Obama’s Energy Plan
[Guest post by DRJ]
The Chicago Sun-Times posts the text of Obama’s energy speech today in Lansing MI:
Obama challenges us to end our oil dependence in 10 years by mandating fuel-efficient cars and providing incentives and government mandates to promote development of green/alternative energy sources.
Obama will take money from oil companies as windfall profits and give it to people to pay their gas bills. He also has some advice to oil companies: Drill existing leases before asking for new lands.
[Apparently Obama wants oil companies to drill on lands that may not have oil or accessible oil. I call this Obama’s kindergarten plan for oil companies: Not only does he take away their allowance (profits), he also tells them they have to clean their plates before they get dessert.]
Obama wants to cut energy use by 15% in the next 10 years. He points to California’s static energy consumption as proof that it can be done, and he challenges Americans to find a way to change energy sources the same way America met WWII production goals and won the race to the moon.
Obama will release 70 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Oil Reserve, a move he claims will drop oil prices in 2 weeks.
As for drilling offshore where there is oil? That’s a “drawback” but it’s a compromise he will reluctantly allow in a limited manner to show he’s in good faith.
By his own estimate, Obama’s good faith will cost us $150 billion over the next 10 years and billions more in private equity.
Obama’s solutions are weighted toward short-term fixes including the use of emergency oil reserves stored for national security purposes and redistributing money from oil companies to low-income consumers. His long-term government-mandated solutions focus exclusively on expensive and unproven alternative energy sources. Further, his plan intentionally shrinks energy use 15%, a move that will undoubtedly result in a significant economic loss while refusing to anticipate and plan for future needs based on proven oil reserves.
It’s as if Obama wants all of America to plan our economic future the way he and his wife planned theirs: The Obamas had significant debt from their educations but they chose low-paying, community service-oriented jobs that made it hard or impossible for them to pay their debt except with the windfall of his book proceeds. We can’t afford to bet the economic and energy future of our nation on a dream and a windfall, but that’s what Obama offers with this plan.
For those who claim this is all criticism, here’s my solution:
I agree America needs to conserve, become more efficient, and decrease its dependence on oil by transitioning to other energy sources. Instead of walking a tightrope where America deliberately produces the least possible amount of energy during that transition, I want government and private incentives to produce a glut of energy – oil, nuclear, gas, coal, and alternative energy sources – so the economy expands during the process. An expanding economy makes it possible for government, businesses, and individuals to take risks and make mistakes when it comes to finding the best energy solutions.
Obama says he doesn’t want the perfect to be the enemy of the good but that’s exactly what his plan does. He selects mandates and energy sources he likes, discards those he doesn’t, and ends up with a plan that must perform perfectly to succeed. The ultimate irony is that it’s a risk we don’t need to take.
California’s energy use is static because people are fleeing the state, and its outrageous tax rates, in droves!Icy Truth (ca1185) — 8/4/2008 @ 12:30 pm
I have a few suggestions. One is to read Bob Zubrin’s book. I have a review of it on Amazon here.
Second, build 100 nuclear power plants using a proven modular design.
Three, fund research into new forms of energy like Craig Venter’s people are working on with bioengineering and genetic engineering. You can read about his career here.
We probably have about 50 years of the “Petroleum Age” left until we need a new source of cheap energy. That will probably be nuclear, either fission of fusion, in source. The “sky-is-falling” enviros are of no use whatever in solving the problem. We had better start and that means sending Obama back to the Senate and Nancy back to her non-union winery. Oh, and Harry Reid has a great future in Pahrump, Nevada with Art Bell.Mike K (2cf494) — 8/4/2008 @ 12:38 pm
True, IT. 2006 was the first year in all of recorded history that the State’s population was actually lower than the previous year.
That giant sucking sound is California’s real estate market drying up, as those with zero-point, interest-only loans get foreclosed upon, and the people who would be buying are choosing to move out of state instead.
Increase in supply and reduced demand = ?
However, you can’t buy a breakthrough in theory. Genius happens when it happens, and brave men die field-testing it.Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/4/2008 @ 12:42 pm
That is an excellent review of Zubrin’s book. I recommend reading Mike K’s second link.DRJ (9d1be2) — 8/4/2008 @ 12:45 pm
Oh, I know, Drumwaster. They’re all coming here! Phoenix has surpassed Philadelphia as the 5th largest city in the nation.Icy Truth (ca1185) — 8/4/2008 @ 12:46 pm
“… it’s a risk we don’t need to take.”
Exactly my response to the BHO candidacy!Another Drew (8018ee) — 8/4/2008 @ 12:47 pm
“Obama will release 70 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Oil Reserve, a move he claims will drop oil prices in 2 weeks. ”
What do y’all think of this? I’d imagine that the strategic reserve should be held for, well, strategic reasons. Not world oil price hikes. Then again, I consider our domestic oil fields a “strategic” asset.afall (bd8a11) — 8/4/2008 @ 12:51 pm
Since we use a little over 20 million barrels a day, 70 million from the SPR would last us almost no time.
Add to the fact that the reserve exists in case a current supplier cuts us off almost completely, giving us a month or so to line up new sources…
The Dems have no idea what’s going on…Scott Jacobs (425810) — 8/4/2008 @ 12:57 pm
Scott – 20,000,000 barrels is a good thing when Baracky proposes it. Getting even more than that from places like ANWR is a bad idea. Go check your tires.JD (75f5c3) — 8/4/2008 @ 12:59 pm
#6 But Obama is a great leader and at least would be a welcome change from GOP policies that favor the rich and big Business, no?madmax333 (0c6cfc) — 8/4/2008 @ 1:05 pm
How do I qualify for that oil company largesse? Does itbmatter if I have drive a fuel-miser very few miles or an aircraft carrier SUV many miles? How do you delineate income and usage differences or even need? I think this calls for a new level
of federal drones to administer.
Colo. governor Bill Ritter was on Mike Rosen’s show hour two admitting that his 1 1/2 years as governor was insufficient for him to be considered for VP slot with the Messiah. When asked how that compared to O’s 143 days in US Senate, he changed the subject. link at 850KOA.com
Releasing SPR at a time when Iran can start a proxy war anytime is the best way to bring US to its knees. But isn’t it what some want? After all “the world will not continue to let us keep our houses at 70 degrees…”. Besides ruined US economy will help some that desire to “save the planet”. Is it just me or does it really start to look like some of the officials are feeding from US enemies pockets?Mongol (585420) — 8/4/2008 @ 1:06 pm
Typical Leftie Econ 101 – spend now, pay later…and pay more, more, more. Gov’t can encourage private sector capital formation to help deal with this problem, but command – and – control gov’t oversight of the economy always leads to disaster. See Nixon and his price control regime under John Connelly for one example. I also remember the daylight savings time disruption scheme that gave scant benefits after a few year’s testing.Dmac (82935d) — 8/4/2008 @ 1:10 pm
To that I still say the world can fuck off. The window AC unit in my upstairs bedroom is currently on “energy saver” mode (meaning it shuts off when it hits the assigned temp).
It’s target temp is 68 degrees. Countries that don’t like that can line up to kiss my butt.Scott Jacobs (425810) — 8/4/2008 @ 1:11 pm
Obama says he will Direct Companies to blah blah blah…
Yeah, he’ll direct them, and the companies will tell him to kindly get bent.Scott Jacobs (425810) — 8/4/2008 @ 1:13 pm
“Since we use a little over 20 million barrels a day, 70 million from the SPR would last us almost no time.”
I never thought this stuff was about how long things last, but about what the effect was on prices.afall (138f0d) — 8/4/2008 @ 1:17 pm
“never thought this stuff was about how long things last, but about what the effect was on prices.”
the relatively finite supply 70 mil, would not have a big effect on the prices, (at least not in a long term). The prices dropped from +$4.00 to $3.52 after GWB announced lifting executive ban (that is a possibility of a long term supply) first in futures and then at the pump. Besides as I mentioned earlier strategically it’s a very bad decision.Mongol (585420) — 8/4/2008 @ 1:25 pm
Well, logically, since it would be a supply increase, the price would decline.
The price decline would have people driving more, using more gas, and thus demand would increase…
An increase in demand would cause prices to rise, and then there would be a mini-spike in fuel costs as the 70 million barrels ran out.
So net effect? Slight increase from where prices are at the time of the release.Scott Jacobs (425810) — 8/4/2008 @ 1:31 pm
Check the air in your tires, folks. Baracky’s new nuanced position seems to embrace symbolic gestures, command and control top down governance, and wishful thinking. I thought he was supposed to be some kind of thinker.JD (5f0e11) — 8/4/2008 @ 1:34 pm
“Check the air in your tires, folks”
no can do, BHO borrowed my tire gauge to measure if he was enough of hot air yet. he brought it back, but I am not touching it – who knows how he measured it…Mongol (585420) — 8/4/2008 @ 1:38 pm
I ain’t checkin’ shit. Sen Obama wants my tires at perfect pressure?
