Recent Posts
Here in Atlanta and across the southeast, our gasoline supplies have been way down and lines at gas stations (on the occasions when you can find gas) have grown excruciatingly long. It really has been a mind-boggling situation reminiscent of a post-apocalyptic "Mad Max" world in which folks treat gasoline like gold and are willing to kill or die to get it. I filled up my tank on Monday after waiting in line for 30-40 minutes. Even then, I had to drive ten miles to find a station that even had gas.
I don't really remember waiting in gas lines back in the oil and gas shock of the 1970's, so this was a new experience for me. Initially, it was amusing in a "this is just crazy" kind of way. After a few minutes, though, it became tiresome and quite disconcerting. Before these recent supply problems, my complaints were mostly about the rising price of gas. When you can't get it at all, though, the price of gas drops way down on the complaint list.
Thankfully, the supplies are starting to get back to normal. Most gas stations in my neighborhood have had at least some gas the last couple of days. Why did it happen, though? I heard that refineries had already cut back on production after the recent drop in demand. Then, Hurricanes Gustav and Ike resulted in a shutdown of several refineries. Those refineries have been gradually brought back online, but they have been slow in ramping up their production levels. With the supplies already being tight, the hurricanes' impact really put a choke-hold on the southeast.
This whole experience made me realize how devastating a war with Iran could be. Iran claims that it would do everything possible to cut off the Strait of Hormuz if we go to war with them. From what I've read, 40% of the world's oil supply goes through the Strait of Hormuz every single day. While I feel pretty confident that our military could ultimately stop Iran from taking such an action, even a temporary disruption could have a devastating impact. I've seen the trouble created by a couple of hurricanes here in the south. If the Strait of Hormuz gets cut off for even a few days, I fear that it could take our whole country weeks or months to recover. And we've seen how volatile the price of oil is. Even if there wasn't a choking off of supply, the possibility of a disruption could send prices through the roof. With the world economy on shaky ground, that's the last thing we need right now.
So should we let Iran do whatever they want to do? I don't know. Surely, the prospect of them having nuclear weapons is frightening. However, the potential impacts of a war with Iran could be economically devastating as well. We need to remember that as we work to keep Iran from getting nukes. Of course, this just emphasizes the importance of getting off foreign oil. If we weren't so dependent on oil from the Middle East, we would be in a much better bargaining position than we are now. As it is, Iran currently has us over a barrel -- both literally and figuratively. As a result, we are largely powerless to have any influence over Iran's nuclear plans.
Shared on
September 27th 2008 21:19
I commented a few days ago about my disgust for the bailout being formulated in Washington. I still am disgusted by it. However, I do now feel that something needs to be done very soon. The lack of credit/liquidity in the marketplace will start impacting commerce and the average person on the street very soon. I believe that Congress feels that same urgency, despite the understandable outrage throughout the country. The problem with selling the public on the bailout, though, is that "man on the street" just doesn't trust Washington to do what's in the taxpayers' best interest. The main players who are deemed as untrustworthy include:
* President Bush -- He has proven himself to be incompetent too many times. He hasn't done anything to fix wasteful government programs and even added new financial boondoggles since his tenure began.
* Congress (including the House and the Senate) -- Many or most of them have been in bed with the most egregious contributors to these problems. This includes unscrupulous lenders and irresponsible Wall Street investment banks. Barney Frank (D-MA) and Chris Dodd (D-CT) are the biggest hypocrites on this issue. Frank was the patron saint of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Dodd was the patron saint of Countrywide. Had Congress been impartial, they would've realized this train wreck was coming and fixed it a long time ago.
* Henry Paulson and Ben Bernanke - As I said in my previous post, these two have little accountability. They hold appointed positions. We are just blips on balance sheets and line graphs to them. Paulson was formerly chairman of Goldman Sachs, another investment bank that fell into dire straights. Why, in particular, should we trust him?
* Regulators - We're being promised regulation, but what does that really mean? We've had regulators. It doesn't matter what their job responsibilities are if they don't do their jobs.
* McCain and Obama -- Both are claiming to be actively involved in crafting a solution. Don't be fooled. Every move they make is calculated. The American people aren't their true motivation -- power is.
I do applaud the House Republicans for representing the taxpayers who will be saddled with this massive debt. They are trying to find a solution that is more market-based than government-based. I doubt they'll succeed, but at least they're trying. The White House, the Democrats, and most of the Senate Republicans are on the same page, but at least the House Republicans are trying to give the average American a voice at the table. In that respect, this whole situation is eerily reminiscent of the immigration bill. America is vehemently opposed to the government action that seems inevitable and most of Washington (less the Republicans in the House) is trying to push it through.
I suspect they'll reach an agreement soon. I really feel like they have to just to give our economy a chance to start moving again. You can be rest assured, though, that American people will ultimately get the short end of the stick. When it comes to Washington, that seems to be the only action they consistently achieve.
Shared on
September 22nd 2008 21:50
The biggest news story now is the state of the economy and the possible bailout that is currently being discussed in Washington. I've heard that the bailout could wind up costing taxpayers anywhere from $700 billion to $1 trillion. I think the idea of such a bailout is ridiculous. Why should taxpayers have to pay for the sins of Wall Street and the bad decisions made by homeowners who bought houses they couldn't afford? We shouldn't.
The GOP is supposed to be the free market party. I generally agree with that policy (with some notable exceptions). However, with the bailouts that have already occurred and the huge bailout that is now being discussed, we are now a country that privatizes profits and socializes losses. When did our government get into the business of nationalizing companies/industries? Isn't that what we (rightly) criticize Hugo Chavez for? How are we acting more responsibly than him now? In my opinion, we're not.
Also, this bailout would give inexplicable amounts of power to Henry Paulson and the Fed. We would just be handing them a $700 billion check. How is that good? They are appointed, not elected, officials. Where is the accountability? And wasn't Paulson the former chairman of Goldman Sachs? They were one of the investment banks involved in this fiasco. Does the term "wolf guarding the henhouse" come to mind here?
Yes, I've heard the "chicken little" arguments in favor of the bailout. I've heard that the economy will implode and we'll be on bread and water rations if we don't act now. However, my understanding is that the real problem is a lack of liquidity in the markets. Banks aren't exchanging/lending money. When that happens, the economy is paralyzed. Well, isn't there another way to inject liquidity into the markets that doesn't involve a $700 billion blank check that falls squarely on the backs of the taxpayers? These are (allegedly) smart men. Surely they can come up with a way to prop up the banking industry such that the industry itself has to clean its own books and solve its own mess.
I do agree that something needs to be done. However, I don't agree with this bailout in its current form. It's grossly unfair to those who HAVEN'T caused this. There has to be another way. The finance guys should lock themselves in a room again and keep brainstorming. This "solution" is a disaster waiting to happen.
Shared on
September 19th 2008 05:33
Joe Lieberman, the Independent Democratic Senator from Connecticut, isn't exactly a favored son of the Democratic Party these days. He ran as Gore's VP in 2000, but he was targeted by his own party in his 2006 Senatorial re-election bid because of his stance on the war in Iraq. He lost the Democratic Primary, but ran as an Independent and retained his seat. His support for the war continued and he has been campaigning for John McCain in this year's presidential election. He even went so far as to speak at the recent GOP convention. In his speech, he praised McCain and castigated Obama as being wholly unprepared for the job. He has been one of McCain's strongest allies in this election.
So why haven't the Democrats kicked him to the curb? Why haven't they stripped him of his seniority or taken away his committee assignments? That's simple. He caucuses with the Dems -- and with him, the Democrats have 51 Senators (including 49 Democrats and one Independent Socialist). The Republicans have 49 Senators. If Lieberman caucused with the Republicans, there would be a 50-50 split between Democrats and Republicans in the Senate and the VP (A Republican) would break the tie. That would allow the Republicans to take over chairmanships of all the committees. They would also have the power to control the agenda in the Senate. And, of course, they would get to move back into the big offices (as opposed to the smaller offices). For this reason, the Democrats will continue to make nice with Lieberman. He holds a LOT of power
[ Click here to read more ]
Shared on
September 13th 2008 22:10
Over the last couple of weeks, I've often wondered how Hillary Clinton felt about Sarah Palin being named as the GOP VP candidate. After losing a contentious fight against Obama for the top spot on the Democratic ticket, Hillary also was snubbed for the number two spot when Obama chose Biden for his VP. Since then, there has been continued talk about animosity between Obama and the Clintons. Also, I certainly haven't seen Hillary champing at the bit to stump for Obama. She's doing the bare minimum (if that) she has to do to satiate her critics. Keeping all that in mind, my guess is that Hillary is pretty happy about Palin being named the VP on the GOP ticket. Here are the three main reasons why I feel that way:
* Hillary cares about seeing women succeed -- Certainly, Hillary and Sarah Palin do not agree on many (if any) issues. However, Palin has a chance to do become the VP and that is something no other woman has ever done. I'm sure Hillary would rather see a Democrat be the first to break that barrier, but I still think she would be happy to see it happen...regardless of the party
[ Click here to read more ]
Shared on
According to the NY Times, Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews have been demoted from their anchor positions for the remainder of the election season. This was an obvious move that had to be done and it was a long time in coming. Although MSNBC did the right thing by redeploying those anchors, it was a correction of a mistake that should never have happened.
For a while now, MSNBC has been moving further and further left and positioning itself as the liberal mirror of Fox News. In terms of viewers, it has been a marginally successful strategy, but mainly for Keith Olbermann's show. Through his sarcastic and caustic commentaries, Olbermann became something of a hero to liberals around the country. His year-over-year numbers increased pretty dramatically, particularly in the 25-54 demographic. However, the other MSNBC shows didn't improve much, if at all. Also, Olbermann's improvement, while impressive, still leaves him with less than half as many viewers as Bill O'Reilly. And MSNBC, as a whole, is a distant third place amongst the big three cable networks in terms of ratings. So, MSNBC's dash to the left has helped its ratings, but only a little. And third place is still third (and last) place
[ Click here to read more ]
Shared on
The GOP Convention is over. Honestly, the Republicans did about as well as they could have done. The GOP brand is in tatters after the last eight years under Dubya (who wasn't there and only gave a short speech via satellite), so the convention had a nearly impossible task of convincing voters to keep the Republicans in power.
There were some good speeches. I'm a Fred Thompson fan, so I enjoyed his speech. He spoke about true conservatism and gave a tremendous recounting of McCain's ordeal as a POW. Mike Huckabee gave a very entertaining speech. He has that "down home" thing down pat. I had hopes that the more dynamic Mitt Romney who started to emerge in the primary season would show up at the convention, but he has reverted back to the stiff, wooden Mitt. His speech was a yawner. Rudy Guiliani is a bit of a firebrand and he gave an animated speech, but I just don't like his style. Also, he seemed to ramble quite a bit in his speech. It didn't do it for me
[ Click here to read more ]
Shared on
John McCain has named Alaska governor Sarah Palin as his choice for VP on the Republican ticket. Here are my initial thoughts on McCain's choice.
Pros:
[ Click here to read more ]
Shared on
As I'm sure you know, the Democratic Presidential Convention has been going on in Denver this week. Mixed in with the Republican-bashing and the speechifying has been a heaping helping of hypocrisy. Isn't that shocking? Politicians are known for shameless hypocrisy, but the Democrats have really outdone themselves this time.
In this case, an ABC reporter was arrested for taking pictures of Senators and their big-money lobbyists. Maybe if he had snuck into a private building and taken pictures of a private meeting, I could understand the arrest. However, he was taking pictures FROM A PUBLIC SIDEWALK. I'm not surprised that the Democratic Senators would be concerned about the possible exposure of their dalliances with lobbyists. However, it takes a lot of gall to shut down the press in such a brutal way while you're giving speech after speech about the evil corporations and their undue influence on Washington. Also, it's amazingly hypocritical for them to talk about ethics and transparency in the halls of Congress while they take extreme action against press members who dare to document a meeting of heavy hitters like this. That truly is a despicable display of hypocrisy
[ Click here to read more ]
Shared on
Obama has announced that Joe Biden (D-Delaware) will be the Democratic candidate for Vice President. There is plenty of expert analysis of the decision all over the news. Not wanting to be left out, I figured I would add in my initial thoughts.
Pros:
[ Click here to read more ]
Shared on
|
|
|
Comments (5)
Add Comments
Read More
Comment by PopulistConservative
on Here Comes the Snowball Effect!
Angry Electorate