[Talkhard]

By the way, I'm really pissed that these off-topic discussions are once again more interesting than the Blazers. Damn, it's going to be a long season.

[dudleysghost]

Originally Posted by STOMP

We should invade Venezuela... that would show everyone we mean business.

Kidding aside, I'd suggest that moving away from an oil based economy would be a step in the right direction. Why continue to become further indebted/beholden to the Mid-East? This can start today on an individual basis but new leadership will be required before we really tackle this as a country.

I don't think there is any possibility that George will have the US taking real actions towards the Saudis on any issue dispite the many reasons to that you only begin to tally. They're amoung his family's closest business partners so their towering piles bleep won't begin to stink at least until 1-20-09

STOMP

That's all true, but the question I'm trying to raise is what specific actions people think we should be taking, and what costs we are likely to incur from those actions. Yeah, Bush is in bed with the Saudis, but so has been every president to some degree, because it's in our national interest. Not only are they the #1 world supplier of oil, but they are also one of the few major suppliers who is still trying to maintain price stability in the oil markets, which works strongly in our favor. They raise their production when prices spike, and when Chavez and Amedinejad tried to turn the last OPEC meeting into a bash-America session, it was the Saudis who told them to cool it. If it wasn't for their moderating effect, oil prices would be even wilder and even higher.

They do have an oppressive government, and they do fund some radical Islamic groups, but what could we do about it? Protest to the UN? Remove our troops from their country and withdraw military sales and assistance?

If we lose favor with their government, they might decide they no longer need to help keep oil markets stable. If their government becomes unstable, then the uncertainty cost of oil will get even higher. Either way, we pay big time for taking a principled stand.

Also keep in mind that the principles aren't so clear. The Saudis do fund some radical groups, but not all radical groups are the same. They are not the ones funding attacks on Israel and they are not allies with al Qaeda. In fact, one of Osama's stated goals was to overthrow the House of Saud. Saudi Arabia has also been our main staging ground for both invasions of Iraq (not that anyone wants to do that again...).

It's a question of what principles we seek to advance, what effect we think we could have and what cost are we likely to incur.

In the matter of our dependence on foreign oil, it's a similar story. Yeah, everyone agrees it would be better if we didn't have to import so much oil, but how do we reduce demand? The strategy right now seems to be to nibble around the edges, with CAFE standards and subsidies for research and competing technologies like ethanol or biodiesel. But the result has been basically negligible, because you can't move a hundreds of billions of dollars energy market with a few billion in credits and subsidies here and there. As long as oil is the cheapest fuel choice, it will continue to be the primary choice.

So the only effective and the most economically efficient way to really break our dependence on oil would be a direct and significant tax on oil. Anything less is just not going to do it. It's costly, painful and enormously unpopular, but it's the only thing that will work. What I'm trying to say is that yes, we should try to move away from an oil based economy, and I think this is something we should do right now, but at the moment the only real way to make it happen is politically untenable because most Americans haven't given the matter serious consideration.

[MARIS61]

Obviously, based on our 2 previous invasions of the less-radical country of Iraq for reasons far less clear than this outrage, we should invade and overthrow Saudi Arabia.

[blazerboy30]

Originally Posted by MARIS61

Obviously, based on our 2 previous invasions of the less-radical country of Iraq for reasons far less clear than this outrage, we should invade and overthrow Saudi Arabia.

I've never seen so much complaining and whining from a single person. Especially when that person has absolutely no ideas or any suggestions on how to fix what they are whining about.

I guess that complaining without offering any realistic solutions is the best we can hope for from ignorant people.

[MARIS61]

Originally Posted by blazerboy30

I've never seen so much complaining and whining from a single person. Especially when that person has absolutely no ideas or any suggestions on how to fix what they are whining about.

I guess that complaining without offering any realistic solutions is the best we can hope for from ignorant people.

Realistic solutions I have made countless times:

Arrest/Impeach, convict and punish the criminals running this country.

Bring our soldiers home immediately.

Arrest, convict and punish the perpetrators AND any accomplices of 9-11.

Get our military bases out of the Middle East.

Stop being the bully of the world and use our fabulous wealth and technology to care for our own citizens.

These initial steps won't fix the problems but they will minimize future ill effects of the damage and start us down a better path for all.

[blazerboy30]

Originally Posted by MARIS61

Realistic solutions I have made countless times:

Arrest/Impeach, convict and punish the criminals running this country.

Bring our soldiers home immediately.

Arrest, convict and punish the perpetrators AND any accomplices of 9-11.

Get our military bases out of the Middle East.

Stop being the bully of the world and use our fabulous wealth and technology to care for our own citizens.

These initial steps won't fix the problems but they will minimize future ill effects of the damage and start us down a better path for all.

Thank you for proving my point. I claimed that you can't support your complaining with realistic solutions, and you responded, as expected, perfectly. I appreciate it.

[Talkhard]

Originally Posted by MARIS61

Stop being the bully of the world and use our fabulous wealth and technology to care for our own citizens.

"Care" for our own citizens? Surely you realize that Americans are the most affluent, well-fed, and pampered citizens on the face of the earth. Why do you think millions of people from all over the world are trying to come here? It's certainly not because we are Bangladesh.

These initial steps won't fix the problems but they will minimize future ill effects of the damage and start us down a better path for all.

We're already on "a better path for all," including a better path for about 20 million illegal aliens.

