Robert Green wrote:

There's at least a significant reduction in the supply of truth, for
one. No one seems to realize that we consume far more oil than we
have. We burn 20 percent of the world's oil but own only 2 percent
of the oil reserves. That's the equation that drives the whole train.
We could ramp up production, pump every drop we have and it's still
not enough. By a longshot. Yet people believe that we've got all we
need for centuries just out of reach. That's why I'd support a
citizenship test for voting.

That's not exactly the case. Proven oil reserves total about 21 billion
barrels. The Dept of the Interior estimates undiscovered, but available,
reserves at 134 billion barrels. The Bureau of Land Management estimates
there are 2 TRILLION bbls of potentially recoverable oil.

True, we use 20% of the world's oil, but we account for 25% of the world's
GDP.


We depend on the world market because we have far less oil than we
consume.

No. We import because we do not PRODUCE enough oil, not that we don't have
it.

We'll always be customers, not suppliers in the global
scheme of things. The rush to get at ANWR is political. The
Republicans want to drill there because someone told them they can't.
They've conned a lot of Americans into thinking that there's enough
oil there to change the whole equation and end our dependence on
foreign oil. That's just not true. Unless we become incredibly more
efficient, it will *never* be true.

Agree. Oil is fungible, that is, one barrel of oil is pretty much like any
other barrel of oil.


It should be a no-brainer to realize that if we depend THAT MUCH on
foreign oil (and that can only change through conservation, not
"drill, baby, drill") we had better make sure we can survive for a
while without it. ANWR is our "nuclear rainy day" fund yet some
people want to burn through it like crack addicts looking for their
next fix. All to save from 5 or 10 cents on a gallon of gas.

Not so. More oil produced domestically means a lower world-wide price for
oil. The more oil we burn now, the sooner we'll find a proper substitute.
That is, technology is dependent on oil; to cut back - to conserve -
simultaneously means a cut-back on science and technology.


I'm beginning to think that slogan "if you tax the rich it will hurt
everyone" is basically the biggest PR con job in world history. This
country was in far, far better shape economically when the taxes on
the rich were incredibly much higher than current levels.
Apparently, if you leave them too much money, they RUIN it for
everyone else by vastly increasing speculative activities that cause
prices to skyrocket in housing, oil and food. (-"

Arrant nonsense. What do you think the rich DO with their wealth? Stuff it
in a mattress? No, they invest it and, in so doing, create jobs. Or they buy
things. For example:

You may recall the 10% tax surcharge the Clinton administration levied on
yachts costing more than $500,000. The result? The rich simply started
buying their boats in the Bahamas. Dozens of yacht builders went out of
business causing hundreds of workers their jobs.