Hows George W going?

[Mike]

It was only a PROJECTED surplus. This country has not been in the black for many, many years. Clinton's economy was partially a false economy pushed up by the Dot-Com's that left many holding worthless stocks when the smoke cleared. The benefits of that era was also directly related to Reagan's tax cuts, and those tax cuts had the same effects that JFK's did. Stimulation.

 

[katrina]

Wouldn't the fact that large Corperations like Enron were cooking the books and the terror attacks make a differance too?

 

[ez now]

God bless you two, evedently I was wasnt around to see what you guys are talking about. good thing we had the PROJECTED surplus so we could give the big tax breaks . and now your talking about the dot-coms and worthless stocks but yet your all for the individual investment of social security, something here just dosnt make sense.

 

[Steve]

not to jump in in the middle but,

It was a "projected surplus" based on If. and when the stock market Burst there was no if. By going to link and Paying close attention to the revenue vs outlay and the debt held by public you can easily see that there was never a surplus.

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0

There has been in the last four years many safe gaurds in the accounting system set up to protect the investor, But even with diverting a portion of you SS towards investment, the individual will still have a safety net. thus the word Portion has been used extensively, by investing All one would have to assume all the risk. and the goverment is unwilling to accept that Americans are smart enough to provide for ourselves. so they will allow US to only invest a portion, trading off the gains for a better future.

Failing to do nothing we would still have to accept a smaller "safety net" portion as the system is and will fail, leaving All americans with only a portion of the current level of benefit. I am more willing to "invest" in a future, then wait to see if congress can tax me more to pay myself later.

I am sure there will be some fool that decides to risk his retirement in some sort of ponzi scheme and wait for the golden goose to lay golden eggs for him, and lose a portion of thier retirement, but how can it compare when SS is already a ponzi scheme, I sure don't see the democrats trying to lay any thing other then goose eggs. (unless you include Willie, and Monica),

 

[Cal]

God bless you two, evedently I was wasnt around to see what you guys are talking about. good thing we had the PROJECTED surplus so we could give the big tax breaks . and now your talking about the dot-coms and worthless stocks but yet your all for the individual investment of social security, something here just dosnt make sense.

Clintons projected surplus did not include 9/11, nor the recession that was upon us in the last few months of the Clinton Presidency. Not providing tax breaks in a weakening economy leads to all of the woes that were present during the Jimmy Carter years. Lower tax rates actually provide increased revenue, of course down to the point where we would see diminishing returns, which would be a relatively low number. We saw increased revenue from tax cuts during the Reagan years and we're seeing it now. Also, the budget deficit is not a meaningful number unless it is compared as a percentage of GDP. We are at war, and the deficit/GDP has been higher at least nine other times, but is still less than any other industrialized nation. But do we need to cut government spending, reform the tax code, and overhaul and allow opt out of social security. Absolutely.

 

[SDSteve]

How is G.W. Doing too funny. Anyone who is an American first and a Republican second will say he is doing terribly. He is spending money like water and wants more government control all the time. So much for being a "conservative". Any time someone complains about the price of fuel I tell them " well if you voted for Bush quit your complaining" .

 

[Cal]

How is G.W. Doing too funny. Anyone who is an American first and a Republican second will say he is doing terribly. He is spending money like water and wants more government control all the time. So much for being a "conservative". Any time someone complains about the price of fuel I tell them " well if you voted for Bush quit your complaining" .

Since it is the liberals and environmental wackos on the Democrat side of the aisle that have a history of blocking the construction of new oil refineries and from doing more to develop our own energy reserves, such as Anwar, it is hardly Bush's fault for current energy prices. World oil usage is increasing, thus, the higher prices. Hopefully this will be a call to reexamine the laws stifling domestic energy production, as the voting public will likely demand it, and the left is currently in a position of some weakness.

 

[ez now]

cal, was it the enviremental wackos and liberals who drove up gas prices during george sr term. who exactly was it during clintons term that caused rates to stay pretty well stabelized, or did they stabelize off george sr coattail like they said the reason the economy under clinton was because he was riding on reagans coattail.

