GreekChat.com Forums

GreekChat.com Forums (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/index.php)
-   News & Politics (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/forumdisplay.php?f=207)
-   -   ouch! anyone else's wallet in pain? (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/showthread.php?t=96884)

nittanyalum 06-06-2008 07:17 PM

ouch! anyone else's wallet in pain?
 
Freaky Friday on Wall Street

The Dow's 395-point drubbing is its biggest one-day point loss in 15 months, after crude prices' largest one-day advance ever and a poor jobs report.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/06/mark...york/index.htm

1908Revelations 06-06-2008 07:24 PM

My wallet died a while ago.:(

Kevin 06-06-2008 07:36 PM

I'm just fine.

nittanyalum 06-06-2008 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 1664455)
I'm just fine.

LOL. Nice.

AGDee 06-06-2008 08:54 PM

I've stopped checking the retirement account. I just keep chanting "that means I'm buying shares cheaper now". I have a lot of years before I can retire. It will have to go back up eventually, right? Right? RIGHT????? Of course it will. So, stop checking and ride it out.. yeah, that's my plan.

Benzgirl 06-06-2008 09:00 PM

My wallet, the airline industry's wallet, retail's wallet.....everyone except Big Oil's wallet is feeling a pain in the a$$

jon1856 06-06-2008 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1908Revelations (Post 1664453)
My wallet died a while ago.:(

I ate mine:(

DeltAlum 06-06-2008 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AGDee (Post 1664491)
I've stopped checking the retirement account. I just keep chanting "that means I'm buying shares cheaper now". I have a lot of years before I can retire. It will have to go back up eventually, right? Right? RIGHT????? Of course it will. So, stop checking and ride it out.. yeah, that's my plan.

It's a lot different when you look at from the vantage point of my age group.

AKA_Monet 06-06-2008 10:18 PM

I'm cashing out a few of my retirement accounts... Hayle, it's 30% hit. I can afford it now than later... And I hear many people are doing it now which means, it's going to hit these companies pretty hard...

My planner just told me that Longterm care insurance written like a whole life insurance plan can be front loaded, allowed to mature and borrowed on a loan against... And the money is tax free.

windinthewillow 06-06-2008 10:41 PM

Monet. Are you sure you want to do that? You lose nothing if you ride it out. You'll be selling at a loss and you'll have to pay taxes.

You should never touch your 401k ever, until retirement. Not even to borrow from it. If stocks are making you squeemish, transfer your 401k into cash. But keep it in the 401k.

Nanners52674 06-06-2008 11:35 PM

My wallet is worth more than the amount of cash in it and has been since I got it as a x-mass present :-(

*The wallet Isn't even worth $100* Depressing

AKA_Monet 06-07-2008 01:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by windinthewillow (Post 1664525)
Monet. Are you sure you want to do that? You lose nothing if you ride it out. You'll be selling at a loss and you'll have to pay taxes.

You should never touch your 401k ever, until retirement. Not even to borrow from it. If stocks are making you squeemish, transfer your 401k into cash. But keep it in the 401k.

Thanks for your concern and I spoke to my advisor, he feels like you. NOT ALL my retirement accounts will be cashed. Only 2 of them. The rest are rolling over. And one of the 2, I'm cashing in will be rolled over into my IRA and Roths.

Yeah, I'm taking a hit. But, I've got expenses that MUST be paid & I have started my own business. I also have a talk with my tax CPA's where I have a "quasi-justification" for cashing my funds... Yes, it sucks, welp, we have to do what we have to do.

G-Kue 1911 06-07-2008 12:00 PM

I have no use for a wallet….since you have to pimp your children for gas, my money no longer folds it jingles.

windinthewillow 06-07-2008 01:34 PM

Good for you speaking to your financial advisor about it. These are some tough times. Who would have ever thought, just 8 years ago that we'd be in this kind of a soup. Thank you George Bush.

Wishing you much success in your new business.

AGDee 06-07-2008 10:28 PM

DA, I do understand your pain.

