Bush economic policy approval soaring

[Jocko]

There we go:

Here is where Bush could have invested some of the $100 billion that he wasted in a war for oil in Iraq.

What, to prop up your vaporware-oriented industry? The burst is your own industry's fault. I'd rather get the oil, if there's an option. Not that the war is about oil, but you seem to think it is.

Oil burns better than your IPO's do.

 

[Ion]

You mean the EDITORIAL OPINES how.
...

Yes, I mean the editorial opines how.

The hard fact is that U.S. sheds jobs since Feb. 2001 under Bush, Bush wastes money, and the loss of jobs points to a fake in the calculation of the GDP.

 

[Ion]

What, to prop up your vaporware-oriented industry? The burst is your own industry's fault. I'd rather get the oil, if there's an option.
...

Yes to my vaporware-oriented industry.

Don't be so sure about the oil.

Oil is old school, is heading towards world shortage (hence Bush's rush), and there are alternative forms of future energy that an intellectual president would pursue.

 

[Jocko]

Yes to my vaporware-oriented industry.

Don't be so sure about the oil.

Oil is old school, is heading towards world shortage (hence Bush's rush), and there are alternative forms of future energy that an intellectual president would pursue.

Why can't I get out of this ridiculous discussion?

You do know what the colloquialism "vaporware" means? If you do, then I take your post to be in extremely poor taste. I'd rather see the government subsidize the snake oil industry. And impending shortage or not, I'm not going to be able to fill my tank with 801.1 standards anytime soon. But even that is moot, since the war wasn't about oil, no matter how you see it.

 

[Ion]

...
I'd rather see the government subsidize the snake oil industry. And impending shortage or not, I'm not going to be able to fill my tank with 801.1 standards anytime soon. But even that is moot, since the war wasn't about oil, no matter how you see it.

Again, don't bet on oil.

The war was about oil like I told you, so do a search for my posts about Chevron selling Iraq's oil.

There are forms of energy that don't ask you to fill your tank with oil.

These forms of energy don't pander yet to industrial interests, and Bush goes with the old oil industrial interests.

 

[Jocko]

Again, don't bet on oil.

It's foolish to bet against the only game in town.

The war was about oil like I told you, so do a search for my posts about Chevron selling Iraq's oil.

No, it bloody well wasn't. Otherwise we'd be experiencing a glut that would have gas selling for 50 cents a gallon. As to Chevron, I don't see where it's relevant - what oil company DOESN'T sell for a profit, regardless of whether it's from Iraq or Venezuela?

There are forms of energy that don't ask you to fill your tank with oil.

Tell me about it. I still get people pointing at the widmill on my hood. Boy, talk about backing the wrong horse...

These forms of energy don't pander yet to industrial interests, and Bush goes with the old oil industrial interests.

No, at the moment they pander to extremist environmentalist groups and other lobbyists, sucking up federal development subsidies, and will continue to do so until they become profitable and practical - at which time they will become another evil industry for you to blame for your woes.

You don't grasp the recent economic trends of the past, and you don't seem to grasp the economic realities of the near future, and none of this addresses the point of this thread, which is that people support the administration's economic policy.

 

[Ion]

...
As to Chevron, I don't see where it's relevant - what oil company DOESN'T sell for a profit, regardless of whether it's from Iraq or Venezuela?
...

I see where is relevant:

oil for blood and not free market.

...
Tell me about it. I still get people pointing at the widmill on my hood. Boy, talk about backing the wrong horse...
...

I can tell you about this.

In fact one of Bush's promises in 2000 during his campaign was to invest in alternative sources of energy.
He doesn't keep this promise.

The subject of alternative forms of energy is a big subject, with lots of scientific research, and we can open another thread for it.

 

[Jocko]

I see where is relevant:

oil for blood and not free market.

So you're saying Chevron sent troops, and is profiteering? What did you expect to happen after the war, Ion? Oil is all that country has to sell, after all. I'd be surprised if every oil company on the planet isn't in on this, but that does NOT equate to "blood for oil," which is no more true now than it was in '91.

Iraq was allowed to sell oil during the sanctions as well; with Saddam funneling the money away from his own needy people, HE is the one you ought to ask about "blood for oil." It takes more than protest slogans to change that fact.

I can tell you about this.

In fact one of Bush's promises in 2000 during his campaign was to invest in alternative sources of energy.
He doen't keep this promise.

Er, yes he has.

UDSA summary of Bush funding of ethanol and other biofuels

Bush invests 1.2 billion in alternative energy

He's also funding the development of hydrogen cell cars, which pretty much everyone agrees is the only feasible substitute for the internal combustion engine. I can't find a link for it, but I remember reading that he's spending more on alternative energy than Clinton did (anyone who can verify or deny this, please speak up).

Funny behavior, coming from a president who is, according to you, interested only in two things:

1. Wrecking the conomy and the San Diego IT industry in particular, and
2. "Blood for oil."

 

[Ion]

So you're saying Chevron sent troops, and is profiteering?
...

No, Bush sent troops and Chevron is profiteering.

While Bush neglected the consumer economy.

...
UDSA summary of Bush funding of ethanol and other biofuels

Bush invests 1.2 billion in alternative energy

He's also funding the development of hydrogen cell cars, which pretty much everyone agrees is the only feasible substitute for the internal combustion engine.
...

Exactly about hydrogen cell cars, that's what I have in mind.

Also about ethanol.

And it shouldn't be a puny $1.2 billion.

At least $20 billion.

 

[Troll]

No, Bush sent troops and Chevron is profiteering.

While Bush neglected the consumer economy.

Exactly about hydrogen cell cars, that's what I have in mind.

Also about ethanol.

And it shouldn't be a puny $1.2 billion.

At least $20 billion.

Here's your ethanol

http://www.usda.gov/news/releases/2002/10/0458.htm

Now I see you agree it's being done, which is progress, since just a minute ago you said:

"In fact one of Bush's promises in 2000 during his campaign was to invest in alternative sources of energy.
He doesn't keep this promise."

 

[Jocko]

Exactly about hydrogen cell cars, that's what I have in mind.

Also about ethanol.

And it shouldn't be a puny $1.2 billion.

At least $20 billion.

So let's see, there's 100 billion for the floundering and self-destructing IT industry (in San Diego), and 20 billion for ethanol and hydrogen.

That's some funny stuff coming from someone who got a tax cut and doesn't even realize it.

Seems to me that you want to restructure the whole shebang. Ever thought about running for office? You could sit down with Greenspan and explain to him what a recession REALLY is.

 

[Ion]

...
What did you expect to happen after the war, Ion? Oil is all that country has to sell, after all.
...

You know what I expect to happen before, during, and after the war?

Something like this:

http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/story.jsp?story=475890

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Christmas truce of the Great War in 1914 was started by a "peace movement" of German soldiers who won over their trenchbound British foes by lobbing chocolate cake at them instead of hand grenades, a new book claims.
...

The truce collapsed shortly after Christmas 1914 when news of the ceasefire reached the horrified high commands and strict military discipline was reinforced. Jürgs writes that in one area, Ploegsteert forest in Belgium, the ceasefire continued until the end of February 1915.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

God forbid anyone should want to get along, say the ruling classes.

 

[Jocko]

You know what I expect to happen before, during, and after the war?

Something like this:

http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/story.jsp?story=475890

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Christmas truce of the Great War in 1914 was started by a "peace movement" of German soldiers who won over their trenchbound British foes by lobbing chocolate cake at them instead of hand grenades, a new book claims.
...

The truce collapsed shortly after Christmas 1914 when news of the ceasefire reached the horrified high commands and strict military discipline was reinforced. Jürgs writes that in one area, Ploegsteert forest in Belgium, the ceasefire continued until the end of February 1915.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

God forbid anyone should want to get along, say the ruling classes.

Sounds like a subject for a different thread to me. Hell, I'd love it if life were all pixie dust and chocolate ice cream too, but I'm not waiting for it to happen.

 

[Ion]

So let's see, there's 100 billion for the floundering and self-destructing IT industry (in San Diego), and 20 billion for ethanol and hydrogen.
...

There is surely over $100 billion to spend on:

.) alternative forms of energy,

and

.) the consumer economy nationwide,

instead of oil for blood.

 

[Ion]

Sounds like a subject for a different thread to me.
...

Not really.

It would fit 'Bush economic policy approval soaring' way better than loss of jobs, loss of consumer confidence and oil for blood:

http://www.snopes.com/holidays/christmas/truce.asp

"German and British front-line soldiers sang carols, exchanged gifts, and played soccer during a World War I Christmas truce.
...
The Germans set trees on trench parapets and lit the candles. Then, they began singing carols, and though their language was unfamiliar to their enemies, the tunes were not. After a few trees were shot at, the British became more curious than belligerent and crawled forward to watch and listen. And after a while, they began to sing.

By Christmas morning, the "no man's land" between the trenches was filled with fraternizing soldiers, sharing rations and gifts, singing and (more solemnly) burying their dead between the lines. Soon they were even playing soccer, mostly with improvised balls.

According to the official war diary of the 133rd Saxon Regiment, "Tommy and Fritz" kicked about a real football supplied by a Scot. "This developed into a regulation football match with caps casually laid out as goals. The frozen ground was no great matter . . . The game ended 3-2 for Fritz."

 

[Jocko]

There is surely over $100 billion to spend on:

.) alternative forms of energy,

and

.) the consumer economy nationwide,

instead of oil for blood.

That's one too many mindless platitudes for me. Good luck, Ion, because it will take a miracle for Bush to lose next year.

 

[Ion]

That's one too many mindless platitudes for me. Good luck, Ion, because it will take a miracle for Bush to lose next year.

That's not a platitude.

Dean, an intellectual, would do this.

 

[Jocko]

That's not a platitude.

I'm afraid it is. It's the mindless mantra of irrational Bush haters. You've been guilty of this beahvior yourself, in fact. Let's summarize:

You blame Bush for the collapse of the IT industry, which happened before the election and was overdue in any event.

You blame Bush for confiscatory taxes, yet received a tax cut last year (93k salary would have gotten you a cut).

You blame Bush for perpetrating a war for oil, yet the Bush family is unconnected to Chevron.

You blame Bush for not bailing out a charlatan's industry.

You blame Bush for not pursuing alternative fuels, when in fact he has, moreso than his predecessor.

Platitudes are a substitute for thought, and this is what you demonstrate.

Dean, an intellectual, would do this.

God save us from self-styled intellectuals. I'm sure he WOULD do this, but the likelihood is that he won't.

Edited to add: That's enough for me. I'm out, yo. See you in November, Ion, when we see what the public sentiment really is... even in San Diego.

 

[Ion]

Now, you see this is a platitude:

...
God save us from self-styled intellectuals. I'm sure he WOULD do this, but the likelihood is that he won't.
...

I demonstrated in this thread that:

.) there were 132,000,000 jobs in Feb. 2001, before Bush;

.) there are 130,000,000 jobs in Nov. 2003 under Bush;

.) there was a consumer confidence index of 136 in 2000 before Bush;

.) there is a consumer confidence index of 91 in Nov. 2003 under Bush;

.) Bush spent over $100 billion of tax money to war.

Now, if you are "...sure he WOULD do this, but the likelihood is that he won't." and if you don't want to stay in platitudes, then go out and prepare to vote for Dean.

 

[WildCat]

Exactly about hydrogen cell cars, that's what I have in mind.

Also about ethanol.

Ethanol, IMO, should be scrapped as a fuel source. At current production efficiency it would take over 1.6 million square miles of corn fields to meet gasoline demands of the US for 1 year. The total area of the US is only 3.5 million square miles! And most of that is not suitable for corn production. It gets even worse when you factor in the fact that it takes 1 gallon of gasoline to produce 1.25 gallons of ethanol. And the amount of fertilizers dumped on fields to achieve the yields necessary for that yield is staggering.

Ethanol is really just another agricultural subsidy, not a serious or responsible energy policy.

Fuel cell research has much more promise, if a cheap way of obtaining hydrogen can be found.