population to see an real-dollar increase in wages/benefits was the top 20% (the richest...DUH!). Every other group - over 80% of Americans - have either been treading water for 6yrs, or losing ground! So if corporations are generating more revenue via increased profits, they are NOT passing on down (remember the other GOP mantra? trickle-down theory, which George HW Bush once called "voodoo economics?)... "

 JohnH wrote on July 11, 2008 7:53 am:
" Per several articles I've read, the only reason parts of the US were ever put under a drilling ban was two-fold: first, several massive and dramatic oil spills in the '60s/'70s, which fouled California beaches for years (and dispite GOP claims to the contrary, Hurricane Katrina DID cause a massive oil spill in the Gulf, so large it could be seen from Space, and over 100 oil rigs were destroyed). But secondly, and more importantly, because drilling in many of the protected areas simply isn't profitable to oil companies unless oil exceeds $130-140 per barrel, which was considered impossible in the '60s/'70s. Suddenly, oil is at $130-140 per barrel, and gee, the oil companies are screaming for permission to drill in protected areas! Even though it will do nothing to bring down the price at the pump (which even the oil companies admit when asked), and even though two-thirds of all known oil under the US is already available for them to drill! "

 ummm roxy... wrote on July 11, 2008 8:15 am:
" Roxy, i think you listen to too much rushoreillyhanity for your (mis)information. Tax cuts for the rich are in theory supposed to trickle down to the masses. Note the key word, in theory. The reality is the rich do invest the money, in themselves. Businesses already budget for R&D, giving a mega wealthy person a tax break isn't going to make the money go back to the business, it makes it go back to their pocket and an offshore account.

To stimulate the economy is simple, increase the capital gains tax on the richest 1%, lower taxes on middle and lower class citizens. If the middle class who are supposed to be the backbone of the economy have more money they will buy more stuff, increasing demand, which means that production will increase, to handle the upswing in production more people will have to be employed. Also, the middle class can try to get a piece of the pie and invest the money. "

 Mark wrote on July 11, 2008 8:59 am:
" Hey Bill in Lincoln, Obama IS NOT the choice for a needed change movement in this country. His campaign slogan of "Change we can believe in" is just that. He changes his mind and flip flops on more issues than Bill Clinton ever dreamed of. If we want change, then we need people of substance, leadership, and character, all traits Obama has clearly demonstrated he clearly lacks. "

 But Roxy.... wrote on July 11, 2008 9:00 am:
" We must have a progressive tax system in order to survive in this country. A flat tax would rot the economy faster than another Bush term. Tax breaks for the poor and middle class are generally spent in short order and infused right back into the economy helping it grow. How many highly paid people sitting in cubicles are responsible for even one job. If your talking about tax breaks for job creation, fine, then let's cut taxes on business. Individuals that in no way create jobs, making huge dollars can afford to help out. It's only patriotic. As for the "Big, Bad, Bush" comment, no one says that. Thats a little defensive isn't it? Bush is not a bad guy (except for his sleazy ethics), But really, what people are upset with is his horrendous job performance. "

 MarkyMark wrote on July 11, 2008 9:23 am:
" Roxy. The CEOs that make hundreds of millions per year do not create a single job out of their personal salary or taxes. "

 MCA wrote on July 11, 2008 9:25 am:
" Tax cuts increasing revenue is a myth, and the Laffer curve is an absolute joke. Its just the art of timing and manipulation that conservatives use to justify their policies. There is no causation. Just as Reagan can't claim his tax cuts lead to a strong economy and increased revenues, Clinton can't claim his tax increases led to a strong economy and increase revenues. Tax policy is but a very very small piece of the puzzle that leads to increased revenues. And you cannot use this faulty logic. We lowered taxes. Revenues increased. Therefore, lower taxes will increase revenues. It's a myth. "

 So Roxy wrote on July 11, 2008 9:53 am:
" So Roxy can you give any examples of little guys who have benefited? In the last seven years? Seems take home pay is smaller as costs have outpaced wages and unemployment is at record levels. Our president is the first in the history of the USA to have fewer jobs than when he took office. Mostly little guy jobs you know. "

 The other day... wrote on July 11, 2008 9:56 am:
" I saw someone stop at a red light and simply drop a McDonalds bag out their window. What is wrong with people? Is your life so terrible where you depend on others to pick up after you? As far as I am concerned there is NO reason to litter. It boggles my mind how people can be ok with just throwing something out the window. Karma will win in the end. "

 Hey Zoomie wrote on July 11, 2008 9:58 am:
" If you want to pay more taxes, then write the government a check and don't file a tax return every year. I and many others are thankful you're not an elected official. "

 Big Oil wrote on July 11, 2008 10:16 am:
" Oil is at record prices so Big Oil is pumping like there is no tommorrow. Now if you think they are going to do new drilling and exploration to bring down the price of their product, you just plain havent been paying attention. "

 Sorry Mark wrote on July 11, 2008 11:14 am:
" The odds of change under Obama are much greater than under a McCain presidency. Is there any doubt? "

 LC wrote on July 11, 2008 11:31 am:
" As someone who has spent many Saturday mornings picking up trash on Hwy 2 east of Lincoln, I get quite angry when seeing a driver tossing something out of their car. This includes cigarette butts which are a burn hazard as well as litter. Just because they are small does not mean they aren't really trash. For every can, paper cup or fast food wrapper I have picked up out there, there have been 100 butts. I know there are considerate smokers out there, but from where I stand, the vast majority think that the shoulder of the road is a perfectly acceptable ashtray. I have begun writing down license plate numbers. "

 So Roxy wrote on July 11, 2008 11:46 am:
" So Roxy, do you have any examples of little guys being helped? Over the last seven years? Me neither. Costs exceed salary increases, we are in a recession (no longer debatable), record uninsured, and record umemployed. Our president is the first in USA history to have fewer jobs than when he took office. History has recorded that. And to Mark, McCain has flipped-flopped plenty already, as has our current president. Character? "

 Chris wrote on July 11, 2008 11:52 am:
" I applaud Jeff Stone's letter and I hope he can prevail upon fellow Democrats to change their tone on energy policy reform. Sadly though the Democratic leadership in Congress appears to touting the same Luddite mantra they have been touting for over 30 years. President Bush is too tide up with the status quo in terms of energy policy. If we are really fed up with high energy prices, we need to look at diversifying our energy acquisitions through nuclear power supplemented with wind and solar power. And we may need to give most of the politicians in Washington their walking papers to do this. "

 Mark wrote on July 11, 2008 12:22 pm:
" Roxy is right on. If the rich are not spending and investing here, gone are the jobs. Look what happened in the early 90's when Clinton decided to tax the rich. They stopped buying expensive stuff and put thousands, and thousands, and thousands of Americans out of work. If the top 5% of earners pay 95% of our current tax, then why would anyone in their right mind want to tax them further? What's the incentive for the rich to invest in anything American, if all the government is going to do is take more away from them. Trickle down economics does work, despite what all the nay sayers say. American history has shown this to be true over and over when it's used to stimulate the economy. It's no different now than before. "

 peb wrote on July 11, 2008 12:45 pm:
" We've just had 7 years of tax cuts. How's that working out for most of us? Not so good from everything I hear and read . . . "

 stignob wrote on July 11, 2008 12:47 pm:
" Same class envy from the left but different day. Just don't forget who really pays the majority of the taxes. I wonder what will happen to the middle classes taxes once Boooosh's tax cut end... "

 More wrong wrote on July 11, 2008 1:46 pm:
" Mark couldn't be more wrong. The rich kept buying big boats and the spending and taxing continued until the national debt was nearly paid off. The national debt is now 9 trillion. Repeat after me - tax cuts for the rich (trickle down) does not work. "

 ummm Mark.. wrote on July 11, 2008 2:03 pm:
" Look at the 90's? Clinton taxed the rich! Oh noes!!! And we were out of the red! Oh noes!! We were shrinking the deficit!! Oh Noes!!! Good ol' boy bush takes office and puts in record debt in a year. So your comparison fails. Please turn off the radio, do not get your (mis)information from rushoreillyhanity. "

 CC wrote on July 11, 2008 2:05 pm:
" If you have ever lived where state income taxes are half Nebraska's,
property taxes are 2 to 6 times less than Nebraska, auto taxes are half
& more less than Nebraska, you would find growth that never ends, jobs
for educated & lessor educated, all roads paved (non of this gravel & dirt
stuff) and taxation was equal among all, rich & poor. These are the ingredients that CONSTANTLY bring in big corporations & business & industry, and the rich building business instead of taxing the citizens,
like the poor and retireds, enabling the young to buy homes and build
for retirement. You can debate all your theories you want, but until you
have lived a good part of your life with lower taxes and an overall attitude of caring and wanting ALL citizens to live a life of prosperity
and not a Greedy attitude of your government going after every dime you
have, piling up the millions so they can pat themselves on the back not
caring whether a certain sector or group survive or not, then in this
state I will reject your flimsey opinions. You might notice how high
taxes are really growing the state of Nebraska, which outsiders and business avoid. "

 Prices Increase Too wrote on July 11, 2008 2:09 pm:
" If you tax corporations more, not only do the cut jobs, but YOU end up paying for their tax increase. You think the prices we pay won't adjust with the increase in taxes? "

 Zoomie wrote on July 11, 2008 2:12 pm:
" Stig, its not class envy, its class warfare. And per numerous millionaires and billionaires, its been going on for years (and they are winning)! Mark, if you're worried about flip-flops, you need to do some research. First, Obama has flip-flopped on few issues (ie. the press claim he flip-flopped on a timetable for withdrawal was pure GOP press releases, dutifully steno'ed by the press; in fact, Obama said back in Oct'07 we would withdraw over a 16 month period). And there are several websites documenting the now over 40 major issues that John McCain has flip-flopped (and even flip-flop-flipped) over, including immigration, Bush tax cuts, Roe v Wade...the list goes on and on! Meanwhile, he says he doesn't understand economics, then denies it (even though its on YouTube); he says Phil Gramm is his economic Guru (the man many who responsible for our current housing/banking catastrophe), until Gramm claims the American people are all delusional (per Phil, the economy is really doing wonderful!), and now he's putting distance between Gramm FAST! Oh, and how about claiming that SocialSecurity is "a disgrace"? He said - 3 times in 2 days - the program is a disgrace (now he claims he meant how today's workers are paying for today's retirees...even though thats how its ALWAYS worked, was intended to work! Where has he been for 70 years?!?!)... "

 Stignob loves Obama wrote on July 11, 2008 2:27 pm:
" The poor & middle class will get a further tax cut while the rich will lose some of theirs. The patriotic rich won't whine about it either. "

 So Mark.... wrote on July 11, 2008 2:32 pm:
" You can't blame Slick Willie all you want but remember, he inherited a recession. His luxury tax idea was not a good one but His economic stimulus plan cut taxes on the middle class and raised them on the rich (up to 39%). If I recall, our enormous debt slowly shrank until there were actual budget surplusses the last two years of the Slickster's term. Wouldn't it be a shame to go back to that? I's SICK of this. We are the generation not being responsible for our debt. Our kids and grandkids are going to inherit a Blighted country unless we get back to Paygo. "

 MarkyMark wrote on July 11, 2008 2:34 pm:
" If trickle down economics actually works, why don't we stop taxing the rich altogether? All I've seen along with the spin is "Tinkle Down" economics. The Republican party has abandoned real Conservatives, yet you continue to stick up for them on a mythological ideology? Wake up. "

 hows this wrote on July 11, 2008 2:51 pm:
" Hey Jeff... did you know the oil that we drill in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, U.S.A. is piped all the way to LA and loaded on tankers and sold to Japan? What good will it do to drill more holes? Even though it is OUR oil we won't be fueling OUR cars with the gas that is made from it.

Hannity might as well say it like it is...."Drill here, Drill now, sell it on the world market and PAY MORE at the pump!"

I LOATHE those who follow him and his ilk like sheep.

We do have a lot of hard choices to make but you can BET that the Greedy Old Party will be following the path of least resistance to the MONEY.

It will be an EXTREMELY hard choice to make a mark next to a Republican candidate for ANYTHING after this fiasco of the past eight years!

