The Economics of Political Spin

by: Michael Fitzsimmons August 27, 2008 | about stocks: COP / CVX / NBR / NOV / PBR / SLB / STO / XOM    

Michael Fitzsimmons

About this author:
Become a Contributor Submit an Article
  • Font Size:
  • Print

Current political spin on CNBC and other supposed US "business" channels remind me of a line in the great movie Chinatown, staring Jack Nicholson, Faye Dunaway, and John Huston. I can't quote it exactly, but somewhere in the movie private investigator Jake Gitties (played by Nicholson) says something like this: "Forget the newspapers and the radio and the television, if you want to find out what really happened, follow the money."

For the last few days as the Democratic convention ramps up, the economic propaganda machine led by the talking heads on CNBC has been in full gear. They are warning us of the dire stock market consequences of an Obama presidency. Spending will be out of control they say! The US economy will go into recession and America will suffer the consequences of Obama's lack of experience!

News flash: the economy already IS in recession. Spending already IS out of control as the US fiscal deficit doubled under the Bush administration's watch! The stock market already HAS suffered dire consequences as the S&P500 has returned an anemic 2.7% over the past 10 years. Inflation IS already raging. Further, we have no energy policy, the banking system is in complete disarray, the Bush administration has federalized the national mortgage market and taken control of a publically traded investment firm (Bear Stearns).

So, one question pops into my mind: How on Earth can US economic policy possibly get worse than the last 8 years of George Bush's "leadership"? Second question: since McCain has changed all of his so-called "maverick" policy stances in order to align himself totally with the "Bush conservatives" (I prefer to call them "radicals" as there is nothing "conservative" about Bush and his cohorts), wouldn't 4 years of McCain in effect mean 12 years running of Bush's horrid economic policies? The answer is yes, and the consequences of continuation the path we are on would be dire indeed.

As Jake says - just follow the money. Are you better off than 8 years ago? Are you keeping up with inflation and high energy prices? Are your stock market returns satisfactory the last 8 years? Have you noticed the middle class taxpayer is bailing out the Wall Street firms that created the credit crisis? Have you noticed the middle class taxpayer is paying his fair share while hedge fund managers that make $300 million on a single deal pay no taxes whatsoever? Have you noticed that the Bernanke- and Paulsen-led "regulatory changes" are putting all the risk on the US taxpayers' backs while all the upside goes to the Wall Streeters? Is anyone paying attention here?

If you are a Bush supporter, and you have less than 1-2 million bucks, you are shooting yourself in the foot. If you are a billionaire, Bush is your man. Bigtime. Just ask Warren Buffet...then note that Buffet supports Obama. Now, there is a man with integrity. He would rather shoot himself in the foot than watch America go down the tubes.

All that said, the Democratic convention has been so horrid I had to switch it off. What an opportunity to address America! But boy was it squandered. Instead of an energy roundtable to discuss our biggest economic challenge, we had music and singing. Instead of listing all the economic policy mistakes of the Bush administration, we had an elegant production praising Ted Kennedy. Instead of making a concrete case for a new and better tax policy, we had more fluff. They are friggin blowing it.

However, I know what continued Bush policies will mean to my investments and my standard of living. I don't even look forward to that. Obama at least is a change and departure from that path. Although I don't like his energy policies (windfall profits taxes is a terrible idea, and nuclear is needed in a big way), he is my only choice versus a known quantity that is economically toxic to me and my country. Just look at the record of the last 8 years and follow the money.

Meanwhile, both parties seem incapable of bringing a strategic, long-term, comprehensive energy policy to their convention platforms. Let me help them out with a Strategic Long-Term, Comprehensive Energy Policy.

The US dollar has been stronger recently and this apparently has convinced folks that oil will go down as a result. Another news flash: the strength of the US dollar does nothing to address the fundamental problem of worldwide oil supply not being able to keep pace with worldwide oil demand! Proof, oil was up some 500% during Bush's term while the US dollar fell 40%. This inconvenient fact has seemingly been overlooked by the financial analysts who continue to sell off energy stocks as though oil is going back to $50. News flash: never again in your life will you see $50/barrel oil.

Bottom line to investors: Take this opportunity to buy undervalued oil stocks like StatOil (STO), ConocoPhillips (COP), ExxonMobil (XOM), Chevron (CVX) and Petrobras (PBR). Undervalued energy service firms include Schlumberger (SLB), Natl Oilwell Varco (NOV), and Nabors Industries (NBR). The steady uptrend in oil prices and inflation in the years ahead mean investors should have positions in gold bullion, taking physical possession of the American and Canadian gold coins. Another good insurance policy for the future would be DBC, the commodity ETF.

I probably sound like a broken record with my investment themes, but until the US adopts a rational energy policy, there is no reason to change strategy. Long term, energy fundamentals will dominate the economic landscape. Good luck!
 
Disclosure: The author owns COP, STO, PBR, SLB, and gold.

Related Articles

This article has 81 comments:

  •  
    Aug 27 08:22 AM
    Hello Fitz,

    I understand your frustration with the McCain & the Republicans, but do you really expect a radical departure in policy if Obama wins? His handlers will control actual policy (as was the case with Bush), not Obama. Obama will be a figurehead like Bush was.

    You said Obama plans to implement wind fall taxes. He also plans to remove the E&P tax credits. This two things combined will make a bad situation worse. This will really discourage oil companies from looking and producing new reserves and nip the US coastal , ANWR, Oil shale and Bakken development in the bud. Expect gasoline to go well above $4.00 with Obama in charge.
    Reply | Link to Comment
  •  
    Aug 27 08:29 AM
    Thank you for saying this out loud. I wish that someone would admit the policies of the current Administration are anything but patriotic, they devalue and demean this country. Trust fund boys gone wild. My elderly father has seen his standard of living slide, and his healthcare and drug costs escalate, and my 30 year old children can't find a decent standard of living with affordable healthcare in their fields. I feel like my pockets have been picked clean. Four more years of a republican economy will be the last nail in my coffin.
    Reply | Link to Comment
  •  
    Aug 27 08:39 AM
    Fool,
    Take econ 101.
    Then go hug a tree.
    Reply | Link to Comment
  •  
    Aug 27 08:49 AM
    There's not a dime's worth of difference between the parties except on foreign policy and abortion. Neither party seeks to serve America or the people. They are beholden to voters as voters, and to campaign cdontributors as moneyed interests. Bush has continued Clinton's policies except on foreign policy and judges, and Obama will continue Bush's except on foreign policy and judges. Everybody is identical on trade, immigration, spending, and (really when push comes to shove) taxes.
    Reply | Link to Comment
  •  
    Aug 27 09:05 AM
    Instead of blaming your poor investments on Bush, try looking in the mirror for the culprit.
    Reply | Link to Comment
  •  
    Aug 27 09:18 AM
    Other than the war in Iraq and his stance on abortion, I am hard pressed to think of any real differences between Bush and Clinton -- and even the talking heads on TV are admitting there is very little appreciable difference between McCain and Obama. They are often the last ones to figure anything out.

    Yes, I am sure Clinton balanced the "budget", but he did not balance spending. Ken Lay balanced the budget at Enron also. You have to look at total spending (including "off balance sheet" or "off budget") . Clinton was a spendthrift -- just like Bush. You might argue Bush is marginally more honest on spending, but he is so deceitful on everything else it wouldnt hold.

    As you argue yourself, follow the money. Greenspan lowered rates way too far under Clinton, and then repeated the mistake under Bush. In one instance, Greenspit (not Clinton) inflated the dot-com bubble. The resulting capital gains taxes "balanced" the budget, but not spending. In the second instance, Greenspit (not Bush) inflated housing. The resulting home price gains allowed for home equity withdrawl -- and government spending still wasn't balanced.

    Bernanke is following Greenspan's playbook to the letter. Even if he is not reappointed, he will be running the Fed throughout most of Obama or McCain's term.

