Essay:

If you could drive on the power of the sun, would you? Would you only pay two cents per mile? And would you help the environment for the future to come? I would, and so would you! All of these questions are answered with the electric car. Nearly every household in America owns one car that runs on gasoline and pollutes the atmosphere. We, need to start adopting the ideas and uses of electric cars into our lives; which is to change your gasoline guzzler into a clean, green, electrifying machine! Nissan with the Leaf and Chevy with the Volt are just two E.V.’s to be manufactured for the U.S. in 2010. With groups like “Plug in America” and documentaries such as “Who Killed the Electric Car?”, activists are taking a stand for what’s right! Us American love oil, but with our solar cell technology, we can change our dirty habits and make the switch to green and clean electric vehicles that run on renewable energy!
Electric Vehicles stretch the boundaries of how inexpensive transportation can be. These alternatives are cheaper to keep running when compared to the common gasoline powered cars. For example, when an electric car is up against a 20mpg gas car with gasoline costing $3 per gallon, you spend $0.15 for every mile that you drive. On the other hand, with electricity being the alternative fuel, we pay in kilowatt hours, which would total to about two cents per mile. Over the long run, this is a he amount of savings. Electric cars are cheaper to fuel, but they are also cheaper to maintain. E.V.’s only have one moving part, the motor. No transmissions, gears, sparks or explosions are taking place “under the hood”. No lubricant is needed, so no oil spills to clean up! This would then mean that it does not have to be taken to the shop as much because almost nothing needs to be changed! These cars are much cheaper to maintain than gasoline cars and stay much cleaner! Although electric cars are more expensive to buy from a dealership, they outperform regular petrol cars. They age much slower, and the cars motor never dies because of the so little moving parts inside. But eventually after a decade, your lithium ion batteries start to drain out and lose charge. But instead of buying a new car every couple of years, you just replace the batteries, and they are much cheaper than a new car. Currently, when you purchase a zero emission car in the United States, which E.V.’s are, you can receive up to a $7,500 rebate from the government! In the long run, with the amount of money that you save on the cost or operation and maintenance for E.V.’s, you would save enough money to pay for the car its self! And the best part is, it’s not science fiction, we have the electric alternative technology here today!
We have to go electric, it’s the easiest and most reliable way of alternative transportation. Other options include ethanol, biodiesel, and the most popular, Hydrogen. Yes, these are great way, but they are not readily available to us, unlike electricity. Also, it would cost way more to install hydrogen fueling stations and biodiesel pumps around America instead of electrical outlets. When compared to the most popular other option, hydrogen fuel cells, electric cars win by a long shot, the average hydrogen fuel cell car costs about one million dollars and the technology is just not there yet. We’ve mastered the electric vehicle with over 300 miles to a charge and speed over 100mph, and we should start using it! We need an alternative, and electric is clearly the matter of choice to reduce our dependence on both foreign and domestic oil. As President George W. Bush stated, “America is addicted to oil,” and we need to get rid of our nasty habits. We can start by changing our cars and what they require to run on. Instead of gasoline, we can use electricity, stored in batteries. With battery technology booming, we can extend our ranges to a few hundred mile to a charge! Although the average American only drives about 90 miles per day. Electric cars are said to have a whopping fuel economy of 188 mpg, and are rated as one of the most efficient type of vehicles on the road. They do not waste power when your car is not moving or stuck at a red light , unlike gasoline cars that constantly burn gas. They are only operated when necessary, which saves you power and money! Some have realized the benefits of E.V.’s and how huge they are! Such as in Israel, where they are taking on project “Better Place”, and within a decade, all cars on the Israeli roads will run on electricity, produced from clean and green renewable energy sources!
“The Environmental benefits of E.V.’s are dubious,” stated a California Newspaper in 2003 when GM was about to end their line for the all electric EV1

I think you’ve tried really hard here so well done on that! There are a few problems with the essay though I’d like to highlight.
– Although electric cars are more expensive to buy from a dealership, they outperform regular petrol cars. – In this sense what does "outperform" mean? Are you referring to physical/economical performance? Can you provide a source which backs this up?
- Electric cars are said to have a whopping fuel economy of 188 mpg – Aside from again not highlighting a source for this figure, this is nonsensical. Electric cars cannot be measured in "miles per gallon" as they do not take gallons! Should be "equivalent of" or some such term.
- These cars are much cheaper to maintain than gasoline cars – again, no source of figures to back this up.
- They age much slower – no, everything ages at the same rate. I think what you mean is that electric motors have a longer serviceable life than internal combustion. Again, source required.
- “The Environmental benefits of E.V.’s are dubious,” stated a California Newspaper in 2003 when GM was about to end their line for the all electric EV1 – not sure what this adds?

Let me ask you another question. As most electricity in the world is generated by burning fossil fuels by switching all of the worlds cars to use electricity are we not just moving the pollution from the car to the power station? Can the electricity network handle the increased demand? Surely we need to fix the power plant problem first?!
You’re really good at writing but unfortunately you’ve not convinced me to give up my petrol powered car yet!

We all seem to be playing a massive blaming game. Liberals accuse Conservatives for the economic problems, Conservatives blaming the Liberals. But is it just me but are we not going anywhere???

I think the problem isen’t the politicians. Yes the have something to do with it, but I think we should all take time to finally point the finger at the man in the mirror. The people of America put ourselves in this situation. I know many of you are already screaming, “BUT I DIDENT CAUSE THIS!” and I understand and I feel the same way. I’m saying the United States as a whole.

Conservatives like to say that the housing boom and eventual bust was cause by Clinton… Yes and no. Clinton made it possible, but he didn’t force low income families to buy those houses they couldn’t afford. And I know personally that its not just low income families, Higher end families like some friends of mine over spent cause they were just hyped up by the good economy. Is it their fault? Yes, but understand it was just bad spending and I feel they have learned their lesson.

Liberals like to put all the blame on Bush. Did bush cause the economic problems we are facing… no. But did he help the situation, um… not. The war in AFGANASTAN was brought on by 9/11, but what caused us to go into Iraq, I think it was more than just simple oil. Bush’s deficit was $300 billion, which I’m sorry to say is a fraction of the 1.3 trillion brought on by a Democrat congress in mid 2008(I think it was 2008), in the form of the stimulus. Bush’s short coming was that he did nothing…and that’s it. Not saying he had to spend money, but it was a perfect opportunity to finally take charge and provide government jobs of giving the country a much needed facelift in the form of a redone interstate system.

And I’ll avoid the Obama situation for the most part, cause it is a touch subject for most. But I will say this. Liberals, you say you NEED a new healthcare system, You say we NEED cap and trade. No, those are things you WANT. America runs off a mob mentality. As long as 51% are happy, everything is peaches and cream. Im sorry if that is harsh, but only 48 million out of nearly 400 million people are uninsured. Besides, hospitals are not legally allowed to turn away serious medical attention. Should there be reform? To and extent, yes, but not this extreme. And Cap and Trade will cause more harm for the Earth than good. It will just run industry off to China where there are NO regulations.

My final statement is, things -should- turn out better at the end of this. I’d say 2018 or so this will clear up. We as Americans will come out of it stronger. Hopefully we will be able to revert from a importing country to and exporting country like we were before the 60’s.

Ahhh… im sorry that dragged out, but I hope you got something out of it, if not, fine.
*************************
Thats was i was trying to get across Lance

IF YOU DONT WANT TO READ, DONT COMMENT ON HOW YOU DONT WANT TO READ!

Bush did it, but so did many many others.

Obama is struggling to clear it up, but he was also part of the team that caused the problem, right?

I think some of the things he is railroading through are for the best in the long run. Throughout history the best leaders have been beneficial dictators.

I’ll go with Obama for a while, if he is shown to have screwed up, out he goes and someone else can have a chance.

heres my reason. 1 Over half of Americans are blind. we just accept what ever happens and go with it. Oil basicly Runs this nation . I have seen news Clips from over 10 years ago of atlease 6 differant people. These people found a way to burn water and use it as a fuel. a guy back in 1990 found a way to burn salt water in a way that well was very hot. even strong enough to run a car. But boom you dont hear anything about him. the next few people same thing. Back in 2005 a man found a way to use water as fuel and called it HHO. It works great. it can even be used by welders . the flame could even get as Hot as teh sun with in a few seconds and cool down and the only thing that came out of it was water.
he even hooked it up to a car and made a car run off of water. at a great speed too. But yet we still get nothing from the big companys. Why is it that a guy in his garage can make a car run off of water But a Sciencist in a LAB with MILLIONS of dollars hasnt found it? Profit! we will be milked to the very bone before they even think of giving us water powered cars. Our lives dont matter to them only our wallets. if it isnt a profit then it wont happen.
heres the newest news clip from about 2005. It was saved on youtube luckily.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=obzQONJd11M
Another story of a great man who is making or was. he has been threatend and turned down by DC tons of times.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=SHXw1QkqV9w

There are no "water powered cars" because it is all a big SCAM.

They rely on people like you who believe the stuff they read in ads and see on YouTube.

they also use lot of shills paid to post positive answers here and other places.

The Black Wallstreet:
During the oil boom of the 1910s,The date was June 1, 1921, when "Black Wallstreet," the name fittingly given to one of the most affluent all-black communities in America, was bombed from the air and burned too the ground by mobs of envious whites. In a period spanning fewer than 12 hours, a once thriving 36-black business district in northern Tulsa lay smoldering-A model community destroyed, and a major Africa-American economic movement resoundingly defused.

The night’s carnage left some 3,000 African Americans dead, and over 600 successful businesses lost. Among these were 21 churches, 21 restaurants, 30 grocery stores and two movie theaters, plus a hospital, a bank, a post office, libraries, schools, law offices, a half-dozen private airplanes and even a bus system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwood,_Tulsa,_Oklahoma
MTV Please Pimp My Ride!!! – You’d be silly to think I wouldn’t go back to Africa.

The Africa America doesn’t show.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=826tpNNrCF0
What was left of Tulsa
http://www.tulsareparations.org/images/freport_15_0001.jpg

Quit whining and simply resegregate yourself by moving away from the "Evil Whitey" if you find us so intolerable.

Greenwood was never "bombed from the air" although the riot was definitely a tragic incident and a national embarrassment. However, it has been 89 years since the riots. Why was it not been rebuilt to its former prosperity in that time?

And the there are people calling him a socialist, and how bad that is. One of the strongest countries in the world, Germany, has adopted many of the traits of a socialist country. Socialism isn’t bad. Its just different. Is it ignorance of the American people that leads them to believe its the Apocalypse?

And on a forum recently there were several HUNDRED comments on how Obama is a dumbass etc for not using The US’ oil reserves. I was truely astonished that people can be that short sighted. In the short run the oil may be cheaper but when it runs out other countries will have the US by the balls. Which is why it is being done the other way around at the moment. And then a few comments even suggested that Palin should be the next President…..my god. She is a fine politician yes but she talks big and gives Obama a slating but that means jack until she is in his position. Politics 101 people.

As for the Guantanamo Bay issue, well at least he is TRYING to keep to his word. Most politicians are all talk but once they get power they just say "Oh I can’t do that,sorry". Yes his administration has missed the deadline but they have made progress towards its eventual closure.

My final gripe is that of the war in the Middle East. I do not agree with this war at all but I can understand that from an economic point of view it would cripple the US economy if he withdrew all the troops.

People it is easy to pin the blame on one man when he is looking after 300 million others, cleaning up the mess of the single most under qualified President of the US ever and trying to juggle these with the everyday issues that arise.

Open your minds.

You said it pal, you don’t live here. We don’t like socialism, big government, arrogant leaders or people that don’t understand limited Constitutional Republics. You may think a "little socialism" isn’t bad, but it never ends there and keeps growing. It’s like a little bit pregnant. No one is blaming Obama for everything, it’s just that he has pushed us pass the tolerant level. He and people like him have finally awakened enough Americans and we want our country back..period. Arm chair liberals (assuming you are that flavor) never get it, America was founded on principles not loved by the left such as our bill of rights. When you mess with our country, people, liberties or attack us (9-11) you personally mess with each one of us and that’s when you get hurt. With all due respect to your beliefs, don’t bash us for your lack of understanding of ours. Have a nice day.

The ironic thing is most Israeli Jews would admit and willingly tell you everything I just did. It is just a matter of greedy politicians trying to protect their own interests. Most people in the world acknowledge this the same. People in America simply don’t recognize the contradictions and are brainwashed by their media and corrupt elite who structure their education system to keep it that way.
Wasn’t the U.N. the same organization that declared Zionism a form of racism for like two decades? You’re going to have to do better than that professor. Saying an organization says something is useless. The U.N. told the U.S. not to invade Iraq. What good did that do? Please answer directly yourself. You didn’t answer the issue regarding the Palestinians. Tell you what. If you tell me that it was ethical for the Europeans to take the Native Americans lands, at least I’ll know where you stand. Otherwise, you seem hypocritical.
How exactly were the Jewish people indigenous to there 3,000 years ago? Most Israeli’s descend from Ashkenazi Jews who are indigenous to the Rhineland of Germany. And other parts of Europe. Migration always leads to intermingling with various indigenous populations too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85jSgzs9-nU&feature=related

Gino – Please watch this video or similar ones on Youtube.
Gino’s mom – I’d disagree. Jews have lived amongst all peoples for centuries and continue to do so. There is nothing supporting why they’d need a state. Hypothetically, even if they did, why should it come at the mercy of another people? Don’t you think the descendants of Holocaust surviving European Jews know themselves the horrors of being mistreated? Israeli Jews know these contradictions. They’re forced to live it every day because of their greedy politicians.
Why couldn’t have they stayed in Europe? I could see the logic of saying why in the late-1940’s you may have not wanted to. Who would have predicted more stability? Perhaps Europeans (mainly the British wanted Jews out of Europe bad enough they’d willingly deprive of their developing humane standards? If they felt that strongly, they should have just provided them a lowly populated European plot of land. I understand the Immigration Act of 1924 was still existent in the U.S. through 1965 which would have blockaded Jewish European immigration. Some argue that it was an Anti-Semitic policy. Some Jews would have saw becoming American as losing their Jewishness and a dipping of culture by migrating to the intellectually barren (I’m American telling you that).
By the way, you’re English is quite good for a Belgian.
The Palestinians wouldn’t argue that the indigenous Jews have a right to be there. They existed in harmony for centuries. You can’t bring in someone who is only the descendants of someone in theory and not even connected to them and say they are the same though. It’d be like a bunch of Americans moving to England to say telling Britons to get out. And that’d only be in theory as their colonial descendant rather than literal one.
Honestly, I don’t think it is justifiable nor ethical for any Israeli presence to be there. A Palestinian state should be fully established while Jews having the voluntary option of remaining there. As the Jewish Rabbi mentioning in that Youtube video, whites weren’t being killed in South Africa once Apartheid ended. There should be some U.N. military presence there to oversee what is going on in the beginning. If Israeli Jews don’t want to remain, they should leave. Perhaps neutral territories like Jerusalem should be designated as world property under the U.N. or similar to that of the Vatican State except ”religiousless” to serve all religions.
”Those Jews converted what was the sinkhole of the Ottoman empire in desirable real estate.”

This is a bias belief that you’ve probably received from western propaganda. While all Israeli real estate wasn’t and still may not be valuable, there are certain places (ex. Jerusalem) that are considered religiously sacred that is worth a lot. I understand Israeli’s helped make it more tourist friendly. Regardless, it wasn’t for European Jews, nor the Americans, English or French to decide how a people who’ve lived in a place for a long time to operate.
”I understand the Palestinians want a piece of land to call their own. But those same Palestinians should realize that this can only be achieved through negotiations, and not by force of arms. Even in the unlikely case they would win, you end up with another set of terrorists who want their land back.”

You’re jumping to square two without fully dealing with square one. I’m asking you what ethical explanation is there for Israel to exist as a state? There isn’t. And until this is confronted, the next steps are useless. As I’ve mentioned, the Jewish people are always politically divided and have various opinions. The current state Israel is operating in will not be what it is in one or two generations. And it won’t be due to American or international groups telling them what to do. A younger generation will create a more ethical code.
”Love it or hate it, the Jews did come from Judea, Palestine, Israel – whatever you call it.”

