HomeNewsSportsMoreWeatherAnnouncementsClassifiedsMy Trib.ComMy CityJobsHomesCars
Advanced Search
 

Candidates see economic solutions

Shoppers wait in line to check out at Costco in Mountain View, Calif. AP file photo by PAUL SAKUMA.

Story Tools

Print this story

E-mail this story

Rate this story

Text Size

Share This Story:
del.icio.usdiggNewsVine




trib.popular


CHEYENNE -- The Republican candidates for Wyoming's lone U.S. House have vastly different views on how to solve the nation's economic troubles -- and who is to blame for the slowdown.

"We didn't stick with sound business practices, and all of a sudden it all came tumbling down around our ears," said candidate Bill Winney, who blames the mortgage meltdown and higher fuel prices for much of the economic trouble.

Former state Treasurer Cynthia Lummis said out-of-control spending, the mortgage crisis, national debt and the balance of trade all played a role in the downturn.

But the biggest factor, she said, was the decision long ago to purchase the nation's fuel abroad, while foregoing opportunities to develop natural resources at home.

Mark Gordon, a rancher and businessman from Buffalo, said the economic exuberance of the last decade pushed the nation off course economically.

He said the question now is whether taxpayers should be required to "backstop" the poor judgment of some consumers and lenders. He said they should not.

Michael Holland, a physician from Green River, said the root of today's economic challenges can be pinned on bad lending and investment practices, which he said are largely controlled by a group of private bankers who have their own interests in mind.

Congress is also to blame for delegating the power to regulate money to groups like the Federal Reserve. The nation needs to return to fundamentals of good finance, Holland said, and Congress needs to take back the power to regulate the financial system. The Fed should be eliminated, he said.

"It's time to chase the money changers out of the temple," Holland said.

Holland, Winney, Lummis and Gordon are competing for the seat held by Rep. Barbara Cubin, R-Wyo., who is not seeking re-election. The winner of the Aug. 19 primary will face Democrat Gary Trauner of Wilson in the November general election.

Regardless of what caused the slowdown in the U.S. economy, Lummis said Congress is not taking the right steps to get the nation back on track.

The tax refund stimulus checks were an ill-advised attempt to give the economy a "shot of caffeine" when more fundamental changes were required.

Congress can improve the economy by reigning in spending, opening up domestic drilling to produce more federal mineral royalties and reducing spending by considering the closure of foreign military installations, Lummis said.

In the longer term, Congress needs to reform itself and the way it does business.

"The thirst for power in Washington prevents good people from doing the right thing, and the consequences for America have been huge," said Lummis, a rancher and lawyer who lives in Cheyenne.

Winney said that instead of one-time stimulus checks, the government should have considered a small permanent tax break, which would have provided an ongoing boost to the economy.

Winney said he has faith that private industry can develop solutions for the economy, while the role of government is to ensure sound business practices, and stay out of the way of innovation. Targeted tax breaks for American companies can help them get ahead in world markets, he added.

"If they're competitive, then we're selling U.S. products, and if we're selling more U.S. products, that's good for the economy, that's good for federal revenues, that's good for employment," said Winney, a former Navy officer who lives in Sublette County.

Gordon said the Bush tax cuts must be extended. If they expire in 2010 as scheduled, it could mean a major hit to the economy just when things might be getting back on track.

"What a terrific way to bring recovery to a dead stop," he said.

Holland said the recent attempts to stimulate the government with tax refunds are "window dressing" that mostly helped big bankers and money lenders.

The best way to stimulate the economy, he said, is for the federal government to stop regulating businesses to the point that they take their companies overseas.

All the candidates said the build-up of personal and national debt, coupled with the lack of savings, is hurting the country.

Gordon said it won't be easy to retire the national debt, but the country has an obligation to try.

He said Congress needs to address entitlements, waste and fraud, and has some difficult choices to make about what it can subsidize, and what it cannot.

Gordon said Congress needs to resist the temptation to raise taxes to balance the budget, and it needs to reduce the size of the federal government.

"That's positive because it brings government back to where it's closest to the people," he said.

Lummis said the federal government can promote savings by setting a good example. She proposed a savings account that uses federal mineral royalties to defray the cost of Department of Interior functions like protecting certain animal species.

"It sends a signal that America is going to start saving money, and hopefully sets a tone for American people," Lummis said.

Winney said Congress needs to not only balance the federal budget, but create a surplus to start paying down the national debt.

He would like to see Congress do that not by raising taxes, which "tamps down" economic activity, but by strengthening the national economy and cutting waste in the federal budgeting process.

Winney said the government can help enhance personal savings by making available mortgages, which are a big part of people's savings.

Holland said the nation's current financial system was designed to fail, and too many people are profiting from the nation's inability to pay its own debt.

He called it a "legal counterfeit scheme" that is turning the nation into a "banana republic."

The candidates also said they'd like to see some mortgage lending reform.

Gordon said Congress needs to take a look at the Truth in Lending Act, and mortgage-lending practices need to be made more friendly, simpler and more uniform so consumers know what they are getting.

Lummis also said tougher regulations are needed for mortgage lenders.

Holland said he would like to see Congress eliminate the Fed and require banks to have reserves for 100 percent of the money they lend.

Winney said more regulations are needed for mortgage, but Congress has to be careful not to stop innovation.

"How do you innovate without reaching? You've got to reach, but there are sometimes when you reach too far, and the government has to say that's too far," Winney said.

Reach reporter Jared Miller at (307) 632-1244 or at jared.miller@trib.com.


Previous   Next
Wyoming briefs   Dancers provide insight into American Indian life

Article Rating

Current Rating: 2.5 of 2 votes!Rate File:

Reader Comments

There are 38 comment(s)

Comments to this story.

Independent wrote on Jul 28, 2008 7:50 AM:

" Wow...not one sound idea to solve the economic problems between them all. Drilling for oil off-shore and in wilderness areas will have a very small impact on anything and will be decades before it even does that. Extending tax cuts to the wealthiest 10% at a time of the highest deficits in our history does not make sense; the trickle down theory of economics has been disproven by Bush's attempts; it doesn't trickle down; the wealthy who receive the benefit just take an extra vacation to the Bahamas, buy a new car or something rather than trickling it down to the workforce. If you want to give tax cuts; give them to companies who hire more help and those who raise their workers' wages to a living wage. The cost of living is raising many times faster than wages are; that's why the economy is going down the tubes; coupled with the deregulation of the energy and mortgage markets that have gone amuck. "

Common Cents wrote on Jul 28, 2008 7:58 AM:

" The economic models that work are out there: Diversified, high-value-added services and manufacturing; energy efficiency; a simple tax system with low, flat rates (which means high compliance and miniscule compliance costs); commitment to high-performing public education; few or no distorting government subsidies (e.g., no mortgage interest deduction); clear division between public and private credit (no Fannies or Freddies); no tolerance for public-sector corruption (no elected officials accepting 527 money, delivering "earmarks", rewarding campaign contributors with cabinet and ambassador posts, etc.). Anytime soon in the US? Dream on... "

TR wrote on Jul 28, 2008 9:12 AM:

" We have seen what economic mistakes the Republicans have made , especially in the last 7-8 years. America , and Wyoming , cant take much more of this Republican " fuzzy math " economics. It reall is time for change. "

Inky wrote on Jul 28, 2008 10:33 AM:

" One can find much greater candor about world economics in Europe. See: www.eurointelligence.com/article.581+M563d02ed27c.0.html
The Republicans, with a great deal of Democratic enabling, are pushing the US and the rest of the world into the abyss -- US debt, trade imbalances, the destruction of US manufacturing and the middle class, the obscene enrichment of the top 1 percent, the blatant purchase of political influence through campaign contributions -- have you had enough? "

Darla wrote on Jul 28, 2008 2:59 PM:

" Independent, Back up one step. If Nancy Pelosi wants to increase supply by releasing oil from the strategic reserve, which holds far less oil than we have off-shore and in ANWR, how can that be good and drilling be bad? You, like Nancy Pelosi haven't thought out the unintended consequences of your remarks very well have you? Kind of like Obama saying that a surge for OEF is good but a surge in OIF is bad (even though it worked like a champ in Iraq). "

Hmmmm wrote on Jul 28, 2008 3:37 PM:

" Yes, Inky, let's examine the vibrant economies of the EU nations and the fabulous life styles of their subjects. First please note the measures of prosperity that these countries use as a guage. Candor, well, now that is quite a statement. No that is no model we should seek to emulate.

OBTW; you just can't tax an economy into prosperity. When will someone tell that to Sen. Obama and Nancy Pelosi? May be Jimmy Carter will tell them?

You liberal democrats should lay off of the medical Mary Jane and see the world without the obfuscation of hemp smoke a few times before you are on the wrong side of the dirt. "

hammertime wrote on Jul 28, 2008 4:26 PM:

" Just like a pocket liner no real solution to the problem ! Just get me into office so I can sell out and get a 100k check every year !! "

flounder wrote on Jul 28, 2008 5:09 PM:

" Wow, these guys will call for more regulation with one side of their mouths and then complain about regulation with the other. "Targeted tax breaks"? Make our tax policy more confusing and slanted towards the rich?
What a room full of stupid. "

Bowling for Dollars wrote on Jul 28, 2008 11:08 PM:

" Dear Voter:

Mark Gordon "voted" against the Bush tax cuts, before he "voted" for them.

Sincerely,

Check #20017, The Check Mark Gordon Wrote to John Kerry AGAINST President Bush in 2004. "

Independent wrote on Jul 29, 2008 11:28 AM:

" Darla,
First off, the strategic oil reserves can be tapped quickly for immediate relief rather than taking decades to produce anything, but I am not advocating that either, as energy prices have not gone through the roof due to supply and demand, but rather due to deregulation and greedy speculators. At any rate, the real solution is to get off oil and onto alternative energy sources...solar, wind, hydro, etc. The technology is here today to generate our electricity through alternative sources to power our homes, businesses, and cars. The only thing stopping us greed. As far as well thought out consequences; if we had thought out the consequences of Iraq and used any common sense we would have never gone to Iraq in the first place.

P.S. a big part of the increase in energy prices is attributable to the instability in the middle east that our oil barron (I mean president) caused with his bogus invasion and occupation of another country for the purpose of raising the income of him and his oil buddies...it worked...now it's time to get the heck out of there and begin to heal the international wounds that the right wing extremists who have been running our government have opened up through their foolish policies. "

Darla wrote on Jul 29, 2008 4:24 PM:

" Independent, We can begin producing oil off the coast of Southern California in about two years. Oil from ANWR will take longer, but the longer we wait the longer until we reap those benefits too. Two years is much less time than it would take to switch US industry, transportation, consumer use and our national defense to wind, solar, geothermal and nuclear power. All of these solution are in fact needed. No one solution is the silver bullet and no one solution will happen over night. Tapping the nations strategic reserve is tossing away our ability to react in crisis for today's convenience. Foolish at best and once gone, it is just that, gone. Instability in the middle east and elsewhere on this planet are due to many reasons. Some of these factors are long standing and others are due to recent developments. Our action with our allies in the middle east are not impacting oil prices or production today. In the long run removal of Sadam and the creation of a democracy in that region will create greater stability and prosperity. You are looking at things through some very biased and short sighted political eyes. Can you discuss an issue without denegrating another party? It took many hands from the US and abroad, and both sides of the aisle to create this situation we face today. I pointed out facts related to persons, I did not call them any names. "

Independent wrote on Jul 30, 2008 8:22 AM:

" The overwhelming majority of the oil we use in the U.S. today is used for transportation. The technology exists right now for electric automobiles that use no gas or oil and do not pollute the environment. The companies that are producing them are more interested in making a hundred million dollars off of them than they are in solving problems and helping our country to get over our addiction to oil; the greed of the wealthiest Americans is the only thing stopping us. If we are powering our transportation with electricity we have the flexibility to produce that power from any number of means and would not be dependent on any one energy source. The government is doing almost nothing to help promote solar and wind technology, as they have not figured out how to collect taxes on sunlight and wind. I agree that it did take many people from both sodes of the aisle to create this situation; it's time to purge the extremists on the left and right from our government so that we can actually solve some problems and save our country and planet before it's too late. Every expert that I have heard agrees that we cannot drill our way out of our energy crisis. The only ones I have heard that think we can are the right wing extremists with ties to big oil, people who work in the industry, and republiclemmings who go along with anything that a republican wants to do. "

Darla wrote on Jul 30, 2008 1:08 PM:

" Independent, You refer to personal transportation in your example. A good point, and one that I'll address later in this response. My first and largest concern is the nations security, infrastructure, industry, and heavy transportation and distribution requirements. To power our cities and industries daily requires an enormous base load in mega watts. To move our commodities and consumer goods by ship, rail, truck, air, etc every hour of every day to, from and within the nation requires massive amounts of fuel, and this is a fuel for which there currently is no completely suitable replacement identified that is also economically viable as compared to fossil fuel products. I guess that we could make nuclear sea going freighters, coastal vessels, and trains using existing US Navy technology taken from Subs and Carriers, but wouldn't that open a huge political can of worms! I just don't see electric big rigs capable of carrying 40,000 pounds of goods for 400 miles at a stretch as feasible with today's technology either. May be in the future, but not today. And of course the problem is that if we even have a minor lapse in our nations commercial logistics infrastructure people and business will suffer tremendously. Back to your example of personal transportation, every day millions of American's have to go to work (in example). They do so in many, many cases driving notable distances. This is the case because we've built our cities and their outlying areas (suburbs) based on the low cost and freedom of personal transportation, the car. We don't live where we work, where we shop, or where we go to school. So the problem becomes how do we span the distances? Do we force people to move back to the cities and abandon the suburbs? Do we make public transportation (reliably powered by???) mandatory? This type of societal change is a shift of paradigm that is a whole new order of magnitude and it will require time and that we find solutions to some gaps in that theory (like what the public transportation will be reliably powered by that has the endurance and power level needed to meet the challenges involved). Changes such as these will also require massive investment in public infrastructure moving facilities and utilities from one area to another or to lay down new modes of transport to connect these disbursed areas together using new technology. What were dealing with can be summed up in one example. Pick a city, any city, let's us LA as an example. They grow no food there. They have no potable drinking water there. They create far more waste and sewage than they region can safely process for reuse or disposal. They generate little power in LA. In essence everything needed for human life and human activities must be brought in or taken away every day in gargantuan quantities. LA is but one of thousands of cities with massive requirements in the US alone. These requirements are repeated over and over around the nation and this planet. And, now we are suggesting replacing the resources long used to power this monstrous population over night with technologies that are at best ~40% as effective and efficient as the current, existing fuels, and these replacements are today more costly. Yes, change is needed. However, we do not want to rush to judgment and hang our collective hat on the wrong horse because we were scared into haste. What affects might an ill chosen course have on our economy, security and individual citizens? Parts of the needed solution do exist today. Others will come with time. Change to our society must also occur over time as human nature is to like what you know and feel safe with. People generally fear change and will oppose it. You have to market to them in a way that it sells itself. Lecture and threat is the worst way to try and impose change. Make that change economically attractive and business and the people will beat your door down to get it. "

Scott B wrote on Jul 30, 2008 1:27 PM:

" Independent, I wouldn't call John McCain a right wing extremist, he's pretty middle of the road in aggregate. I also would have to lump Nancy Pelosi in with McCain as she also seems to think that an increase in supply will ease prices too, but in her case she wants to increase supply by taking oil from our rainy day account, the national strategic reserve. I also do not think that either of them believe we can drill our way out. I think that both know full well that we cannot just throw a switch and jump off of oil and onto other solutions, many of which are not yet ready for prime time and mass use, nor are they also cheaper then oil and coal are today. Once the technology is workable and affordable (this is key, without it we won't have security or prosperity), we'll switch to whatever that technology maybe, or combination of technologies as will be applied to different requirements. "

DLB wrote on Jul 30, 2008 2:52 PM:

" Independent, the US will not have a pollution-free transportation system in our life-times. Your comment "The technology exists right now for electric automobiles that use no gas or oil and do not pollute the environment" is accurate (solar cars?), but NOWHERE CLOSE to economic. Just walk yourself through the logistics and costs to convert the coal-fired electric generation in this country to your favorite pollution-free source. You should come back to "everything should be on the table" as a rationale choice to first get the economy healthy then soon shift toward energy independence. "

Independent wrote on Jul 30, 2008 4:04 PM:

" Wow Darla...that's about the most long-winded response I have ever read. Want to quickly bring down energy prices? Get rid of the Enron loophole that deregulated the energy industry and allowed energy prices to triple in a few short years; when you let speculators control the flow of the energy that they are speculating on, they are able to control the price; if speculators can control the price, which direction do you think they will move it? Up of course. Supply and demand is not what is driving prices up so fast. More drilling will not solve a greed problem. "

Wendy wrote on Jul 30, 2008 4:57 PM:

" I see a solution. Raise taxes during and economic down-turn and a fuel crisis. That will promise us a recession and maybe break the nations economic back. Which is exactly what the socialist democrats want as their long term goal any how so we can then move to full communism. Obama is just the right man for that job now isn't he? "

Actually wrote on Jul 31, 2008 6:55 AM:

" Actually DLB Solar cars are made almost entirly of oil. The bodys are plastic. Guess where that comes from? The wires are coated in plastic. The Batteries are plastic. What do these cars ride on? Only 20% of the worlds rubber supply comes from a tree! Not to mention the asphalt road "

Actually Actually wrote on Jul 31, 2008 11:36 AM:

" 80% of our oil usage is for transportation, not plastic. If you use a little oil to build an electric car then power it with solar or wind power, you are reducing your oil usage by 99%; our oil supplies would last much longer and there would be no shortage in any of our lifetimes if we weren't burning it in our automobiles. "

Simpson wrote on Jul 31, 2008 11:53 AM:

" Independent, You have been beaten. This is apparent by you now arguing beside the central point of the matter. Industry and the market, the global market that is, and it's functionality are not road blocks to change as they will exist no matter what commodity is being traded to provide the solution. If markets and industry are your problem why don't you complain too about corn, cotton, rubber, tobacco, wheat, beef, lumber, bauxite and lime stone, etc? All are influenced and affected by commodity traders, speculators and of course government regulation globally (not merely in the US)... Well done Darla! "

Anna wrote on Jul 31, 2008 12:41 PM:

" Is Independent in their right mind? One mined ship in the Straights of Hormuz (SP) and the oil flow from the Gulf stops. Then what do we power our fighters, bombers, tanks, conventional ships, etc with to re-open the lines of logistics? Do we then accept a drop in all global markets of 40% in productivity (food, communications, power, etc) until someone can respond to that? What would that mean to employment, health, education, global stability? That is only one man made example of a possible crisis that would require our national strategic oil reserves to keep the nations head above water. This is a very complex issue, simple minds should sit on the sidelines and let better equipped people work on the problems. "

Freddie wrote on Aug 1, 2008 8:38 AM:

" I doubt that the average person in America really understands all the ways that oil products affect there lives.

Let's take on example. What does it take to bring a single can of corn to your dinner table?

Let's not even worry for now about the corn itself. Let's look only at the corrugated products (cardboard) used to package that can of corn and only the material handling equipment, forklifts to move that around from raw form to the finished boxes and pallet boxes (tri-walls, or just bigger boxes).

Every step in creating the cardboard boxes requires that raw, semi-finished and then completed boxes are handled many, many times over. This includes the adhesives used to assemble these boxes and pallet boxes, the ink for printing all the required labels on the boxes as each portion of each box goes through the multiple steps in manufacturing, assembly, distribution, transportation, marketing, warehousing at each stage, whole sale and retail chains of supply, and these you picking it up to drive home with it from the store.

Converting all of those multiple handling events from the current green house gas producing fuels to cleaner and fully renewable fuels will not happen over night nor will it be cheap. Businesses bring us these products and this change must be profitable for them, or you will not longer get these products.

Let's not cut off our own nose to spite our face by jumping hastily to unproven conclusions. Slow by steady, and deliberately based on facts is how we must proceed. We cannot let emotions rule the day or our decisions. Logic based on fact must be the decider. "

Jumpin Jim wrote on Aug 1, 2008 8:53 AM:

" Excellent Darla! Very well laid out and very thorough! A good class for the less than well informed. "

Yvon wrote on Aug 1, 2008 12:38 PM:

" Freddie, Great example. The workings of the world are far more involved than most can begin to understand. You might want to process your blog entries in Word or email, spell check and then paste them into the subject thread. The nuts working against commonsense have a hay day picking apart arguments based on minor stuff even though the logic is sound. You'll never see them do that when a celebrity or member of a minority stumbles for words though, only when it is their opposition of course. "

Suzie wrote on Aug 4, 2008 8:34 AM:

" How to get that economy going:

A) Increase taxes.

B) Pay race reparations.

C) Steal profits above the amount you think a company should make.

D) Do not allow domestic commodity exploration, rely on outside sources.

