In a few weeks we will make a choice that will decide our future.
I follow an economist named Bob Proctor. He has called the top and bottom of every market crash since the 70s correctly.
Also, he perfectly predicted the current real estate market meltdown and the picture he paints about what will happen in the next couple years
is terrifying.He thinks it will be worse then the great depression.
The banks in the U.S. are going under one after the other. Countrywide the largest morgage bank in the world,Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch which are 3 out of the top 5 wall street firms. Also, Fanny and Freddy Mae which hold 50 percent of the home loans in the United States.
The government took them over because they are essentially bankrupt.If they didn't the entire financially system would virtually shut down, the stock market would crash and we would suffer beyond what any of us have seen before.
McCain just like Bush " doesn't understand the economy".
That not just my opinion its his own words. Not only does he not understand how to fix it but he does not understand exactly what is broken.
It is no surprise that he doesn't. The people that make up these securities use complex mathematical models very few people understand.
Bush and McCain both can take the credit for this mess since they helped deregulate the laws that were protecting us.
Bush's economic advisor Phil Graham wrote the deregulation bill that allowed banks to take huge risks with all of our future.
Now, Phil Graham is the head of McCain's economic policy.He is also McCain's choice for the next secretary of the treasury.
No one in this country can afford for that to happen. The last time Bush met with his economic advisors was in March. He either didn't care or didn't realize that anything was wrong. Phil Graham had the guts to say that we are in a mental recession after he helped create the worst economy meltdown in our lifetime.
It will take the best and brightest minds in the world to get us out of this nightmare. As bad as Bush has done, McCain would be
even more destructive because things are in much worse shape. The next president will not inherit a surplus like Bush did but a tanking economy and a 11,600,000,000,000 (trillion) dollars deficit. Most of it Bush created and it will take decades to pay it back.
If you do what you have always done then you will get what you have always got.
When it comes to policy Bush and McCain are the same 90 percent of the time.
So why are the polls even close then ?
Mccains team just said they no longer want to talk about the economy.Instead they would like to spend time
running the biggest smear campaign in history.
They think they can just tell you lies and you wont be smart enough to see through it
Let's teach him we are smarter than that .
Elect Obama Biden 2008
Check out this video of sarah palins interview it will blow you away
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r36Xc0GG4iQ
How to Fuel the Country While Saving the World
- Share:
-
Email To A Friend
Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.
As you prepare your energy policy for the next four years, your advisers are probably offering you a depressing multiple-choice question that boils down to: "Since there are no alternatives to coal, oil or nuclear power, would you prefer to die of (a) global warming, (b) oil wars or (c) a nuclear holocaust?"
Fortunately, there's another option: "(d) none of the above." Your advisers are wrong; there is an alternative. No one needs to die of America's energy choices after all. Moreover, the alternative is profitable, so society can implement it in mindful markets without government's having to force anybody. And it offers a realistic, nonpartisan path to a richer, fairer, cooler and safer world. To see how to get there, let's start with a riddle.
Q: How is climate change like the Hubble Space Telescope?
A: They were both messed up by a "sign error"—namely, a mix-up between a plus sign (+) and a minus (–). The telescope's mirror was ground in the wrong shape because a technician confused the signs. Similarly, the climate debate has for too long focused on who must pay how much (+) so we don't end up toast. But done right, protecting the climate and securing the country's energy supply are not costly at all. In fact, they're profitable, since saving fuel costs less (–) than buying it.
As politicians debate the supposed "costs" of efficiency, smart companies have already discovered the reality. For many years, chipmakers IBM and STMicroelectronics have increased profits while cutting carbon emissions 6 percent a year. Du Pont emitted 80 percent less greenhouse gas in 2006 than in 1990, and at a $3 billion profit. Dow has booked a total of $3.3 billion by filling 22 percent of its energy needs with efficiency improvements. McKinsey & Co. now argues that the world could profitably abate 46 percent of global greenhouse-gas emissions by 2050 for virtually nothing, with nearly all costs offset by the huge savings they'd earn from improved efficiency. If you can explain this truth to Washington and the country, political resistance to climate protection will melt faster than any glacier.
You should remind citizens that we're already headed in the right direction. In 2006, the United States used 48 percent less energy, 54 percent less oil and 64 percent less direct natural gas (i.e., that burned by customers, not power plants) per dollar of GDP than it did in 1975—even though light-vehicle efficiency has been stagnant for two decades and almost all states reward utilities for selling more energy, not cutting customers' bills. Indeed, the United States saved more energy in 2005 than the European Union used. Imagine what more this country could do if it actually paid attention.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next Page »
- Share:
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
