Shut Down Gitmo ?

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Shut Down Gitmo

House Democrats want to force the Pentagon to shut down the Guantanamo Bay detention camp and bring the terror suspects housed there to the U.S. The Politico newspaper reports the effort is being led by Virginia Democrat Jim Moran, who wants the 385 suspects in custody to be either released, tried or moved to military brigs along the East Coast.

Moran wants to cut funding for the facility by the end of the summer of 2008. A senior administration official responded by saying: "Where do Democrats believe we should keep Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the 9/11 plot? Which American city will they choose to place America's most wanted terrorists?"


How does this guy keep getting elected?--oops dumb question

Back to Prison?

Federal prosecutors want to send former Washington D.C. Mayor Marion Barry back to prison because they say he has failed to file tax returns on time for seven straight years. Barry, who is currently a D.C. city councilman, was given probation after pleading guilty in 2005 to failing to file his returns ? and promised to meet the deadlines in the future.

But Barry didn't get around to filing his 2005 return until last month, and prosecutors say it's time to show that Barry is not above the law. Barry meanwhile says the feds are trying to embarrass and harass him. Barry served six months in prison after he was videotaped smoking crack during a 1990 FBI sting operation.

 

[Chadman]

Are you using the terror threat as a fear factor here? Not sure what your point is, other than the usual ridicule of anyone voting for a democrat. The POINT of this legislation, as I read it, is for "the 385 suspects in custody to be either released, tried or moved to military brigs along the East Coast."

Personally, I think this is a good idea, and can see no reason not to do it...spending extra money and manpower eternally holding people without being charged or having a trial? Are you suggesting the the East Coast military brigs are not a safe place to house prisoners? Sounds like a pretty good place to keep guilty people to me.

Take care of this situation, get it done. If the dudes are terrorists or are guilty of crimes, then get this done. Otherwise, let them go. How long have they been held in captivity without being charged? Are all the individuals' situations the same? Maybe they are all a threat to us, but get something done about it...

One good thing about the democrats being in control now...the republicans and the administration are having to come up with reasons for acting they way they have been for the last few years. Fear and secrecy no longer seem to be accepted reasons for doing everything.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

I'm saying those that want them here--they should be housed in their neigborhood

Simple enough--Which group you want?

 

[IntenseOperator]

One good thing about the democrats being in control now...

a question...

Anything else?

 

[Chadman]

Yeah, the other thing that leaps to mind is that it shows that a majority of Americans now have a better understanding of how Republicans have done with the authority, and prefer the alternative.

I'll give you another, just for fun...Ethics legislation. I think that's a pretty good one.

 

[IntenseOperator]

Seems like ethics legislation is all that has been done since the start of this new congress.

I don't see anything different going on. I guess women have a glass ceiling right now. They are really flying towards the top.


Obama seems to keep stepping in it along the way here.

I really don't see any changes/differences or anything on the horizon. Things have chilled quite a bit. The standard ripping of the current admin and standard finger pointing are the usual. Nothing new has been brought or instituted.

Monster progress for the Dems I think not.

 

[Chadman]

I/O, not sure if you are not paying attention, or not understanding what accomplishments are taking place. Some might offer that the Dems accomplished more in the first 100 hours than the Repugs did in their 6 years. I love how things are worded here...Dems have only done ONE thing...saying that they have not achieved MONSTER PROGRESS, whatever the hell that is...etc.

Here's a gentle reminder of what the Dems accomplished - PASSED - in the first 100 hours of taking the majority. Doesn't look like nothing to me, but I can see how you could have gotten used to nothing getting done over the past 6 years except lining the pockets of oil company execs and defense contractors and not know the difference.

Sept. 11 Commission - PASSED
Would enact many recommendations of the Sept. 11 Commission, including distributing antiterrorism grants based more on risk. A controversial provision of the bill mandates that within three to five years, all air cargo and ship containers bound for the United States be screened.

Minimum Wage - PASSED
Would raise the federal minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, from the current level of $5.15, over the course of three years.

Stem Cell Research - PASSED
Would overturn President Bush?s restrictions on embryonic stem cell research, which allow the federal government to finance research only on stem cell colonies created before Aug. 9, 2001, from embryos left over from in vitro fertility treatments.

Prescription Drug Costs - PASSED
Would require the secretary of health and human services to negotiate with drug manufacturers on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries. Under current law, insurers and their agents negotiate the prices.

Student Loans - PASSED
Would cut the interest rate on federally subsidized loans to college students in half, from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent, over the next five years.

Energy Policy - PASSED
Would roll back $14 billion worth of tax breaks and subsidies for oil drillers.The money would go to a ?reserve? to offset the cost of separate legislation aimed at promoting other sources of energy and efficiency.

Pretty dang productive, if I don't say so myself.

 

[flapjack]

I/O, not sure if you are not paying attention, or not understanding what accomplishments are taking place. Some might offer that the Dems accomplished more in the first 100 hours than the Repugs did in their 6 years. I love how things are worded here...Dems have only done ONE thing...saying that they have not achieved MONSTER PROGRESS, whatever the hell that is...etc.

Here's a gentle reminder of what the Dems accomplished - PASSED - in the first 100 hours of taking the majority. Doesn't look like nothing to me, but I can see how you could have gotten used to nothing getting done over the past 6 years except lining the pockets of oil company execs and defense contractors and not know the difference.

Sept. 11 Commission - PASSED
Would enact many recommendations of the Sept. 11 Commission, including distributing antiterrorism grants based more on risk. A controversial provision of the bill mandates that within three to five years, all air cargo and ship containers bound for the United States be screened.

Minimum Wage - PASSED
Would raise the federal minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, from the current level of $5.15, over the course of three years.

Stem Cell Research - PASSED
Would overturn President Bush?s restrictions on embryonic stem cell research, which allow the federal government to finance research only on stem cell colonies created before Aug. 9, 2001, from embryos left over from in vitro fertility treatments.

Prescription Drug Costs - PASSED
Would require the secretary of health and human services to negotiate with drug manufacturers on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries. Under current law, insurers and their agents negotiate the prices.

Student Loans - PASSED
Would cut the interest rate on federally subsidized loans to college students in half, from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent, over the next five years.

Energy Policy - PASSED
Would roll back $14 billion worth of tax breaks and subsidies for oil drillers.The money would go to a ?reserve? to offset the cost of separate legislation aimed at promoting other sources of energy and efficiency.

Pretty dang productive, if I don't say so myself.

Almost all good things (I would argue the last 2 could have repurcutions that actually hurt those the bills are trying to help, but none the less, mostly good) . They are doing a good job so far. They're auditioning for control of the executive branch. This is why it is always better to have the 2 branches split. It keeps them honest. Make no mistake, if the Dem's control both, they will be just as bad as the Republicans are now. Carrot and stick is the only way to control those money sucking vampires. The dem's got the carrot in the last election and want to that pres. seat. They are putting on their Sunday best and putting on a show (Which is about all you can ask for). The Reps just got the stick in the last election for their BS over the past 6 years and I would expect to see them perform better over the next 2 years since they are in danger of losing the only thing they care about - power.

 

[IntenseOperator]

I/O, not sure if you are not paying attention, or not understanding what accomplishments are taking place. Some might offer that the Dems accomplished more in the first 100 hours than the Repugs did in their 6 years.

No, I am paying attention, and my question had NOTHING to do with whatever anyone has done in the past.

Sept. 11 Commission - PASSED
Would enact many recommendations of the Sept. 11 Commission, including distributing antiterrorism grants based more on risk. A controversial provision of the bill mandates that within three to five years, all air cargo and ship containers bound for the United States be screened.

Minimum Wage - PASSED
Would raise the federal minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, from the current level of $5.15, over the course of three years.

Stem Cell Research - PASSED
Would overturn President Bush?s restrictions on embryonic stem cell research, which allow the federal government to finance research only on stem cell colonies created before Aug. 9, 2001, from embryos left over from in vitro fertility treatments.

Prescription Drug Costs - PASSED
Would require the secretary of health and human services to negotiate with drug manufacturers on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries. Under current law, insurers and their agents negotiate the prices.

Student Loans - PASSED
Would cut the interest rate on federally subsidized loans to college students in half, from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent, over the next five years.

Energy Policy - PASSED
Would roll back $14 billion worth of tax breaks and subsidies for oil drillers.The money would go to a ?reserve? to offset the cost of separate legislation aimed at promoting other sources of energy and efficiency.

Pretty dang productive, if I don't say so myself.

This lame shit is what you are gonna hang your hat on? A couple of them were already being pushed by some in the other party and may have been passed if the Dems would have gone alone in the past.

This is considered a productive 1st step for the Democratic Party and it's fearless female. (You don't see much of her anymore??) This is the 1st impression of the Democratic Party and how more productive it's going to be in the future. I guess it works on the level that people like you see it as "Pretty dang productive, if I don't say so myself." So maybe they got what they wanted out of it. A lot of junk of no substance for the 1st move while in power. For someone not already wearing the proper sunglasses, these "accomplishments" may not be enough to believe and support a party whose best assets for a number of years has been not to accomplish anything, but be accomplished bashers. What do they have to offer? Irregardless of who is in office now(I know that's a lot to ask of you), could they control things?

Without the devil, can God still exist?

 

[Chadman]

This lame shit is what you are gonna hang your hat on?

Yeah, I'll hang my hat on that stuff. What exactly did the Repugs accomplish in their first 100 hours in power?

First, I mentioned Ethics reform. You made fun of it and ask what else? Then, I mention 6 more things they accomplished in their first 100 hours. You make fun of it.

What's the point of talking about this stuff? It wouldn't matter what anyone not conservative posted, which proves action - if nothing else - you would make fun of it and diminish it. You asked, I answered you with passed legislation that you don't agree with. I haven't looked much further to see what else they've been up to legislatively, but I'm sure there is more I could post and you would say means nothing. So, let's save the space, you bury your head in the sand, and it's all good.

You ask what have they done in the past few years. I guess you mean the past few years of Repugs domination. Agreed, they haven't been able to accomplish much, because of that, other than convincing voters that they would do some different things, and the voters agreed. And then they went out and did some of those very things.

It's simple. You don't like what they have done, so you demean it. That doesn't mean they haven't done anything for anyone not wearing "the proper sunglasses."

And my favorite part..."Without the devil, can God still exist?"

Some might say that we will probably find out in a couple of years, politically.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

all but minimum wage have elemnents of the gov spending the tax payors money--1/2 require one to believe the gov can run affairs better than free enterprise-
--My biggest bitch on our current admin is spending-- and if this is any indication of the other sides assault on deficeit--we got problems.

The 1st issue I have seen dicussed by both parties and both agreed it would be huge expense and nearly impossible to achieve--and if one could achieve it--what keeps someone from walking across border with wmd's.


Minimum Wage -Stem Cell Research -Student Loans --big deals--i think not

** costs--Yep show me one area the gov has ever been efficient in this area---Let me see if I got this right--Walmart has negotiated about the cheapest prices for drugs anywhere in U.S. and WHO is hounding their ass.

and the energy thing--(I'd like to see the bill on this one if you have it handy) can't believe this one without seeing it.

Can't believe they are taking insentives away from those actively looking for more reserves--

--and going to spend it on "a ?reserve? to offset the cost of separate legislation aimed at promoting other sources of energy and efficiency.

eg-- they are going to spend it on gov agencies

 

[IntenseOperator]

First, I mentioned Ethics reform. You made fun of it and ask what else?

Again,

I'm not going to try and defend anything.

I asked about the Dems and what they have done with their newly acquired power. You seem to have a big fascination with the "Repugs".

As far as ethics the great ethics reform, Obama, the Dems great "black" hope, has already been involved in a couple scandals. One involving property and one involving stock shares etc. Bet you he's almost as good as bashing Repugs as you are though. Seems to me your admiration of ethics reform is wasted.

"Some might say that we will probably find out in a couple of years, politically."

They won't accomplish much. They haven't shown much to this point. I guess what they have done to this point is fine with you and nothing else was/is expected until they get the oval office.

FYI
As under informed as you like to assume I am, weeks back, DJV was kind enough to basically go over most of the .... you posted in another thread. I was looking for a little more then, weeks ago, and now. I guess it was too much to expect. Nice to see that you and others of your ilk are quite satisfied (kinda like Cub's fans). That's were you'll fail. I wasn't attempting to dimish what little they have done, just wondering were the beef was and if anything of real consequence was on the radar.

 

[Chadman]

Again, my point was in response to a comment that asked what else the dems have done, and I have not said that the legislation was earth-shaking, but that it was actions taken, and in a hurry. Then, every step of the way, it's just finding fault with the legislation, and saying it's no big deal, which are different matters and points.

You can find fault with what they've done, and will. Which, AGAIN, does not prove they haven't DONE those things. Asked, answered, you don't like the answer. Whatever.

Wayne, I can dispute your claim that all the legislation relates to government spending taxpayers money...I understand where you are going, but I suggest it is a leap of faith.

The first bill deals with our security, and I guess you don't think the Sept. 11 report is worthy of spending any government money on? Guessing if I'd said that, you'd say I am aiding the enemy.

The Stem Cell bill I really don't know enough about, but apparently agree it would be the government spending money on, from the sound of it. I don't know how much would be spent, when, or anything like that. Maybe you do.

The Medicare negotiation bill, I guess I don't see the problem with that, and how it would cost the government money at face value. Why shouldn't all areas of health care be able to negotiate prices, including the people who direct Medicare? Wouldn't that person be better able to negotiate a cheaper price, negotiating on behalf of millions more recipients of medicine, than smaller companies and special interests?

Student Loan interest cutting - how is the Government spending money there? Taking in less, I guess, yes, but spending money on the program? Don't see it. And if this was some kind of tax benefit to another group, pretty much the same kind of thing, I think you'd favor it, looking at your track record. Less money going to government, more in individuals pockets, right?

Energy Legislation, seems like an interesting idea and actually presents a good way to pay for future energy independence - coming up with a solution to a new program. Not spending government money without taking it in. Balance. I get that. What, exactly, would the oil companies do with that money that was given to them by this administration - put it in a reserve to help study and create ways to use less oil? :mj07:

Blanket statements just don't cut it anymore. Surprised you didn't get the media bias involved in this discussion yet.

 

[Chadman]

FYI
As under informed as you like to assume I am, weeks back, DJV was kind enough to basically go over most of the .... you posted in another thread. I was looking for a little more then, weeks ago, and now. I guess it was too much to expect. Nice to see that you and others of your ilk are quite satisfied (kinda like Cub's fans).

I'm not completely satisfied, just like the fact that they have done some of the things they talked about, and I get tired of people using a broad brush for situations at times. Dems do nothing, Reps screw everything up, etc. I'd like to think I try to be more specific, but maybe I miss, too.

I don't know the thread you are referring to, I avoid a lot of threads around here...:SIB If you want me to respond to something you or DJV posted in one of my .... threads, then point it out to me, and I'll be glad to. Maybe I'm missing your point, entirely. It's almost Friday night, and my attention span is narrowing.

 

[smurphy]

You are wasting your breath, Chadman. L'operator d'intense said the new congress would do nothing before they took office. He says they are doing nothing while they are accomplishing some things, and he will say did nothing 4 years from now. His mind is made up and that's final.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Chad--concerning your--
"Energy Legislation, seems like an interesting idea and actually presents a good way to pay for future energy independence - coming up with a solution to a new program. Not spending government money without taking it in. Balance. I get that. What, exactly, would the oil companies do with that money that was given to them by this administration - put it in a reserve to help study and create ways to use less oil?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I am not picking on you--but with media-liberals ect bashing of oil companies I would think the majority of peoplethink exactly the same as your post.

1st I certainly wouldn't trust the gov (Rebs or Dems) to come up with solution on alternate energy--I assume they would fund they fav study groups 1st--then donate remainder of money left to their fav institutes these study groups wanted to do research.

--in answer to your "would oil companies put in reserve to study--the answer is they are putting in billions to studly issue in past and present as well as in future--here are a few items you won't find from oil company bashers--and guess where money comes from--the nasty ole tax breaks they want to take away--

Oil Giants Put Energy Into Other Resources
Los Angeles Times, By Elizabeth Douglass, Times Staff Writer, October 8, 2006. Reprinted with permission.

Inside two half-million-gallon tanks built in the 1950s, a team of microorganisms is preparing to munch its way into the annals of energy innovation.

Late this month, the microbes will start transforming truckloads of restaurant grease into electricity for a water pollution control plant in Millbrae, Calif. The one-of-a-kind setup relieves the city and area eateries of a fatty disposal headache while saving energy. And it has come with the help of a surprising backer: Chevron Corp.

"You don't think of a big energy company being involved in anything but gasoline," said Dick York, superintendent of the Millbrae plant. "But Chevron is really trying to diversify. Working together, we've brought forward a project ... that puts waste to work."

Royal Dutch Shell has become one of the world's largest developers of wind farms and is part owner of two in California. Chevron operates massive geothermal plants in Indonesia and the Philippines. And BP is a partner in hydrogen power plants proposed for Carson and Scotland.

Energy executives point to such endeavors as proof that oil companies are part of a global push to rein in pollution and boost alternatives to oil and natural gas.

"We think it's important to get things done when it comes to climate change," BP Chief Executive John Browne said in an interview. "If you weigh in the balance what we've done, and what we continue to do, I think it amounts to something very significant."

