Who's Responsible for Gas Prices?

[Jerseyman4]

Here in CT and I know NJ the state has great incentives for putting up solar panels on your house, you make your money back in a few years and then start making money on your investment. I don't see too many of these houses, but there are a few out there.

Thats true about NJ. If you produce more power than you use and are connected to the GRID system, the power company will send you a check to buy the solar power you produced. It can be as little as a few bucks but its better than nothing.

[PghUSA]

^^ that is the discussion we need to have as Americans, anybody catch that 60 days episode on FX where they go "off the grid", the first 15 minutes they explain how America produces some paltry amount of the base power (if you consider that power plants need oil and other fuels or energy to produce much of the electricity) yet we consume an ungodly share of the world's available power. This is not sustainable, it would be like maxing out all your credit cards next week and thinking you're on your way to financial independence.

There are people that through hydrolisis (sp) or wind power even get checks from the power company as well. With the world population approaching 7 billion and unlike a generation ago with all Chinese and Indians rode bikes instead of buying something like 4 billion+ gas guzzlers we could get away with consuming vast quantities of power with no regard to where it was coming from, the future will dictate that you make what you consume, the future is now.

[damus]

^^ that is the discussion we need to have as Americans, anybody catch that 60 days episode on FX where they go "off the grid"

Heh ... i was having a discussion with a college buddy when met up this weekend and we got into a discussion about how hypocritical those Cape Cod "liberals" are for blocking a wind farm that'll power the entire cape with a little left over to sell ... and I brought up the tax incentives for solar around here. He said his father was putting them in on his new house to get off the grid, citing terrorism concerns as a deciding factor (even though you make your money back, it really isn't the best investment you can make with your money in terms of return on your investment). I tell ya what ... those fake liberals out there piss me off... there isn't a single party that's any good nowadays that Bush has alligned the mainstream republicans with the christian right and abandoned any libertarian principles...

[PghUSA]

No party is going to take us to energy independence, think about the implications our whole economic system is based on us paying and paying and paying to be dependent on electric companies, oil companies, road taxes at the pump, etc. etc. and although the economy will adjust if most go off the grid, the politicans have tied their political fortunes to that dependency. Both parties have blood on their hands here.

[damus]

No party is going to take us to energy independence, think about the implications our whole economic system is based on us paying and paying and paying to be dependent on electric companies, oil companies, road taxes at the pump, etc. etc. and although the economy will adjust if most go off the grid, the politicans have tied their political fortunes to that dependency. Both parties have blood on their hands here.

agreed

[Snowguy716]

Heh ... i was having a discussion with a college buddy when met up this weekend and we got into a discussion about how hypocritical those Cape Cod "liberals" are for blocking a wind farm that'll power the entire cape with a little left over to sell ... and I brought up the tax incentives for solar around here. He said his father was putting them in on his new house to get off the grid, citing terrorism concerns as a deciding factor (even though you make your money back, it really isn't the best investment you can make with your money in terms of return on your investment). I tell ya what ... those fake liberals out there piss me off... there isn't a single party that's any good nowadays that Bush has alligned the mainstream republicans with the christian right and abandoned any libertarian principles...

Both parties in Minnesota support expanding renewable energy. Both sides mention the environmental impact that it has and the economic benefits in the long run. To be quite honest, the windmills don't look that bad on the western Minnesota prarie.

Everybody here supports expanding mass transit except those furthest right. The most vocalized opponent to public transit in Minnesota is Rep. Phil Krinkie.. and now he's likely to lose his seat this fall. There were two local elections this winter and the democrats won with very wide margins in the conservative district... and ironically, funding has been allocated for a commuter rail to run right through the middle of his district.

So, I think it just depends on the person. Out here in the flyover zone, people see the potential of bio fuels and tapping the winds that blow off the plains, in Massachusetts, people don't want to look at a wind farm.. they'd rather pollute someone else's air so they can have a nicer view. Sounds great, doesn' it?

[damus]

I'm sure you guys would like to get some underground transport system.... who wants to wait for a train in 20 below weather?

[PghUSA]

Could you imagine what transit could do with Exxon's annual profit? How many lines and underground stations would exist, how much more expansion would take place?

The American people would rather do business with big oil then with their local transit authority. Sad sad sad.

The point of all of this keeps on coming back to you and me and where and with who we choose to spend our hard earned dollars with. If the American people decided tommorrow to bring OPEC and big oil to their knees, it would happen. We have the power, we're just too lazy or stupid to use it.

[damus]

Could you imagine what transit could do with Exxon's annual profit? How many lines and underground stations would exist, how much more expansion would take place?

The American people would rather do business with big oil then with their local transit authority. Sad sad sad.

The point of all of this keeps on coming back to you and me and where and with who we choose to spend our hard earned dollars with. If the American people decided tommorrow to bring OPEC and big oil to their knees, it would happen. We have the power, we're just too lazy or stupid to use it.

The problem with transit is that it doesn't have the benefits of automobiles. With a car you can go anywhere, whenever you want. People won't give that up. It's up to the government to provide transit... but no one in power seems to care. They keep spening more and more money on entitlement programs like Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security. Not only is this outright socialism, but it cripples us when we want to see our government function as it should be. We cannot continue to be the only nation who polices the world while at the same time providing these programs. The things government was meant to do: build roads, schools, transit are given money based upon the popularity of the program. People don't use transit, so they dont care how much (or little) funding it gets. Forget about stuff the rapid advancement of technologies in Space, we simply don't fund it because it's not "needed" right now. Gas taxes are still low enough to encourage sprawl. Through free trade we are producing less and less of our own food and goods. The country is not as strong as many might think it is... It's not just our reliance on oil we are more reliant on other nations than we ever had been in many ways.

[PghUSA]

^^those are some very valid points but they don't win the debate on the matter for the simple reason that 50-75 years ago trolley and subway systems were the overwhelming norm for each and every American. Most in this nation didn't have a car until the 1950's and those that did would never think to buy his and hers and one for their kid. Trolley, el or subway systems were in well tread use by almost every commuter in every major city well into the early 1970's. And the big secret (ask your grandparents) is that they were PRIVATE lines, run for profit. Ralph Kramden worked for a PRIVATE intracity bus company, trolleys in and around Pittsburgh were run by PRIVATE for profit firms. Imagine having venture capitalists invest in transit systems like they invest in .com companies and you get the idea of what transit was once like in America.

It can happen again, and you're right you can't get a lot of places with today's rapid transit (although if you looked hard enough you'd be shocked a surprised how many places your local transit actually takes you to), funding be it government or private goes where the customers are. If only a quarter of us (close to 80 million Americans) chose tommorrow to use transit, funding and private funding would increase exponentially within months.

[damus]

^^those are some very valid points but they don't win the debate on the matter for the simple reason that 50-75 years ago trolley and subway systems were the overwhelming norm for each and every American. Most in this nation didn't have a car until the 1950's and those that did would never think to buy his and hers and one for their kid. Trolley, el or subway systems were in well tread use by almost every commuter in every major city well into the early 1970's. And the big secret (ask your grandparents) is that they were PRIVATE lines, run for profit. Ralph Kramden worked for a PRIVATE intracity bus company, trolleys in and around Pittsburgh were run by PRIVATE for profit firms. Imagine having venture capitalists invest in transit systems like they invest in .com companies and you get the idea of what transit was once like in America.

It can happen again, and you're right you can't get a lot of places with today's rapid transit (although if you looked hard enough you'd be shocked a surprised how many places your local transit actually takes you to), funding be it government or private goes where the customers are. If only a quarter of us (close to 80 million Americans) chose tommorrow to use transit, funding and private funding would increase exponentially within months.

Heh ... I use transit when it's available. I lived in Providence when I went to school which had a trolley-style bus system that was supposed to run on 10-15 minute intervals (more like 3-35) on two lines. I used the trollies sometimes to get to work and school, but most of the time I'd walk and turn around periodically to see if a trolly was coming. Since I had a student ID the ride was free for me, I would wait for the trolley if I saw one so I could get to where I was going quicker. Most of the time, though, I would be able to beat the trolley.

Here in rural Connecticut, the bus system is terrible, though I also live in a small metro full of small towns (tiny "cities" and country towns). I would have to walk 2 miles to get to the nearest bus stop. To live where I live I have no choice but to use a car. Having private companies run transit lines would only work in areas where transit would be in great demand. They do that today with roads. I believe there's a highway to Orange Country (or is the it the valley?) in LA that's private, and they simply collect tolls. The Trans-Texas Corridor will also consist of private highways. In places where transit oriented development is expected to take hold after the implementation of rapid transit, government is the way to go. It's their job.

Unfortunately, I believe the convenience of the automobile does win the debate... people prefer their cars and in some areas (like mine) the only alternatives are bicycles and walking, which for me would be a 20 mile bicycle ride each way. As I made clear before, if the transportation's there I'd take it.

The best way to deal with the oil dependency is to create an alternate fuel source. If fuel cells are in every person's car and house, not only would we decrease our dependency on the middle east, but also take away a great vulnerability in that everyone is connected through the "grid". Even if it means we start using more coal and nuclear power to create the hydrogen, I bet we'd be better off. I guess we need better zoning (or maybe environmental regulations)on a national level to take care of the suburban sprawl problem..

[Snowguy716]

$75.17/bbl.. unbelievable.

Average gas price at $2.91/gallon...

Brazil is getting very close to energy independence, and our president stands there and says "We're a nation addicted to oil" and then turns around and signs energy bills that hand out $billions to the oil companies.

What an idiot. I'm sorry for those of you that voted for him.

[Richhamleigh, DC]

Unfortunately, I believe the convenience of the automobile does win the debate... people prefer their cars and in some areas (like mine) the only alternatives are bicycles and walking, which for me would be a 20 mile bicycle ride each way. As I made clear before, if the transportation's there I'd take it.

Prove to me that people "prefer" cars and I'll argue that people don't have a choice. As I stated in an earlier post, a majority of Americans can not even drive a car....talk about social engineering!

Connecticut has some great towns with cores built around underutilized or abandoned rail lines. The cores of these towns have utilities, schools, roads, sidewalks and an abundance of empty or underutilized buildings. Nevertheless, towns use taxpayer's money to provide new roads, schools, expanded police and fire service and utilities in rural areas because developers build houses where land is cheapest.

Why are towns like Enfield subsidizing development when their cores are rotting? How much do taxpayers have to subsidize the mythical "American Dream"?

[damus]

Prove to me that people "prefer" cars and I'll argue that people don't have a choice. As I stated in an earlier post, a majority of Americans can not even drive a car....talk about social engineering!

Connecticut has some great towns with cores built around underutilized or abandoned rail lines. The cores of these towns have utilities, schools, roads, sidewalks and an abundance of empty or underutilized buildings. Nevertheless, towns use taxpayer's money to provide new roads, schools, expanded police and fire service and utilities in rural areas because developers build houses where land is cheapest.

Why are towns like Enfield subsidizing development when their cores are rotting? How much do taxpayers have to subsidize the mythical "American Dream"?

People do have a choice. People moved out of the cities en masse in the '50s and '60s in favor of the suburbs, made possible by the automobile. Developers build where there is demand for what they're building. If people really wanted to live in a city they would. In Providence, RI where I went to college there are PLENTY of places to live and a good enough amount of jobs right on buslines. People live in the 'burbs for reasons such as to get away from the crime in a city (which really isn't that bad in Providence), to be able to live in a big house, and to have a big yard. Cost-wise, you'd probably save money getting a middle of the line condo (say.. $180k) there over a middle class house. As for renting there are TONS of places to rent. Just go to www.craigslist.org and see for yourself. If people preferred transit cars would have never become the dominant mode of transportation that they are in this country today.

[Richhamleigh, DC]

People do have a choice. People moved out of the cities en masse in the '50s and '60s in favor of the suburbs, made possible by the automobile. Developers build where there is demand for what they're building.

Developers build where land is cheap, and where there's a minimum of municipal regulations. People who "prefer" living outside of cities move to places where taxes are lower and the schools are good. The movement to the suburbs would have been impossible without taxpayer subsidies. In cities like Charlotte, the most expensive homes are closest to the core - why? Demand.

[Richhamleigh, DC]

I loved Bush's speech today. He starts out by talking (again) about how Americans are addicted to oil and then talks about how we need to find more oil and build more refineries to process that oil. You would think - as an alchoholic and ex-drug addict himself, Bush would understand that the last thing you do is give an addict MORE of what they're addicted to...

[damus]

I loved Bush's speech today. He starts out by talking (again) about how Americans are addicted to oil and then talks about how we need to find more oil and build more refineries to process that oil. You would think - as an alchoholic and ex-drug addict himself, Bush would understand that the last thing you do is give an addict MORE of what they're addicted to...

We're not going to wean ourselves off oil overnight, and our refining plants (which we haven't built any of in 30 yrs) are at capacity. It's part of an overall idea (whether he's ever said it or not) to drill in the Arctic (which we should), to drill off the Gulf where Mexico currently drills but we do not, to drill of California. Hopefully we can stop supporting enemy states and become energy efficient, then we can start worrying more about developing alternative fuels...

[Richhamleigh, DC]

Frankly, I don't buy it. If we're "addicted" to oil why prolong our addiction by creating facilities and finding sources to make more gasoline. If gas prices fall - the goal of finding more oil / building more OIL refineries - what's the impetus? Like a majority of Americans these days, this man has spent his political capital and is no longer (if he ever was) trustworthy. I believe this man has proven he's much more interested in subsidizing rich oil barons putting the interests of the average American last. A better president would ask Americans to sacrifice for the next several years while we develop the infrastructure and install the technology to use alternative fuels that already exist. If not now, when?

BTW, he mentioned that over 30 NEW ethanol refineries have been built or are under construction so the regulations on building new refineries appears to apply to oil refineries only.

[damus]

Frankly, I don't buy it. If we're "addicted" to oil why prolong our addiction by creating facilities and finding sources to make more gasoline. If gas prices fall - the goal of finding more oil / building more OIL refineries - what's the impetus? Like a majority of Americans these days, this man has spent his political capital and is no longer (if he ever was) trustworthy. I believe this man has proven he's much more interested in subsidizing rich oil barons putting the interests of the average American last...

BTW, he mentioned that over 30 NEW ethanol refineries have been built or are under construction so the regulations on building new refineries appears to apply to oil refineries only.

We all know you hate Mr. Bush, and I suspect it's for completely different reasons than me.

A better president would ask Americans to sacrifice for the next several years while we develop the infrastructure and install the technology to use alternative fuels that already exist. If not now, when?

What President has done this? Do you honestly think the American people are willing to sacrifice their way of life for anything? They buy yellow wristbands and think they're curing cancer, and put magnetic ribbons on their cars and think they're doing a great deal to support a worthy cause. This isn't the "greatest generation", and there is no sense of urgency in the hearts of the American people to do something. Sure, Bush is terrible on transportation, but they all have been recently. The last President to do anything noteworthy with our transit infrastructure was Eisenhower. Would it be nice if we had tolls on the highways and moderately higher gas taxes that fund a nationwide rail system? Of course. Up until Katrina (and some may rightfully argue Iraq, though not me), Bush was a weak President that with the exception of immediately after 9/11 never got his way due to a obstructionist minority party in the Senate. He was not this horrible guy that he's been made out to be by the left since the election in 2000. He passed every bill that Congress passed.

Is it better to continue buying oil from the Saudis and Venezuala? I think we should drill for more of our own oil, and hold onto the oil shale reserves as long as we can before tapping into those. The quickest way to stop funding our enemies is to produce our own energy, and right now the most economical way is to drill for oil. Maybe in a few years we can start building nuclear power plants in the middle of nowhere near hydrogen fuel cell production facilities and become independent from using oil as an energy souce. It would help with our national security, cutting off enemy states from our oil money and taking the country off the "grid". Unfortunately, I think the country has built itself up way too much as an auto-centric nation over the past 50 years to go back smoothly.

Is ethanol really the end all solution? According to some places I've read, corn-based ethanol (what we make) is very "energy intensive" and uses about as much energy to produce as it provides. It also runs at less miles to the gallon relative to gasoline. The great thing about ethanol is that it's a step towards energy independence. It's not like we can flip a switch and all of a sudden be running ethanol vehicles across the country. That would have to be gradual, most cars in the US are not capable of running on ethanol. In Brazil (where they use sugar based ethanol, which I'm guessing is cheaper to produce) the process of switching to ethanol took years.

[Snowguy716]

We all know you hate Mr. Bush, and I suspect it's for completely different reasons than me.

What President has done this? Do you honestly think the American people are willing to sacrifice their way of life for anything? They buy yellow wristbands and think they're curing cancer, and put magnetic ribbons on their cars and think they're doing a great deal to support a worthy cause. This isn't the "greatest generation", and there is no sense of urgency in the hearts of the American people to do something. Sure, Bush is terrible on transportation, but they all have been recently. The last President to do anything noteworthy with our transit infrastructure was Eisenhower. Would it be nice if we had tolls on the highways and moderately higher gas taxes that fund a nationwide rail system? Of course. Up until Katrina (and some may rightfully argue Iraq, though not me), Bush was a weak President that with the exception of immediately after 9/11 never got his way due to a obstructionist minority party in the Senate. He was not this horrible guy that he's been made out to be by the left since the election in 2000. He passed every bill that Congress passed.

Is it better to continue buying oil from the Saudis and Venezuala? I think we should drill for more of our own oil, and hold onto the oil shale reserves as long as we can before tapping into those. The quickest way to stop funding our enemies is to produce our own energy, and right now the most economical way is to drill for oil. Maybe in a few years we can start building nuclear power plants in the middle of nowhere near hydrogen fuel cell production facilities and become independent from using oil as an energy souce. It would help with our national security, cutting off enemy states from our oil money and taking the country off the "grid". Unfortunately, I think the country has built itself up way too much as an auto-centric nation over the past 50 years to go back smoothly.

Is ethanol really the end all solution? According to some places I've read, corn-based ethanol (what we make) is very "energy intensive" and uses about as much energy to produce as it provides. It also runs at less miles to the gallon relative to gasoline. The great thing about ethanol is that it's a step towards energy independence. It's not like we can flip a switch and all of a sudden be running ethanol vehicles across the country. That would have to be gradual, most cars in the US are not capable of running on ethanol. In Brazil (where they use sugar based ethanol, which I'm guessing is cheaper to produce) the process of switching to ethanol took years.

It seems to me you hate the president because he's not conservative enough for you. I hate the president because he's selling out this nation for his own profit. He's speeding the process of making the poor poorer and the rich richer while ripping the bottom out from beneath the middle class. He's opening up trade barriers that send American jobs to low paying slave labor overseas. He's ramping up a massive debt that is being spent on what I believe is an unworthy cuase simply for the fact that there isn't one bit of nobleness in his reasons behind doing it. AND.. the man has no idea what he's doing to his own party. By selling himself out to the oil companies and drug companies, typical Americans won't have any money in their pockets come election day. They'll remember that, and they'll vote accordingly.

Should we continue buying oil from Saudi Arabia and Venezuela? Since when was Venezuela so evil? Just because their leader doesn't like our president and feels that oil profits should be split evenly among the country's poor? Sure, there needs to be improvement in democracy there but he was elected into office by a very angry public that was sick of the puppet regime that our country supported.

I do have a problem with buying oil from Saudi Arabia, but I can gaurantee you that that won't stop any time soon. Bush pretty much sleeps with the Saudi rulers. Who from the Republicans is gonna stop that? John McCain?

I think what was said earlier is right. People do need to make sacrifices. We need to build a public transportation system that is run from non-imported energy sources (electrified rail, for example). We need to find alternative fuels for cars. Let's set a time line and commit the money and resources to do it! Sure, it's expensive... but if you can justify sending 2500 Americans to their deaths along with thousands of Iraqis so that you can give your friends in the defense contracting industry a boost in profits, i'd say subsidized transportation is a pretty damned good idea.

Maybe if we walked more... I wonder what that would do?

It's amazing. You do not see fat people over here in Europe. There just aren't any. And I can tell you right now from experience it ain't because they eat healthier. Wurst-vinegar salad and deepfried meat with cake and beer are hardly good for your health... but when you walk a mile to get to it it certainly makes a difference. When at home in America, there are so many people that are obsessed with losing weight but they won't walk 200 feet from the back of hte parking lot to the store. They'll drive from store to store at a strip mall just to avoid the taxing 80 foot walk from storefront to storefront. It's no wonder people are gaining weight. It's really sad and I don't blame people personally for it, because I don't know their own personal circumstances, but it's a cultural problem that we need to change.

How about requiring all new development to be completely pedestrian/bike friendly? How about spending some money to make currently unfriendly environments walkable? Make kids that live within 1.5 miles of school walk (of course, only when there are sidewalks). My grandparents did it back in the '30s and they didn't die from hypothermia or heat exhaustion.

It's ridiculous that the only way for many to get somewhere by foot is to walk in the ditch or in the road, only to be harrassed by passers-by honking their horns in their massive SUVs. Sometimes I just want to throw rocks at them, but I konw I'd be lowering myself to their level.

We need to get this rich/support my friend republican out of office and I think it's time the F-You boys that support him learned a lesson about how the world really works.

[Recchia]

I loved Bush's speech today. He starts out by talking (again) about how Americans are addicted to oil and then talks about how we need to find more oil and build more refineries to process that oil. You would think - as an alchoholic and ex-drug addict himself, Bush would understand that the last thing you do is give an addict MORE of what they're addicted to...

I was thinking the same thing. Christ, when are we going to realize that oil is only part of the problem. Cars, even if we can engineer them to run on friggen water, are still extremely detrimental to this country via the laziness, isolation and overall mindset that they bring about.

And Snowguy, I couldn't agree more about bicycle/pedestrian friendliness. I'm working on this at work right now by identifying roads within walking distance (which is defined as only .5 miles--more proof to how lazy we are as a country...) that don't even have sidewalks. Hopefully this will open the eyes of cities and towns and get them to build some damn sidewalks where people will actually use them.

[Richhamleigh, DC]

We all know you hate Mr. Bush, and I suspect it's for completely different reasons than me.

At first I thought I shouldn't even reply to this...but since you thought enough to point it out I thought I should respond. I'm sick and tired of conservatives whining about any one who disagrees with, or calls into question, the intentions of this president.

What President has done this?

In the past 100 years, at least FDR and JFK. FDR obviously had to ask for sacrifices to combat Fascism; JFK asked Americans to think about what they could do for our country - not what the country could for them and then set out to win the "race for the moon" and to create the Peace Corps as an alternative to military service.

Do you honestly think the American people are willing to sacrifice their way of life for anything? They buy yellow wristbands and think they're curing cancer, and put magnetic ribbons on their cars and think they're doing a great deal to support a worthy cause.

Wow. Maybe I don't think Americans are as selfish. In any case, I find your comment especially disturbing interesting one of the right's most important agendas has been to move charity from the public to private sector (which would assume that American's are a generous lot).

This isn't the "greatest generation", and there is no sense of urgency in the hearts of the American people to do something.

I guess we'll never know since we forfeited any sense of urgency after 9/11 on Bush's military adventure in Iraq and of course, we'll never know what American's would have done since no one asked them to do anything...

Sure, Bush is terrible on transportation, but they all have been recently. The last President to do anything noteworthy with our transit infrastructure was Eisenhower.

Highways hardly consitute "transit" since only a minority of the population can actively use them. Funding for mass transit - as proposed by Clinton - was blocked by "obstructionist" MAJORITIES (Republicans).

Would it be nice if we had tolls on the highways and moderately higher gas taxes that fund a nationwide rail system?

It would be nice if we made it a priority to move the majority of Americans.

Up until Katrina (and some may rightfully argue Iraq, though not me), Bush was a weak President that with the exception of immediately after 9/11 never got his way due to a obstructionist minority party in the Senate.

Now I know that you get your information from the right-wing controlled media machines. "Obstructionist minority". What do you think we have a parlimentary form of government? The Democrats have had no power since 2000; they can't obstruct anything.

He was not this horrible guy that he's been made out to be by the left since the election in 2000.

That's your opinion, of course, but please, stop whining when people criticize him.

He passed every bill that Congress passed.

Remarkable since you think that there's an "obstructionist minority" ruining his agenda.

Is it better to continue buying oil from the Saudis and Venezuala?

It's better to not buy oil from any one but you're dreaming if you think this president and his "base" are going to cut-off their friends the bin Ladens in Saudi Arabia.

In Brazil (where they use sugar based ethanol, which I'm guessing is cheaper to produce) the process of switching to ethanol took years.

No time like the present to start...

[damus]

We all know you hate Mr. Bush, and I suspect it's for completely different reasons than me.

At first I thought I shouldn't even reply to this...but since you thought enough to point it out I thought I should respond. I'm sick and tired of conservatives whining about any one who disagrees with, or calls into question, the intentions of this president.

First of all, I'm not a conservative. I'm a Libertarian who registers and usually votes Republican. How was I whining? I was stating that I feel you are among that group that feels that this man can do nothing right, and judging by what you have said I am feeling that I was right in that assumption. Every step of the way the Democrats have fought anything Bush has done. Did you also, like just about every Democrat, oppose school vouchers? The education system is so screwed up, why not let some from the inner city work their way out? Let the teachers compete for their jobs like (almost) everyone else.

In the past 100 years, at least FDR and JFK. FDR obviously had to ask for sacrifices to combat Fascism; JFK asked Americans to think about what they could do for our country - not what the country could for them and then set out to win the "race for the moon" and to create the Peace Corps as an alternative to military service.

Maybe I should have been a little more specific. What recent President has asked for the American people to truely sacrifice? You precious Billy boy had all the opportunity in the world, presiding over the country during a time of great prosperity right after the USSR collapsed. Instead, he chose to spend his political capital (what little he had to use your logic, he never got 50% of the popular vote) going after universal health care, which would have been a disaster in my opinion.

Wow. Maybe I don't think Americans are as selfish. In any case, I find your comment especially disturbing interesting one of the right's most important agendas has been to move charity from the public to private sector (which would assume that American's are a generous lot).

Yes, Americans donate more to charitable causes than any other citizens of any other country in the world. How many of these contributions are tax writeoffs? How many of these Americans would sacrifice a significant amount of their time or even life for these worthy causes they support.

I guess we'll never know since we forfeited any sense of urgency after 9/11 on Bush's military adventure in Iraq and of course, we'll never know what American's would have done since no one asked them to do anything...

Buy duct tape and plastic, perhaps? I agree there hasn't been much asked of them, but that was my point. In regards to Iraq, aren't the people better off now than they were with Sadaam still in power? I won't get into the reasons we got there, because that doesn't matter anymore now that our soldiers are there in harm's way. Let historians decide if we were right, all this infighting at home is making the enemies feel like they're winning. I honestly think our soldiers are playing a losing game when they are forced to follow the Geneva convention when the enemy doesn't. If this ends up working out and we have an arab Democracy in the middle east, wouldn't that be great?

Highways hardly consitute "transit" since only a minority of the population can actively use them. Funding for mass transit - as proposed by Clinton - was blocked by "obstructionist" MAJORITIES (Republicans).

Where do you get this idea that most people don't use the highways? A clear majority of Americans use the roads/highways in some shape or form. Even the poor people who ride greyhound buses (which included me when I was in college) count. Outside of a few big cities, just about everyone uses the highway system for transportation. Everyone in the cities have benefitted from the Interstate System with the increased flexibility of 18 Wheelers hauling cargo instead of trains. Was Clinton in charge when the Acela was (under) funded.

Do two wrongs make a right? You surely must agree at the very least that as a majority party the Republicans at the time should have a fair amount of say. The Democrats have had the minority party throughout Bush's tenure (except when they stole it in 2000), and have used the fillibuster to keep Bush's judges off the bench. Judge Pickering was the #1 judge as rated by the ABA and was still blocked. Bush has had the fewest percentage of judges confirmed and that's a fact. The MAJORITY party under Clinton wasn't this rough with him.

Now I know that you get your information from the right-wing controlled media machines. "Obstructionist minority". What do you think we have a parlimentary form of government? The Democrats have had no power since 2000; they can't obstruct anything.

Do The Economist, the Associated Press, reuters, and the CBS News with Bob Scieffer count as part of the "right wing controlled media machine"? Those are the news sources I read/watch the most. I occasionally watch Keith Olbermann, then Joe Scarborough (now back to back as of this week) when I don't have anything to do and there's nothing else on. Granted I listen to talk radio, but in the morning on the way to work it's Imus, who has just as many Democrats on as Republicans and whose show is more entertainmen than anything else. He tries to keep his show pretty centrist. I listen to Hannity most of the time on the way home and think he's okay, I prefer listening to Savage (though only when I get out late, he's right a lot of the time and his insane rants wheter you agree or not with his POV are hillarious). My favorite is Laura Ingraham. I hate Bill O'Reilly, dislike Rush. The only media outlets I never get my news from are Public TV and radio, and Air America. Sure.... I'm a right-wing nutjob.

Jumpin' Jim Jeffords gave them the Majority for two years. Their majority has for so long been ever so slim with Northeaster liberal Republicans voting with the Dems on many issues. The Democrats have used stalling tactics such as the fillibuster liberally throughout the tenure of Bush.

That's your opinion, of course, but please, stop whining when people criticize him.

I don't care about the criticism unless it's this blind hatred that so many Americans possess for the man. He's been hated by a large, vocal percentage of the population from day one. What would you guys have done if a real conservative in the Pat Buchanan type stepped into office?

Remarkable since you think that there's an "obstructionist minority" ruining his agenda.

Just because he signs the bills doesn't mean it's in his agenda. I'm not a huge Bush fan, but you guys are terrible. He's compromised many a time on issues such as stem cell research and Medicare/Medicaid reform. I'm sure that part of his support for the extension on the assault weapons ban was to appease the left. Pay attention to what he ends up doing with the illegals. He's a political weakling and I would not be surprised to see amnesty given to them.

Is it better to continue buying oil from the Saudis and Venezuala?

It's better to not buy oil from any one but you're dreaming if you think this president and his "base" are going to cut-off their friends the bin Ladens in Saudi Arabia.

Explain why the Repubicans are the ones promoting increased refining and production capacity at home? Even if we just cut off Hugo Chavez, wouldn't that be great? Why don't any Democrats run on the policy of promoting conservation while at the same time increasing domestic production of oil? No one has done anything to solve the problem, and I think the well intentioned environmentalists have greatly damaged our nation's security over this. We could be drilling in the Gulf, off California, in Alaska, etc. Even if you argue the oil companies take all the profits, why not make this all a government entity? Most of the known oil in America is on those lands mentioned and in the Government owned land containing oil shale.

In Brazil (where they use sugar based ethanol, which I'm guessing is cheaper to produce) the process of switching to ethanol took years.

No time like the present to start...

agreed

[monsoon]

Maybe I should have been a little more specific. What recent President has asked for the American people to truely sacrifice? You precious Billy boy had all the opportunity in the world, presiding over the country during a time of great prosperity right after the USSR collapsed. Instead, he chose to spend his political capital (what little he had to use your logic, he never got 50% of the popular vote) going after universal health care, which would have been a disaster in my opinion.

Well I don't know what your time frame is, but it was Jimmy Carter in his famous speech for the nation to conserve and start working on Energy Independence. Under Carter the USA began to work on ethanol based programs with gasahol being quite common, much more so than now, but all of this was gutted once Reagan/Bush Sr. took office.

It's a shame the lessons of that day were lost on sucessive generations and now we have to learn the lesson all over again.

I will remind you guys to re-read the rules and stop with the insults. The next person that calls someone a "hater" is going to be suspended. You have been warned.

[damus]

It seems to me you hate the president because he's not conservative enough for you. I hate the president because he's selling out this nation for his own profit. He's speeding the process of making the poor poorer and the rich richer while ripping the bottom out from beneath the middle class.

Actually, the President doesn't really fit my ideals. He's not Libertarian at all. The only reason I supported him to begin with is because Republicans tend to oppose big government and protect gun rights. He's disappointed me on both counts. He's too much of a socialist for me. It's not so bad if you spend money on defense, especially after 9/11. But these deficits are getting to be pretty big. Having said that, I've seen statistics in the past (i think the economist publishes these) that show deficits as a % of GDP, and they still haven't reached the point they were at in the late 40s/early 50s. Not that I'm defending them, but I think when you put it in that perspective you realize the sky isn't falling.... yet. I'm a recent grad, and in the lower middle class. I don't know if I'm paying enough taxes if that's what you're referring to when you say "make the poor poorer". There's also another statistic that was in a recent economist that showed that since 1980 the richest (in percentile respective to the income of Americans during that time) have been paying more and more as a % of overall tax revenues.I lost about a quarter of my paycheck to taxes, but get a refund of $2k (hooray for tax free loans to uncle sam!)

He's opening up trade barriers that send American jobs to low paying slave labor overseas. He's ramping up a massive debt that is being spent on what I believe is an unworthy cuase simply for the fact that there isn't one bit of nobleness in his reasons behind doing it. AND.. the man has no idea what he's doing to his own party. By selling himself out to the oil companies and drug companies, typical Americans won't have any money in their pockets come election day. They'll remember that, and they'll vote accordingly.

