Maybe, just maybe, the majority of us that make up the U.S. do not want to be weaned off of oil if it results in the totally unnecessary destruction of our economy and quality of life. The "all pf the above" approach makes the most sense. We now have discovered more recoverable reserves of oil and natural gas on U.S. lands and off its shores than we ever imagined existed. Conservative estimates indicate we have in the range of 50 to 100 years of these reserves with which to provide the country's energy needs. That should be more than enough time to develop a practical and affordable alternative energy source to fossil fuels. But, then again, we haven't been able to accomplish that in the 38 years since the first Arab oil embargo of 1974.
Maybe a whole bunch of us would like the opportunity to find out whether we can drill our way to lower prices or not. Unfortunately, as long as this bunch is in power, we'll not be afforded that opportunity. Maybe if enough of our whole bunch vote for the other candidate on November 6th, maybe, just maybe, we'll finally get that opportunity.
Personal baggage didn't keep Clinton form being a highly rated President, at least up until now. We still don't know what personal baggage Obama has because he was and remains the ultimate stealth candidate with respect to all relative facets of his personal life.
If the personal baggage is such that it would keep a candidate from being a good President it should disqualify him/her; if not, he/she should be considered based upon his/her abilities to function as an effective President.
Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.. Now where have we heard that before?
Not only are the rich and middle class paying their fair share, they are paying the share of the 49.5% of individuals who pay no income tax.
Maybe the American people like the idea of everyone having some skin in the game.
Not only MAY be close but most assuredly WLL be close. Does anyone believe those 49.5%, and rising, of individuals who pay no income taxes will ever vote for anyone except the candidate who promises to keep them income tax free and provide them with even more lifetime free stuff at the expense of the soon to be less than 50% of Americans who do pay income taxes and foot the bill for that lifetime free stuff?
Let' see an individual on unemployment benefits for, what is it now, 99 weeks is working? Coulda fooled me!
Unfortunately those voters probably could care less about freedoms as long as Obama ad the democrats keep the free stuff coming to them they will keep voting for him and every other democrat they can. Give the democrats credit; long ago they realized this key to perpetuating their hold on elected office and have been experts at it every since.
The problem with public sector unions is that they do not negotiate with the owners of the "business" they work for, the taxpayer, as private sector unions do. Instead they negotiate with elected representatives of the taxpayers whose primary objective is to generally remain in office as long as possible, which in most cases causes a conflict in representing the best interests of the taxpayers who have to pay for whatever terms are agreed to. It is no secret that the unions make mega-campaign contributions to those elected officials who do their bidding in these negotiations in order to help them remain in office and participate i future contract negotiations.
Simple solution, after a contract is negotiated, it has to be voted on by the taxpayers who have to pay the cost of the contract. If the taxpayers approve the terms negotiated, the contract is effective; if the taxpayers do not approve, it's back to the negotiating table.
How many businesses employing thousands of individuals do you think would have been created if an individual or a partner in a such a business had unlimited personal liability for what happened as a result of that business' operations and was required to place 100% of his/her personal assets at risk to pay any claims arising from litigation against that business? Even small business openings would be adversely affected, since adequate insurance cannot always be cost effectively purchased to protect the owners against claims arising out of some litigation.
![[Avatar]](/images/avatar26.png){kind=avatar}
Ruckus