Saturday, May 24, 2008

Mission Accomplished

17 comments:

Stardust said...

Gas in our area of Chicagoland is now $4.29 a gallon.

vjack said...

That is a good one. Sad but true. The only potential bright side is that increased prices might finally prompt R&D on alternative fuel sources.

Stardust said...

vjack, it has my husband and I looking to buy a pair of Mini Coopers and garage the van for vacation trips only.

Greg said...

I was shocked it went from $3.99 on Thursday to $4.15 on Friday in California!
But of course, yes - the people in Europe are paying a lot more.
Its still crazy no matter how you put it.

Jason H. Bowden said...

"Gas in our area of Chicagoland is now $4.29 a gallon."

In the city, you not only get the Crook County taxes for the Democrats, Comrade Daley piles on another 12.75cents on the dollar. The Democrats are playing us for chumps, making record tax revenues to pay for their excessive government spending, and blaming business for it. We are truly stupid in the People's Republic of Illinois.

It is crazy how much government takes out of every dollar. Here is a chart for the 50 states. Keep in mind, Big Oil usually has a profit margin around 7-11%

Can any of you Enlightened liberals explain to a caveman like me how Bush controls gas prices? Congress controls taxation, where we can drill, what kind of braindead corporate taxes are added to the price, etc. I sincerely want to know. Thanks in advance!

Stardust said...

The Bush administration is doing nothing to even attempt the aleve the situation..

Many say that the Republican administration must stop being influenced by the powerful oil industry and start promoting production of synthetic fuel from coal and the use of alternative sources.

We have the technology to raise the mileage standard for all passenger vehicles to at least 40 miles per gallon. The president has urged only a modest 2 miles-per-gallon increase for light trucks.

Why can cars in all other western nations be made to be more fuel efficient but our's cannot? Think about that.

Someone in charge better come up with some solution because one more crisis to shut down refineries, one more sinking of a super tanker and we are going to see an unimaginable fuel crisis.

Tommy said...

Can any of you Enlightened liberals explain to a caveman like me how Bush controls gas prices?

Jason, you mean to tell me you don't know about the secret room in the White House where Bush and Cheney have a special machine full of levers and gears through which they can manipulate the price of gasoline all over the world?

Jason H. Bowden said...

stardust--

Big Oil is making a profit margin consistent with other companies in the United States. Look it up on Forbes. This is nothing out of the ordinary.

We can mandate that all cars have 40mph, certainly. But then working people will have to pay even *more* to buy a new car. This of course means nothing to yuppie liberals and their gas guzzlers. The issue isn't that the technology isn't there, it is that it is not cost effective. I wouldn't be surprised if the corporations are paying the *Democrats* to force citizens to buy expensive vehicles-- they make a smaller net profit on a Tacoma than a Prius.

Note, giving tax breaks and huge subsidies to corporations used to be called "corporate welfare" a decade ago. There is no free lunch-- under liberal proposals, the consumers and the taxpayers eat the bill. Instead of doing more, why can't we do ***less*** and eliminate the subsidies that already exist, so prices better reflect scarcity and demand?

Jason H. Bowden said...

Check this out -- the rate of coalition casualties in Iraq has reached its lowest point ever. We wouldn't know that from watching the liberal media.

Perhaps one day we will say Mission Accomplished, and the progressives of our era will look like this.

Stardust said...

I'm going to have to do a lot more reading on this crap and try to understand this.

Jason, can you recommend any books or websites?

Jason H. Bowden said...

Thomas Sowell, Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy.

Stardust said...

oh yeah...duh...you told me about that book before and I said I would add it to my reading list. I am on too much medicine and have been scoring retarded Academic Achievement tests for too many days in a row. It's numbing my brain. :-E

Tommy said...

Check this out -- the rate of coalition casualties in Iraq has reached its lowest point ever. We wouldn't know that from watching the liberal media.

That's wonderful in and of itself Jason, and even more so if that was the only barometer for success or failure in Iraq.

But alas there are other barometers that are no so promising such as the 2 million of so Iraqis who are refugees in other countries, another 2 million internally displaced within Iraq. Lack of reliable electricity and clean drinking water. Rise in honor killings and deterioration of womens rights. You know, minor and trivial things like that.

Jason H. Bowden said...

tommy--

If the security situation is sustainable, then we can finally start drawing down troops. Security is also a necessary condition for everything you mentioned.

The difference between Bush and the liberals is that the liberals want the troops home *now* without regard to the situation on the ground. Perhaps you're one of the few liberals who has compassion for Iraqis. If you're not moving around the goalposts for all-encompassing purpose of Bush-bashing, that is to your credit.

Tommy said...

Jason, if my goal was Bush bashing, I would be against the war in Afghanistan too, wouldn't I?

The situation in Iraq is what I feared it would be before we even went in there, basically a giant version of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. One didn't need a PhD in Middle Eastern Studies to anticipate what was going to happen there, so I am very baffled as to why the administration apparently didn't anticipate it.

If someone wants Iraq to be a failure because they hate Bush, then that person is an idiot. The stakes are too high for that. Rather, the criteria should be to examine our options, understand what we can realistically hope to accomplish, and whether it is worth the cost in money and lives.

Jason H. Bowden said...

tommy--

The progressive argument is that democracy isn't worth the investment in lives and blood, and if a county can't stand on its own two feet by now, it never will.

The "I'm totally cynical about democracy in Iraq.. but but but ... I'm for democracy in Afghanistan, whatever the cost!" stinks of a guilty conscience. If the progressive argument is valid for Iraq, we must concede it is valid for Afghanistan as well.

If one truly is in the "realist" school of foreign policy, we should always act cynically in our self-interest. In Iraq, this means appointing a dictator that will advance our strategic and economic aims, no matter how nasty he is.

Intellectually, a realist has to go a step farther and say that aiding Saddam against Iran in the 80s was the right thing, but not because of expedience, but *principle*. I personally see the sordid affair in the tragic spirit of aiding a Stalin to defeat a Hitler. But for a realist, this is how a nation-state ought to act. We have no friends and enemies, only interests and self-interest, in the "reality-based community."

I can understand a Nixonian thug like Pat Buchanan making this argument. Progressives in contrast have to revise their entire worldview. Progressives have been saying for decades that because the US supports dictators, and is insufficiently committed to democracy and self-determination, we breed hate and terrorism. Neoconservatives not only say this, but believe it.

Jason H. Bowden said...

To put my cards on the table, I did not support the Iraq war when 70% of the people did, and agreed with Howard Dean in 2002 that this was going to be at least a 10-year investment. I'd rather deal with hostile regimes with preemptive, unilateral airstrikes. In short, I was a satisfied customer with the Clinton foreign policy.

Pure neoconservatism leads to imprudent consequences. McCain, for example, wants a foreign policy based on freedom, even if it antagonizes people like Putin and Jintao. I think freedom is a noble end, but acknowledge that we live in a world of means. That implies we must prioritize-- if we need to do airstrikes against Iran down the road, we don't need Russia and China giving us more trouble than world opinion will already give us. WJC for example accidentally bombed the Chinese embassy in Serbia in 1999, and was still able to smooth things over.

The current crop of progressives are downright stupid. Being taught by the education system since the 60s radicals took it over, they think the USA is the source of all the world's evil, and if we share our feelings, repent for our sins, and talk to dictators and theocrats in the spirit Oprah would, we can all like each other and get along. You have to be totally ignorant of human history to believe such a thing -- e.g., Buraq Obama, who might be the first President to be a product of the modern school system.