    Whichever candidate wins, Medicare is projected to go cashflow negative next year. It doesn't appear the mortgage mess will be fixed by January. While they want US troops out, even the Iraqi government thinks a sudden pull-out would cause more problems then it solves. All your arguments about tight oil markets apply no matter which candidate wins.

    The facts (if you had bothered to check) are that government spending (not pretend budgets) have climbed twice as fast as GDP since JFK was president. Despite all the moronic rhetoric on the news (and this post of yours), neither political party has shown the slightest hint of spending discipline.

    Your commentaries on economics are often quite good and very intelligently argued. You should stick to that, and avoid obviously partisan (and poorly thought out) rants like this
    Reply | Link to Comment
  •  
    Aug 27 09:30 AM
    Fitz, You are on target. And yes, we know the special interest crowd is spending their money on both candidates so they will have influence with the next administration, which ever it is. But if middle class Americans do not take the bit in their mouth and ignore the misinformation that is thrown at them daily, we will deserve the screwing we have had and screwing we will get. It is the Democrats that offer hope and it only begins with Obama. I am normally one that believes in a balance of parties in governance but we are now in a such morass of partisanship that the Democrats will need control of both houses and the presidency to stop this country from digging a hole to China.
    Reply | Link to Comment
  •  
    Aug 27 09:49 AM
    Sonny,
    Your Fonny and right on.
    Reply | Link to Comment
  •  
    Aug 27 09:55 AM
    good morning and thanks for the comments. as usual, i like to jump in and comment on the comments. here goes:

    longoil: yes, i do expect some changes. i think the middle class will be the focus wrt tax policy (as opposed to the ultra wealthy). i also think alternative energy will be a bigger focus. i also think foreign policy will be much better as it cannot get much worse.

    sherrikrn: thank you. and i agree they are anything but patriotic (but they sure have that flag on their lapel - i mean why not? the US treasury was used as their personal ATM machine.

    User93139: thanks for all the details in your mind expanding comment.

    Paulus: i feel your pain, i am not happy with either party. that said, given a choice between 4 more years of bush and something (anything!) different, i'll go with the different.

    sonnydogsuardog: you make the incorrect assumption that my investments have been in the S&P500. if you had read my earlier posts, you know that i have been advising people to get OUT of the S&P500. wrt spell checking, i ran the hotmail spell checker, and it found an error or two which were corrected. could you point out which word(s) it missed please? thanks alot.

    gramps2: differences between bush & clinton:

    1) clinton reduced the size of the federal government to the size it was under the kennedy administration and balanced the budget. bush has grown the size of the US gov to the largest in history (by far) and doubled the size of the debt in only 8 years. meanwhile, every report says middle class americans are getting LESS from the bush gov despite the growth and expense.

    2) clinton's tax policies were fair to the middle class. bush's tax cuts are solely for the wealthy. net effect: an economy where the middle class (what's left of us anyhow) is struggling mightily while hedge fund managers and wall streeters hire lawyers so they pay no taxes at all.

    3) clinton increased emmissions standards. bush put utility and chemical executives in charge of his "clean air" standards and rolled back almost all emission standards since nixon created the EPA.

    4) the economy during the clinton years was strong, and the US dollar was strong, and the stock and bond markets were strong.

    those are just some of the differences. wrt your commens on spending, you are just wrong, and this is why the bush "conservative republicans" (i am a REAL one) are such hypocrits: clinton DID balance tax receipts and spending...that is how he handed bush a balanced budget. bush has outspent any president in history by a LARGE margin (and the numbers dont even count iraq spending). that is why your US dollar was devalued 40% under bush. i simply disagree with your comments on spending, and i believe the value of the US dollar under clinton and bush support my arguments, not yours. wrt political rants, if you haven't learned how important politics are in US economics these days after living through 8 years of bush's disastrous economic policies (not to mention the current economy and markets) then, well, i dunno what to tell ya.

    msgijoe: well said, and i couldn't agree with you more.



