Oil prices reached an intraday high of $102. And it now takes more than $1.50 to buy 1 Euro. The NZD and AUD are quickly approaching dollar parity. The loonie already passed the dollar.

 

Oh yeah, and, home sales are not levelling - they are still falling quite rapidly.

 

Yikes. Whomever the new Prez and Congress are, they are going to be facing an enormous mess. And here is something to consider on that point... if you are a Republican in terms of the economy and business, you may actually prefer the Democratic candidate come November when it comes to those topics. Why, you ask? Because an Iraq War pullout means that Congress has hundreds of billions more dollars in its coffers. That could be used for lower taxes, for balancing the budget, for debt paydown, for infrastrucure spending and jobs that go with it, and other economic programs that could actually help the economy.

 

Just sayin'. One of those weird backwards political things that comes up sometimes.

 

Oh and, I forgot to add another political dimension, and this is actually good news... Obama, Clinton and McCain all have significantly better and more consistent records in protecting the environment than BushCo. And they all have made statements about getting serious on alternative energy. To what extent they can actually make changes we'll have to wait and see, but, ultimately, they'll likely to a lot more than has been done the last 8 years. And that should help pay off economically in a big way - job creation in young industries and lowering demand for oil.

 

Oh and, I forgot to add another political dimension, and this is actually good news... Obama, Clinton and McCain all have significantly better and more consistent records in protecting the environment than BushCo. And they all have made statements about getting serious on alternative energy. To what extent they can actually make changes we'll have to wait and see, but, ultimately, they'll likely to a lot more than has been done the last 8 years. And that should help pay off economically in a big way - job creation in young industries and lowering demand for oil.

 

 

 

I hope their ideas are as good as ETHANOL.

 

 

BTW. Why don't these moderators ask the candidates about the boondoggle called ethanol.

 

Obama wants to end famine in the world? Hey Barack, how did you vote on ethanol?

I hope their ideas are as good as ETHANOL.

BTW. Why don't these moderators ask the candidates about the boondoggle called ethanol.

 

Obama wants to end famine in the world? Hey Barack, how did you vote on ethanol?

Ethanol is fine as a bridge technology on the way to other things. But its certainly not any sort of long term solution, and its got its limits. But the biggest reason ethanol is a "boondoggle" is the insistence on using corn. Right now of course, that's what's available. But other countries have made much better use of much more energetic biomass, and if you are going to have ethanol be part of the picture, you need to use those other crops. Using corn, its ineffective and causes all sorts of economic problems.

 

I hope their ideas are as good as ETHANOL.

BTW. Why don't these moderators ask the candidates about the boondoggle called ethanol.

 

Obama wants to end famine in the world? Hey Barack, how did you vote on ethanol?

 

I'd be curious to hear the candidates asked this question.

 

Many of you spoke of ending subsidies to oil companies as prices and their profits hit all time records, not to mention talks of windfall taxes. Now with basic food prices at the same point, would you support the same for farmers? If not, why are energy prices more important than food prices?

Ethanol is fine as a bridge technology on the way to other things. But its certainly not any sort of long term solution, and its got its limits. But the biggest reason ethanol is a "boondoggle" is the insistence on using corn. Right now of course, that's what's available. But other countries have made much better use of much more energetic biomass, and if you are going to have ethanol be part of the picture, you need to use those other crops. Using corn, its ineffective and causes all sorts of economic problems.

 

 

Totally agree. Any alternative energy that uses a food source as its main ingredient will do long term damage to the economy, i.e. inflation.

I'd be curious to hear the candidates asked this question.

 

Many of you spoke of ending subsidies to oil companies as prices and their profits hit all time records, not to mention talks of windfall taxes. Now with basic food prices at the same point, would you support the same for farmers? If not, why are energy prices more important than food prices?

I do think there is a difference between subsidies for farmers so they can stay afloat, versus subsidies for corporations that are making huge profits. But I would agree that as ag commodity prices rise and stay up, the farm subsidies should be revisited and probably reduced or in some cases eliminated. Or, put some of those subsidies towards programs helping farmers transition from corn to better energy-producing, non-food crops.

