I was listening to Neal Boortz today. He said, with the help of a caller, that the US has a reserve of shale oil that is five times the reserves of the Saudi Arabian oil fields. The main reason we haven't tapped this resource yet is because it costs $40 a barrel to extract the oil from the shale. Foreign crude has been cheaper than that until the recent past.

Which leads to at least two questions:

1 - WTF, man? It costs over $60/barrel for foreign oil today. WTF?

2- WTF, man? Why didn't Dubya mention shale oil last night? We don't even have to drill in ANWR and upset Barbra Streisand and Ed Begly. WTF?

OPEC is squirming already because of W did say. We could tell 'em to "pound sand" as Boortz said. They'd still make tons of money because of China's grow and need for oil. They couldn't hold us hostage with it anymore, though. That would be sweet.

 

I never said or tried to imply that metioning the 9th circuit court harmed the argument. And the reason another reason that i am being theortical is that so it can be applied to any conflict just as the Consitiution is written.

 

The line item veto that Clinton used could be overridden by Congress. Clinton vetoes and it goes back to Congress. Congress can then by a majority vote override the veto. So you see? He did not have the power you think he had.

The override was to catch the last minute "sneak" ins. These were NOT supported by the full 535. These would never have made it own their own if they couldn't make it on an override vote. Do you get it?

 

I see one small problem with telling them to "pound sand" (i like the term and would love to tell them that) If we don't have the oil link we have no way to control them nor them us though and if China controls them that could be a real problem.

 

Obviously Bush would not have been able to state all of that last night in a speech that congress would be able to override it but think of how many people that knows some but not enough about the line item veto to know that it gives the President the power to change what congress has passed and hears that a President wants it.

Doesn't this give a certain credibility to the possibility that Bush or any other President is trying to strengthen the power of the President?

Wouldn't that possibly hurt his ratings with the American people? (I know that was a little off-topic of our previous debate)

Well this is very off the wall i know but y dont we do away completely with Social Security pay back everyone that has paid in and tell people if u can't save ur money its ur problem?

 

We could still "control" them if we wanted to. The problem right now is that they own the oil, so they own us. If that tie is cut, they have no leverage.

Bush isn't worried about his ratings. He's a lame duck president. You're taking this line item veto thing way out of proportion. Democrats are likely to win the White House next election, so why would Bush want to strengthen the office? It doesn't make sense. Besides, I keep telling you that it doesn't strengthen the president.

Y'all can send Social Security to the moon for all I care. I won't be relying on it so I won't miss it if it's gone. I say dump it--fine.

 

I was 12 or 13 when i first heard of the line item veto and as soon as i was told the ideas behind it have been against it. So maybe that is y i cannot see why anyone could be for it was obvious that the writers of the constitution was against it or they would have delegated that power to the president.

Yes Bush is a lame duck but he has a long time left as president so he should be worried about his rating cause if in the 2006 election republicans lose control of both houses of congress he may become an impeached and convicted president depending on what comes out about the NSA wire tapping.

I think we can tell buy ur cars that u wont be relying on SS (haha) the only problem is that people in my age group and sightly older do not know how to save money and that would be a good way to force them to do it is the SS safety net is not there. I have a problem with people that buy things they can't aford running up credit card debt on non-life substantaining items. Example if u cant aford a new car well don't buy one, if u cant aford the 1000 computer dont buy it. I just bugs the hell out of me when i see someone drivng say a new Benz or any car that is brand new and they are making payments on it unless there money is making them more money in a mutual fund or somewhere else than what that interest is costing them. Cause if i wanted i could go out and buy that C36 that i want with no problem but then i would have payments and then do i own that car no the bank does so i will paiently wait for someone to buy the cars i have for sale or have saved enough money to buy it. Cause it bothers me to here my one friend say that he has no money and has to take out student loans to pay for college but he will go out and pay 25 bux for a bottle of alcohol or he will go buy a paintball gun or waste money on some other frivilous items. I do these things but i dont have any student loans yes that maybe because my mom pays for college (if she didnt i just could be working to pay for college and not additional cars and property) but i believe that in life u must play the cards ur dealt i had cancer at age 16 i never once complained y me or anything like that i said well sh*t happens and i dealt with it. This also goes to everybody on welfare go get a damn job and if your job does not pay enough get two dont ask for free handouts or stand on the corner asking for money. (Sorry about the long rant just been wanting to b*tch about that for a while and i found a place to do it)

Oh and just so u dont get the wrong impression the college i go to only costs about 3000 a year vs my friends that costs 20,000 a year were he could have take a 1/2 scholarship at our local business college and learned the same thing and ended up with the same degree. He told me the only reason he chose there is because of the fact that it gets him far enough away were he can party Both of our families are financially equal so its not like that is too blame. Yeah i know this kinda came out of nowhere but i was talking to my friend on AIM and he brought up the act that he had to work from 9-5pm then go to class from 7pm-10pm

 

Also the fact is that everyone is raised different, have had different experiences and differents ways of processing situations and thus they have a different way pf doing things, different ways of reasoning, and different logic structures. And sometimes bad situations happens. I personally don't see nothing wrong with financing a car just as I see nothing wrong with financing a house. And the sad part about it is that some people just don't know too much information about the different ways of investing. They heard of it, they know it exist but they truely don't know what it is, the risk, the ups, the downs, or anything. And I agree though on people buying buying things that they cannot afford. That's just doesn't make sense to me but it may make sense to someone in that situation. This society is basically judged by what you have. In Atlanta for example, you can be ugliest haunched back looking guy in theworld, but if you have a little money in your pocket, and drive an expensive ride (doesn't even have to be yours. You just need access to one.), you'll have a date. You'll be the player, pimp, or what ever you wan to be. Or the decent guy, money in the bank, buys the necessities, but he's not ragged, but not flashy, drives something plain like a Corolla (not that is all he could afford, but he doesn't see the point in buying an expensive car if the Corolla takes him to the same places that a Bentley would.), and don't wear a bunch of expensive jewelry, and he's more than likely not going to get much attention or spotlight as I call it even if he wanted it. They call it boring. If you take a look in aot of reading materials, television, the way people talk and what they talk about, it's basically took up by some person that has a lot, (normally they could afford it.) and how they enjoy life because they have all these things and such. I could go on but's that's another monster for later.

And as far as Bush, he doesn't have much to lose. Worst that could happen is that the Democrats gain control again and impeach him not including the wire tap. I think the wire taps is pushing it and it can be his down fall if his supporters lose the houses. Then he might be in a world of hurt but why would he care. He made his money, he's set for life, so a little slap on the hand by Democrats is just a little inconvience and bad press. He's on auto pilot. Smooth sailing.

 

I think the Dems will gain control of the congress regardless, so it doesn't matter what Bush's ratings are. But that's why he want the veto option.

If Bush is still pushing to replace SS with a more or less copy of the federal Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) program, then I would strongly agree and encourage you to support his effort to make it so. This is an employer matched, tax-deferred savings program meant to be used during your retirement. Though initially your contributions may not be employer-matched, they soon would be as an incentive/benefit.

The TSP was started about 15 years ago and already there are many federal employees that already have a 7-figure account. I know about this because my wife had an account. The contributions she made to this account were paid to me when she died. I could have rolled this amount into a retirement account for me (IRA, 401K, etc), if I had chosen to do so. Can't do that with SS payments.

A private-sector plan wouldn't have the same details, so I won't go into detail about the federal plan. Suffice it to say that it would afford a much more comfortable retirement in financial terms than SS. Plan contributions could be made just like SS payments or payments to 401Ks, etc. That is, deducted from your pay before you get it.

 

As far as the ratings go i this he does care if not for anymore than wanting to be postively remembered as president. Think about the last father son presidents J. Adams and J. Q. Adams. J.Q. Adams is not as highly regarded as his father was and G.W. Bush wants to in my opinon be reguarded as better than G. H. W. Bush. History will have to decide that not us.