Josh – You’re not answering the question in a relevant manner. I am asking the ethics of it. Ashkenazi Jews (the predominant Israeli Jewish population) are not the indigenous descendants of people of that region. They’re indigenous to the European continent. Ashkenazi Jews were the ones who created the Zionist movement and the U.S. and U.K. were the ones who made it possible.

Even if they were the descendants of such, which they aren’t, it wouldn’t justify oppressing a people who’ve been living there far longer and more recently based on their own religious book. With that being said, most Jews don’t actually quote the Torah as their logical decision making in life. Many Israeli Jews are Atheist and Agnostic. And unlike Americans who go into a fit about this, the Jewish people (including Ashkenazis) are a culture and ethnicity and define themselves as such.
”Before the Balfour declaration, they were offered Uganda. Imagine what would have happened if they had accepted that offer….”

If it were a part of Uganda where few people lived, perhaps it wouldn’t be so bad. That obviously wouldn’t have been economically desirable for Jews nor Europeans. Nor would have it been fair to Ugandans either. For that matter too, Uganda is one of the smaller African countries. That would have been a mess just like this. If the Europeans believed the Jews should have a state, they should have secluded land for them in Europe. In all reality though, the European Jews didn’t need their own state as they never had one. If they didn’t feel comfortable in Europe, they could have moved abroad.
Any argument you make pass directly confronting the ethics of a European population migrating en masse to modern day Israeli land and kicking aside the Palestinians is not a valuable one in this question. I don’t want to hear the rhetoric of what may or may not have occurred in Arab nationalism. Who’d think that modernly developed European countries during the early-to-mid twentieth century would exterminate 2/3 of their Jewish population? Arabs and Jews have lived in harmony for centuries and would have continued to if it weren’t for American and British greed, and delusional biased Zionists.
The Angels – So you’re argument is the Palestinian people aren’t worth regarding for because they trace origin to a word you claim couldn’t be pronounced in Arabic? This is assuming you even speak a degree of Arabic. With all due respect, that is a crappy base of an argument. The difference between that of Israel and Palestine as opposed to Syria and Lebanon is that the indigenous populations of Syria and Lebanon still exist without European colonial presence of telling them what to do. Israeli in it’s own respect is a European colonizer – even if not directly from one European nation, because it a country with descendants from and operates on western political philosophy.
I’d give you that the Palestinian identity became more developed due to chaos. It doesn’t change the fact they were the people live there before and hundreds of thousands of years though. I don’t see how claiming Ashkenazi Jews – indigenous European Jews, have relevance to that. Like I said, it was just a matter of needing a home to go to. They didn’t provide it for themselves. The British and Americans used and gave into selfish Zionists because of their own economic benefit.
Any argument you make pass directly confronting the ethics of a European population migrating en masse to modern day Israeli land and kicking aside the Palestinians is not a valuable one in this question. I don’t want to hear the rhetoric of what may or may not have occurred in Arab nationalism. Who’d think that modernly developed European countries during the early-to-mid twentieth century would exterminate 2/3 of their Jewish population? Arabs and Jews have lived in harmony for centuries and would have continued to if it weren’t for American and British greed, and delusional biased Zionists.
What gives them the right to have a state in a place where they didn’t? Was the Ottoman Empire exactly there state? Did Anti-Semitism not occur under their rule? Why do you just assume Arabs would have went all out on Jews? They have nothing about the Jewish religion nor the Jewish people outside of politicking. Whether or not you have logic regarding politics, Palestinians attacking Israelis is an act of politicking. Basic history could show you Christians have had it out for Jews and Muslims. This is why I said no rhetoric.
SJC – I can honestly tell you are the laziest or slowest person who’ve answered on here. Either you didn’t read anything I wrote. Or the others for that matter. Or you simply are spewing out pro-Zionist garbage that you can think of for 2 points. I asked for ethical. You’re going on about the aftermath. That is rhetorical, political and irrelevant to the structure of the question which I explicitly asked for you not to do in the first few sentences. You’re going on about what the Palestinians have done (even without recognizing inhumane Israel acts too). When something occurs, both sides will fight. That isn’t what I’m disputing. What I’m disputing is the root and origin of the creation of the state of Israel. The majority of Israeli Jews would tell you everything I just told you and probably in greater detail. I see it is easier to talk to a bunch of barren Americans who couldn’t tell the difference between their hand and foot though.
You know what is really sad? And I mean really sad? There were people on here who answered like 2-3 sentences that required absolutely no intelligence that got lots of thumbs up. Probably the crowd that spends a little too much on Yahoo. Honestly, what ever your political view is, I respect. This wasn’t supposed to be a political discussion. I explicitly said that. But intellectual capacity on here was rather low. A few of you gave really good responses. But when you got one girl directly saying they’re too lazy to answer a question even while I said not to if that is what you’re going to do, that is embarrassing. It actually shows her to quite possibly have a mental disability. If she does, than I guess I can’t blame her.

What is funny though is that any pro-Zionist message even if short and vague seemed to get many thumbs up. And any anti-Zionist or even neutral post seemed to get lots of thumbs down. A predominantly American and intellectually barren crowd at it’s finest, huh?

certainly it was not ethical .there is nothing ethical in occupation
MR warren with all my respect teaching Geography and History of his own
any reliable source will show that Palestinians were the native inhabitants of the land, who have always been there. Any close look to Palestine’s history or geography will reveal that there were hundreds of Palestinian cities and villages that date back to thousands of years, many even to dates before Jewish existence.