E) Run from every possible conflict even if a positive outcome in a conflcit is of benefit to the US, Nations involved and the rest of the world.

F) Discard all traditional American cultural values in lieu of anything new and anti-establishment.

G) Dump all of our long standing allies and replace them with nations of questionable motives. "

Wheatland wrote on Aug 4, 2008 9:27 AM:

" They first must have a grasp of economics before they can start tinkering with it. Most politicians understand socialism. They get it that they can bribe the electorate with tax money to stay in office. Sadly, the electorate, the voting body of citizens for those of you in Lander, also have a very poor understanding of economics. Most can't even budget their own funds well enough to save to their kids college and their own retirement let alone come up with workable solutions to state and national fiscal needs. "

Tina wrote on Aug 4, 2008 9:32 AM:

" Independent; Where did you receive your degree in economics from? That college should be closed and burned.

How do you think that a major corporations tax dollars get to a school in Wyoming? How do you think that the wages earned by a worker in an autoparts store are turned into wages for those that sell them products at the grocery store and are then again turned over many, many times in the economy creating a tidal wave of value to all whose hands this money passes through and are taxed with each transaction many, many times over?

That is trickle down economics. It is in faithful operation all around you each and every day.

Stay on the bench if you can't play on the adult field. "

Braveheart wrote on Aug 4, 2008 10:24 AM:

" Independent, So you don't understand how the economy really works? OK, here's the short version:

Money invested in new business ventures, corporations (e.g. Exxon Mobile), partnerships (e.g. law firm) and sole proprietorships (e.g. family farm) is first paid out to employees, suppliers, and contractors. Only some time later, if the business is profitable (revenues generated exceed overhead costs, creating a profit margin), does money return to the original business owner(s) which started this cycle.
Money paid to employees, suppliers, and contractors is then also turned over many times as these groups used as an example, then consume this money for business and personal purchases in myriad follow-on transactions which are also all tax collecting events (e.g. with each transaction taxes are collected).
Businesses provide wages and benefits to workers (aka a worker's total compensation package). When business is profitable workers profit and more workers can be hired (increased opportunities to labor). These workers then spend their wages across the economy and again these expenditures are taxed (federal, state, local) with each transaction.
When businesses are successful they also directly pay taxes and exchange money with other businesses in business to business (B2B) transactions and ventures. This allows supporting (outlying from the first entity) businesses to hire additional workers, pay additional taxes and over all increases the number of money transactions in any economy manifold.
Based on the forgoing one can see that money or wealth is never consumed even if saved in an interest bearing account. Money is always at work. When in a savings account that bears interest the party saving it is paid for the banks use of the money in the form of loans to say build new homes, start new business, send children to college, etc.
This is the heart of a healthy economy and it is the success of what is typically referred to as "trickle down" economics. "

enough already wrote on Aug 4, 2008 10:57 AM:

" Darla, Tina, and Others,
I have heard about enough crap from you idiots. If anyone doesn't agree with your misguided beliefs, you paint them as somehow uninformed or unpatriotic. Fact is that our country has followed the misguided policies that you advocate for the last eight years and has run our economy into the ground. It's been a great eight years for big oil, but has brought nothing but problems for the rest of the people.

There are solutions for our energy needs, but continuing to craft our energy policy to benefit the oil companies will not solve the crisis, but rather will make things worse. I do not have a problem with a business making a profit, but oil companies making record profits at a time when consumers are paying record high gas prices and causing the entire economy to suffer through rapidly increasing prices across the board becomes a matter of national security; the government must re-regulate the energy industry before they have completely destroyed our economy.

I know you republicans who blindly follow along with whatever your party wants you to do will attack me and say I should stay on the sidelines because I don't agree with you; I will not though. As far as trickle down economics...b.s. nothing is trickling down; it is staying in the wealthy hands that Bush and the GOP put it into; I have bad news for most of you blindly following republicans; it isn't trickling down to you either, you are just so blinded by the spin from your party that you cannot see that you are being screwed. "

Ryan wrote on Aug 4, 2008 12:25 PM:

" None of them sees any real balanced and enduring solutions.

They see either the front, middle or end portions and never construct a whole solution that will work and last.

Fire them all and reelect no one until they perform adequately. "

Ellen wrote on Aug 4, 2008 1:23 PM:

" enough already,

Run the nation into the ground in 8 years?