BP's renewable-energy efforts have been the most visible, in part because its "Beyond Petroleum" advertising campaign has for years been highlighting the firm's accomplishments.

The London-based company is a leader in harnessing the sun's power. Its solar subsidiary is a top manufacturer of solar panels and equipment and it has installed solar systems in 100 countries. In California, the company has funded solar research at Caltech, installed a solar power system at a water pumping station in Vallejo and sold home solar systems through Home Depot.

Late last year, BP created an alternative energy subsidiary and pledged to invest $8 billion in the unit over the next decade -- a commitment that dwarfs those of other oil companies. And recently, the company stepped up its wind-energy activities, announcing an alliance with Clipper Windpower Inc. and the purchase of Greenlight Energy Inc., a U.S. company with plans for 39 wind projects.

Exxon Mobil, the world's largest publicly traded oil company, has long been a lightning rod for critics of the industry's record on greenhouse gas and renewable energy issues. The Irving, Texas-based company has responded by pointing to energy-efficiency and emissions-reduction reducing projects as well as research that could improve existing fuels and vehicles.

But its efforts are relatively meager on the renewable energy front, consisting primarily of hydrogen-power research projects and a $100-million grant to fund research of solar, hydrogen, biomass and other energy technologies at Stanford University's Global Climate and Energy Project.

Exxon spokesman Russ Roberts said that the company's focus remained mostly on traditional forms of energy because it believes that the ability of renewable power sources to meet the world's needs "is very limited."

Even so, "we are doing things in alternative energy," Roberts said. "Just because we're not as visible as those other [oil companies] doesn't mean we're not doing it. We're just doing it in a different way." The company couldn't provide spending figures on alternative energy ventures.

European rival Royal Dutch Shell has invested $1 billion in alternative energy since 2000. It has installed hydrogen fueling stations in five countries and joined with Ottawa-based biotechnology firm Iogen Corp. to make ethanol from straw.

"We're getting quite a bit of experience in the renewables and alternative energy field," John Hofmeister, president of Houston-based Shell Oil Co., said in a interview. "We think that, over time, people will judge us by our deeds, not by our words."

At Chevron, funding for renewable-energy and energy-efficiency projects topped $1.5 billion from 2000 to 2005. The company said it expected to spend $2 billion more from 2006 through 2008 on such projects.
In addition to the Millbrae grease-to-energy project, which is an undertaking by Chevron Energy Solutions, Chevron subsidiaries have installed large commercial hydrogen fuel cells and teamed with California on hydrogen fuel tests, invested in a Texas biodiesel plant and last month pledged as much as $25 million over five years to fund research at UC Davis into next-generation biofuels
++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I don't know about you but my opinion is these companies that have been engaging in solutions and have reason to succeed on profits they will generate (free enterprise) are much likely to come up with solutions than any gov program handing out money to their pet orgs to look into it.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

---and a bit on minimum wage--which surely has to be good thing--or does it?

World Freedom Chart--note # 1 & 2--who would have thought
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/countries.cfm


A Higher Minimum Wage, Less Economic Freedom
Friday , March 16, 2007

By Tim Kane and Anthony B. Kim

Congress recently voted to increase the federal minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 over a two-year period ? a dramatic 40 percent increase. Final action on the minimum wage increase has not yet been cleared due to differences in the Senate bill and the House bill.

But Congress should be reminded that a minimum wage is nothing more than a price control on labor, which is a restriction on economic freedom.

Any nation that raises its minimum wage compromises its economic freedom score in the annual ?Index of Economic Freedom? from The Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal. The proposed change could reduce America's labor freedom score in the Index from 92 percent to 87 percent. America, now the fourth freest economy in the world, would drop to sixth place due to this single policy change.

In a free-market economy, prices allocate land, information, capital goods and labor to their highest use. Markets are truly free only if prices are free. For example, a firm that needs more workers signals its need to the labor market by offering a higher wage. Wages are good indicators that direct people to employment and show businesses how to expand. Freely floating prices allocate resources efficiently to places where they will take root and boost economic productivity.

Many types of labor regulations infringe on this market mechanism by disturbing price signals and, therefore, restraining the economic freedom of business owners and workers. One of the most prominent is the minimum wage. By setting a government-specified floor for workers' wages, minimum wage laws tend to disrupt labor supply and demand.

The labor market is not excused from the basic economic principle that artificially high prices cause lower demand. In particular, less skilled workers will suffer. The mismatch between labor supply and labor demand is likely to harm the very people the minimum wage is intended to help. A recent National Bureau of Economic Research study reviewed about 90 empirical papers from the early 1990s to the present. It found that two-thirds of those papers conclude that the effects of the minimum wage are negative.