As for references, I will provide only two here. The first one is from an Jewish site (often referred to by pro-Israelis). It clearly shows that for hundreds of years, the population of Palestine had less than 10% Jewish component. It only started to exceed this percentage after the Balfour declaration in 1917, when Britain opened the door for massive Jewish immigration to Palestine. You will also notice that the Arab population in the part of Palestine that is now called Israel drops from 70% in 1946 to only 17.9% in 1948. This sharp drop was a direct result of a brutal ethnic cleansing campaign by Zionists to empty the land from the Palestinians. In international law this is called a crime against humanity.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsou…

The second reference is from Wikipedia showing population of Palestine from 1922 to 1945. The data here agrees closely with that in the above site. It shows that Jewish annual population growth rate during that period was 8.6%, which can be this high only through massive immigration. On the other hand the Arab population growth rate during the same period was only 2.6%, which was only from natural causes (by birth).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_m…
The UN divided the mandate between the Palestinian Jews and Palestinian Arabs. The Jewish part became the State of Israel. and the Palestinian Arabs where is their part .they have no stat till now and the reason is obvious….. it is Israel

Washington’s ‘War Against Winners’
A cap-gains assault on private partnerships would strike a dagger into the heart of U.S. capital formation.

Last Friday’s precipitous stock-market plunge, with the Dow Jones dropping 185 points, is all about Washington’s continued war on prosperity.

The latest assault comes courtesy of House Democrat Sander Levin. Late last week, he introduced a bill that essentially would abolish the 15 percent capital-gains tax preference for risk investing, and raise it by 20 percentage points to the 35 percent corporate and personal rate. This goes beyond an earlier tax attack on a public offering by the Blackstone Group, and would slam into all private partnerships, including buyout funds, hedge funds, venture-capital firms, real estate partnerships, and oil-and-gas deals.

Incidentally, while attacking capital gains, the congressional Democrats are killing initiatives for across-the-board cuts on wasteful appropriation bills. According to the Club for Growth, House Democrats defeated separate measures that would cut spending by 4 percent, 1 percent, and 0.5 percent.

Does this mean the Democrats favor tax hikes over real spending control? It appears so.

Washington economist Kevin Hassett says this is part of the Democrats’ “war against winners,” and he’s right on the money. In particular, these willy-nilly changes of the tax rules would have a chilling effect on capital formation, and could constitute the biggest attack on capital since the 1930s.

As mentioned, the lightning rod in this tax-hike endeavor was the Blackstone Group, the private-equity giant that went public last week. Blackstone’s investment-fund profits are taxed at the 15 percent cap-gains rate, and since these profits come from high-risk investments, that’s how it should be. But Democrats in Congress view these profits as plain income, and greedily want a higher take.

But plain ol’ income this is not. The recent crack up of two Bear Stearns sub-prime-mortgage hedge funds shows just how risky these ventures can be.

Yes, there’s big money to be made when these private partnerships click. But the economy at large also is a beneficiary. Private buyout funds often save highly troubled companies from bankruptcy. They insert skilled managers who streamline operations and make businesses more efficient, a process that can ultimately lead to greater profits and business expansion. You know a lot of these companies: Chrysler, Staples, Sears, Domino’s, Dunkin’ Donuts, Toys“R”Us, Clear Channel Communications, Hospital Corporation of America. All of these firms were brought back from the dead thanks to private partnerships.

Nobody knows for sure whether Congress will green-light the Democrats’ anti-growth agenda. The hope is that President Bush will veto any tax hike that lands on his desk. But the mere threat that Congress would embark on such a program of wealth destruction and economic impoverishment — all in the name of taxing “rich people” — has investors reeling.

Ironically, a lot of today’s anti-cap-gains momentum is the handiwork of former Clinton Treasury secretary Robert Rubin. He actually believes a low cap-gains tax has no economic growth impact at all. However, back when Clinton and Rubin were running things, the personal income-tax rate was lifted from 31 to 40 percent, while the cap-gains tax was reduced from 28 to 20 percent, making for a 20 percentage point tax advantage for cap-gains over regular income. Flashing forward, the current Bush administration lowered the income-tax rate to 35 percent and the cap-gains rate to 15 percent, preserving that 20 percent differential.

Hmm . . . Is Rubin saying the cap-gains tax advantage was good for the Clinton boom, but not the Bush boom?

Truth is, that differential provides a strong incentive for entrepreneurial risk taking and higher-risk, cutting-edge investment — both of which lend real torque to the economy.

Another unfortunate irony is that while Democrats think they’re striking out at the rich, they’re actually jeopardizing the retirement portfolios of millions of middle-income Americans. Firemen, police officers, and teachers, to name a few, are all represented by the big state and city pension funds. And these funds are heavily invested in the hedge and private-equity funds that the Democratic tax machine is targeting. Is this fact lost on the Democrats? And don’t they realize that two out of every three voters in recent elections owned stocks — either directly or indirectly? Are they attempting to commit political suicide?

If the Democrats get their way, job creation will be adversely affected, too. Clearly, you can’t create new jobs in the private sector unless there’s a new or expanding business to create those jobs. And since new and expanding businesses require capital for investment funding, if you tax that capital more, you get less investment and fewer jobs.

In short, you can’t have capitalism without capital. The process works for “rich people” and the middle class.

Whenever Democrats wage war against the rich, the middle class becomes the collateral damage. This may be the law of unintended consequences, but it is something this Congress fails to understand.
.

________________________________________

Democrats LOVE to redistribute wealth. It’s easier than EARNING it yourself.

DIGG THIS

The world’s economy has been in growth mode at least since 1991. China has been in growth mode since 1979. The American economy had a sharp recession in 1991. Asia had a financial crisis in 1998. America had a very brief, very shallow recession in 2001. The Federal Reserve System pumped in money at an accelerating rate after mid-2000 through 2004, and did not go to tight money until the month Bernanke took over: February 2006. Inflation overcame the recession of 2001, and it overcame the crisis of 9/11, but it created the housing bubble and the commodity bubble.

The housing bubble has popped. This is going to take the price of housing in the United States lower than it is today. I think 20% lower is a conservative figure. We are nowhere near the end of this popped bubble.

The commodity bubble is still in full force. It is a worldwide bubble. The price of energy and the price of rice and other food commodities have received most of the attention.

Federal Reserve policy since early 2006 has been one of relatively stable money. There is a lot of chatter to the contrary, but if we look at the two most significant monetary indicators, the adjusted monetary base and M1, we see that there has been very little growth in either. This is why the United States is now either in a recession or is facing one in the next few months. When a period of monetary inflation ends, economies go into recession. The American economy is slowing down, and it will continue to slow down.

Both China and India have expanded their money supplies dramatically for a decade. Both countries are now facing a crisis of rising prices. Price inflation is a major threat to the continued prosperity of both countries.

China’s government has begun to impose selective price controls. This is creating shortages and production bottlenecks. India’s government is considering doing the same thing. What both governments need to do is to tell their central banks to cease buying all government debt and all assets of any kind. The central banks need to stop inflating the money supply. But if the banks do this, both countries will experience major recessions. The governments do not want to have major recessions, but they also do not want to experience the effects of monetary inflation: price inflation. So, both of them are tempted to go back to the traditional policy of imposing price controls. This always creates shortages, and it always reduces the rate of growth of the economy. China and India are trapped.

AN INTERNATIONAL TRAP

The United States is in the same trap. The headlines scream of the skyrocketing costs of energy and food, but the broader consumer price indexes indicate slow increases: maybe 3% a year. This is because families are readjusting their budgets. As the prices of gasoline and food rise, families are forced to cut back expenditures in other areas. So, the general price indexes are not rising dramatically, but families are struggling with their budgets.

This struggle will get much worse this winter, when the price of heating oil rises. This will exacerbate the existing economic slowdown. Furthermore, the rising price of oil means a rising balance of payments deficit for the United States. Oil-exporting countries are the main beneficiaries of the rising price of oil. This means that foreign sellers of oil will get the lion’s share of the increase of the price of oil. American producers will pay for the prosperity of the oil exporting countries. They will pay in the form of reduced demand for their products.

The world is facing simultaneous recession. Meanwhile, the American financial system has absorbed hundreds of billions of dollars of IOUs from home buyers who cannot possibly pay off their debts. They are in the process of defaulting to the lenders. This has created a crisis for America’s largest banks, and for several major European banks.

We all know the story by now, but psychologically, most Americans have not adjusted to the new economic reality. Most investors have not adjusted. Yes, the American stock market is down by 20% since last October. But still they think a recovery is just around the corner. The media keep saying this. American investors still have faith that the economy is essentially healthy, that there will not be a continuing fall in the stock market, and that the economy will not go into recession and stay in the recession for two or more years.

So far, I am giving you the good news. The good news is there is going to be an international recession, rising corporate bankruptcies, bank failures, and retrenchment by consumers because they can no longer pay the rising cost of energy.

Why is this good news? Because this recession is going to put a cap on the rising cost of energy. Commodity prices will fall during the recession; this includes the price of oil.

NO MORE FISCAL WIGGLE ROOM

Americans have steadily stopped saving over the last 28 years. In 1981, they saved over 11% of their discretionary income. Today, they save nothing. They are now in full spending mode. They have borrowed money against their future income, against their home equity, and on simple promises to pay (signature loans: credit cards). They have stretched themselves thin with respect to debt.

If oil goes to $400 a barrel, or $500 a barrel, and stays there for a year, American consumers will be in panic mode. They will have to cut their budgets, and they have forgotten how to cut their budgets. They have forgotten how to save.

The strategy of the optimists is to tell us that the worst is over economically. This is the government’s official position. Chairman Ben Bernanke does not say this. He keeps hinting of more trouble to come. He keeps telling us that the Federal Reserve System is monitoring events. He keeps implying that there is some sort of rabbit still remaining in the Federal Reserve System’s hat which they can pull out if the banking system moves into paralysis mode. But he doesn’t tell us what these rabbits are, or under what conditions the FED will pull them out of its hat.

The good news regarding the economy in general is not backed up by anything specific. The government tells us that the worst is over, but there are almost no indications that the worst is over. The housing market is still in decline. Foreclosures are still rising rapidly. The lenders are not selling foreclosed properties at market prices. Instead, they keep buying back the properties. There is a growing inventory of unsold properties on the books of the lenders. Meanwhile the two major sources of liquidity for the housing market, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are verging on bankruptcy. On Wednesday, July 9, the stock price of Freddie Mac dropped by 23%. Yet its stock price was down over 50% since January. These two stocks have continued to fall.

Everywhere we look on the horizon of the domestic economy, there is bad news. There is no sector of the economy that is improving, unless it is heavily funded by the Federal government. Health care has not slumped, because health care as funded by Medicare and other state and local government programs.

This means that the Federal deficit is going to get worse in any recession. Medicare and Social Security are non-discretionary spending items. The revenues will fall. So, the supposed strength sectors of the economy are in fact guarantees of a government fiscal crisis. If the general economy slumps, the Federal deficit is likely to go over $500 billion a year.

