Flushing with Money

According to the Center for American Progress, "Americans sent nearly $1 billion a day overseas to pay for oil in 2010. These purchases make up nearly half of our trade deficit. And every dollar that leaves the country to buy a barrel of oil leaves the domestic economy never to return as investment to create jobs or growth."1


Crude prices in the first quarter of 2011 are running around $100 a barrel, which is 20% higher than a year ago. In addition, American taxpayers are coughing up over $70 Billion a year in subsidies to the oil industry.2 Less than $12 Billion is available for alternative energy. And, of course, we see record profits by the Big 5 oil companies:3

The New York Times warned that in the United States:

"A sustained $10 increase in oil prices would shave about two-tenths of a percentage point off economic growth, according to Dean Maki, chief United States economist at Barclays Capital. [He] estimates [the] increase would offset nearly a quarter of the $120 billion payroll tax cut that Congress had intended to stimulate the economy this year."


What are we doing to address the energy problems in the US? Not much, unfortunately. Click here to watch Gas Hole, a documentary released last year. This provides some history of the oil industry, some potential technologies, and lots of frustration with where we are now.

Afterwards, go to Congress.org (handy link to the lower right), find your Congresspersons, and urge them to make big changes with the course of US progress on energy.

Citations:
1. http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/02/profits_v_prices.html
2. http://transitionvoice.com/2011/02/gop-cut-food-aid-but-keep-oil-subsidies/
3. http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/01/oil_lust.html

Of Parasites and Men

Have you heard many Republicans and conservatives cite Ayn Rand and her books (Atlas Shrugged, etc.)? Do you wonder why? The title of this blog links to a Mike Wallace interview with her (1959). Her books point to the concept of a "rugged individualist" where the markets are a free-for-all and completely free of regulation. I'll bet many of them (and you) have never read her books, but picked up chunks of information, grabbed them on face value and ran with them.

Here's a link to a video with her and Phil Donahue, when he had the Phil Donahue Show. This reflects her thoughts on religion--she was an atheist who felt God did not exist because there was no proof. She felt that, when conservatives base their political decisions on faith, it shows a weakness to those who base theirs on science.

She also felt a democracy was good only if totally voluntary. a separation of state and economy, free of all regulations. Part 2 of the Mike Wallace interview reveals her opposition to labor and any sort of help by the state to those in need.

I heard Thom Hartmann today and he mentioned that one of Rand's idols was, William Hickman, a seriel killer, forger, and armed robber. This begs us to wonder how much to listen to someone who chooses their idols so poorly.


"At the time, she was planning a novel that was to be titled The Little
Street, the projected hero of which was named Danny Renahan. According to Rand
scholar Chris Matthew Sciabarra, she deliberately modeled Renahan - intended
to be her first sketch of her ideal man - after this same William Edward
Hickman. Renahan, she enthuses in another journal entry, "is born with a
wonderful, free, light consciousness -- [resulting from] the absolute lack of
social instinct or herd feeling. He does not understand, because he has no organ
for understanding, the necessity, meaning, or importance of other people ...
Other people do not exist for him and he does not understand why they should."
(Journals, pp. 27, 21-22; emphasis hers.)"1

Citations: 1. Michael Prescott, http://www.michaelprescott.net/hickman.htm.

Rich Man, Poor Man

Who can name which administrations, starting in 1980, showed the highest deficits? Anyone, anyone?

• Reagan increased the debt by 11.3% in his first term; he then increased it by 9.3% in his second. George HW Bush increased the debt by 15 %.


• Bill Clinton decreased the debt by -0.7% in his first term; he then decreased it by -9.0% in his second.


• George W. Bush increased the debt by 7.1% in his first term; he then increased it by 20.0% in his second. 1

Can you do the math? In the last 30 years, under Republican President's, the National Debt soared. Only when a Democrat came into office, did it drop. 2 During the 8 years of the Reagan administration, deficits went from almost $74 billion to $2.6 trillion. "In those eight years, the United States moved from being the world's largest international creditor to the largest debtor nation."3

During the eight years of George Bush II, how often did you hear any murmur about deficits? Once, maybe? Yet, within weeks of a Democrat moving into the White House, suddenly all we hear about is deficits. Now, I'm not suggesting running a huge deficit is a good thing. I'm merely pointing out that, as a critically thinking American, you should ask yourself why. What agenda is at hand that overshadows everything else in the news--let alone in the country? Who benefits when the corporate-owned media and conservatives scream "Lions, tigers, deficits! Oh, my!" The targets? Social and educational programs and social security. Back to who's screaming: corporate-owned media and conservatives.

The government currently spends 39.97% of the US GDP. 4 The number ONE biggest expenditure? Defense. 5 How many in the media or among conservatives are lamenting the fact that we are wasting over $7 billion a month in Iraq (more than $3 Trillion as of last Sept)? 6 You want to reduce the deficit? Get out of Iraq.

Now, let's look at wealth in America. Most Americans don't know or don't understand that the top 1% of Americans own 35% of net worth and 43% of financial worth. 7 In English, only 10% of Americans own the United States. 91. 9% of Americans do not receive any inheritance money. The rich are able to contain and enrich their assets in "dynasty trusts", where they avoid inheritance taxes forever. These rich babies are in the "lucky sperm bank." They did not work for their money, they were fed it with a silver spoon--make that a gold spoon, given today's situation.

Why don't they get to pay their fair share? Instead, they get a tax break under Bush which was just extended last December. If you read historical documents (I know you don't), you'd know that our founding fathers did NOT want a peerage--a country dominated by a rich gentry. That's why we don't have Lords and Ladies, remember? Yet, that's just where we are right now. Welcome to the "Have's"; the "Have Nots" can just look at the Statue of Liberty and turn back.

Here's an interesting chart that puts this all in perspective: http://www.good.is/post/must-see-chart-tax-breaks-for-the-rich-versus-budget-cuts/

Citations: 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms 2. http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/deficits.html 3. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A26402-2004Jun8?language=printer 4. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_20th_century_chart.html 5. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/united_states_total_spending_pie_chart 6. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15377059/ns/business-answer_desk/and http://american3p.org/establishment-news/budget-deficit-is-1-3-trillion-but-war-in-iraq-has-cost-more-than-3-trillion/ 7. http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html