    Reply | Link to Comment
  •  
    Aug 27 10:18 AM
    Fitz --
    1) Your statement is absolutely false. The Federal government, both in terms of nominal spending and as a percent of GDP were no where near as low under Clinton as they were under JFK (and it wasn't exactly small then).

    2) You say "Clinton's tax policies"??? The tax law is written by Congress, not the President. The President can make whatever proposals he wants, but so can foolish website ranters. Bush has no more authority on tax law than you or I... Congress writes all laws, including the tax code

    3) There were no emissions laws passed under Bush -- for better or for worse.

    4) So I guess you are saying that Bush 41 did a great job and Clinton did a terrible job? Each President gets the economy that was created by his predecessors policies -- unless you want to complete discredit yourself and claim underlying macro economics change the instant some guy takes an oath.
    Reply | Link to Comment
  •  
    Aug 27 10:28 AM
    gramps: i was talking about the number of employees in the federal government. clinton computerized and automated many government functions to make the more efficient. it was part and parcel of the welfare reformation project his administration embarked on. in the process, he cut the number of federal employees back to the what the number was in JFK's administration. wrt the tax policies, clinton shut down the federal government in his first term and FORCED congress to pass tax and spend legislation that was in balance. thus, the balanced budget and the strong dollar. it's all in the statistics published by the CBO, so, if you think this is just a website rant, go look at the statistics yourself. wrt emission laws, i think you need to go check out the work the EPA (i call them the environmental destruction agency now under bush) and see exactly what you are talking about. look at the people bush put in charge of the "clean air" or "blue sky" laws or whatever he called them. wrt 4), no, both bush's were economic disasters for the middle class, but the 1st bush was better than the 2nd. the 2nd bush is simply the worst president in the history of the country. bar none. no one else is even close, especially when it comes to economics. bush's economic policies have been disastrous for the middle class, disastrous for the financial markets. i mean come on gramps, could you imagine if clinton had federalized the mortgage market? taken over bear stearns?? bush now has bernanke and paulsen working on taking over the entire banking and financial systems! this is not "conservative republicanism", it is called fascism. it is pre WW2 germany all over again. and the europeans see it. unfortunately americans are uneducated about history and tend to listen to rush limbaugh and larry kudlow instead of doing what jake gitties said to do: what the money! especially your own. i can only conclude that you are a billionaire and the inflation in food and energy, and the deflation of your investments don't bother you at all. if so, definitely vote for mccain and get that summer home in france all spruced up so you can escape the US when we fall further into the economic abyss bush has put us in.
    Reply | Link to Comment
  •  
    Aug 27 10:54 AM
    Fitz- if you want to change things find out who your congressperson is and tell him or her what you want. And tell again again and again. I'm voting for McCain because he has experience in dealing with these jokers much in the way Lyndon Johnson did. No other person could have bucked his own party, rounded up Republicans and got all that civil rights legislation passed into law. Obama is nice to look at, has a magic voice but is easily pushed around and I think has been brainwashed by the extreme far left. While not evil himself he doesn't recognize evil when it's in front of him: Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, Rezco. He is not a leader.
    Reply | Link to Comment
  •  
    Aug 27 11:00 AM
    One more note for you Fitz- You are long the oils and oil service companies. You must know what these companies are up against in getting qualified help, getting permits, dealing with escalating energy and material costs. If they are lucky they get a healthy profit. They provide high paying jobs that don't demand 8 years of debt incurring higher education. Do you think it's right for Obama, Reid and Pelosi to vilify them and threaten them with "windfall profits" taxes?
    Reply | Link to Comment
  •  
    Aug 27 11:08 AM
    Fitz,
    If we look at the history of the CAFE standards. They went from 20 mpg to 27 mpg during the Reagan and Bush 41 eras and stayed flat at 27 mpg during the Clinton and Bush 43 eras. It seems the Republicans have been more proactive than Democrats in increasing CAFE standards.

    During the Clinton & Gore era the number of SUVs sold increased to the point that where recently 50% of the vehicles sold in the United States qualified as light trucks. Why did Mr. Green/ climate change (i.e. Al Gore) permit this when he knew back then SUVs where contributing to climate change. I will tell you why; to pander to UAW workers. No money can be made in the USA building small cars (the profit margin is very low). With SUV and trucks the profit margin is high enough to pay high union salaries and benefits and buy votes for the Democrat party.
    Reply | Link to Comment
  •  
    Aug 27 11:29 AM
    Michael Fitzsimmons should stick to financial commentary because his misguided liberal bias might cloud his conservative opinion of investing. Considering his view of all the things President Bush did wrong not once did he say how the Democrats would do better. In fact the reason for all the Bush problems probably lie at the feet of the bitter no plan Dems. What does Obam offer? Change but don't ask how because according to the want-a-be king we don't need to know. Now as far as Fitzsimmons oil recommendations are concerned with Nobama as president these same oil companys will be in the same shape as our current financial institutions.
    Reply | Link to Comment
  •  
    Aug 27 11:34 AM
    You write:
    j>>So, one question pops into my mind: how on Earth can US economic policy possibly get worse than the last 8 years of George Bush's "leadership"...

    Elect McCain and find out.
    Reply | Link to Comment
  •  
    Aug 27 11:48 AM
    Great article Fitz... you hit the nail right on the head... especially with regard to the despicable (and highly rewarded) republican shill anchors on CNBC... they seem to be in a contest with FOX as to who can distort the truth the most.

    Republikaans are terrified that the truth will come out about ALL of their failed and malignant political, tax and spend, military, foreign and empire-building policies, as well as their human rights, anti- environment, spying on citizens and anti- Constitution agendas if a Democrat is elected - any Democrat - and they are pulling out all the stops to prevent it.

    CNBC is great - if I keep the MUTE on and just watch the nice ticker roll by.
    Reply | Link to Comment
  •  
    Aug 27 11:53 AM
    Fitz,

    I have read many of your blogs and think think you've done great work on ebery stocks and energy policy. It's rational and well thought out. But when you start ranting about politics you "shoot yourself in the foot". It's anything but rational and well thought out. Do yourself a favor. Stop talking politics. Your political arguments are far too emotional and more importantly -THEY UNDERMINE THE CREDABILITY OF YOUR ENERGY POLICY since, rightly or wrongly, people will start attributting political motivations to it! I'd hate to see a sensible discussion on energy dismissed out of hand because of some poorly chosen political comments.
    Reply | Link to Comment
  •  
    Aug 27 11:57 AM
    oldfolk: i've already written about what a bad idea windfall profits taxes are. that said, it is also idiotic to continue to think we can drill our way out of a 14.5 million barrel/day foreign oil addiction and that we can continue to fight oil wars to make up for the idiotic bush/chaney energy policy that is oil centric while it is bankrupting the country and making their "national security" expertise a friggin joke.

    longoil: i agree that clinton backed down to the UAW and the auto manufacturers in order to get a second term. that said, it's really GM, F, and Chrysler that are to blame, and now as we sit bush has his team considering how the middle class can bail these same folks out of their financial mess. that said, if you think democrats have a choke hold on purchasing hummers and the like, please reconsider.

    zagman: on the contrary, yes i did say how the democrats could do better:

    1) adopt a fairer tax policy focusing on the middle class instead of cartering to multi-millionaires
    2) balance the budget to strengthen the US dollar
    3) get off the oil centric energy policy that is selling off our future, risking our economy, enriching bush's pals in saudi arabia as well as russia, iran, and iraq

    that's a good start huh?