He can do it himself.
Can he do it? Yes he can!Scott Jacobs (425810) — 8/4/2008 @ 1:43 pm
The single most important change is for relaxation of the current, largely judicially imposed, environmental totalitarianism, er, regulation. The NIMBYs simply must be made to prove real harm and not theoretical harm. They must be made to show specific areas that need special protections due to some significant habitat.
Refining capability trumps the entire peak oil argument. Even if we release the entire SPR today, we could not refine enough of it, in conjunction with current oil import levels, to make a difference. Refining has to be priority ONE, once the fascistic environmental authorities are struck down by first, the legislative and executive.
Everything else is so much noise.Ed (59b337) — 8/4/2008 @ 1:49 pm
If my tires are over-inlated, does that mean that I’m getting better gas mileage than I otherwise get?
So, if I reduce the air-pressure to the amount specified on the side-wall, I’m going to end up burning more gas?
What kind of soluation is that????????WLS (26b1e5) — 8/4/2008 @ 1:51 pm
Here’s a campaign opening for McCain.
First, while oil companies are earning record high profits, they are also paying record hight corporate income taxes.
And, a windfall profits tax on oil companies will only serve to increase the price of gas. It an increase in the overall cost of doing business.
Will it return money to the Treasury? Sure, but that money is really simply taxpayer money that is going to go into the gas pump first.
So, if giving back $1000 to each family only serves to off-set the increase at the pump that is going to follow from a windfall-profits tax, what mechanism exists to prevent this from happening?
Paging Mr. Nixon.WLS (26b1e5) — 8/4/2008 @ 1:55 pm
WLS – Over inflation is never a good thing. For reference, see Baracky’s ego.JD (5f0e11) — 8/4/2008 @ 2:01 pm
“Between 2003 and 2007, Exxon paid $64.7 billion in U.S. taxes, exceeding its after-tax U.S. earnings by more than $19 billion….
In a tax bill on oil earlier this summer, no fewer than 51 Senators voted to impose a 25% windfall tax on a U.S.-based oil company whose profits grew by more than 10% in a single year and wasn’t investing enough in “renewable” energy. This suggests that a windfall is defined by profits growing too fast. No one knows where that 10% came from, besides political convenience. But if 10% is the new standard, the tech industry is going to have to rethink its growth arc. So will LG, the electronics company, which saw its profits grow by 505% in 2007. Abbott Laboratories hit 110%.
If Senator Obama is as exercised about “outrageous” profits as he says he is, he might also have to turn on a few liberal darlings. Oh, say, Berkshire Hathaway. Warren Buffett’s outfit pulled in $11 billion last year, up 29% from 2006. Its profit margin — if that’s the relevant figure — was 11.47%, which beats out the American oil majors.
Or consider Google, which earned a mere $4.2 billion but at a whopping 25.3% margin. Google earns far more from each of its sales dollars than does Exxon, but why doesn’t Mr. Obama consider its advertising-search windfall worthy of special taxation?…
In other words, a windfall is nothing more than a profit earned by a business that some politician dislikes. And a tax on that profit is merely a form of politically motivated expropriation.
It’s what politicians do in Venezuela, not in a free country.”Mongol (585420) — 8/4/2008 @ 2:02 pm
“Second, build 100 nuclear power plants using a proven modular design.”
My god, even the French are doing this successfully. And we used to be the leaders…of something.Dana (b4a26c) — 8/4/2008 @ 2:05 pm
I think stealing from a company, looting the investors, and doing the whole Robin Hood thing by giving the proceeds to a competitor of the victim is a positivelt fuckin’ wonderful idea.
Excuse me while I go over-inflate my tires.
The idea of a punitive windfall profits tax is so fuckin’ absurdly un-American that they should be embarassed to even utter such inanity.JD (5f0e11) — 8/4/2008 @ 2:13 pm
“The price decline would have people driving more, using more gas, and thus demand would increase…”
I don’t think the demand curve would move…. I do agree that perpetuating oil usage is not a good idea.afall (de7003) — 8/4/2008 @ 2:22 pm
Geez. How stupid can you get?Perfect Sense (9d1b08) — 8/4/2008 @ 2:22 pm
We need a windfall profits tax on politician’s speaking fees and politician’s books in order to fund both better economic and history educations for politicians.
The democrats could get rid of the budget deficit in year one of the reign of Obama the Great if they decided to impose a windfall profits tax on every company or industry making a higher profit margin than the oil companies. The only problem is that it wouldn’t be as politically popular as demonizing big oil or soaking the rich.daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 8/4/2008 @ 2:35 pm
You could have quit at “I don’t think …”, afall.JD (5f0e11) — 8/4/2008 @ 2:36 pm
Is that like the guy who approaches you intent on telling a joke?
1st Man: Stop me if you’ve heard this one . . .Icy Truth (ca1185) — 8/4/2008 @ 2:42 pm
2nd Man: Stop! [Walks away]
Why not just figure that no business can make more than 1.0% profit, and confiscate everything over that? Oh, and figure that no person should make more than $75K a year, and confiscate everything over that as well.
Problem solved. Lots of free money to give to poor folks.
I don’t know why Bambi hasn’t proposed this yet.steve miller (0fb51f) — 8/4/2008 @ 2:42 pm
A side-by-side comparison of Obama’s platform and that of the American Socialist Party would (or should) be enough to dissuade anyone from voting for this unrepentant Marxist.Icy Truth (ca1185) — 8/4/2008 @ 2:52 pm
The problem with people fleeing California and settling elsewhere is just like the Yankee’s moving south by the millions. They can’t afford to live in their home state so they move, they then bring the same dumb tax and give away policies with them and demand the local government pass them into law. Soon the new home is just as costly as the old home. Not a brain in the bunch. The only hope for a brain dead liberal is actual death.Scrapiron (d671ab) — 8/4/2008 @ 2:53 pm
Tapping into the SPR is like tapping into your nest egg to make your monthly mortgage payment. The real solution is to live in smaller house (conserve) or get a better paying job (drill). Otherwise the fundamental problem has just been put off for a brief time and will have to be faced again.MartyH (52fae7) — 8/4/2008 @ 2:54 pm
steve miller, But Hussein O must have more than 75K per year to eat the $100 a pound ham and the elitest lettuce. He just doesn’t want anyone to earn more from a real job than he ‘draws’ without a job.Scrapiron (d671ab) — 8/4/2008 @ 2:56 pm
Scrapiron — been to Reno lately?
Talk about a city that is pretty much populated with California ex-pats.WLS (26b1e5) — 8/4/2008 @ 2:57 pm
We get the same overflow from Seattle. Libs don’t like the crime & high taxes in Seattle, so they settle in the sticks, and then complain that it lacks amenities & work to raise taxes and increase density which leads to higher crime rates.steve miller (0fb51f) — 8/4/2008 @ 3:00 pm
#35 – Scrapiron
— Too true. With our Dem-Feminist-RackedUp-a-OneBillionDollarDeficit Governor, and our Dem-SanctuaryCityPromoting Mayor of Phoenix, this state is slowly leaching from red to purple.Icy Truth (ca1185) — 8/4/2008 @ 3:01 pm
“You could have quit at “I don’t think …”, afall.”
Seriously. Dude’s analysis is quite funny. Increasing supply leads to price fall, which increases demand. Becoming price hike. and then… nothing. Awesomeness. Its like he never drew a supply and demand curve in his life.
“Tapping into the SPR is like tapping into your nest egg to make your monthly mortgage payment. The real solution is to live in smaller house (conserve) or get a better paying job (drill). Otherwise the fundamental problem has just been put off for a brief time and will have to be faced again.”
That’s what I think. But I go a bit further, and treat domestic oil wells like a sort of strategic reserve as well. They’re sources of oil we can count on when other sources are blocked due to geopolitics.afall (7c85b9) — 8/4/2008 @ 3:06 pm
The entire SPR is a canard — but its nice and simple in the way it misleads an ignornant public.
The strategic petroleum reserve is 700 million barrels of oil. Obama is proposing to release 70 million barrels, or about 10% of it into the market.
The US consumes about 20 million barrels of oil per day, of which it produces about 5 million barrels, and imports the rest.
Obama proposes to release 70 million barrels from the SPR — about 14 days worth of US production.
But the bigger problem is that we lack the refining capacity to really create more gas from SPR oil. This is largely in due to the policy shift towards biofuels, which this last year predicted would lead to a reduction in investment in refining capacity by oil companies.
More oil into the domestic market isn’t going to reduce gas prices if it just sits in holding facilities when the refineries are already running at full tilt.
And oil companies aren’t going to invest billions in new refining capacity if official policy is to move away from the products whey refine.
But if the official policy were more drilling, then you would see an investment in more refining capacity, because the oil produced from the drilling would be more than a one time stunt.WLS (26b1e5) — 8/4/2008 @ 3:14 pm
“and treat domestic oil wells like a sort of strategic reserve as well. They’re sources of oil we can count on when other sources are blocked due to geopolitics.”
afall, I agree to a degree. That is the time to tap domestic oil is now… why? two reasons:
1) the outflow of oil money is mind bogling, we are being price gauged. Unless we start now (everyone agrees it will take some time to fully develop domestic supply), tomorrow we may not have the resources. and our money is being used against us.
2) the oil is controlled by a lot of states unfriendly to us. in an event of a armed conflict (which I think is coming soon), this will become another “weapon” against US.
I believe it is an emergency, but hasn’t fully developed yet. Now once we got the domestic oil flow started (to take care of immidiate needs), there should be no excuses or turning back in terms of developing well-thought thru sustainable and renewable domestic energy.Mongol (585420) — 8/4/2008 @ 3:15 pm
afall – that’s exactly how Texas oil has functioned. When the price of middle east oil was cheap, and it cost more to pump oil out of the ground that it could be sold for on the market, they wells in Texas were capped.
When the price rose and the Texas oil was competitive, they started pumping again.
But now the failure to pump domestic oil is the product of non-economic issues — its policy and environmental roadblocks that keep the wells capped.WLS (26b1e5) — 8/4/2008 @ 3:16 pm
“Tapping into the SPR is like tapping into your nest egg to make your monthly mortgage payment”
MartyH – I need to educate you on the real estate market. It obviously makes sense to buy more house than you can afford and tap into your monthly nest egg for your monthly mortgage payment because the price of real estate can only go one direction and that is up, up, up. Your objective is to flip your house for a bigger and more expensive one before your nest egg runs out. Rinse and repeat. If everybody around you does the same thing you can create a real estate bubble. Just ask the fine folks in California. They’ve done it a couple of times over the past 20 years.daleyrocks (d9ec17) — 8/4/2008 @ 3:25 pm
I think your statement raises two points. First, oil is a commodity and it’s not like money in the bank. It migrates, it dissipates, it can get produced by someone else through horizontal techniques, and until it’s produced it may not be where we think it is or there can be more of it than we realized. It takes expensive exploration and drilling programs to find and capture oil. The sooner we start looking for it in places that are currently off-limits, the better for now and for the future.
Second, America is transitioning away from oil as an energy source and will do so even more in the future. To forgo exploring and producing oil supplies now because we want more later assumes oil will be as useful and valuable in 10-20-30 years as it is now. Maybe it will be, or maybe it will be less valuable because we have alternative energy sources. To gamble that it will be remain valuable is, in my opinion, a poor decision and a waste of resources. Efficiency requires that we pick the cheapest, most available resource to do the job. Even at today’s prices, oil is a good choice now because most American cars, trucks, manufacturing, etc., run on oil-based engines. While that’s the case, it makes sense to produce as much oil as we can.DRJ (9d1be2) — 8/4/2008 @ 3:49 pm
“Unless we start now …, tomorrow we may not have the resources.”
That is the crux of the matter. Today’s energy prices are not the most important issue. Tomorrow’s energy security is. Tapping SPR does not help long term.
I say remove govt impediments to increased domestic production from ALL feasible sources. Also encourage conservation where effective.gp (233e20) — 8/4/2008 @ 3:54 pm
“It migrates, it dissipates, it can get produced by someone else through horizontal techniques, and until it’s produced it may not be where we think it is or there can be more of it than we realized”
If someone else can do it, then I don’t consider it “domestic.”
“To gamble that it will be remain valuable is, in my opinion, a poor decision and a waste of resources.”
Its not a gamble. Its insurance against unstable foreign supplies.afall (5b5e09) — 8/4/2008 @ 4:22 pm
Not if we aren’t allowed to drill. The opposing argument is that we won’t have any of that oil for twenty years. Are you THAT sure of the stability of the nations that sell us the oil to say that we will have no need of it for the next twenty years from whatever date you decide to start exploration and drilling?
If we had started when the whole issue was brought up, we would already HAVE that oil, enough to replace Saudi Arabia and Venezuela in their entirety, and all the trillions of dollars that would have been used here in our economy is going to some wealthy sheik who already has more dollars than sense.
Well, when the next POTUS tries to price-fix our way out of this mess, maybe then people will start paying attention to the 70% of America that WANTS to drill.Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/4/2008 @ 4:32 pm
Good, he’s a self-admitted looter.
Freelance, this is known as mugging.N. O'Brain (9056e2) — 8/4/2008 @ 5:17 pm
Obama’s is showing that he is a complete clown. This “plan” is a plan of inaction and nothing more.
Couple that with his silly suggestion regarding the SPR and you can tell that he has no clue whatsover about energy policy.
But that’s Democrats for you, captured by extremist environmentalists and impoverishing the rest of us as a result.SPQR (26be8b) — 8/4/2008 @ 5:43 pm
“If we had started when the whole issue was brought up, we would already HAVE that oil, enough to replace Saudi Arabia and Venezuela in their entirety,”
And we would have used it normally… not in case foreign supplies are disrupted.afall (dfd808) — 8/4/2008 @ 6:25 pm
The Democrats think that permitting drilling offshore will not affect the price of oil, but releasing a tiny fraction of the amount of oil from the SPR will.
Fantasyland economics.SPQR (26be8b) — 8/4/2008 @ 6:32 pm
If we don’t have access to the oil, how can we use it? Under your scenario, if foreign supplies are disrupted, we will only have 1/3 of what we need to operate as a nation. Transportation will be shut down. Industry will collapse. Prices will skyrocket.
And we will still be years away from a domestic source.
We have domestic drilling now, but it was found to be cheaper to buy it overseas and ship it halfway around the world. It isn’t that cheap anymore. Time to search for alternatives, and start domestic drilling to cover the shortfall.
That undercuts their economies, strengthens our own, and ensures that even if those wells are drilled, then capped, we can access them almost immediately in the event of a future upset in the market, rather than having to wait for years.
If there is a theoretical breakthrough within that time, we can simply slow down the pumping as the new source starts replacing oil-based fuels. But to ignore that the demand IS going up and that those oil-rich nations are not all happy with us is to ignore reality.
Which explains why the Democrats don’t think that there is a problem.Drumwaster (5ccf59) — 8/4/2008 @ 6:32 pm
Enemies of America would like nothing better than for us to have a bunch of inept politicians, like Obama, Pelosi and Reid, pushing us to squander our strategic oil reserves … so that if they close the straights of Hormuz, we wouldn’t have any emergency oil to use. Are these the kind of leaders you want to protect us, and keep America strong? The liberal’s idea of globalization only works when the countries they are pandering to either meet us half way, or abandon their goals to destroy us. In additionl, we don’t even know if the ‘other things’ that are supposed to bring us alternative energy will be cost effective, or even work. However, I agree that we must move forward with development of alternative energy ASAP … but, in the meantime, this entire country runs on oil. And, I’m not just talking about us consumers at the pump, I’m talking about how everything we use, eat, wear, etc. … how it all gets to market, and eventually to us. We have to drill more, if even as a transition until alternate fuels are developed, But, aside from the cost at the pump for consumers, the bigger issue still is our national security. Drilling oil on our own land insures us energy independence, which will stop us from total dependence on countries who don’t like us … and from countries we’ve been sending tens of billions of dollars to every year. We must drill ASAP. The politicians who tell you different are simply placing petty party politics above the prosperity and security of America. Obama’s policies are just one example of what can happen when a bunch of inexperienced, but exuberant followers blindly follow an inexperienced, incompetent charismatic leader, who thinks he’s the second coming, off the cliff. Hunger is not enough of a justification to eat the goose that lays the golden eggs … or, eventually everyone will starve. If Obama, with his socialistic redistribution of wealth scams wins, America will turn into a third world country, with massive company closures and unemployment, within a few years.Howard (f14f31) — 8/5/2008 @ 9:13 am
Elect a man who truly loves America, and will protect her … elect Senator John McCain in November.
Honestly, I just can’t believe this. Why does he think it’s the governments job to keep oil prices low??? I wish I was a better writer so that I could better express my outrage. If we want to see oil prices significantly lower then let’s, as consumers, support the alternative energy movement. In general, I think it is important for us to support ‘green’ business that not only provides a social utility but also helps the environment. For example, Simplestop stops your postal junk mail and benefits the environment. But I digress… Obama’s political idealogy is a slippery slope. Where will liberty be in 100 years if the gov’t continues down the road it is along.Gustavion (a5eed1) — 8/5/2008 @ 10:56 am