 

I'd be curious to hear the candidates asked this question.

 

Many of you spoke of ending subsidies to oil companies as prices and their profits hit all time records, not to mention talks of windfall taxes. Now with basic food prices at the same point, would you support the same for farmers? If not, why are energy prices more important than food prices?

The "every couple year" farm subsidy bill that comes through Congress is, while not as big in monetary value as the defense department/Iraq war boondoggle that comes through yearly, it's right up there in terms of awfulness. Encouraging farmers to overproduce things like corn, pushing down the prices of processed food while at the same time making healthier options like most fruits/vegetables more expensive, encouraging overproduction of the land, the tilt towards large scale factory farms, the emphasis on over-use of pesticides, the failure to encourage water conservation in key areas, the suppression of crop prices worldwide due to our subsidies, etc. The 2007/2008 version looks to actually be slightly better than normal in some of these areas, so there's slow progress being made, but it's at a snail's pace.

Edited February 27, 200818 yr by Balta1701

If they outlaw the use of high-fructose corn syrup in food products, they might just have thinner kids and more corn available for ethanol.

 

 

If they outlaw the use of high-fructose corn syrup in food products, they might just have thinner kids and more corn available for ethanol.

For that to happen...we have to find a supply of a sweetener that could replace corn syrup at a reasonable price. For example, sugar. But the votes of a small group in Florida have a habit of being more important for some reason. And after 50 years, the embargo finally seems to be working!

For that to happen...we have to find a supply of a sweetener that could replace corn syrup at a reasonable price. For example, sugar. But the votes of a small group in Florida have a habit of being more important for some reason. And after 50 years, the embargo finally seems to be working!

I heard that joke somewhere.

Jon Stewart?

 

 

I heard that joke somewhere.

Jon Stewart?

Eh, wouldn't surprise me if it subconsciously stuck in there after seeing it on a Daily Show, but didn't do a deliberate lift..

can anyone say S-T-A-G-F-L-A-T-I-O-N?

 

signed, cknolls.

 

Not to sound like I'm making a stump speech, but, I really have to say, now is the time to get serious on alternative energy. We need to lower energy costs, we need to generate jobs in new sectors, we need to get on the strong side of the negotiating table, we need to strengthen the dollar, mass transit infrastructure needs work... its got to be done right now. All those technologies - solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, hydro, non-corn ethanol - are just starting to grow and are on the verge of getting cheaper and better. I really hope that the folks we send to Washington in 2008 can see that .

 

Not to sound like I'm making a stump speech, but, I really have to say, now is the time to get serious on alternative energy. We need to lower energy costs, we need to generate jobs in new sectors, we need to get on the strong side of the negotiating table, we need to strengthen the dollar, mass transit infrastructure needs work... its got to be done right now. All those technologies - solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, hydro, non-corn ethanol - are just starting to grow and are on the verge of getting cheaper and better. I really hope that the folks we send to Washington in 2008 can see that .

I disagree. I for one think the time to get serious on alternative energy, by removing the tens of billions of dollars in subsidies given to the oil industry, investing heavily in research into alternative energy, increasing the CAFE standards, investing in mass transit, etc., was the mid 90's. Back when Energy was in its last low cost period before the end of the era of cheap energy. Now, we're slapping a band aid on a gushing wound. Hopefully we have big enough bandaids to stanch the bleeding.

I disagree. I for one think the time to get serious on alternative energy, by removing the tens of billions of dollars in subsidies given to the oil industry, investing heavily in research into alternative energy, increasing the CAFE standards, investing in mass transit, etc., was the mid 90's. Back when Energy was in its last low cost period before the end of the era of cheap energy. Now, we're slapping a band aid on a gushing wound. Hopefully we have big enough bandaids to stanch the bleeding.

Well hell, if you want to look back, you can say it about the 80's, 70's... I think that goes without saying. But the opporunity is ripe right now, and the battle will be much harder to fight later. But also, there is one thing about now that is better than any of those periods - this is the best political opportunity we've ever had. The combination of factors that are directly impacting consumers is at a high, and its enough that some decent leadership could use it to overcome the momentum of big oil, etc.