I regret some of my votes in the last four national elections and officially switched to independant. "

 Tax statistics wrote on July 11, 2008 3:04 pm:
" In 2005, the top 1% of wage earners received 22% of the total adjusted gross income reported to the IRS, and paid 38% of the total income tax collected by the IRS at an average rate of 21%. That is not a grossly disparate ratio of taxes paid to income earned, and 21% is hardly a confiscatory tax rate that would discourage anyone from putting in extra effort to earn additional income.

For those who believe that tax cuts actually increase federal tax revenues (a Bush myth now being parroted by McCain), you may find it interesting that the Congressional Budget Office, the Treasury Department, the Joint Committee on Taxation and the White House’s own Council of Economic Advisers all disagree with that theory. They say that although tax cuts may spur economic growth, they lead to revenues that are lower than they would have been if the tax cuts had not been enacted. Gregory Mankiw, former chair of Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, calculated that the growth spurred by capital gains tax cuts pays for about half of lost revenue over a number of years and that payroll tax cuts generate enough growth to pay for about 17 percent of what is lost.

And for those who still believe in Reagan's supply-side, trickle down theory (a concept that the first president Bush called "voodoo economics"), please take note that both the Reagan\Bush and Bush II tax cuts were "financed" by huge increases in the national debt. "

 Please Explain wrote on July 11, 2008 3:27 pm:
" Maybe Mr Van Coot can explain how the tax cuts grew the economy under the Bush administration. While there was at least 5 years of growth, the middle and lower classes did not share in that growth. The wealthiest Americans benefitted while middle class incomes actually fell in relationship. I really love the theory of the wealthy investing in growth and all us little guys benefitting. Unfortunately, the numbers don't seem to be crunching that way. The comparison of the person who is saved in a crash because he was thrown free due to not wearing a restraint comes to mind. It can happen, but statistically, it is very, very unlikely. So, go ahead and believe what is good for the rich will benefit the rest. I am favoring an existance that lives in reality myself "

 Ripper wrote on July 11, 2008 4:28 pm:
" "Every instance that conservatives point to about tax cuts has other underlying cause and effect or secondary reasons"...yet once again we get the leftist view of tax cuts fraught with the use of statistics and no proof of same. Again the misuse of tax payers as a measure. Everyone who earns wages is a taxpayer under federal definitions. Yet a high percentage of those classified as tax payers paid little or no tax other wise how could the IRS (2007 OmBuds Review) state that the top 20% of tax payers pay 80% of the taxes paid in 2007. In addition, look at the information driven by the Democratic Causus in Washington (dated 2006) that notes the need to be careful when using the 'generic' tax cuts for the middle and lower income folks since it is sybolic in nature only. According to the above listed IRS report this must correspond since the top 20% pay 80% of all tax. That would mean that if the other 80% got a tax cut it wouldn't amount to any real value since that 80% only pays conversely 20% of the total taxable amount. And according to Zoomie and his definition of the Laffer curve would only serve to decrease investment and return since the average taxable rate paid by the 80% according to the average of the statistics would be someplace less than 5% adjusted. The Dem's themselves highlighted this in 2006 platform and causus discussions when laying out strategy for 2008 election. That is why I am an independent. Statistics seldom mislead by statisticians almost always do. "

 Zoomie wrote on July 11, 2008 5:42 pm:
" Gee, I just checked and per official US records, following the Clinton tax INCREASE on the rich and corporations, the economy grew for the next 6 years at higher rates than we've had since Bush arrived, and 22 MILLION jobs were created under Clinton. Since the Bush tax cuts, wage growth has been flat for 80% of the nation, job growth MIGHT (maybe) hit 5 million new jobs over 8yrs (failing to keep up with population growth), and displayed the slowest and lowest post-recession growth period in US history. So, sorry, conservatives but your claims are belied by the facts! Tax cuts to the rich do NOT improve the economy; tax increases on the rich do NOT mean the economy will do poorly.
Oh, and whoever it was who claimed Obama isn't putting anything into new and better energy for the future...I suggest you drop FauxNews, and go to Annenberg's Factcheck.org at http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/a_false_accusation_about_energy.html, where they detail the RNC ad making this claim is totally false! "