[MARIS61]

Originally Posted by blazerboy30

Thank you for proving my point. I claimed that you can't support your complaining with realistic solutions, and you responded, as expected, perfectly. I appreciate it.

All are easily attainable solutions in a modern Democratic society of honest hard-working people with courage and good intentions.

Which solution(s) do you consider to be unrealistic and why?

[MARIS61]

Originally Posted by Talkhard

"Care" for our own citizens? Surely you realize that Americans are the most affluent, well-fed, and pampered citizens on the face of the earth. Why do you think millions of people from all over the world are trying to come here? It's certainly not because we are Bangladesh.

Exactly.

We are not Bangladesh.

And many Americans ARE affluent, well-fed, and pampered citizens. I know I am.

So why do people die from starvation and disease in this Horn of Plenty?

http://www.frac.org/Press_Release/11.14.07.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/...nce-deaths.htm

[Talkhard]

Originally Posted by MARIS61

So why do people die from starvation and disease in this Horn of Plenty?

People die from "disease" in every country of the world. That will always be the case until there's a cure for everything that afflicts us. As for "starvation," I have a hard time believing there are people going without food in this country when millions of illegal immigrants are finding enough work to feed themselves and their families.

[MARIS61]

Originally Posted by Talkhard

People die from "disease" in every country of the world. That will always be the case until there's a cure for everything that afflicts us. As for "starvation," I have a hard time believing there are people going without food in this country when millions of illegal immigrants are finding enough work to feed themselves and their families.

How anyone who claims to live in NY can make such a ridiculous statement is beyond me. Are you a shuttered recluse, or do you simply avert your eyes when out and about?

Thousands of people die in America due to inability to afford basic health-care.

They starve due to inability to afford basic food staples.

They freeze to death due to inability to afford heat, or even shelter.

How many American lives could be saved with $9,000,000,000,000?

Bush is stealing the food-scraps off our children's plates to fund his war for profit.

Too lazy to click my links? Here's some highlights:

By Steve Sternberg, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — More than 18,000 adults in the USA die each year because they are uninsured and can't get proper health care, researchers report in a landmark study released Tuesday.

The 193-page report, "Care Without Coverage: Too Little, Too Late," examines the plight of 30 million — one in seven — working-age Americans whose employers don't provide insurance and who don't qualify for government medical care.

About 10 million children lack insurance...Overall, the researchers say, 18,314 people die in the USA each year because they lack preventive services, a timely diagnosis or appropriate care.

The estimated death toll includes about 1,400 people with high blood pressure, 400 to 600 with breast cancer and 1,500 diagnosed with HIV...

...Among the study's findings is a comparison of the uninsured with the insured:

* Uninsured people with colon or breast cancer face a 50% higher risk of death.
* Uninsured trauma victims are less likely to be admitted to the hospital, receive the full range of needed services, and are 37% more likely to die of their injuries.
* About 25% of adult diabetics without insurance for a year or more went without a checkup for two years. That boosts their risk of death, blindness and amputations resulting from poor circulation.

Being uninsured also magnifies the risk of death and disability for chronically sick and mentally ill patients, poor people and minorities, who disproportionately lack access to medical care, the landmark study states...


Washington, D.C. – November 14, 2007 – The Food Research and Action Center (FRAC) announced that the hunger and food insecurity rates in the United States, despite national economic growth, generally were unchanged in 2006. More than 35.5 million people lived in households struggling against hunger in 2006, an increase of more than 300,000 compared to the year before. The jump in the number living in “very low food insecure” households – a phrase adopted by USDA in 2006 to replace “food insecure with hunger” was particularly large.

Today’s release of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s annual food insecurity rates shows that the number of Americans living in households that were not able to afford the food they need has risen in six of the last seven years – 2005 was the only year since 1999 to show an improvement.

“As costs for food, energy, and housing continue to rise and wages stagnate or decline, households are finding themselves increasingly strapped. Millions have difficulty affording a healthy and adequate diet,” said Jim Weill, president of the Food Research and Action Center (FRAC). “This may mean even worse numbers in 2007. We need to do more to make sure that households have access to healthy food by improving and expanding proven programs that help.”...

...According to the USDA report:

* The 35.5 million number for 2006 includes 22.9 million adults (10.4 percent of all adults) and 12.6 million children (17.2 percent of all children).
* 11.1 million lived in households that were considered to have “very low food security,” a USDA term that means one or more people in the household were hungry over the course of the year because they couldn’t afford enough food.
o This was up from 10.8 in 2005. This increase in the number of people in the worst-off category is consistent with other studies and the Census Bureau poverty data, which show worsening conditions for the poorest Americans....

The Food Research and Action Center (www.frac.org) is the leading national organization working for more effective public and private policies to eradicate domestic hunger and under-nutrition.

[Talkhard]

Originally Posted by MARIS61

How anyone who claims to live in NY can make such a ridiculous statement is beyond me. Are you a shuttered recluse, or do you simply avert your eyes when out and about?

I'm not going to get into a name-calling contest with you, but I will say that statistics can be made to say anything. The statistic you quote about health insurance, for instance, doesn't include the fact that about 15 million young people choose not to get coverage. Your claim about starvation ia also suspect, since there are obviously plenty of jobs available in this country when some 20 million immigrants can come here and get work right away. There's no reason for anyone to starve to death, unless they're just lazy.