[sparkscoffee] Re: Favors and Loot for Sale
- From: "schalestock@xxxxxxxx" <schalestock@xxxxxxxx>
- To: sparkscoffee@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 17:23:12 GMT
Kelly, You hit on something I have always found interesting - restriction on
exporting our natural energy resources. And of course the reason its not done
is to allow companies to maximize their profits in a global market. Which
doesn't make sense in terms of national security. True energy independence
(which is easily within reach) would make us immune from middle eastern head
cutters just to name one benefit. But as always, you just have to follow the
money to find your answer. JS
---------- Original Message ----------
From: Kelly <kellyutah@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "sparkscoffee@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <sparkscoffee@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [sparkscoffee] Re: Favors and Loot for Sale
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 17:09:50 +0000
Ron,
Very true that money is power and money powers Washington D.C. and the world.
Just this morning my wife was reading an interesting article giving statistics
for current wealth distribution across society. I've heard these numbers
elsewhere, but every time I am reminded, it stuns me. It turns out that the
400 richest persons on the planet (0.0001% of the population) together hold two
trillion dollars in wealth.
That's like all the adults in my little neighborhood here having the power to
rule the planet.
These few individuals and the corporations they control, put undue influence on
law making bodies in order to favor themselves, regardless of how it might
effect us, and often at the expense of the general population.
The examples your author Walter Williams uses though are curious ones. Of all
the inequitable and odious rulings that big money has succeeded in pushing
through congress, Mr. Williams' two examples happen to be quite innocuous. In
fact, they are two examples that a large segment of Americans would happily
consider rare instances of corporate interest falling in line with the economic
interest of most consumers.
Compact Florescent Lights have long been popular with the public, even when
they were relatively expensive. Their much longer life alone warranted their
greater cost even at the outset. And now that they have radically dropped in
price, it's a no-brainer for most consumers who know that they not only last
much longer, but use a fraction of the amperage of an equivalent incandescent
bulb, all at a very affordable price.
If there is any corporate pressure to restrict natural gas exports, I
wholeheartedly support it! It's simple supply and demand Ron. You're a smart
guy, right? Remember 'supply and demand' from Economics 101? The greater the
supply of natural gas we accumulate in this country, the lower the price to the
consumer will be. In the U.S. there are a rapidly growing number of natural
gas burning electricity generating plants and coal burning plants that are
converting to natural gas. It's cleaner burning and less costly than coal.
These plant operators no doubt would also support export restrictions, as it
would hold down the price of running their plants. And ultimately the consumer
wins with lower electricity bills.
I drive a Honda Civic GX which burns natural gas exclusively. I pay $1.77 per
gallon equivalent unit and the car gets approximately 32 miles per gallon
equivalent units. When I bought the car in 2008 I was paying $0.63 per gallon
equivalent unit and driving literally for pennies.
If Americans didn't have to drop a good chunk of their income into petroleum
and businesses including trucking companies didn't have to drop such a good
chunk of their budgets into petroleum, the local economy would be greatly
stimulated.
But apparently the author Walter Williams prefers to support the extractors of
natural gas and other petroleum products over the consumer. The extractors of
course want to sell their products at the highest possible price, which often
means shipping them overseas. That's great for the extractors but not so good
for the local consumer as gas prices rise.
It's the very same argument for and against the Keystone pipeline. There's
been a gargantuan discovery of fossil fuels in the northern U.S. and Southern
Canada. That's a boon for us folks who live in North America. That means that
there will be an oil/gas glut and downward price pressures. That also means
that local economies will be stimulated by lower fuel prices and the extra
buying power that consumers will have left after filling their tanks.
But the extractors of these resources know this as well. They of course want
to maximize their profits and that can't be done if locally extracted and
produced petroleum products are sold and consumed locally, and if the net
effect of extracting these large deposits simply results in downward pressure
on the price. That's where the Keystone pipeline comes in. Shipping petroleum
offshore to the highest bidder maximizes the bottom line, while preventing a
glut locally and the associated softening of the price at the consumer level.
Kelly A.
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2014 09:15:36 -0600
From: ristad@xxxxxxxxxxx
To: sparkscoffee@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [sparkscoffee] Favors and Loot for Sale
The Founding Fathers were not unaware that "times change." But in the whirlwind
of life they saw that reason and experience could and had demonstrated that
there were unchanging qualities to the human condition, grounded in the
fundamental political idea of individual rights.
They understood the various mantles that tyranny could take on �
including the cloak of false benevolence in the form of compulsory
redistribution of wealth. They established a constitutional order that was
meant to guard us from the plunder of violent and greedy men, while leaving
each of us that wide latitude of personal and economic freedom in which we
could find our own meanings for life, and adapt to new circumstances consistent
with our conscience and concerns.
This is what made America great. This is what made a country in which
individuals could say without embarrassment or conceit that they were "proud to
be Americans."
- See more at:
http://thedailybell.com/editorials/35634/Richard-Ebeling-Proud-to-be-an-American-What-Should-It-Mean/#sthash.120AKuSg.dpufBy
Walter E. WilliamsSeptember 9, 2014
During the 2012 presidential campaign, Barack Obama raised a little over $1
billion, while Mitt Romney raised a little under $1 billion. Congressional
candidates raised over $3.5 billion. In 2013, there were 12,341 registered
lobbyists and $3.2 billion was spent on lobbying. During the years the Clintons
have been in national politics, they�ve received at least $1.4 billion
in contributions, according to Time magazine and the Center for Responsive
Politics, making them �The First Family of Fundraising.�
Here are my questions to you: Why do people and organizations cough up billions
of dollars to line political coffers? One might answer that these groups and
individuals are simply extraordinarily civic-minded Americans who have a deep
and abiding interest in encouraging elected officials to live up to their oath
of office to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution. Another possible answer
is that the people who spend these billions of dollars on politicians just love
participating in the political process. If you believe either of these
explanations for coughing up billions for politicians, you�re probably a
candidate for psychiatric attention, a straitjacket and a padded cell.
A far better explanation for the billions going to the campaign coffers of
Washington politicians and lobbyists lies in the awesome government power and
control over business, property, employment and other areas of our lives.
Having such power, Washington politicians are in the position to grant special
privileges, extend favors, change laws and do other things that if done by a
private person would land him in jail.
The major component of congressional power is the use of the IRS to take the
earnings of one American to give to another.
The Dow Chemical Co. posted record lobbying expenditures last year, spending
over $12 million. Joined by Alcoa, who spent $3.5 million, Dow supports the
campaigns of congressmen who support natural gas export restrictions. Natural
gas is a raw material for both companies. They fear natural gas prices would
rise if export restrictions were lifted. Dow and other big users of natural gas
make charitable contributions to environmentalists who seek to limit natural
gas exploration. Natural gas export restrictions empower Russia�s
Vladimir Putin by making Europeans more dependent on Russian natural gas.
General Electric spends tens of millions of dollars lobbying. Part of their
agenda was to help get Congress to outlaw incandescent light bulbs so that they
could sell their more expensive compact fluorescent bulbs. It should come as no
surprise that General Electric is a contributor to global warmers who helped
convince Congress that incandescent bulbs were destroying the planet.
These are just two examples, among thousands, of the role of money in politics.
Most concerns about money in politics tend to focus on relatively trivial
matters such as the costs of running for office and interest-group influence on
Congress and the White House. The bedrock problem is the awesome power of
Congress. We Americans have asked, demanded and allowed congressmen to ignore
their oaths of office and ignore the constitutional limitations imposed on
them. The greater the congressional power to give handouts and grant favors and
make special privileges the greater the value of being able to influence
congressional decision-making. There�s no better influence than money.
-RR
____________________________________________________________
The #1 Worst Carb Ever?
Click to Learn #1 Carb that Kills Your Blood Sugar (Don't Eat This!)
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/54108947955db947761cst03vuc
Other related posts:
