Sunday, November 27, 2005
  Is there a manufacturing crisis?

Or has a crisis been manufactured?

There is nothing like a crisis to motivate people and govt into action. Money is spent to solve the questions please. Questions slow the profit, I mean solution down.

Think Enron. The recordings of traders selling grandma down the drain for their own profit is left wing propaganda...if it were not for the fact that the traders were recorded as they manufactured the electrical crisis that consumed California., in the person of Pat Cleary has posted another story that pushes and continues the manufactured oil refinery shortage crisis. Hold onto your wallets because Pat even pulls out the protection of poor people to support his perverted economic theory.

Redstate would not allow me to post a comment even though I'm registered and not a troll. It seems that the now controversial GWB theory of intelligence is spreading. If you want to convince others of your theory...dismiss all dissenting views. Iraq offers a decidedly different alternative to cherry picking intel.

This is just a taste:

Pat Cleary just posted another false tale concerning the shortage of oil refineries. There is an economic lecture that might make you vomit:

Everyone's for new sources, all for conservation. But this is not a zero sum game. That only gets us so far. In the meantime, we need to be doing everything in our power to tap into the enormous supply of energy that we have in this country. We remain the only country in the world that limits access to its own natural resources and now the poor and those on fixed incomes are quite literally going to pay the price for it. Anybody cover supply & demand in Economics 101...

For a dissenting view please read this from the Dept of Energy.

The United States experienced a steep decline in refining capacity between 1981 and the mid-1990s. Between 1981 and 1989, the number of U.S. refineries fell from 324 to 204, representing a loss of 3 million bbl/d in operable capacity (from 18.6 million bbl/d to 15.7 million bbl/d), while refining capacity utilization increased from 69% to 87%. Much of the decline in U.S. refining capacity resulted from the 1981 deregulation (elimination of price controls and allocations), which effectively removed the major prop from underneath many marginally profitable, often smaller, refineries.

Refinery closures have continued since 1989, bringing the total number of operable U.S. refineries to 149 in 2003. In general, refineries that have closed have been relatively small and have had less favorable economics than other refineries in their market area. Also, in recent years, some smaller, less-economic refineries that had faced additional investments for environmental reasons in order to stay in business found closing preferable because they predicted that they could not stay competitive in the long term.

While some refineries have closed, and no new refineries have been built in nearly 30 years, many existing refineries have expanded their capacities. As a result of capacity creep," whereby existing refineries create additional refining capacity from the same physical structure, capacity per operating refinery increased by 28% over the 1990 to 1998 period, for example. Overall, since the mid-1990s, U.S. refinery capacity has increased from 15.0 million bbl/d in 1994 to 16.9 million bbl/d in September 2004. Also in September 2004, utilization of operating capacity at U.S.United States, expansion at existing refineries likely will increase total U.S. refineries was averaging around 90%, down from 97% in July and August. Although financial, environmental, and legal considerations make it unlikely that new refineries will be built in the refining capacity in the long-run.

Tuesday, November 15, 2005
  Re... How tax relief works

Re... How tax relief works

by: Sen Frist

What comes first, investors and companies or families?

As stated by Sen Frist: (emphasis mine).

Taxes on capital gains and dividends -- which we eventually need to eliminate altogether -- also need close attention. By seizing a portion of the money that investors make when a company increases in value or hands out cash, these taxes place a tremendous burden on those who put aside money for the future. Furthermore, since a majority of households now own stock it's hard to argue that this type of tax cut benefits the rich alone -- nearly half of all income tax returns that reported capital gains and dividend income came from households with adjusted gross incomes of less than $50,000.

Any tax places a burden on those who want the money for the future. Does Frist consider the burden on families?

Frist just said:

Furthermore, since a majority of households now own stock it's hard to argue that this type of tax cut benefits the rich alone-- nearly half of all income tax returns that reported capital gains and dividend income came from households with adjusted gross incomes of less than $50,000.

Well, if nearly half of all income tax returns showed capital gains...that must mean that more than half do not show capital gains.

Plus, considering Frist uses math to show us where nearly half of all income tax returns had capital gains, I wonder if he would be so kind as to show us where the majority of the capital gains went? I wonder if nearly half of the capital gains went?

This chart is from rationrevolution:

Notice how the percentage changes to capital as you get higher up the income scale. If Frist could eliminate the tax on capital gains then Cheney would have paid taxes on only $800,000 out of a total income of $35,000,000.

Cheney's potential tax burden (in bold) below:

$35 million times 35% equals $12,250,000 if he were taxed on all income.

$35 million times 12% equals $4,200,000 if there was a flat tax.

$800 thousand times 35% equals $280,000 if he was taxed at 35% on labor only.

What do you think Cheney wants to pay?

Another thing to consider is the pay differential from top to bottom:

Over the past 20 years the salaries of corporate executives have grown by a factor of more than 10. In 1982 the average corporate executive was paid about 42 times the salary of the average employee. In 2002 that figure had increased to 500 times the compensation of the average employee.

Wake up sheep.

Monday, November 14, 2005
  The US Islamic Strategy

The US Islamic Strategy

posted by Fran Monday, November 14, 2005

We, the people, progressive and conservative, fervently argue the values and implementation of the foreign policy of the Bush administration. The argument involves WMD and who knew what and when did they know it.

I think, and I hope, that our govt is smarter than such a sophomoric argument.

My guess is that our govt is engaged in a policy of deception.

My guess is that our policy, after 9/11, was to engage the Muslim population in a war on itself. A little background:

Islamic terrorism, as currently known, has existed for 40 years. The rally cry has always been the existence of Israel. The late 90's intifada, with it's use of suicide bombers taught Israel, and eventually us, about the determination of some members of the Islamic community.

Suicide bombing became accepted by the Muslim community, as a means of war, and then it was used on us.

A free society can't exist with suicide bombings...they are mutually exclusive.

We needed to find a way to get Muslims to oppose suicide bombings. Our choice was Iraq.

It was a conscious decision of the US Govt to induce a war between the Shia and Sunni sects of Islam.

If they suicide bomb each other enough it will provoke outrage in the Islamic community.

The situation has to be "real". It called for political sacrifice.

Bush had to play stupid for this to work.

If this was not our policy, then I'm seriously worried.

Thursday, November 03, 2005
  Phase II...more smoke and mirrors

Posted by: Fran Thursday, November 03, 2005

Re: Plamegate doesn't look likely to unravel Bush's presidency:

by Jonah Goldberg

An op-ed is by definition an opinion.

However, Jonah seems to confuse having opinions and having opinions about facts.

His sentence:

And so, even though the Senate Intelligence Committee has already investigated prewar intelligence, minority leader Sen. Harry Reid (D., Nev.) and his minions want a do-over. a blatant misrepresentation of the facts concerning the Senate Intelligence Committee’s commitment to investigate prewar intelligence.

His opinion seems to suggest that the committee has completed it’s investigation. Wrong. The investigation began before the 2004 elections. The Democrats, to remove any suggestion that they were trying to influence the outcome of the 2004 elections, agreed to break the investigation into two phases. Phase II, bottled up in committee by Sen Roberts, as stated on Media Matters:

In a July 13, 2004, press conference, Roberts elaborated that phase two would include three things: 1) "what the intelligence community said in regards to what would happen after the military mission was over"; 2) the role of the Defense Department's Office of Special Plans, led by undersecretary Douglas Feith; and 3) "the use question" in which the committee would "look at the public statements of any administration official and public official ... and compare it with the intelligence and what we have found out in regards to the inquiry."

On April 10, 2005 on Meet the Press, Roberts was asked about Phase II:

MR. RUSSERT: Two days later you were on MEET THE PRESS, both of you, and I asked you specifically about phase two of your investigation, looking into the shaping of intelligence, and you said this.

(Videotape, July 11, 2004):

SEN. ROBERTS: Even as I'm speaking, our staff is working on phase two and we will get it done.

(End videotape)

To suggest that any of this has happened is disingenuous at best, if not outright lying.

Jonah seems to have gone to the Bush administrations school of selling a war. Pick only the facts that support your position. It’s a shame that Jonah can’t have opinions about the facts.

Guesses concerning politics and life.

March 2005 / May 2005 / August 2005 / September 2005 / October 2005 / November 2005 / December 2005 / January 2006 / February 2006 / April 2006 / September 2006 / November 2006 / December 2006 /

Powered by Blogger