[sparkscoffee] Re: Favors and Loot for Sale

  • From: "" <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> (Redacted sender "Sblumen123@xxxxxxx" for DMARC)
  • To: sparkscoffee@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 15:48:20 -0400

JS
Thanks for helping me make my point.
 
Comrade B
 
 
In a message dated 9/10/2014 1:25:06 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
schalestock@xxxxxxxx writes:

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.dpuf
By  _Walter E. Williams_ 
(http://www.lewrockwell.com/author/walter-e-williams/?post_type=article)   
 
September 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/TGL3132/54108947955db947761cst03vuc) 
_FixYourBloodSugar.com_ 
(http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3132/54108947955db947761cst03vuc) 

Other related posts: