The Energy Non-Crisis

bikezappa

tonyb wrote: »

....and thats the bottom line folks.Though I often wonder why at the end of every presidents time in office,the economy tanks.This is why it is of utmost importance to keep government out of things they should not be in.Unfortunately,money and power rule the day and that seems like it will never change,no matter who is president.You can look back to every president,members of congress,both sides,Rep. or Dem,and you'll see a money trail,from corporate interest,oversea's money,etc.Don't you wonder why a person who makes hundred of thousands if not millions of bucks in the private sector wants a job as senator that pays 150k a year?Surely it is not because they have your interest at heart.The only thing that changes is who's pockets the crooks fill,and what kind of benefits will be returned to them.Greed....you don't have to paint it any other way,simple as that.So when I hear this crap about "real change",I hold on to my wallet and pray and use the only weapon left to us,my vote.

Oil,is here to stay as the primary source of energy.If an alternative source is by some miracle,stumbled apon,you will not see it untill the powers at be decide how to control it,and keep the profits within their circles of influence.So if it is here to stay,lets get us some of our own black gold burried with in our borders for the time being.Some relief is better than none at all,no?

Got to agree with 99% of this post. Well said.

However, Clinton had a surplus of money the last few years during his term.
They were even predicting the reductipon the national debt.

Dennis Gardner

bikezappa wrote: »

Got to agree with 99% of this post. Well said.

However, Clinton had a surplus of money the last few years during his term.
They were even predicting the reductipon the national debt.

Clinton's surplus was due to short term financing that reduced the interest rates to an amount that we could actually create an annual surplus. Pundits thought that this would blow up during his term, but our economy held long enough for him to end his terms looking economically sound.

Bush's terms have been handed a totally different world to operate in, with the middle east turmoil heightened.

tonyb

bikezappa wrote: »

Got to agree with 99% of this post. Well said.

However, Clinton had a surplus of money the last few years during his term.
They were even predicting the reductipon the national debt.

Yes,He did have a surplus,but the economy was declining quick.Needless to say,it's pretty hard to fight a war and not go into debt.The problem I have with the war is if we are there to supposedly free Iraq's,then damn it,repay us in oil instead of opening the fields to the highest bidder.Recoup some of the billions we spent there.Gotta wonder about our nations negotiators.

Music Joe

He was in a room for 3 years with the most powerful people in the world...people moving and shaping the future world structure...in Alaska?
They let a Baptist preacher hang with them in the world domination meetings?

Early B.

tonyb wrote: »

Yes,He did have a surplus,but the economy was declining quick.Needless to say,it's pretty hard to fight a war and not go into debt.The problem I have with the war is if we are there to supposedly free Iraq's,then damn it,repay us in oil instead of opening the fields to the highest bidder.Recoup some of the billions we spent there.Gotta wonder about our nations negotiators.

You're right. Whatever happend to the war phrase, "To the victor goes the spoils." Instead of confiscating Iraqi oil to help pay for the war, what do the American people get -- higher gas prices!!! (scratches head...) It makes you wonder who our soldiers are really fighting and dying for.

Early B.

Music Joe wrote: »

He was in a room for 3 years with the most powerful people in the world...people moving and shaping the future world structure...in Alaska?
They let a Baptist preacher hang with them in the world domination meetings?

Yeah, I thought that was kinda strange. If I were one of the most powerful people in the world, the last place I'd wanna plot world domination is in Alaska!!:eek: Can someone say, "French Riviera?"

The preacher said the most powerful people are the families and individuals who profit from the machinations of the IMF & World Bank. I doubt seriously these folks were chillin' out on the Alaskan pipeline with a Baptist preacher in the midst of their discussions. Nevertheless, I don't doubt that he was privy to some very useful information that ordinary folks don't hear about on the 6 o'clock news.

sucks2beme

They are trying to maintain a "good guy" image. And failing quite badly.
You can't occupy a country without pissing off the locals. It's never
worked. And most of Europe and the Mideast aren't too thrilled, either.
In the end, we will be out a lot of money we don't have for the priviledge
of giving democracy to a buch of guys who really have no interest in it.

It costs a lot a cash to kick a country's butt. A fact we seem to have forgotten.