When the recession hits, commodity prices will fall. If the recession does not hit, commodity prices will continue to rise. But rising commodity prices will force bankruptcies in those firms that are not in a position to pass on increased costs to their consumers. This means industries associated with discretionary spending. If your company is dependent upon discretionary spending by the public, your job is at risk. If the recession hits, your company will suffer. If the recession doesn’t hit, rising commodity prices will squeeze your company. Consumers will spend their money for gasoline and heating oil, not on the products or services your company produces.

The boom economy has not been based primarily on non-discretionary income. The boom has come at the margin: those areas of the economy in which consumers do have the option of spending their money rather than saving it.

So far, I have been giving you the good news. The good news is there is going to be an international recession, rising corporate bankruptcies, bank failures, and retrenchment by consumers because they can no longer pay the rising cost of energy.

THE BAD NEWS

The bad news is that the State of Israel is increasingly likely to launch an air strike on suspected Iranian nuclear weapons production facilities.

I have discussed this before. If this happens, the price of oil will skyrocket. This will force massive readjustments of family budgets in every country on a permanent basis. This is going to force producers to fire people out of fear of bankruptcy. Consumers are going to stop buying much in the area of discretionary income. That is, those items that can be cut back will be cut back.

This could mean you.

If the State of Israel launches an attack on Iran, the economic news will get really bad really fast all over the world. So, the most important question today is whether or not the Israeli Air Force will attack Iran. From an economic standpoint, this is the crucial question.

Here, too, the mainstream media have generally promoted optimism. They suggest that the Israelis will not attack Iran. The problem is, they can’t point to anything specific that officials in the State of Israel have said that indicates that there will not be an attack. On the contrary, officials there keep saying "no comment."

Something else is really ominous. The political leaders in the countries over which Israeli bombers will have to fly are deadly silent. They are not telling Israel in full public view that if Israel sends planes over their airspace, they will go to war with Israel. They are not saying that they are preparing right now to shoot down every Israeli plane that flies over their airspace. They are saying nothing. Why? I think the main reason is that they will not back up their words with deeds. They will not shoot down Israeli planes. They say nothing in public because they will do nothing if the overflights take place. If they go public with bellicose threats today, their own people will turn on them if they fail to back up their words with deeds if the flights take place. "You said you would do something. You did nothing. Get out!" This could start internal revolutions in the overflown countries. Silence is golden. It’s yellow, but it’s golden.

This tells me that the overflight countries’ leaders think the attack may take place. They would prefer to be accused of having been caught flat-footed by the Israeli Air Force than unwilling to back up a threat.

American officials are offering the bipartisan line: "We must settle this through diplomacy." (To which Israeli government officials can respond, Tonto-like: "Who you mean we, paleface?") They are not saying anything about what sanctions against the State of Israel that America will impose as soon as Israeli jets bomb Iran. That is because there will be no such sanctions.

Admiral Mullen supposedly sent Israel a statement in early July saying that the United States has not issued a green light for an Israeli attack on Iran. This supposedly means something important in itself. It means nothing in itself. What it means is the United States has not issued a red light against an Israeli attack on Iran. This means that there is no stop sign. There is no red light, so the absence of a green light means nothing.

Of course no one has said that the United States will help Israel in such an attack. So what? Israeli officials are not asking for a public offer of American help. If the United States and those governments over which the Israeli Air Force must fly are not issuing public statements at this time warning that there will be significant negative sanctions imposed on the State of Israel as soon as the attack is launched, then this is an implied green light.

Do we imagine that senior decision-makers in the Israeli government care a whit about the lack of an official American green light to their attack on Iran? They are as unconcerned about the lack of a green light as Iran is unconcerned about President Bush’s threat of sanctions if Iran does not comply with all requirements announced by the Bush administration. Iran knows what Israel knows: the Bush administration is terminal. It will end on January 20, 2009. It has no teeth. Lame ducks don’t bite. They merely squawk.

Why should we think that either Iran or Israel gives a fig about the red light/green light debate? American pundits may think this debate is important, but why should anyone with common sense think it’s important?

TIMETABLES

Iraq has announced that the United States must pull out its troops. It is demanding dates for this withdrawal. The Bush administration is pooh-poohing all this, and will not under any circumstances announce such a timetable, but so what? There is a timetable for the Bush administration’s withdrawal: January 20, 2009.

This means that the United States is going to be pressured by Iraq’s government to leave Iraq from now on. Most of the troops will be forced to leave Iraq unless things change dramatically. Then what will be done with the 14 major military bases that have been built?

As the pressure increases to force us to leave Iraq, and as the pressure from the Taliban increases in Afghanistan, and as the pressure from voters increases to get our troops out of both countries, and as the likelihood of the election of Obama increases, decision-makers in the State of Israel are caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place.

If the United States pulls out of the region, the State of Israel will be left high and dry. But there is another possible scenario. If Iran’s surrogate Shia forces in the region take on the United States troops in reaction to an Israeli attack on Iran, American public opinion will swing in favor of keeping the troops there, no matter what. "Who do those Iranians think they are? We issued no green light to the Israelis. It’s not our fault." If Iran begins to supply weapons to Shia forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the American death rate goes up, then American voters will switch back to a pro-war position. At least, this is a possibility. Americans do not like to be pushed around.

Any escalation of war in the region will create havoc for the supply of oil. The world economy is moving into recession already; it may go into a true depression if oil goes to $500 and stays there. So, the stakes are enormous.

The outcome is no longer in the hands of the United States, Europe, Asia, or any of the other outsiders to the Middle East. The outcome, or at least the trigger, is completely in the hands of the decision-makers in the State of Israel. They hold the gun.