 

[Cal]

cal, was it the enviremental wackos and liberals who drove up gas prices during george sr term. who exactly was it during clintons term that caused rates to stay pretty well stabelized, or did they stabelize off george sr coattail like they said the reason the economy under clinton was because he was riding on reagans coattail.

You do realize that much of the fluctuations over past decades are directly attributable to OPEC. Much of the increase occuring now can be attributed to increased global consumption, esp. China.

 

[Soapweed]

Did anyone notice the big jump in raw oil prices the same day the Billings judge put the injunction on the opening of the Canadian border? Wouldn't be surprised if there is a bit of a correlation in these two events. Politics are politics.

 

[don]

Did anyone notice the big jump in raw oil prices the same day the Billings judge put the injunction on the opening of the Canadian border? Wouldn't be surprised if there is a bit of a correlation in these two events. Politics are politics.

canada can't influence crude oil prices in the way you are suggesting. we aren't a big enough producer and are not members of opec. opec controls supply of a number of countries and has the type of influence you are talking about. i think rancher's black helicopters have been flying over your place.

 

[Steve]

Many people understand the differance between crude prices and Gas prices depends on a countries ability to "refine" the oil into Gas.

In 1982 we had the ability to Refine 18.62 Million barrels per day, today we can refine 16.76 Million barrels per day.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb1109.html

In 1981 we had 324 refineries today we have 149.

"While many refineries have closed, and no new refineries have been built in nearly 30 years",

In the last year recorded this country LOST capacity to refine OIL. thus the cost of that lost production will be felt directly at the PUMP.

But we are consuming "The United States consumed an average of about 20.4 million bbl/d of oil"

Up from "up from 20.0 million bbl/d in 2003"

So let me see if we can refine 16.76, and we USE 20.4

we MUST some how Refine 3.64 MILLION BARRELS PER DAY OUT of THIN AIR!!!!! :!:

THUS GAS PRICES AT PUMP HIGHER!!!!!!! :!:

Simplest case of Supply and Demand I ever saw.

By the way that extra cost of our not having the refinery capacity is 1.3 billion, per day!

Now WHY haven't we built a single refinery in 30 years.

"The Mandan, Hidatsa, Arikara (MHA) Nation of American Indians just announced that they propose to build the first U.S. grass-roots crude oil refinery since decontrol of oil prices over 20 years ago."

But wait, cause before the ink is dry the LAWsuits are started.

"A new U.S. oil refinery, the first in decades, is being proposed in North Dakota. Local Native Americans are fighting back"
http://www.refineryreform.org/


" No new refineries have been built in the US in the past 25 years. And petroleum industry experts say anyone would have to be crazy to launch such an effort -- even though present refineries are running at nearly 100 % of capacity and local gasoline shortages are beginning to crop up.

Why does the industry appear to have built its last refinery?
Three reasons: Refineries are not particularly profitable, environmentalists fight planning and construction every step of the way and government red-tape makes the task all but impossible. The last refinery built in the US was in Garyville, Louisiana, and it started up in 1976.
Energy proposed building a refinery near Portsmouth, Virginia, in the late 1970s, environmental groups and local residents fought the plan -- and it took almost nine years of battles in court and before federal and state regulators before the company cancelled the project in 1984.

Industry officials estimate the cost of building a new refinery at between $ 2 bn and $ 4 bn -- at a time the industry must devote close to $ 20 bn over the next decade to reducing the sulphur content in gasoline and other fuels -- and approval could mean having to collect up to 800 different permits. As if those hurdles weren't enough, the industry's long-term rate of return on capital is just 5 % -- less than could be realized by simply buying US Treasury bonds.
"I'm sure that at some point in the last 20 years someone has considered building a new refinery," says James Halloran, an energy analyst with National City Corp. "But they quickly came to their senses," he adds. "

 

[Cal]

Steve, doesn't it seem plausible that since the left wing tree huggers can't find the support needed to actually regulate the size and type of vehicles available to the driving public, they are going about it in a roundabout way to limit the availability of gasoline? The longterm goal being to cap the gallons available to a growing nation, thus increasing price, and increasing demand for smaller vehicles.