I can connect the dots and the big picture emerges. In a world of dwindling
petroleum supplies controlling that supply and keeping us dependent on it
equals political power. Therefore Jimmie Carter's ideas were a threat to the
economic tyranny of Corporatism because it forced money to flow upward from
the local producer.

Contrast that to "Trickle down economics" which is nothing more than a
euphemism for Corporate Welfare.

That's why I burn biodiesel.

-- Gnarlie

Entity Marc Perdue uttered this profundity:

> I grant you that we were never promised cheap oil as a result of our
> incursion into Iraq and its continued occupation.
> As far as political parties whining when their candidates lose, they
> both do the same thing.  Remember when Clinton won and all of a sudden
> everybody's sporting bumper stickers saying "Don't blame me. I voted for
> Bush"?  Waahh!  Who cares?  Neither party has offered up anything really
> useful for making America the great place and great global citizen it
> can and should be, with respect from the rest of our brethren throughout
> the world.
> Regarding the rest of your comments about energy, what a crock!  During
> the first Arab oil embargo in 1973, we were importing 6 million barrels
> of oil a day.  Over the course of the next 7 years, and through the next
> Arab oil embargo in the late 70s, we reduced our energy consumption
> through the development of more fuel efficient cars, incentives to
> reduce energy consumption in the home through conservation,
> weatherproofing, and newer, more efficient windows and energy consuming
> appliances.  Jimmy Carter developed and implemented a sane "National
> Energy Plan" in 1977 that addressed national energy demand and supply
> and proposed paths to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources.
> He took a personal stance on the matter and had solar hot water panels
> installed at the White House to reduce the cost of producing hot water.
> It worked.  We reduced our national energy consumption by, get this, *6
> million barrels of oil per day*!  Then Reagan got in the White House,
> dismantled the solar water heaters and the National Energy Plan and
> implemented supply-side economics.  As an economics major, at the time,
> I understood what that new economic policy meant; it meant that if I had
> money already, I could get rich during Reagan's tenure as president.
> Unfortunately, like most Americans, I didn't have "disposable income"
> that I could use to take advantage of that policy.  The other thing that
> resulted from his economic initiatives and other policies was an
> increase in energy demand.  That did NOT happen under Clinton, but under
> Reagan and G. H. W. Bush, who, BTW, is an oilman.  Does that not strike
> anybody here as a conflict of interest?  I didn't complete a major in
> Economics; I designed an Interdisciplinary Major in Solar Engineering
> that combined the disciplines of Economics, Engineering, Physics, and
> Architecture.  I spent 7 or 8 years after college on my own studying
> various aspects of energy use and production, both renewable and
> non-renewable forms of energy.  I helped build and ran an ethanol fuel
> plant for several years.  Am I taking shots at things I don't
> understand?  Not likely.
> Marc Perdue
> Brian Hughes wrote:
>> Gnarlie spoketh:
>>
>>
>>
>>> We spent 160 billion dollars in Iraq and the price of gas went UP? That's
>>> not what I was promised!
>>>
>>>
>>
>>  Get over it.  Your party lost the House, the Senate and the White House.
>> You were never promised cheap oil or cheap energy.  The rising use of
>> foreign energy started un Clinton.  Now, if the "let's all scream together"
>> political party that is becoming ever more unhelpful (and unelectable in the
>> US) suddenly came to their senses and allowed a sane energy policy to be
>> enacted, we wouldn't be in this mess.  But it's easier to take shots about
>> things we don't understand.  Such is the cost of ignorance.
>>
>> Mondosubmerso
>>