    Paul A: mccain is just going to be 4 more years of failed bush policies.

    look guys, here is the bottom line. when bush was running for office the first time, we were told "Mr. MBA" would be good for the economy, good for the markets, put a stop to spending, and lower taxes. well, it's all hypocrisy! we have a stinking economy, a weak currency, lower taxes only for the uber-rich, and, bottom line, a stock market that accurately reflects the terrible economic hole bush's idiotic economic policies have dug. electing mccain will simply allow them to cover us in the hole with more idiotic republican economic dirt. jeez, stop listening to rush L. and larry K., raise your head up, and simply look around you! look at the S&P, DJIA, banking sector, investment banking sector, US dollar index, my god men can you not see what is staring you right between the eyes? ideology can blindfold anyone...look at germany..and look what it led them into. don't be sheep, be independent, objective, and look at FACTS not ideology, labels, and economic propaganda.
    Reply | Link to Comment
  •  
    Aug 27 12:07 PM
    I'm older now, than I was before- so I'm more skeptical/realistic. Neither party, operating in this disfunctional partisan environment which is dominated by those with a primary concern of re-election, and by special interests, will deliver an effective multi-faceted energy policy. And we will not have the wherewithall as a nation to adapt in a timely fashion. Our ability to afford new technologies has been greatly squandered by government and by individual families, our domestic capacity for basic industrial infrastructure output is a faint shadow of its former self, everyone wants power from someone elses backyard, and the environmental lobby is even trying to block electric grid expansion aimed at bringing Mojave desert solar and wind to the coastal CA cities.
    We will see our collective efforts at energy independence and security fall far short, and way behind schedule, no matter who controls the white house or congress. Thank you Fitzmeister for keeping up with beating this drum. Keep it up, louder. I'm sorry to say, though, that you are going to be disappointed with any politician who is partisan (puts their career and their party above principle and country).
    Reply | Link to Comment
  •  
    Aug 27 12:22 PM
    Fitz - Bush and Cheney didn't create an oil centric economy. That's the way it was for a long time. And it is the Environmentalists who got their claws into elected officials and threatened them everytime alternatives came up. Right now they are stopping transmission lines needed to get the wind energy from producer to user in various places. Even Ted Kennedy didn't want to look at windmills in his vacation home area. Every thing is no no no.
    Reply | Link to Comment
  •  
    Aug 27 12:22 PM
    Yeah, the ever HIGHER energy prices promised by NObama and the D's will surely lead us to the promised land. We'll be much more like Europe then. This idea is so idiotic it doesn't even deserve comment.

    You'd think we'd have learned something from Jimmy Carter. Once again, higher energy prices, taxes and fewer supplies would be a surefire recipe for DISASTER.

    Our only hope then would be to find another RR to pick up the pieces.
    Reply | Link to Comment
  •  
    Aug 27 01:20 PM
    Fitz: You are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own set of facts. GDP YR 2000 $9.8 Trillion; GDP 1ST QUARTER 2008 (chained 2000 dollars) $14.2 Trillion dollars. Bush 43 passed Medicare Rx Drug benefit - a catastrophic increase of indebtedness you say - Dems wanted a benefit twice as big, and all the credit for the giveaway as a vote-catching engine in perpetuity. Think of it as Republican damage control. Do you have to don body armor to visit the Mall, to guard against IED's? This safety brought to you courtesy Ashcroft, Cheney, Bush, in the face of terrific opposition from Pelosi, Reid, and Socialist wing of Dem party (the 99% that give the rest a bad name.) Just exactly what is it you are wishing for, a reversal of all these things? Go back to {insert name here} twiddling his - um - thumbs in the Oval office, while al Qaeda militarizes to international strength? Pish tush, as the longest expansion in market history finally slows, you lash out because no-brainer selections don't work any more: not even yours.
    Reply | Link to Comment
  •  
    Aug 27 01:59 PM
    isaac: thanks. i actually tried to publish the energy policy again in barron's magazine after that idiotic "opinion" this week to use the SPR to bring down oil prices. editor thomas donlan turned me down (again) without a reason why. so, that make the both the WSJ and Barron's refusing to print this energy policy (each twice):
    thefitzman.blogspot.co...
    i wonder what they are so afraid of....saving the country?

    oldfolk: i didn't say bush and cheney created the oil centric policy. what i did say was that they are intent on keeping it even though we are simply enriching saudi, russia, iran, iraq, and venezuela. this is stupidity once over, and like i said, makes their pronouncement of "protectors of the national security" a big friggin joke.

    paulk: i think obama would have to work REAL hard to match the 500% increase in oil prices we have seen under bush. give me a friggin break man. wrt to carter, yeah, he was way off back in the 1970's (the last time our economy went into an oil led recession). installed solar panels on the white house and reagan pulled them out cause he was a sissy. my god man, do you like sending all your dollars to russia, saudi, iran, iraq and venezuela? do you like seeing your standard of living drop while those in the middle east are building ever bigger palaces? my god man, THINK.

    scrooge: my own facts? i looked back on my responses and i never saw any comment by me about GDP numbers. perhaps you are confusing me with someone else? wrt security, oh yeah, we are much better off after the manufactured war in iraq. yeah, right. wrt socialism, what can be more socialistic than the bush administration's take over of the federal mortgage market, *publicly* traded bear stearns, and now the banking and financial sectors????? jesus, if a democrat had done that, you'd be wanting impeachment (or is that just for bj's?). what i would like to go back to, since you asked, is a functioning economy, a strong US dollar, and a stock market that somewhat resembles free enterprise and capitilism instead of using the middle class tax-payer to bail out the wall streeters, hedge fund managers, and ultra-rich that you guys seem to support so violently while your own net worth and standard of living are being deep-six'd by the same guys you support. hope mccain solves all your wishes, but just like bush, he will only make your situation worse. they are hypocrits, and radicals and there is nothing "conservative&quo... about the bush republicans if you would just drop your ideology and look at the facts.


    Reply | Link to Comment
  •  
    Aug 27 02:29 PM
    Fitz, if recession is here, why the GDP numbers? For financial market meltdown after housing debt crisis, and whom to blame, check out head of Fannie Mae, installed by the Twiddler In Chief, who jacked the system instead of doing his job: until caught at it in 2004.

    www.businessweek.com/m...

    Trying to pin all your woes on W doesn't wash. Is it against your religion to win a war against homicidal thugs? Or even fight at all? It's the Middle East. They have oil there. al Qaeda wants it, to continue its avowed campaign of world domination, which would mean the end of you, me, all we hold dear, and all the progress since the Renaissance. Since 'compromise' with them means I must stop practicing my religion or die, I say whack 'em. Who ya gonna call?
    Reply | Link to Comment
  •  
    Aug 27 02:35 PM
    Fitz - it's not Bush and Cheney that want to keep enriching the Saudi's. It's the Environmentalists that are forcing the oil producers to make deals with unfriendly countries. As a Conoco shareholder you probably know the hit the company took when Chavez nullified Venezuela's agreements with them. The only reason we are getting some (not all) oil out of the USA land is that some companies are going back to old fields (where the enviros can't make a fuss) and using new technology to extract crude. In the 70's we got some price relief from Mexican oil. Now some pressure is relieved because of friendly Canada. Isn't Brazil lucky with Petrobras and their recent finds. A cooperative Brazilian government helped a lot tho.
    Reply | Link to Comment
  •  
    Aug 27 03:30 PM
    if the politicos[either/both parties] told the truth we'd all run for exits[or nooses, depending on your frustration level]. what makes you believe this incumbant, the past few, or the next several will prevail?

    we were alerted to this economic travail in the early 1990s--wheels falling off the economy due to debt/no savings/debasement of dollar.

    pete peterson/rudman[nh, sen], tsongas[ma, sen] started Concord coalition with same message found in current movie["I.O.U.S.A.... and R. Perot, in his inept Texas style, explained our economic shortfall/gave warning. few have heeded messages; neither POL party has bothered to address the basics--too much spending/borrowing by all gov't levels. excessive personal spending/consumption, lack of saving by individuals. energy/energy policy is an important item, but there are others. try the impact of the "unified budget act"[circa 1970s, nixon et al] stealing SSA dollars, leaving only IOUs[$$trillions] which can't be paid to future baby boomers without massive tax increases or massive borrowing.

    neither party is addressing or has solution to the financials/economy. the normal pandering and obfuscations are in play.

    signed: GERRY MANDER
    Reply | Link to Comment