I work at a major drug company. If America demanded the same prices for drugs that the rest of the world is getting, you will see a decrease in breakthroughs. These drugs a lot of money to discover and don't always work or get approved. I have no problem with companies making a profit, so long as they're playing by the rules. If the rules are flawed, it should be up to Congress and not the company to fix them. Again, I agree with you on the debt. I also think his reasons are flawed (though there is a slight chance WMDs were there and were brought over to, say Syria before the war). Didn't the left predict a landslide in their favor in '04? I agree with you on the trade issue, to a point. I'm 100% against it, but to be fair a lot of these jobs that pay what would be slave labor here are raising the standards of living in unthinkably poor areas. I am against trading with countries, mainly China, whose human rights records are deplorable.

Should we continue buying oil from Saudi Arabia and Venezuela? Since when was Venezuela so evil? Just because their leader doesn't like our president and feels that oil profits should be split evenly among the country's poor? Sure, there needs to be improvement in democracy there but he was elected into office by a very angry public that was sick of the puppet regime that our country supported.

Why don't you move to Venezuala? Go there and demonstrate against chavez the way people here demonstrate against Bush and see what happens. The country has actually gotten slightly poorer since he took over. His government has been accused of torturing opponents and doesn't have a free media.

I do have a problem with buying oil from Saudi Arabia, but I can gaurantee you that that won't stop any time soon. Bush pretty much sleeps with the Saudi rulers. Who from the Republicans is gonna stop that? John McCain?

Unfortunately, I have to agree with you on that. But who is there that would cut them off? The environmentalists are dead set against any oil production at home, and get their way. We don't really have much of an immediate solution.

I think what was said earlier is right. People do need to make sacrifices. We need to build a public transportation system that is run from non-imported energy sources (electrified rail, for example). We need to find alternative fuels for cars. Let's set a time line and commit the money and resources to do it!

You're right. Transportation is one of the key areas that government is required to provide. We need alternative fuels, I just don't think corn-based ethanol is the right one. I'd like to see fuel cells (made with Nuclear or hydroelectric power, for example) as a replacement for cars and the "grid".

Sure, it's expensive... but if you can justify sending 2500 Americans to their deaths along with thousands of Iraqis so that you can give your friends in the defense contracting industry a boost in profits, i'd say subsidized transportation is a pretty damned good idea.

I can't justify it, but as I've said already we're already there. I think we should be worrying about how we're gonna get that country to function on its own with a stable democratic government.

Maybe if we walked more... I wonder what that would do?

It's amazing. You do not see fat people over here in Europe. There just aren't any. And I can tell you right now from experience it ain't because they eat healthier. Wurst-vinegar salad and deepfried meat with cake and beer are hardly good for your health... but when you walk a mile to get to it it certainly makes a difference. When at home in America, there are so many people that are obsessed with losing weight but they won't walk 200 feet from the back of hte parking lot to the store. They'll drive from store to store at a strip mall just to avoid the taxing 80 foot walk from storefront to storefront. It's no wonder people are gaining weight. It's really sad and I don't blame people personally for it, because I don't know their own personal circumstances, but it's a cultural problem that we need to change.

Not that I'm saying the American way of life if more sedentiary and worse for your health, but if you go to a European (or even Canadien) Mcdonald's you don't get the same sized product as you would in the good ole' USA. I think we do need more urban environments in America and your reasons are among the reasons I'd like to see them.

How about requiring all new development to be completely pedestrian/bike friendly? How about spending some money to make currently unfriendly environments walkable? Make kids that live within 1.5 miles of school walk (of course, only when there are sidewalks). My grandparents did it back in the '30s and they didn't die from hypothermia or heat exhaustion.

That's not happening. Kids that would've walked to school 12 years ago when I was their age are taking buses or getting rides. People are overly protective and fearful. I don't think that should be the Fed's responsibility. That should be a state/local issue.

It's ridiculous that the only way for many to get somewhere by foot is to walk in the ditch or in the road, only to be harrassed by passers-by honking their horns in their massive SUVs. Sometimes I just want to throw rocks at them, but I konw I'd be lowering myself to their level.

Yeah that does suck .... though I did harass some idiot the other day who was riding a bicyle on a highway bridge. I held up traffic to wait for him so I could beotch at him. Not surprisingly it was just a quick war of words, he actually thought it was legal. He was not getting off the bridge unless I was a cop.

We need to get this rich/support my friend republican out of office and I think it's time the F-You boys that support him learned a lesson about how the world really works.

Who are these "F-You" boys? He is a big government type, the very type many who put Republicans into office want. With a more limited government we are the envy of the developed world in terms of economic might. Why are the developing countries following the American/British models of capitalism and not the French or German?