 Print Mo Money wrote on July 11, 2008 7:37 pm:
" What I'd like to see is one "news" outlet follow the the rise in oil prices since the bail-out of Bear Stearns and the non-stop printing of money by the Federal Reserve.I have yet to see where an OPEC country has cut production or announced the loss on an oil reserve anywhere.In fact Brazil has discovered two reserves of over 33 BILLION barrels.Tar sands in Canada hold enough oil to meet the entire WORLDS oil needs for the next 80 years...in short there is no oil shortage.What people fail to realize is that there is more U.S. currencey in circulation outside the United States than within it so when the "Fed" decides to "bail out" investment banks no oil producing country is going to continue selling the U.S. oil at the same amount of dollars when they have just devalued the currency.
What flustrates me is that a majority of people seem to grasp the concept that the less of a product there is the more value it has however when is comes to your dollar this lesson seems to be lost.
If and or when the Federals bail-out Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae just watch the value of your dollar sink and the price of everything skyrocket including oil. Quite voting for politicians that want to bail-out boworrowers to stupid to know the difference between a "fixed rate" and "variable-rate" loan and if you do then don't whine about the price of anything when the value falls further!
Please name me one oil company that can print money! and why would you not trust oil companies when they can't print money???The one to distrust are the one who CAN print money! WAKE UP! "

 Get your facts and history straight people wrote on July 11, 2008 10:01 pm:
" The reason Clinton was able to balance the budget during some of his term is because he cut funding and gutted the military, and a few other departments. That is well documented. To say he balanced the budget by raising taxes could not be further from the truth.
History has shown Presidents terms as far as the economy is concerned are the result of what the prior administration did. Clinton loved to take credit for an economy that was spurred by President Reagan and President Bush.
If anything, President Bush took over an economy that was slugging along in 2000. The dot com's had busted, people were loosing money all over the place, unemployment was near an all time high ( under Clintons leadership at the end of his term) then an unprecedented incident happened that changed the world.
Balancing a budget in war time is almost impossible. To hold President Bush to a different standard than President Clinton is not right, especially after what has transpired in the world the last 7 years. "

 bob wrote on July 11, 2008 10:41 pm:
" The person who employs people may get rich or may go down the drain, The problem is that if an employer makes a lot of money they aer not willing to share it with the employees that made the employer Rich! Greed and more greed. "

 Revisionist history wrote on July 12, 2008 12:06 am:
" "Get your facts and history straight" should take his own advice. The decline in military strength began under the direction of Dick Cheney when he was Secretary of Defense for GHW Bush. The total military force dropped 20%, and the army dropped 26%, during his four year stint. It was the first Bush administration, and specifically Dick Cheney, that began bragging openly of the peace dividend. According to Michael O'Hanlon at the Brookings Institution, the conventional Republican wisdom that Bill Clinton presided over a disastrous downsizing of the U.S. military is wrong. In fact, Clinton's Pentagon maintained high levels of readiness and enacted a bold military modernization program.

The unemployment rate in 1992 was 7.5% and it decreased to 4.0% in 2000 (not exactly an all time high). It went up to 6.0% in 2003 and is currently 5.2%.

The current deficits and corresponding massive increase in the national debt are a direct result of the Bush tax cuts and the wars he started in Afghanistan and Iraq. This is the only administration that ever cut taxes to finance a war. "

 Tod wrote on July 13, 2008 10:46 am:
" And to think I made it through school under the impression the US economy had alot of inertia and changes to how it operates take time to show effects. Reagan's changes didn't cause an effect until just before the beginning of Clinton's term. Clinton put an immediate stop/slowdown to it by raising taxes. The effect of that was beginning to be realized the last year or so of his term. Bush made a weak attempt at righting the wrong, but got hit by 9/11 and other changes in the global economy. If you people can really claim that just saying something immediately makes lasting changes to the economy, you didn't pay attention in school. Read a book. "

 Susie wrote on July 14, 2008 4:13 pm:
" Carole - I do the same in my neighborhood. I fume as I watch my neighbors watch me pick up trash floating down the street in front of their property. When did we become so lazy and inconsiderate of our environment?

And AMEN - cigarette butts ARE litter!

Come on people! "

Ads by Yahoo!