It is important, as we get older, to pay attention to our "mix" of investments, what percentages are high risk and which are more guaranteed. We should be moving from higher risk to lower risk as we age. I have started to contribute to the bond fund instead of the aggressive equity.

shinerbock 06-07-2008 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by windinthewillow (Post 1664639)
Good for you speaking to your financial advisor about it. These are some tough times. Who would have ever thought, just 8 years ago that we'd be in this kind of a soup. Thank you George Bush.

Wishing you much success in your new business.

Yes, Bush caused this. It didn't have anything to do with China, India, hurricanes, 9/11, a global war on terror, irresponsible lenders or IRRESPONSIBLE BUYERS.

I'm not sticking up for Bush, but the lack of personal responsibility exhibited by Americans when these types of comments are made is utterly disgusting.

DeltAlum 06-07-2008 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shinerbock (Post 1664781)
Yes, Bush caused this. It didn't have anything to do with China, India, hurricanes, 9/11, a global war on terror, irresponsible lenders or IRRESPONSIBLE BUYERS.

I'm not sticking up for Bush, but the lack of personal responsibility exhibited by Americans when these types of comments are made is utterly disgusting.

I'll agree with this. Including the first sentence.

AKA_Monet 06-07-2008 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shinerbock (Post 1664781)
irresponsible lenders or IRRESPONSIBLE BUYERS.

I'm not sticking up for Bush, but the lack of personal responsibility exhibited by Americans when these types of comments are made is utterly disgusting.

How does one take personality responsibility when they have lost everything? On a government who has sold them down the river for some kind of profit for rebuilding a place that does not want us there...

Mortgage securities were the big thing 12-15 years ago. I remember when the mutual funds were profiteering off it. But there are disasters that have hit the USA hard--9-11, Katrina and now the war. Yes, many of us can move beyond that. But we also have another problem:

Baby boomers retiring. They might be coerced into not retiring, but too many of them are sick with chronic illnesses that they are going to what you and I, the taxpayer to pay... Folks think they have gotten this under control, but it is not.

Most likely what will happen: the baby boomers will remain working, but with some kind of lessened tax burden or account for longterm care or term life.

The oil cartel will be obsolete in 20-50 years... We will not be using oil anymore. I don't know what else we will be using--but it won't be oil... No matter what the oil companies think...

And terrorism will be what it really is: gang activity...

windinthewillow 06-08-2008 12:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shinerbock (Post 1664781)
Yes, Bush caused this. It didn't have anything to do with China, India, hurricanes, 9/11, a global war on terror, irresponsible lenders or IRRESPONSIBLE BUYERS.

I'm not sticking up for Bush, but the lack of personal responsibility exhibited by Americans when these types of comments are made is utterly disgusting.

It does did have to do with hurricanes (Katrina, "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job".) Katrina was mismanaged. FEMA awarded about $3.6 billion worth of contracts to companies with crappy credit histories. A Homeland audit found a screwed up bidding process, many of those contracts were awarded to companies who bid unreasonably high.

He put us in a war where there were no weapons of mass destruction. Remember this quote from Bush? "Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons." The ultimate cost of the war is estimated to top 3 trillion dollars. For what?

Yes, irresponsible lenders. Then why did Bush bail them out for $80 billion?


In the year 2000, the federal budget surplus was $230 billion dollars. As of today, the deficit is $9,411,116,201,914.

When Bush took office, oil was $24 a barrel. It's now $138 a barrel.

Yes, it was Bushy Boy.

shinerbock 06-08-2008 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by windinthewillow (Post 1664819)
It does did have to do with hurricanes (Katrina, "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job".) Katrina was mismanaged. FEMA awarded about $3.6 billion worth of contracts to companies with crappy credit histories. A Homeland audit found a screwed up bidding process, many of those contracts were awarded to companies who bid unreasonably high.

He put us in a war where there were no weapons of mass destruction. Remember this quote from Bush? "Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons." The ultimate cost of the war is estimated to top 3 trillion dollars. For what?

Yes, irresponsible lenders. Then why did Bush bail them out for $80 billion?


In the year 2000, the federal budget surplus was $230 billion dollars. As of today, the deficit is $9,411,116,201,914.

When Bush took office, oil was $24 a barrel. It's now $138 a barrel.

Yes, it was Bushy Boy.

On Katrina- Yeah, it was all FEMA. God forbid we place any blame on a NATURAL DISASTER or the people who didn't leave. FEMA had nothing to do with the cost of the storm's destruction, unless they have the ability to steer hurricanes.

He put us in the Iraq war, where we didn't find the WMD we thought we would. You can also blame the Senate Intelligence Committee, Australia, England, Israel, the UN, and IRAQ. But then, it is much more convenient to blame Bush. It is also convenient to ignore the strides our military is making, and the fact that the Iraq war has played a large role in AQ's decline (this according to the CIA last week).

I agree on the bailouts, what does that have to do with Bush and the mortgage meltdown? Unless I'm in an alternate reality, bailouts did not cause the reason for the bailouts (the subprime meltdown).

Yeah, the debt. Guess where it came from? See original post (you know, all that stuff you've failed to respond to).

On oil- You're right, Bush is at fault. It isn't, once again, ALL THOSE THINGS LISTED ABOVE. The President, God bless him, controls the price of oil. Not refinery problems, or India, or China, or those who control the supply of oil. Nope. Just Bush. And to think his party wants to drill for our own oil, here, in the US! How outrageous!

Munchkin03 06-08-2008 11:08 AM

OMG BUSH WAS IN THE GRASSSSSY KNOLLL IN DALLAS! STOP THE PRESSES!!

Back to the topic, my wallet is feeling no pain.

KSigkid 06-08-2008 11:36 AM

My wallet is doing ok - I did stub my toe yesterday though. I'll have to write the White House about that one.

TexasWSP 06-08-2008 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AKA_Monet (Post 1664794)
The oil cartel will be obsolete in 20-50 years... We will not be using oil anymore. I don't know what else we will be using--but it won't be oil... No matter what the oil companies think...

Eh, too many products are produced by petroleum for it to just disappear. The only thing that will make oil "obsolete" is if we run out of it.......and nobody knows when that will be, regardless of what "experts" report in the newspaper. As long as crude can be extracted from the ground it will be utilized to a great extent, even if it isn't needed for cars.

Even if it does happen in that time span, it isn't like oil and gas companies will be hurting. There are oceans of natural gas in this country that are just now being explored, thanks in part to things like horizontal/directional drilling, which is a very new technique.

TexasWSP 06-08-2008 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by windinthewillow (Post 1664819)
When Bush took office, oil was $24 a barrel. It's now $138 a barrel.

Yes, it was Bushy Boy.

You are a goddamned moron if you think Bush is responsible for rises in oil prices. The causes for it are numerous and you are, apparently, completely ignorant of all of them.

I'm in the oil and gas business. You can save your idiotic drivel for someone else who is devoid of rational thought.

AKA_Monet 06-08-2008 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TexasWSP (Post 1664958)
Eh, too many products are produced by petroleum for it to just disappear. The only thing that will make oil "obsolete" is if we run out of it.......and nobody knows when that will be, regardless of what "experts" report in the newspaper. As long as crude can be extracted from the ground it will be utilized to a great extent, even if it isn't needed for cars.

Even if it does happen in that time span, it isn't like oil and gas companies will be hurting. There are oceans of natural gas in this country that are just now being explored, thanks in part to things like horizontal/directional drilling, which is a very new technique.

Aside from plastics, what else will "petroleum" be used for? I am just tired of the "cartels" fixing prices and fools enjoying paying for it because there are NO other VIABLE choices. And it is my understanding from the journal "Science" that "accessible" oil in the Earth going to run out soon--in geologic time--maybe 100 to 200 years... Accessible means usable and not difficult to access without destroying the environment. To me, that is a short amount of time to use up natural resources given that humans (in their modern form) have only been on this planet for ~200,000 years. Do we really need that much carbon to function?

Did you hear about the stopped up toilet on the space station... LOL...

shinerbock 06-08-2008 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AKA_Monet (Post 1664985)
Aside from plastics, what else will "petroleum" be used for? I am just tired of the "cartels" fixing prices and fools enjoying paying for it because there are other VIABLE choices. And it is my understanding from the journal "Science" that "accessible" oil in the Earth going to run out soon--in geologic time--maybe 100 to 200 years... Accessible means usable and not difficult to access without destroying the environment. To me, that is a short amount of time to use up natural resources given that humans (in their modern form) have only been on this planet for ~200,000 years. Do we really need that much carbon to function?

Did you hear about the stopped up toilet on the space station... LOL...

What are the other choices? I'm not being contentious, I'm just trying to find out if you know of other entities are having success with these options in the areas where we have the greatest need (autos, for example).

SoEnchanting 06-08-2008 08:37 PM

I'm NOT. Gas just hit $4.00 a gallon today.

windinthewillow 06-08-2008 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TexasWSP (Post 1664960)
You are a goddamned moron if you think Bush is responsible for rises in oil prices. The causes for it are numerous and you are, apparently, completely ignorant of all of them.

I'm in the oil and gas business. You can save your idiotic drivel for someone else who is devoid of rational thought.

Now, now, no need for name calling! If you disagree, at least do so in a civilized manner.

DeltAlum 06-08-2008 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by windinthewillow (Post 1665016)
Now, now, no need for name calling! If you disagree, at least do so in a civilized manner.

Last I heard, name calling and language such as was used in the offending post are violations of the TOS.

AKA_Monet 06-08-2008 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shinerbock (Post 1664988)
What are the other choices? I'm not being contentious, I'm just trying to find out if you know of other entities are having success with these options in the areas where we have the greatest need (autos, for example).

Whoops, I forgot the "NO other VIABLE choices"... Sorry... ;)

TexasWSP 06-09-2008 12:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeltAlum (Post 1665033)
Last I heard, name calling and language such as was used in the offending post are violations of the TOS.

OH NOESSSSSS!!!!!!!!!! I violated the TOS on an interwebz message board. Smite me oh mighty smiter!!!!!!

TexasWSP 06-09-2008 12:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AKA_Monet (Post 1664985)
Aside from plastics, what else will "petroleum" be used for? I am just tired of the "cartels" fixing prices and fools enjoying paying for it because there are NO other VIABLE choices. And it is my understanding from the journal "Science" that "accessible" oil in the Earth going to run out soon--in geologic time--maybe 100 to 200 years... Accessible means usable and not difficult to access without destroying the environment. To me, that is a short amount of time to use up natural resources given that humans (in their modern form) have only been on this planet for ~200,000 years. Do we really need that much carbon to function?

I'm sure you can easily find a list of petroleum by-products. It's more than just plastics. I'm not arguing that oil is going to run out, I'm saying that crude production won't be "obsolete" in the amount of time you first indicated. Regardless, oil and gas companies are moving away from focusing primarily on crude production anyways.

Are you trying to say that oil companies blatantly create high gas prices for their personal gain knowing that the country has to pay for it?? Just asking....I kind of sense that from the "cartels" and "fixing prices" remarks.

jon1856 06-09-2008 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TexasWSP (Post 1665135)
I'm sure you can easily find a list of petroleum by-products. It's more than just plastics. I'm not arguing that oil is going to run out, I'm saying that crude production won't be "obsolete" in the amount of time you first indicated. Regardless, oil and gas companies are moving away from focusing primarily on crude production anyways.

Are you trying to say that oil companies blatantly create high gas prices for their personal gain knowing that the country has to pay for it?? Just asking....I kind of sense that from the "cartels" and "fixing prices" remarks.

Brother, I think that is something that is sitting in the very back of many peoples minds. Along with the Bush family connections to gas/oil companies.
Not saying that it is true/correct, just that the thought is there. Perhaps "wonder" may be closer to correct term.

And I think many people have a section of their brain that many of those "wonders" stay filed away in.

TexasWSP 06-09-2008 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jon1856 (Post 1665192)
Brother, I think that is something that is sitting in the very back of many peoples minds. Along with the Bush family connections to gas/oil companies.
Not saying that it is true/correct, just that the thought is there. Perhaps "wonder" may be closer to correct term.

And I think many people have a section of their brain that many of those "wonders" stay filed away in.

Oh I agree totally. It's easy for people to think that...no doubt. Is it true? No, especially if you know and understand how oil and gas companies make their money.....which a lot of people don't really have a clue. It isn't coming from the gasoline that you have to put in your car, I'll tell you that much.

Also, oil and gas companies don't set the prices for oil and gasoline. Very common misconception, as evidenced already by AKAMonet's thoughts on "cartels" "fixing prices". I'll put it this way. The largest oil and gas company in the United States controls around 4-5% of the world's oil. You honestly think they are the ones "fixing" the price here? No. I mean good lord......our country is importing 75% of its energy. If you don't think distributors in other countries have a large hand in these high prices then I don't know what to tell you.

PeppyGPhiB 06-09-2008 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AKA_Monet (Post 1664985)
Aside from plastics, what else will "petroleum" be used for?

A gazillion things use petroleum. You'd be surprised.

ETA: some photos of things made with/from petroleum

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:...e_balloons.jpg

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:...eroad/road.JPG

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:...de_spray1a.jpg

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:...film_reels.jpg

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:...Paint_Pots.gif

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:...aspirin325.jpg

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:...toothpaste.jpg

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:...Pillows_MN.jpg

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:...oint-pen-l.jpg

KSig RC 06-09-2008 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by windinthewillow (Post 1664819)
In the year 2000, the federal budget surplus was $230 billion dollars. As of today, the deficit is $9,411,116,201,914.

I don't want to be a dick here, but this line illustrates the full magnitude of just how little you understand the topic. While the year-2000 budget showed a small surplus for that year, the overall US debt was still in the trillions - in fact, it was nearly $6 trillion. Every other year of Clinton's presidency showed an increase in the deficit, indicating that the year-2000 surplus was likely a "gimmick" heading into a contentious election cycle.

Here's the actual data:

http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/U...s/image001.jpg

Bush shows a strong deficit increase throughout his terms, but it is actually fairly similar to the Reaganomics boom era, and this by itself shouldn't be considered damning (read up on why nations engage in deficit spending if you'd like to continue along these lines).

Your points are disingenuous and specious, in addition to showing a knack for confusing causation and correlation.

jon1856 06-09-2008 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TexasWSP (Post 1665228)
Oh I agree totally. It's easy for people to think that...no doubt. Is it true? No, especially if you know and understand how oil and gas companies make their money.....which a lot of people don't really have a clue. It isn't coming from the gasoline that you have to put in your car, I'll tell you that much.

Also, oil and gas companies don't set the prices for oil and gasoline. Very common misconception, as evidenced already by AKAMonet's thoughts on "cartels" "fixing prices". I'll put it this way. The largest oil and gas company in the United States controls around 4-5% of the world's oil. You honestly think they are the ones "fixing" the price here? No. I mean good lord......our country is importing 75% of its energy. If you don't think distributors in other countries have a large hand in these high prices then I don't know what to tell you.

Brother;
You might enjoy this:
Our Own Oil Cartel
Terrence Jeffreyhttp://www.caglepost.com/lib/img/ico/rss.gif 6/4/2008
Contemplate this the next time you spend $60 or more filling up your tinny little car with gasoline made from imported oil: The U.S. government knows where it can get its hands on more untapped petroleum than exists in the proven reserves of Iran or Iraq, which have 136 billion barrels and 115 billion barrels, respectively.

This unexploited stock of crude is greater than what the U.S. Energy Information Administration reports is in the proven reserves of Russia (60 billion barrels), Libya (41.5 billion barrels) and Nigeria (36.2 billion barrels) combined.

It is more than Hugo Chavez's Venezuela has (80 billion barrels).

It is more than is now known to sit beneath the waters and sands of Kuwait (101.5 billion barrels) or the United Arab Emirates (97.6 billion barrels).

So, where is all this oil? And why aren't they pumping it?...............
http://www.caglepost.com/column.aspx?c=6622&pg=1


And would like to know what you think of this:
At $4, Everybody Gets Rational
Charles Krauthammerhttp://www.caglepost.com/lib/img/ico/rss.gif 6/6/2008
This is insanity. For 25 years and with utter futility (starting with "The Oil-Bust Panic," the New Republic, February 1983), I have been advocating the cure: a U.S. energy tax as a way to curtail consumption and keep the money at home. On this page in May 2004 (and again in November 2005), I called for "the government -- through a tax -- to establish a new floor for gasoline," by fully taxing any drop in price below a certain benchmark. The point was to suppress demand and to keep the savings (from any subsequent world price drop) at home in the U.S. Treasury rather than going abroad. At the time, oil was $41 a barrel. It is now $123.......................
http://www.caglepost.com/column.aspx?c=6664&pg=2

AKA_Monet 06-10-2008 01:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TexasWSP (Post 1665135)
Are you trying to say that oil companies blatantly create high gas prices for their personal gain knowing that the country has to pay for it?? Just asking....I kind of sense that from the "cartels" and "fixing prices" remarks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TexasWSP (Post 1665228)
As evidenced already by AKAMonet's thoughts on "cartels" "fixing prices". I'll put it this way. The largest oil and gas company in the United States controls around 4-5% of the world's oil. You honestly think they are the ones "fixing" the price here? No. I mean good lord......our country is importing 75% of its energy. If you don't think distributors in other countries have a large hand in these high prices then I don't know what to tell you.

I don't know you well enough to suggest your reading style, but to let you know something about me, I am a lot older than you think and pretty well-traveled. So first, the US does not allow cartels in its country, it fails to promote "free-trade" and capitalism. So that means foreign countries and possible governments have cartels--pretty much like drug cartels--the same with crude oil/gas. As such, they (namely OPEC) can charge whatever they want for oil. That is what I read, heard and saw in all the latest media. Our oil companies are being held hostage to whatever prices these fools charge us--thus they are passing onto the consumer...

The other issue was read in Science Magazine last year sometime that all ACCESSIBLE oil within environmental treaties is low overall. Now there are inaccessible fields and then there is environmentally destructive fields. But, I dunno? Shouldn't our R&D money be spent on better energy production uses? Maybe our cars won't be able to go as fast as a hydrocarbon vehicle, but there will be plentiful fuel using something different. And steam was going somewhere at the turn of the 19th century--who says it cannot be revisited with newer technologies? Also there are other forms of carbon based fuels--coal and organics (CH4 and EtOH) and even H2/He gases that can be better contained.

R&D is different now, given enough money--like the Gates Grand Challenge--with Warren Buffet $$$ many things can be accomplished. The company that makes it happen first, MIGHT be the most successful... Whatever happen to the Ansari [sp?] Prize?

AKA_Monet 06-10-2008 02:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jon1856 (Post 1665601)
Brother;
You might enjoy this:
Our Own Oil Cartel
Terrence Jeffrey http://www.caglepost.com/lib/img/ico/rss.gif 6/4/2008
Contemplate this the next time you spend $60 or more filling up your tinny little car with gasoline made from imported oil: The U.S. government knows where it can get its hands on more untapped petroleum than exists in the proven reserves of Iran or Iraq, which have 136 billion barrels and 115 billion barrels, respectively.

This unexploited stock of crude is greater than what the U.S. Energy Information Administration reports is in the proven reserves of Russia (60 billion barrels), Libya (41.5 billion barrels) and Nigeria (36.2 billion barrels) combined.

It is more than Hugo Chavez's Venezuela has (80 billion barrels).

It is more than is now known to sit beneath the waters and sands of Kuwait (101.5 billion barrels) or the United Arab Emirates (97.6 billion barrels).

So, where is all this oil? And why aren't they pumping it?...............
http://www.caglepost.com/column.aspx?c=6622&pg=1
And would like to know what you think of this:
At $4, Everybody Gets Rational
Charles Krauthammer http://www.caglepost.com/lib/img/ico/rss.gif 6/6/2008
This is insanity. For 25 years and with utter futility (starting with "The Oil-Bust Panic," the New Republic, February 1983), I have been advocating the cure: a U.S. energy tax as a way to curtail consumption and keep the money at home. On this page in May 2004 (and again in November 2005), I called for "the government -- through a tax -- to establish a new floor for gasoline," by fully taxing any drop in price below a certain benchmark. The point was to suppress demand and to keep the savings (from any subsequent world price drop) at home in the U.S. Treasury rather than going abroad. At the time, oil was $41 a barrel. It is now $123.......................
http://www.caglepost.com/column.aspx?c=6664&pg=2

Jon--dude may be right, but, the damage to the environment is so destructive that it would NOT be worth to drill this oil up. Yes, $4 a gallon. Should we be leaving a Carbon footprint that large when something other fuel source is on the cusp of discovery? I would rather make it "Mother Necessity of Invention"--and guess what, to be competitive, I think the US brain power is intelligent enough to make it a necessity to change how we all, globally use fuel...

Not saying dude is wrong, but I disagree with his tactic. I don't want any more platforms off California's coast... And you definitely won't get them off Washington state's coast--too many Greenpeace/ELF lunatics...

windinthewillow 06-10-2008 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSig RC (Post 1665395)
I don't want to be a dick here, but this line illustrates the full magnitude of just how little you understand the topic. While the year-2000 budget showed a small surplus for that year, the overall US debt was still in the trillions - in fact, it was nearly $6 trillion. Every other year of Clinton's presidency showed an increase in the deficit, indicating that the year-2000 surplus was likely a "gimmick" heading into a contentious election cycle.

Bush shows a strong deficit increase throughout his terms, but it is actually fairly similar to the Reaganomics boom era, and this by itself shouldn't be considered damning (read up on why nations engage in deficit spending if you'd like to continue along these lines).

Your points are disingenuous and specious, in addition to showing a knack for confusing causation and correlation.

From the same source you lifted the chart from (without providing any attribution,) here's the clarification of the chart -


"This is a study of the spending habits of our presidents since 1938. It shows that Conservative Presidents out borrow and spend Democratic Presidents almost 3 to 1. Just looking at the graph at the beginning of the study tells a powerful story: In the last 30 years, if you wanted a President to be fiscally responsible, you had better vote for a Democrat. Admittedly this study has the bias of a deficit hawk, but here are the facts, you can draw your own conclusions (the link points to an Excel spreadsheet, obviously if you do not have Excel this link will not work)."

"Most of the negative feedback received on the original paper concerned the lack of the comparison of the GDP to the national debt. To correct this oversight the last update added a section on this topic. The most recent dismal debt data was added and the percentages and analysis adjusted accordingly. "

"Addressed in the latest version is the role of Congress in the amassing of our debt. Both the right and the left may be surprised by the facts here.
I was shocked to see how far this document has spread. If you do a Yahoo or Google search for "United States National Debt" (with the quote marks) this study comes up on the first page. I am guessing that is why it is referenced on dozens of other web sites. Both professors and students have used the graphs in colleges across the county. I should have copy righted this one." - Steve McGourty

http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/Bush_opinion.htm

Which of my points, specifically, are "disingenuous and specious, in addition to showing a knack for confusing causation and correlation" and why, specifically, do you feel that way?


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:23 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.