Norm Apter

sucks2beme wrote: »

They are trying to maintain a "good guy" image. And failing quite badly.
You can't occupy a country without pissing off the locals. It's never
worked. And most of Europe and the Mideast aren't too thrilled, either.
In the end, we will be out a lot of money we don't have for the priviledge
of giving democracy to a buch of guys who really have no interest in it.

It costs a lot a cash to kick a country's butt. A fact we seem to have forgotten.

Agreed. And with regards to the last point "It costs a lot a cash to kick a country's butt," can anyone else name a time in history when a nation has not only not raised taxes, but actually imposed tax cuts, in a time of war? On the one hand -- without the draft and higher taxes -- the burden and sacrifice has fallen largely on just a small portion of the U.S. population (those who volunteered to serve in the military and their families) rather than the nation as a whole. On the other hand, China has helped bankroll this and our children, grandchildren, etc, etc. will owe them for a long time.

But I digress. Monopolozing Iraqi oil would just further substantiate the claim that that was our underlying objective from the very beginning (and perhaps it was) rather than the shifting set of motivations: (a) eliminating WMD to (b) going after alleged terror links to Al Qaeda to (c) establshing democracy in the Middle East (take your pick); this would be a final nail in the coffin when it comes to our image as occupiers not liberators. If you thought the resistance is bad now, just wait until we are seen as intent on controlling the country's resources. Hell would break loose on a whole new level.

Early B.

Norm Apter wrote: »

But I digress. Monopolozing Iraqi oil would just further substantiate the claim that that was our underlying objective from the very beginning (and perhaps it was) rather than the shifting set of motivations: (a) eliminating WMD to (b) going after alleged terror links to Al Qaeda to (c) establshing democracy in the Middle East (take your pick); this would be a final nail in the coffin when it comes to our image as occupiers not liberators. If you thought the resistance is bad now, just wait until we are seen as intent on controlling the country's resources. Hell would break loose on a whole new level.

Wars are fought to determine who controls the resources. If one subscribes to the "world is dominated by a few" theory, then Americans were simply used as pawns for these guys to invade Iraq because we have a superior military. According to the preacher, Iraq didn't cooperate with the "plan," so they must be forced into submission. So Iraq doesn't control its own oil, nor does America control its own army.

I agree with you, the resistance hasn't broken out yet in Iraq. There's too much anti-American sentiment in the region, and for good reason. Hell will break loose, for sure.

SKsolutions

War is extremely profitable. I'm sure there are other reasons, but I don't believe Washington is looking out for anyone's interest but it's own. If you are a decision maker, you have to pay back the people that put you where you are, or you will lose your seat at the cool table.

If you follow the money, you will always end up at a Bank because every dollar is borrowed from one.

Scenario: If you ran up a huge loan at 6% interest, could make payments whenever you wanted, but you had to pay it off eventually. . . what would you do?

Short the dollar, and flood the money supply. If you debase the dollar enough through planned inflation, interest rate manipulation, or just printing Billions of unbacked dollars, the 10 Trillion$ deficit is depreciating faster than the interest rate. In essence, it's paying itself off. Just apply time to the principal.

Look I just paid the national debt!

The only people hurt by this. . . 99 out of every 100 Americans.
Who wins? 1%

Don't like the inflation number? We'll change the formula. (We did)
Worried other countries will notice we are printing money with nothing to back it? Stop publishing the figure. (The Fed did)

The only reason countries are still buying our debt is: If the don't, it will all collapse and they are "pot committed", or "all in".

It's all an illusion. Go back to bed, take an Ambien, wake up Monday morning take your Zoloft, . . punch in, pay your government, stay on the treadmill until you are told to stop or asked to leave. . .

jm1

The intent of my post is to demonstrate that there are alternatives to

WilliamM2 wrote: »

Using Thomas Bearden as a source? He is a con man himself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_E._Bearden

Don't know much about Mr. Bearden as I just came across the site the other day, but the link refers to Mr. Moray's ZPE (Zero Point Energy) device. I was referring to Mr. Moray's device when I made this post. The link is a good summary of the events surrounding the Moray device. The Moray device is also referred to in other ZPE litature.

mhardy6647 wrote:

umm... "hyperspace amplifiers used in [Soviet] psychotropic weapons"

right...

I have read about ZPE for many years and this is a news to me. Not sure what to make of this or his site.

bikezappa wrote:

If it's true that he says he can make energy and violate the second law of thermodynamics I would be very concerned about his truthfulness....

See this post.