Clarification/Follow-up by Mary_Susan on 07/04/08 4:20 pm:
I think the real reason is that they are **stooges** for big oil(and Enron's)...led by the Bush's and the televangelists and the Limbaugh's of the world to support agendas that put money into the pockets of the elite.

Clarification/Follow-up by labman on 07/05/08 10:10 pm:
The above from the person that gave Tom's and my logical, factual answers a single star with the comment '' NO insane rants, please.''

Clarification/Follow-up by paraclete on 07/11/08 1:04 am:
Look you won't get an argument out of me that Bush is stooge for oil interests and you won't get an argument out of me that Bush has enriched himself as a result of the oil fiasco. If you wanted to plot to take over the world, what would you do? You would destabilise the market for the most wanted commody on Earth and pick up the pieces later. This is exactly what Bush has done. Sad that he has played into the hands of Iran and Russia and gained no real advantage for any but the speculators.

Clarification/Follow-up by Mary_Susan on 07/11/08 3:53 pm:
Excellent, Clete,

I love it when you speak from your education and intelligence. :)

Clarification/Follow-up by labman on 07/11/08 5:38 pm:
If global warming really is happening, and if it is due to man, don't expect any government to do anything until we have a crisis. Few are convinced they need to give up their SUV's yet. Even a dictator ship can only push its people so far. It is going to have to get much worse.

Much of the current food supply depends on innovations brought not by any government, but by Monsanto, Nestle, and other such despised multinationals. The government in turn is much of the problem with the bio fuels subsidies and restrictions on genetically modified seeds. We are short corn. We have seed that will yield more. Why are we still planting the old stuff? You can hardly blame Bush for the EU's stupidity.

I found an interesting article in Forbes this week, 21 July 2008, Outfront, p. 44. Our fine Democratic Congress requires airlines to continue to serve small airports even if the the federal subsidy fails to cover their huge operating losses. ''In June the House approved $130 million in subsidies, well above President Bush's request.'' I hate to see people that can't drive stuck in small towns, but wouldn't it make more sense to maybe subsidize bus lines?

Yeah Tom, here I am too posting facts some will ignore.

Clarification/Follow-up by paraclete on 07/11/08 11:31 pm:
labman you have correctly identified the problem government subsidies, "pork" I think the term is in the US.

The US cannot blame the EU for their own poor thinking. But why adopt someoneelse's poor thinking. Yes the EU farm subsidies are ridiculous but noone said the US had to produce enough to supply the world. It isn't a competition to see who can produce the most. It makes no sense to subsidise anything. The US forces market economics down the throat of the world but interferes in the market place domesticly. People managed to travel before airlines and even before railroads, they just did less of it. My country doesn't have all these subsidies and we compete successfully. No, the time has come for america to see economic reality. If an industry can't survive then it can survive