Where are the breadlines?

Where is the rationing?

Where are the power outtages?

Where are the hunger riots?

Where are the tent camps for the desolate?

Where is the mass starvation?

Get a grip and try to control your Obamamania! "

Donald wrote on Aug 4, 2008 1:37 PM:

" enough already, So you're calling many others names because their logic overwhelms your liberal rhetoric? Now that is a mature, educated way to win hearts and minds isn't it? Perhaps you should rethink your position and take a balanced approach, these people that refute your ideas believe with the same vigor their positions as you do your's. Could it be that you are wrong possibly? Could it be that both groups are wrong and the truth lay between the two sides? If you are open minded and intellectually healthy, looking at their ideas sure can't hurt you now will it? "

Karen wrote on Aug 4, 2008 1:42 PM:

" And I quote: "continuing to craft our energy policy to benefit the oil companies will not solve the crisis."

How is Exxon-Mobile making a profit margin of about 8% on the dollar they invest benefiting them unfairly?

Apple Computer makes around 20% profit margin. Where are Apple's protesters?

By the way, isn't everyone screaming for gasoline under $4.00 per gallon?

You demand cheap fuel and you want to increase taxes on the people that make the fuel.

Won't they simply increase the cost at the pump to cover the added overhead (higher taxes)? "

get real wrote on Aug 4, 2008 2:13 PM:

" Exxon Mobil just reported the largest profit for a quarter in the history of the world. Wow, I guess the right wingers have plenty of time on their hands to continually try to smear everyone who does not agree with them. Probably all either work for the oil companies, the republican party, or are simply blind to the realities of the real world. If things were going as well as y'all seem to think they are, Mr. Obama would not have been able to get the nomination in the first place. The country is in the mood for change because we are on the wrong track currently. Just because you republican followers repeat the lies over and over again doesn't make them true. I think we all know the real truth. Our country is on a course for self destruction and it's time to change direction before it's too late. "

Truly wrote on Aug 4, 2008 2:25 PM:

" Ellen,

We have plenty of real crisis shortages. Not enough I-Phones, not enough seats in theaters to allow everyone to watch the new Batman movie, not enough Smart cars and Hybrid vehicles, not enough time to try all of the new menu items being trotted out at all of the fast food places.

Yes, times they are really rough compared to the 1917-18 (WWI, Flu of 1918), 1920's (Kennedy family rum runners and other gangsters), 1930's (depression and dustbowl), 1940's (WWII), 1950's (Korean War), 1960's (Cold War, Cuban Crisis, Vietnam) and the end of the 70's beginning of the 80's (Carter stagflation, gas crisis, Carter recession).

Few of these folks would know real hardship if it was smacked on their dim heads. "

Dwayne wrote on Aug 4, 2008 2:28 PM:

" get real, WhoooRay for Exxon-Mobile, they are an American success story and they bring us all the cheap fuel we demand.

Next time that MicroSoft posts record profits will I see any negative posts about that success story? Not one chance of it.

Your are a hypocrit and an idiot to boot. "

arrogant elitists wrote on Aug 4, 2008 6:41 PM:

" There sure are a lot of arrogant elitists here who think they have a Constitutional right to cheap gas.
How come we are exporting oil right now anyways, if there isn't enough in America? And why is Frontier Refinery in Cheyenne is losing money if we are getting ripped off by high gas prices? "

wow wrote on Aug 4, 2008 8:41 PM:

" Get Real. What the headlines dont tell you is how much money exxon spent last quarter. Around $30 billion. When you spend billions you will make billions! Heres a nice article from the wall street journal that talks about these windfall profits
online.wsj.com/article/SB121780636275808495.html?mod=googlenews_wsj


Enough already: the person and or company that gives you a paycheck do they have more money than you or less?? I would guess more. Thats called "Trickle down economics" "

Submit a Comment

We encourage your feedback and dialog, all comments will be reviewed by our Web staff before appearing on the Web site.
(optional)
   
Please note: We provide our story commenting feature in order to solicit feedback, debate and discussion on topics of local interest. Please keep in mind that civility is a necessary component of productive conversation. All blatantly inflammatory or otherwise inappropriate comments (i.e. vulgarity, marketing, etc.) are subject to rejection and/or removal. Comments will appear if and when they are approved. Thanks for reading, and thanks for participating.