Boxer for President! 2008 - Please add your comments whether you are for her or not.

Friday, March 25th

OH.. Now Max Boot says taxes are a good thing.. if it means he can continue driving his gas hog.. Selfish Dumb ASS


First off, what an A-HOle hypocrite!!! This guy who wants his tax cuts cuz his taxes are too high and the taxes are going to programs that "don't work".. like food stamps, and education...

Now he wants more taxes!! Oh yeah, and activist judges.. like the Shiavo case!! what hypocrites man.. it's sick.

Having said that.. what he says here is a good idea, except the drilling in Alaska.. dumb ass...

But, why not think even bigger Max.. why do you say hydrogen is pie in the sky.. Can you imagine if we didn't attack Iraq, and kill those hundreds of thousands of people by the way.. and spend that $800,000,000,000 (800 Billion when all said and done by some estimates) on finding an alternative way to fuel/power our cars.. then we could solve this problem...


=================================================================

March 24, 2005 E-mail story Print Most E-Mailed

Max Boot:

The 500-Mile-Per-Gallon Solution
High-tech cars, Arctic drilling, new gas taxes: We must have the will to do it all.

Soaring oil prices — crude is over $55 a barrel and unleaded gasoline over $2 a gallon — are not much of an economic or political issue. Yet.

In absolute terms, today's prices are still half of the 1970s peaks, and the U.S. economy has become much less dependent on petroleum since then. (Computers run on electricity, not gasoline.) But imagine what would happen if Al Qaeda were to hit the giant Ras Tanura terminal in Saudi Arabia, where a tenth of global oil supplies are processed every day. Prices could soar past $100 a barrel, and the U.S. economy could go into a tailspin. As it is, high oil prices provide money for Saudi Arabia to subsidize hate-spewing madrasas and for Iran to develop nuclear weapons.

Both Democrats and Republicans know this, but neither party is serious about solving this growing crisis. Democrats who couldn't tell the difference between a caribou and a cow grandstand about the sanctity of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, even though 70% of Alaskans are happy to see a bit of drilling in this remote tundra. Republicans, for their part, pretend that tapping ANWR will somehow solve all of our problems. If only. A government study finds that, with ANWR on line, the U.S. will be able to reduce its dependence on imported oil from 68% to 65% in 2025.

How to do better? Biking to work or taking the train isn't the answer. Even if Americans drive less, global oil demand will surge because of breakneck growth in India and China. The Middle East, home of two-thirds of the world's proven oil reserves, will remain of vital strategic importance unless we can develop alternative sources of automotive propulsion and substantially decrease global, not just American, demand for petroleum. An ambitious agenda to achieve those goals has been produced by Set America Free, a group set up by R. James Woolsey, Frank Gaffney and other national security hawks.

They advocate using existing technologies — not pie-in-the-sky ideas like hydrogen fuel cells — to wean the auto industry from its reliance on petroleum. Hybrid electric cars such as the Toyota Prius, which run on both electric motors and gas engines, already get more than 50 miles per gallon. Coming soon are hybrids that can be plugged into a 120-volt outlet to recharge like a cellphone. They'll get even better mileage.

Add in "flexible fuel" options that already allow many cars to run on a combination of petroleum and fuels like ethanol (derived from corn) and methanol (from natural gas or coal), and you could build vehicles that could get — drum roll, please — 500 miles per gallon of gasoline. That's not science fiction; that's achievable right now.

Set America Free estimates that if we convert entirely to flexible-fuel, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, U.S. gasoline imports in 20 years will drop by two-thirds. As important, because Americans are the world's biggest car buyers, U.S. preferences would reshape the global automotive industry. Carmakers would wind up shipping hybrid electrics to Europe and Asia too. President Bush could hasten the transition through an international agreement to move major economies away from oil dependency. This would not only reduce the Middle East's strategic importance but also help reduce emissions to Kyoto-mandated levels.

There is, of course, a catch. Moving to hybrid electric cars won't be cheap. Automakers would have to retool their wares, gas stations would have to add alcohol-fuel pumps, parking lots would have to add electric outlets. Set America Free puts the price tag at about $12 billion over the next four years. It sounds like a lot of money, but it could easily be financed by slightly raising U.S. gasoline taxes (currently about 43 cents a gallon), which are much lower than in Europe and Japan. Higher taxes could also be used to encourage more domestic oil exploration and production, given that petroleum will never be entirely eliminated as an energy source.

There are many untapped sources of gasoline in North America, such as the tar sands of Alberta, Canada, and the shale of Utah, Wyoming and Colorado. But extracting oil from such sources costs at least three times more than pumping it out of the Arabian desert. Congress could make this more economically feasible by imposing a higher tax on oil that doesn't come from North America.

Needless to say, this runs smack dab into Republican orthodoxy that opposes new taxes and regulations, while the prospect of more drilling raises the hackles of Democratic environmentalists. Absent some political courage in both parties, we will continue to be at OPEC's mercy.


admin on 03.25.05 @ 01:08 AM CST [link]


Wednesday, March 16th

California Gov. Faces Widening Network of Opposition


Gov. Faces Widening Network of Opposition
A diverse band of foes is using a blend of tactics to put Schwarzenegger on the defensive. (HA HA HA HA Freakin' HA HA)

What a frickin burn.. I saw all those stickers "Join ARNOLD" blah blah, made my stomach turn.... always heard "he's the terminator" - "he's rich he wont be beholden to special interests" I found out that a MAJORITY (and then some.. of the firefighters voted for that asshole).... "he's the terminator" - Well burn on you!!! He's going to Terminate your pension!!!!! Now.. the firefighters are all out demonstrating against Arnold!!!!!!!! watch out what you wish for firefighters!! (and people of Caly-FORN- NIA) what a burn on you guys!!!!! it's hard to feel sorry for the firefighters.. they're getting what they voted for.. simple as that! .. is it too early to say "I told you so". I've got an even better idea: Next time pay attention and THINK FIRST before you vote. blush

SACRAMENTO — Inspired by what began as an isolated protest by California nurses, opponents of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger are working in a loose but widening network to thwart his policy proposals.

They are deploying an aggressive blend of demonstrations, legal action and legislative maneuvers, forcing him to defend his agenda on multiple fronts.

Firefighters and nurses are protesting outside his fundraising events. Democratic lawyers are going to court in an effort to curb the campaign money he's taking in. Teachers unions are airing TV commercials accusing him of pushing an education budget that shortchanges students.


Today, more than 1,000 protesters are expected outside a fundraising dinner Schwarzenegger has scheduled at the Westin Century Plaza Hotel in Los Angeles. The maximum contribution is $89,200, in return for which donors get perks that include a private briefing with the governor, according to a copy of the invitation.

Nurses, firefighters, teachers and students are planning to appear. Nurses have been the most tenacious group critical of the governor, and they prevailed in a recent court battle, when a judge ruled that the governor illegally suspended a law requiring more nurses in hospitals.

The heart of Schwarzenegger's agenda: a call for new voting districts, merit pay for teachers, spending restraints on the state budget and a 401(k)-style retirement system aimed at cutting pension costs for public employees.
admin on 03.16.05 @ 11:48 PM CST [link]


Monday, March 7th

Tax Cuts Lose Spot On GOP Agenda


Blogger note: I don't get it... aren't tax cuts supposed to INCREASE government revenue by stimulating the economy?? Therefore, why in hell would W want to RAISE TAXES. If anyone has the answer, please respond. Sincerely, A very confused W booster. (I'm sincerely baffled... as we need MORE TAX cuts NOT LESS : W has said this all along..)

Tax Cuts Lose Spot On GOP Agenda
Mon Mar 7, 7:43 AM ET Politics - washingtonpost.com


By Jim VandeHei, Washington Post Staff Writer

President Bush (news - web sites) and Republican lawmakers are being forced to temper their anti-tax ambitions, as the party that consolidated power in Washington by promising to shrink government grapples with the high cost of its efforts to expand the Defense Department and the nation's two largest entitlement programs.

The president's only new tax initiative for the second term -- a broad restructuring of the tax code -- will be crafted in a way that results in a simpler system, not lower taxes, White House aides said.


At the same time, Bush's call for Congress to make permanent all the tax cuts enacted in his first term faces increasingly strong resistance among some Republicans concerned about rising deficits. The chairmen of the Senate Budget and Finance committees said in interviews last week that Republicans might wait until next year, or later, to consider the Bush plan, because the cuts do not expire until the end of the decade.


And, for the first time in years, Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.) and other Senate Republicans are advocating increasing taxes -- as a way to pay for a restructuring of Social Security (news - web sites). Bush has not ruled out backing the effort.


"What is different this year is deficits loom larger over the debate in the Senate," said Graham, who opposes extending some of the Bush tax cuts he supported. "I believe senators will be more balanced in what we can afford."


Federal Reserve (news - web sites) Board Chairman Alan Greenspan (news - web sites) warned Congress last week that rising deficits beg new scrutiny of tax cuts. "Addressing the government's own imbalances will require scrutiny of both spending and taxes," he said.
sleepy sleepy
admin on 03.07.05 @ 07:39 PM CST [link]


Thursday, March 3rd

House GOP to Propose Adding Defense Funds


NOTE: Now we're talking.. W says God wants this money for WAR.! and that's what we're doing.. is this a great country or what? God Bless George W Bush... our saviour and second coming... (or 3rd if you're LDS). He is The Chosen one.. that is fact! Please understand that Democrat wienies! Now I am expecting my tax cut to pay for all this... but I'm not in a hurry, I know it takes time for dumb shits to understand we need to cut more taxes.... whatever.. I'm just waiting for my tax cut...actually I am expectiing this one to be BIG since the deficit is so big... so that should be good!


House GOP to Propose Adding Defense Funds

1 hour, 16 minutes ago Politics - U. S. Congress


By ALAN FRAM, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - House Republicans will propose tacking about $1.8 billion in extra defense spending onto the $81.9 billion package President Bush (news - web sites) wants for the wars in Iraq (news - web sites) and Afghanistan (news - web sites), according to data obtained by The Associated Press.


AP Photo




At the same time, GOP lawmakers will propose cutting about $2 billion from the State Department and foreign aid portion of the measure, including some Afghan reconstruction aid, said a congressional aide familiar with the emerging bill. The measure also includes disaster-relief aid for Indian Ocean countries hit by last December's tsunami and other foreign expenses.


The changes underscore a desire by Republicans to pare some spending at a time of rampant federal deficits. It also reflects a bipartisan preference for beefing up military funds in a time of war despite some misgivings about parts of Bush's proposal.

smile smile
admin on 03.03.05 @ 05:17 AM CST [link]


Wednesday, March 2nd

Greenspan urged Congress to reinstate lapsed rules requiring tax cuts and spending to be offset elsewhere in the budget, and warned that unless the nation sees unprecedented increases in productivity "significant" changes would be needed in retirement and health programs.


Rubbish... what a jerk. Our president won a mandate. Bush has said a deficit is good for this country.. Greenspan is a commie....

We need a bigger tax cut that's all! We don't have to curtail spending.. Bush is proving that we can have a large deficit.. (largest debt and deficit in our history)... and everything's fine.

We want our tax cut NOW! dip wad.

We know that big inflation that is coming will diminish those that have built up a nest egg for retirement.. but that's not what this country is about..

increase spending (Bush), and Larger tax cuts (Bush) - get on the train greenspan or leave this country ... who do you work for Al Queda! Ass !
admin on 03.02.05 @ 06:39 PM CST [link]


"Some of you may die, or get injured... but that is a sacrifice I am willing to make" George W -



Please remember God speaks through George .. although you may be injured or even killed, please mute your criticizisms soldiers.. it's very unpatriotic.. and is very unbecomming.. Could even say your ingrates... for all He (W) has given you. This article below is insulting to Him (W)... we all appreciate what you did... BUT GET OVER IT Already.. ingrates!
admin on 03.02.05 @ 06:28 PM CST [more..]



Home
Archives
Fake Link One
Fake Link Two
Fake Link Three

Greymatter Forums

March 2005
SMTWTFS
  12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Valid XHTML 1.0!

Powered By Greymatter