Further, among the most methodologically rigorous of those papers, "almost all point to negative employment effects." The study also revealed "relatively overwhelming evidence of stronger disemployment" impacts on less-experienced workers.

Of even greater concern, increasing minimum wage is likely to curtail one of the pillars of U.S. international competitiveness, labor freedom. Labor freedom, like property rights and business freedom, is fundamental to a country's overall economic freedom as measured by the Index of Economic Freedom. The Index grades 157 countries' economic freedom, and one of the Index's 10 key components is a labor-freedom factor that measures the ability of workers and businesses to interact without restrictions imposed by the government.

According to the 2007 Index, U.S. labor markets are 92.1 percent free. Raising the minimum wage, which is one of the four elements of the labor freedom factor, will lower the score for U.S. labor freedom. The amount of the drop depends on how the 50 states react, because many have higher local minimum wages and would presumably raise theirs in response to congressional action. The proposed increase in the federal minimum wage is estimated to reduce the overall U.S. labor freedom score by 1.2 to 4.8 percentage points, dropping the labor score potentially as low as 87.3 percent.

America's economy is currently rated as 82 percent free overall. The implications of the 40 percent increase in the minimum wage could drop that score to 81.5 percent free.

Supporters of increasing the minimum wage argue that they do so in order to help poor and less-skilled workers. But government intrusion into the labor market through raising minimum wage generates the same problems that similar interventions produce in other markets. The minimum wage disrupts the natural interaction of supply and demand and leads to inefficient allocations of labor and, eventually, increased unemployment.

Congress should reconsider increasing the minimum wage and look for ways to help American workers by increasing their competitiveness.

Tim Kane, Ph.D., is Director of the Center for International Trade and Economics at The Heritage Foundation, where Anthony B. Kim is a Policy Analyst.

 

[The Sponge]

You are wasting your breath, Chadman. L'operator d'intense said the new congress would do nothing before they took office. He says they are doing nothing while they are accomplishing some things, and he will say did nothing 4 years from now. His mind is made up and that's final.

May i use your quotes because seeing his answers it just makes a person sick to their stomach. Where does it begin in life to have thoughts like this? Is it a fall from a bike? A car crash? The parents? Im not to found of the Democratic party but what has gone on the last six years and to be a fan of that party is just unbelievable. Im also sure if they brought one of these issues up it would have passed right thru the Republican congress as long as they could have found a key to the door where all the Repugs were sitting.

 

[Chadman]

While I can understand your point regarding free market and free enterprise having an interest in renewables and the future, I think the numbers put out in the article show proof of the relatively small efforts being put forth by these companies. Some of these companies, Exxon in particular, are able to take in profits in triplicate - at the refinery, at the delivery of refined products, and finally at the gas pump. And Exxon in particular, in the article you show, is doing the least in this area, while reaping the benefits of incentives and tax breaks sold to Americans for those purposes. Some of us didn't believe it then, and still don't. Seriously, if you look at what they have done since Bush took over in this area, compared to the unheard of profits, it tells us what we need to know as Americans in regards to oil company interests. Their ultimate goal is to shareholders, not to anyone outside not holding shares. In my opinion, the oil companies have not done remotely enough to continue to warrant tax breaks and incentives, and I am more than open to our legislators helping our country out in bridging the gap from big oil company reliance and oil independence. I'm not advocating increased taxation of these companies, just taking back what was given to them, because they do not have citizens in their best interest. And I'm not saying they should, necessarily. That's not the point.

When you take it a step further and see that these companies are avoiding paying drilling royalties, funding legislation towards renewables at every turn, and essentially have a protectionist stance of oil interests, I think your hope that others will think they are good stewards of renewable efforts is going to fall very short.

I do continue to think you very smart for supporting the oil companies in print while investing in them financially. That is one way to do it, of course.

 

[Chadman]

So, Wayne, all this 40% increase in minimum wage (the percentage is high mainly because it hasn't been raised in so long, right?) is going to take us back an entire 1/2 percentage point in the worldwide rankings? Dang...I see your point. Probably will send us crashing down due to that immense drop. I do see that you are promoting China (#1 overall) as the model for us to strive for. That is a little interesting, in some respects. Go communism, eh? I guess in those countries that can have people stuffed into closets to produce products and have the government pay companies to sell their products at below cost to be competitive should be admired.