Unless the United States and Western Europe tell the decision-makers in the State of Israel that Europe and the United States will impose significant negative sanctions after an attack on Iran, then decision-makers there are going to make a decision based on the self-interest of the ruling party, not the self-interest of American or European voters. They are going to take care of their perceived problem, exactly as we would expect any other national political leaders would take care of their problem.

That’s why all talk about war being a threat to the self-interest of the whole makes sense only if the Israelis conclude that the economic crisis will be so severe that it will take them down in the whirlpool of economic collapse. They are not afraid of military retaliation from Iran. They are also not afraid of the United States, Europe, Asia, or any other coalition that does not have the backbone to say in advance that there will be major sanctions placed on the State of Israel if there is an attack on Iran.

This is why I am concerned about the threat of an Israeli attack on Iran. I am in no way calmed by statements attributed to Admiral Mullen. When Admiral Mullen holds a press conference and says publicly that there is no green light for an attack by the Israeli Air Force on Iran, and that any flyover of Iraq by Israeli planes will lead to shoot downs of Israeli planes by American planes, then I will stop worrying about the threat of an attack on Iran by the Israeli Air Force. How likely do you think such a press conference is?

We must face reality: the decision to go to war with Iran is 100% in the hands of Israeli decision-makers. It is not in the hands of the United States, Europe, or Asia. In other words, the economic fate of the West over the next decade is now in the hands of decision-makers who are concerned about the long-term survival of their own country. They are concerned because they do not want to have Iran in the possession of nuclear weapons. Both candidates for President have said the same thing.

We have seen saber-rattling by the Iranians with the film-doctored test of the missiles this week. These missiles are militarily useless as weapons against the Israelis. They are as irrelevant militarily as Germany’s V-2 missiles were in 1945. They cannot inflict enough damage to make a difference, unless they are used against Saudi Arabian oil fields. But, if they had a nuclear warhead, that would make all the difference. The Israelis know this. So, they are going to make their decision in terms of this long-term threat.

The main inhibition against an attack is the possible collapse of the Western economy, which buys Israeli-produced goods. This threat may be sufficient to keep them from attacking. I dearly hope that it is. But it is naïve to believe that they are going to make their decision because of worries about whether Admiral Mullen has issued a green light or not.

CONCLUSION

When you invest your money, do not ignore the worst-case scenario. Set aside some of your money on the assumption that the worst-case will come true. This is what any military strategist does. He makes his decisions in terms of what the enemy can do, not what it would be convenient for the enemy to do.

I suggest that you be aware of this threat. I suggest that you sit down with the family budget and outline what your response would be if the price of gasoline were $10 a gallon or $15 a gallon or $20 a gallon. What would you do? I know what you would do. You would drive less.

Ignore the happy-face assessments of the geopolitical strategists. Ignore the happy-face assessment of the Secretary of the Treasury, Henry "Goldman Sachs" Paulson. These assessments are being issued to keep panic from spreading.

I am doing my best to encourage people to take rational steps with some of their liquid assets: to hedge themselves against the possibility that there will be an attack on Iran before January 20, 2009. This doesn’t mean that I think such an attack is a sure thing. Decision-makers in the State of Israel are going to have to live with $400 oil, just like all the rest of us. They may decide that this risk is too great. They may decide to put up with the threat of a future nuclear-armed Iran. I won’t bet all of my money on this. I don’t think you should either.

July 12, 2008

Gary North [send him mail] is the author of Mises on Money. Visit http://www.garynorth.com.

Given that the US government is now in the hands of the most incompetent raft of losers since the dawn of civilization I doubt that Israel counts on the US for anything one way or the other. Israel knows that no matter who says what in regard to Israel, the bottom line is that they’re on their own….like the ‘Battling bastards of Battan/ No mommas no poppas/ No Uncle Sam! Yet there is hope….mainly because the Iranians aren’t crazy. A nuclear exchange would mean the end of them, and for a civilization going back 4000 years that’s something to consider. For their part, Israel’s national motto is, ‘Never Again’! Or more to the point…we die, you die! Kinky Friedman was right…’They ain’t makin Jews like Jesus anymore! In the end, all this will settle down…probably when the Iranian official religious ferver winds down. If not, then there will be a war, people will die, everything will go to hell for a long time and new countries will emerge at some point in future history. Most likely, should war break out, the Israelis will nuke the Iranians and the Saudis and maybe even the Egyptian’s Aswan Dam Complex as well. Islam will break up into a dozens of sects and the Jewish faith, already slowly going the way of the buffalo will fade from history. Yeasty times! As far as oil is concerned…I’m buying a motor scooter, learning to eat lower on the food chain and if it looks like trouble I’ll pack a roscoe. Since our stupid government lost track on what the ‘general welfare’ mean all of us are going to have to accommodate ourselfs to the reality of the situation. Some sink, some swim, some go in boats! No kiddin’!

I think a better question would be why does the US still have a 50% tariff on all imported sugar? If we dropped this tax, we could make ethanol a lot more efficiently rather than using corn, it would almost make sense to have E85 gasoline then. But no, I guess we would rather import oil from Saudi Arabia and Iran then sugar from Brazil.

To secure our safety as a race we need to spread out across the univers. Now! After the boom of space explorations during th 70’s i would have thought that 30 years on we would at leats have a perminent base on the moon

The native americans had the best philosiphy. People are no more important than the mountains and trees.

Ya your crazy…man hasn’t been on the moon that is hog wash.