 

I stand by my statement.

 

As if on queue, the House today passed a bill to lower current tax incentives (or raise taxes, depending on your perspective) to oil companies, resulting in $18B in revenue that would be turned around as tax credits for alternative energy and technologies. The Senate plans to use some sort of fast-track procedure related to budget items to avoid the GOP filibuster thread, and get the bill passed. Bush is promising to veto it... naturally.

 

So, when oil was $55/bbl, Bush says that the oil companies don't need tax breaks anymore. Now at $100/bbl, Congress takes some of them away (roughly $1.8B per oil company), and Bush says its unfair and promises a veto. I guess this is the legend he wants to etch in history for his Presidency - abject stupidity.

 

So frustrating. Please, for the love of God, bring on Obama, or McCain, or hell even Clinton - anyone but this buffoon.

 

So, when oil was $55/bbl, Bush says that the oil companies don't need tax breaks anymore. Now at $100/bbl, Congress takes some of them away (roughly $1.8B per oil company), and Bush says its unfair and promises a veto. I guess this is the legend he wants to etch in history for his Presidency - abject stupidity.

Don't you understand, he has to use his veto power. It's the only way he can stay relevant. It doesn't really matter what he vetoes, he must stay relevant.

As if on queue, the House today passed a bill to lower current tax incentives (or raise taxes, depending on your perspective) to oil companies, resulting in $18B in revenue that would be turned around as tax credits for alternative energy and technologies. The Senate plans to use some sort of fast-track procedure related to budget items to avoid the GOP filibuster thread, and get the bill passed. Bush is promising to veto it... naturally.

 

So, when oil was $55/bbl, Bush says that the oil companies don't need tax breaks anymore. Now at $100/bbl, Congress takes some of them away (roughly $1.8B per oil company), and Bush says its unfair and promises a veto. I guess this is the legend he wants to etch in history for his Presidency - abject stupidity.

 

So frustrating. Please, for the love of God, bring on Obama, or McCain, or hell even Clinton - anyone but this buffoon.

 

I wish the bill would also tax foreign oil companies that operate in the US like Citgo. Seems kind of short sighted to give them an advantage and let them off the hook on this issue.

As if on queue, the House today passed a bill to lower current tax incentives (or raise taxes, depending on your perspective) to oil companies, resulting in $18B in revenue that would be turned around as tax credits for alternative energy and technologies.

ahh the irony. Using their own money against them.

mmwahahahaaaaaa!!!

I wish the bill would also tax foreign oil companies that operate in the US like Citgo. Seems kind of short sighted to give them an advantage and let them off the hook on this issue.

 

Citgo = Venezuela and Hugo Chavez

As if on queue, the House today passed a bill to lower current tax incentives (or raise taxes, depending on your perspective) to oil companies, resulting in $18B in revenue

The oil companies will just raise pump prices to compensate. They need to maintain their $18+ billion profits.

I wish i was being satirical... but it'll happen.

Edited February 28, 200818 yr by Athomeboy_2000

I wish the bill would also tax foreign oil companies that operate in the US like Citgo. Seems kind of short sighted to give them an advantage and let them off the hook on this issue.

Genuinely curious...how does taking subsidies away from U.S. oil companies give a foreign company an advantage? I can understand that it's leveling the playing field, but wouldn't Citgo have to be receiving government subsidies from someone else for them to have an advantage? And if they are, then isn't someone else's government paying for cheaper energy in the U.S.?

Genuinely curious...how does taking subsidies away from U.S. oil companies give a foreign company an advantage? I can understand that it's leveling the playing field, but wouldn't Citgo have to be receiving government subsidies from someone else for them to have an advantage? And if they are, then isn't someone else's government paying for cheaper energy in the U.S.?

 

Why not increase taxes on the foreign companies gasoline to the same level we are increasing costs to our companies? Put all the money into alternative energy.

Why not increase taxes on the foreign companies gasoline to the same level we are increasing costs to our companies? Put all the money into alternative energy.

I would certainly have no complaints.