Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 78910 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 95
  1. #81  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Woodland Park, Colorado, United States
    Posts
    8,565
    Quote Originally Posted by Eyelids View Post
    Its called controlling the rich poor gap. Ever think that may be a contributing factor to our current recession?
    Oh, is that what "it's" called?
    Who decides upon this gap? What are the metrics involved?
    I thought this gap was a product of a free market.
     

  2. #82  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    114
    Quote Originally Posted by AmPat View Post
    Oh, is that what "it's" called?
    Who decides upon this gap? What are the metrics involved?
    I thought this gap was a product of a free market.

    If gas was two bucks a gallon and home prices were rising their traditional 5% to 6% or so a year would we be in this mess?

    Income inequality is the product of a free market and being poor is a good incentive to work harder...That being said there does come a time when too much income inequality is not a good thing...Broke folks can't buy stuff but that doesn't explain our current economic dilemma...

    I do try but sometimes fail to see things through a non-ideological lens
     

  3. #83  
    Senior Member Constitutionally Speaking's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    4,301
    Quote Originally Posted by AmPat View Post
    Obama wants change simply because it makes points with simplistic voters.
    Who are too stupid or lazy to look at instances of when those policies he advocates have actually been tried.

    If they did they would see the disasters that followed.

    In nearly EVERY instance, both foreign and domestic, they have failed - but not just failed, they have failed miserably and with long term and near cataclysmic consequences.


    His willingness to talk without preconditions to evil people is reminicent to JFK's talks with Kruschev. Kruschev saw Kennedy for the naive, inexperienced beginner that he was and concluded that he could put nuclear missiles in Cuba. That nearly led to an all out nuclear war.

    Chamberlains talks with Hitler led Germany to believe that they could pretty much take over all of Europe with little consequence other than a strongly worded letter - and while Chamberlain was in office - he was right. That led to WWII and millions of deaths.


    There are REAL consequences to electing naive and inexperienced leaders.



    Economically all you need to do is look at Jimmy Carters record and see we STILL have not recovered from that debacle. Real wages - even after 40 years of growth - have STILL not recovered to the Pre- Carter levels. He did that much damage.

    And Obama has flat out said he is going to implement the same policies.

    Some of us are going to actually vote for this "change" and some of us are going to sit by and out of protest, let it happen.

    We will richly deserve what we get.
     

  4. #84  
    Senior Member Constitutionally Speaking's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    4,301
    Quote Originally Posted by everyman68 View Post
    If gas was two bucks a gallon and home prices were rising their traditional 5% to 6% or so a year would we be in this mess?

    Income inequality is the product of a free market and being poor is a good incentive to work harder...That being said there does come a time when too much income inequality is not a good thing...Broke folks can't buy stuff but that doesn't explain our current economic dilemma...

    I do try but sometimes fail to see things through a non-ideological lens

    Gas WOULD be two bucks a gallon if we did not have people like Obama in congress preventing us from developing our own resources. So would home prices (in fact they are - on the average. We just incredibly high rates home value growth three to five years ago and now they are correcting).

    Income inequality in itself is not a bad thing - as long as all incomes are growing - and for the most part - they have.

    Of course listening to the politicians and the press you would not realize this, but it is TRUE.

    Even after taking the rising prices of late, incomes AFTER those rising prices are taken into account, are higher now than at ANY point since they Crashed under Jimmy Carter.

    That is simply a fact.
     

  5. #85  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    114
    Quote Originally Posted by Constitutionally Speaking View Post
    Gas WOULD be two bucks a gallon if we did not have people like Obama in congress preventing us from developing our own resources. So would home prices (in fact they are - on the average. We just incredibly high rates home value growth three to five years ago and now they are correcting).


    Oil is fungible...The oil from ANWR would increase the supply of oil on the world market but since demand for oil is so great I am not convinced it could bring the price down sufficiently...It would be like bringing a case of Bud to a party for one hundred beer drinkers... I would be interested to see actual studies on how much drilling in ANWR can do to bring down prices and increase supply... I am not a priori opposed to drilling....

    You are right about home prices...The problem is many people made decisions based on unrealistric assumptions about dramatically rising home prices...This is harming and slowing down the economy regardless of whose fault it is or was...
     

  6. #86  
    Senior Member Constitutionally Speaking's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    4,301
    Quote Originally Posted by everyman68 View Post
    Oil is fungible...The oil from ANWR would increase the supply of oil on the world market but since demand for oil is so great I am not convinced it could bring the price down sufficiently...It would be like bringing a case of Bud to a party for one hundred beer drinkers... I would be interested to see actual studies on how much drilling in ANWR can do to bring down prices and increase supply... I am not a priori opposed to drilling....

    You are right about home prices...The problem is many people made decisions based on unrealistric assumptions about dramatically rising home prices...This is harming and slowing down the economy regardless of whose fault it is or was...
    ANWR alone would not. But that is the tactic that the left uses, they use evaluations of the amount of oil of each field individually to argue that drilling would not decrease the price. That is simply a method used to keep us from drilling ANYWHERE. OF COURSE each individual oil field is not enough to make much of a difference, but the TOTAL of all the undeveloped oil fields would literally cause an oil glut if we were allowed to drill for it. Prices would fall through the floor.

    The left's argument is similar to looking at a drop of water and claiming that water is harmless, while ignoring the raging flooded river that is taking away the neighbors house. It is not the individual drops of water that have the awesome power, it is the accumulation. The same is true of oil fields each one individually is not all that impressive, but the sum of all the areas we cannot touch is astounding.

    Right now, we have literally TRILLIONS of barrels of oil that we cannot touch. Enough for hundreds of years at current consumption rates. I documented well over a trillion barrels in this thread: http://www.conservativeunderground.c...read.php?t=136


    All of it is off limits. In addition to the four areas I mentioned, 85% of our coastal oil areas are off limits, and hundreds of other areas.

    There is no excuse for us not going after what we have right here, but the Democrats have made up a few lies to scare people into supporting them in blocking our energy independence while creating resentment of our President, and our businesses ( you know the EVIL CORPORATIONS).
     

  7. #87  
    gator
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by everyman68 View Post
    Oil is fungible...The oil from ANWR would increase the supply of oil on the world market but since demand for oil is so great I am not convinced it could bring the price down sufficiently...It would be like bringing a case of Bud to a party for one hundred beer drinkers... I would be interested to see actual studies on how much drilling in ANWR can do to bring down prices and increase supply... I am not a priori opposed to drilling....
    If it is worthwile for the Chinese to drill in the Gulf of Mexico, why not the US?
     

  8. #88  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    114
    Quote Originally Posted by gator View Post
    If it is worthwile for the Chinese to drill in the Gulf of Mexico, why not the US?
    You and me are Floridians...I don't have a big problem with drilling in the Gulf...As you know Jeb Bush, Charlie Crist, and Bob Martinez all oppose off shore drilling because they are afraid it could mess up Florida's West Coast...
     

  9. #89  
    Senior Member Constitutionally Speaking's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    4,301
    Quote Originally Posted by everyman68 View Post
    You and me are Floridians...I don't have a big problem with drilling in the Gulf...As you know Jeb Bush, Charlie Crist, and Bob Martinez all oppose off shore drilling because they are afraid it could mess up Florida's West Coast...
    They were more afraid of the voting population's belief in the lie about offshore drilling.
     

  10. #90  
    Eyelids
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by AmPat View Post
    Obama wants change simply because it makes points with simplistic voters.
    Thats what the whole election is about. The Republicans use shit like patriotism and honor which are equally unquantifiable. You're a sucker for the same kind of crap.
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •