# Is Drilling equivalent to Welfare?



## midcan5 (Jun 28, 2008)

I have been thinking about the price of oil, and the whimpering from the republicans and others. Oil prices are driven by supply, demand, and competition. Demand is driven by lifestyle. Now if a women cannot make a mistake and welfare participants cannot make a mistake then Americans who have made bad decisions regarding energy should suffer the same social darwinistic plight. So I guess I don't understand why republicans are blaming drilling, aka ruining our planet, for their own bad decisions.

Just as republicans and others complain about taxes, shouldn't citizens of the world complain about wasteful lifestyles that have the potential to ruin mother earth? It would seem from a moral point of view to be a fair conclusion. So again let me repeat my question, if we are irresponsible with energy then why the complaints? Didn't we create this situations? Answers welcome.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 28, 2008)

midcan5 said:


> I have been thinking about the price of oil, and the whimpering from the republicans and others. Oil prices are driven by supply, demand, and competition. Demand is driven by lifestyle. Now if a women cannot make a mistake and welfare participants cannot make a mistake then Americans who have made bad decisions regarding energy should suffer the same social darwinistic plight. So I guess I don't understand why republicans are blaming drilling, aka ruining our planet, for their own bad decisions.
> 
> Just as republicans and others complain about taxes, shouldn't citizens of the world complain about wasteful lifestyles that have the potential to ruin mother earth? It would seem from a moral point of view to be a fair conclusion. So again let me repeat my question, if we are irresponsible with energy then why the complaints? Didn't we create this situations? Answers welcome.



Yup, sounds just like your ignorant pap. So using your logic we should allow the world to starve rather then provide aid. I mean they got themselves in the mess they are in right?

Your analogy is ignorant. We have available the oil we need, yet we should ignore it because YOU don't like drilling. The impact from drilling is so small now as to be meaningless. We had several cat 5 hurricanes in the Gulf, remind me of all the oil spills from those rigs out there? We have nuclear technology, remind how we should not use it cause you don't like it?

Prices are high because of speculation. There is more than enough oil for now and the future. We should use OUR oil so we are not paying the Arabs for theirs.

You irritate the hell out of me. Take your socialist ideals and find a Socialist country and LIVE your dream. And when it is NOT all you envisioned do NOT come crawling back to the US.


----------



## midcan5 (Jun 28, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Yup, sounds just like your ignorant pap. So using your logic we should allow the world to starve rather then provide aid. I mean they got themselves in the mess they are in right?
> 
> Your analogy is ignorant. We have available the oil we need, yet we should ignore it because YOU don't like drilling. The impact from drilling is so small now as to be meaningless. We had several cat 5 hurricanes in the Gulf, remind me of all the oil spills from those rigs out there? We have nuclear technology, remind how we should not use it cause you don't like it?



That's a rather interesting and hypocritical reply, you didn't hear about Reagan's welfare mom, or back alley abortions, or all these foreclosures? you surely use that thinking - social darwinism - in many of your replies, seems you don't recognize it when its form changes slightly. Analogy holds and shortsighted policies like ruining the earth for a little oil remain stupid.


----------



## BrianH (Jun 28, 2008)

midcan5 said:


> That's a rather interesting and hypocritical reply, you didn't hear about Reagan's welfare mom, or back alley abortions, or all these foreclosures? you surely use that thinking - social darwinism - in many of your replies, seems you don't recognize it when its form changes slightly. Analogy holds and shortsighted policies like ruining the earth for a little oil remain stupid.



It doesn't matter, Gas prices as of now are not being driven by demand.  Is it even conceiveable to say that demand has changed so much as to raise the price from 90 dollars per barrel in December of 2007 to 130-140 dollars per barrel now?  It took years for it to rise to 90 dollars per barrel.  We've seemed to have achieved it in 6 months. There is something illegal going on IMO.  I heard someone say on C-Span the other day that we have enough oil here in the U.S. to last us another 30 years.  IMO, this is more than enough to keep us stable until we can find alternative energy sources.  And for the record, this is not strictly a republican problem, this is an everybody problem.


----------



## midcan5 (Jun 28, 2008)

BrianH,  I agree and it behooves us to do something, but can one imagine Cheney/Bush or McCain doing anything? I even doubt much effort from Obama should prices fall which they will. In Philly, the decayed areas are being rebuilt as the new preppies move in and renovate, happened under Carter too.


----------



## LordBrownTrout (Jun 28, 2008)

Well, if we just sit here in limbo and do nothing about our energy we're gonna be in some serious trouble soon. I hate the "can't do" attitude that this country has become accustomed to. We can solve our problems but too many politicians are happy creating wedge issues to drive one against the other and we're the unfortunate beneficiaries of such lunacy. The problem is Washington.


----------



## Annie (Jun 28, 2008)

LordBrownTrout said:


> Well, if we just sit here in limbo and do nothing about our energy we're gonna be in some serious trouble soon. I hate the "can't do" attitude that this country has become accustomed to. We can solve our problems but too many politicians are happy creating wedge issues to drive one against the other and we're the unfortunate beneficiaries of such lunacy. The problem is Washington.



I agree, the taxes of both feds and states should be removed. Drilling in all reasonable venues should be explored. Immediate plans for building refineries should commence. Incentives for alternative energies should be laid out.


----------



## Yurt (Jun 28, 2008)

move to russia midcan, the state owns most everything, it is your utopia, bye now


----------



## BaronVonBigmeat (Jun 28, 2008)

welfare is stealing from others, allowing oil companies to drill new wells isn't, hope that helps

of course in the meantime if $4/gallon is the market price for gasoline, then so be it


----------



## jreeves (Jun 28, 2008)

midcan5 said:


> I have been thinking about the price of oil, and the whimpering from the republicans and others. Oil prices are driven by supply, demand, and competition. Demand is driven by lifestyle. Now if a women cannot make a mistake and welfare participants cannot make a mistake then Americans who have made bad decisions regarding energy should suffer the same social darwinistic plight. So I guess I don't understand why republicans are blaming drilling, aka ruining our planet, for their own bad decisions.
> 
> Just as republicans and others complain about taxes, shouldn't citizens of the world complain about wasteful lifestyles that have the potential to ruin mother earth? It would seem from a moral point of view to be a fair conclusion. So again let me repeat my question, if we are irresponsible with energy then why the complaints? Didn't we create this situations? Answers welcome.



No, drilling is a commonsense approach when coupled with developing alternate energy sources.


But couldn't it be said that welfare participants are partly to blame for high gas prices? Since the price of oil is directly correlated with the value of the dollar and social spending is the largest expenditure by the federal government. In part, social spending has caused huge federal defecits which leads to a weaker dollar.


----------



## editec (Jun 29, 2008)

RT SGT opines



> You irritate the hell out of me. Take your socialist ideals and find a Socialist country and LIVE your dream. And when it is NOT all you envisioned do NOT come crawling back to the US.


 
How hypocritical of YOU to complain about his socialism when you are the economic creature of socialism.

When have you ever survived by capitalism RETIRED SGT GNY?

You were a beneficiary of military industrial socialism when you were in the military, and you are benefitting from that same socialism now, too.

Your every check is socialism_ writ large_, sport.

Unlike many of us who actually had to deal with the visicitudes of a captialist economy, you don't..


----------



## midcan5 (Jun 29, 2008)

Kathianne said:


> I agree, the taxes of both feds and states should be removed. Drilling in all reasonable venues should be explored. Immediate plans for building refineries should commence. Incentives for alternative energies should be laid out.



All that does is ruin the earth and push the problem to the future and our children. We need to create competition for oil today.


----------



## midcan5 (Jun 29, 2008)

BaronVonBigmeat said:


> welfare is stealing from others, allowing oil companies to drill new wells isn't, hope that helps
> 
> of course in the meantime if $4/gallon is the market price for gasoline, then so be it



Not really, welfare can be lots of things but for the sake of argument let's say it is irresponsible actions that leads to bad consequences. Same holds true for our use of oil. Suvs, suburban sprawl, lack of public transportation, lack of trains, lack of bike paths, etc. Irresponsible behavior is irresponsible behavior. 

Yes, so be it since there is plenty now.


----------



## midcan5 (Jun 29, 2008)

editec said:


> Unlike many of us who actually had to deal with the visicitudes of a captialist economy, you don't..



I agree with you again today.


----------



## Chris (Jun 29, 2008)

editec said:


> RT SGT opines
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's like my 87 year old father complaining about welfare....meanwhile he gets a government check every month.


----------



## jreeves (Jun 29, 2008)

jreeves said:


> No, drilling is a commonsense approach when coupled with developing alternate energy sources.
> 
> 
> But couldn't it be said that welfare participants are partly to blame for high gas prices? Since the price of oil is directly correlated with the value of the dollar and social spending is the largest expenditure by the federal government. In part, social spending has caused huge federal defecits which leads to a weaker dollar.



Social spending has, in part, led to higher oil prices by devaluing the dollar.


----------



## midcan5 (Jun 29, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Social spending has, in part, led to higher oil prices by devaluing the dollar.



Don't you think Iraq was the biggest part of that?


----------



## BaronVonBigmeat (Jun 29, 2008)

midcan5 said:


> All that does is ruin the earth and push the problem to the future and our children. We need to create competition for oil today.



Offshore drilling is good for the environment because drilling rigs act as artificial reefs. There's a reason why Louisiana supplies the most seafood while simultaneously having the most offshore drilling.



midcan5 said:


> Suvs, suburban sprawl, lack of public transportation, lack of trains, lack of bike paths, etc. Irresponsible behavior is irresponsible behavior.



I agree that there is a problem with all of this and things need to change. It didn't happen by accident though; deliberate government policy created it. 



Kirk said:


> That's like my 87 year old father complaining about welfare....meanwhile he gets a government check every month.



The difference being that he paid into SS for 40+ years, so he's not being unreasonable to want some of his money back. Of course he wouldn't need the SS check to begin with if he had been able to keep all his money during his working years.


----------



## editec (Jun 29, 2008)

BaronVonBigmeat said:


> The difference being that he paid into SS for 40+ years, so he's not being unreasonable to want some of his money back. Of course he wouldn't need the SS check to begin with if he had been able to keep all his money during his working years.


 
Social security is_ not_ welfare.

Neither is working for the military or getting a retirement check.

They are the social contracts that we signed up for, and some of us are now reaping the benefits of that contract.

They ARE a type of socialism, though, no less than outright welfare is.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 29, 2008)

editec said:


> Social security is_ not_ welfare.
> 
> Neither is working for the military or getting a retirement check.
> 
> ...



Wrong again.The retirement check is not even remotely like welfare and is not socialism. It is payment agreed to for preforming a job or jobs for x amount of time.

Welfare is money taken from those that work to give to those that do not.

Social Security is a pay system also but not one of choice.  Took my doctors years to get me to accept Social Security, they finally got me to kinda see, since I paid all my working life I was allowed to use the system.
I am like your old guy. Given a choice, I would vote Social Security out of existance.


----------



## jreeves (Jun 29, 2008)

midcan5 said:


> Don't you think Iraq was the biggest part of that?



Absolutely not, military spending has continued to shrink while social spending has outgrown the economy by 14% over the last 50 years. Hence, why the dollar is losing value is directly related to the expansion of social programs since LBJ.


----------



## Gunny (Jun 29, 2008)

midcan5 said:


> I have been thinking about the price of oil, and the whimpering from the republicans and others. Oil prices are driven by supply, demand, and competition. Demand is driven by lifestyle. Now if a women cannot make a mistake and welfare participants cannot make a mistake then Americans who have made bad decisions regarding energy should suffer the same social darwinistic plight. So I guess I don't understand why republicans are blaming drilling, aka ruining our planet, for their own bad decisions.
> 
> Just as republicans and others complain about taxes, shouldn't citizens of the world complain about wasteful lifestyles that have the potential to ruin mother earth? It would seem from a moral point of view to be a fair conclusion. So again let me repeat my question, if we are irresponsible with energy then why the complaints? Didn't we create this situations? Answers welcome.



The flaw here is you are attempting to compare a lifestyle that not a one of us was not born into, and is a collective, world-wide style of living based on dependence on fossil fuels with individual decisions that can be made to alter one's lifestyle at the individual level.  

We are given no choice as to the former, but we have a choice as to the latter.  The former is not a result of Republican/conservative policies.  It's a result of Mankind's lifestyle.  The latter is a result of liberal policy. 

In other words .... try again.


----------



## Yurt (Jun 29, 2008)

editec said:


> RT SGT opines
> 
> 
> 
> ...



actually, we have a capitalist economy and a rebublican government...the latter can levy taxes to support a military that keeps the economy free.  i suggest a quick study on how this country runs before you rail someone for being a hypocrite, when he has done nothing but patriotic service to this country which the republican form of government deemed important enough to levy taxes for.


----------



## Chris (Jun 29, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> The flaw here is you are attempting to compare a lifestyle that not a one of us was not born into, and is a collective, world-wide style of living based on dependence on fossil fuels with individual decisions that can be made to alter one's lifestyle at the individual level.
> 
> We are given no choice as to the former, but we have a choice as to the latter.  The former is not a result of Republican/conservative policies.  It's a result of Mankind's lifestyle.  The latter is a result of liberal policy.
> 
> In other words .... try again.



How much is your government retirement check each month?


----------



## Yurt (Jun 29, 2008)

what is it with people any gunny's or sargent's military service and retirement?  are you actually saying that a republican form of government cannot offer a salary, benefits, including retirement, to people who want to serve in the military?  pfft


----------



## midcan5 (Jun 29, 2008)

The 87 year old guy would have run out money long ago unless he were extremely wealthy. Irrelevant argument. SS is a great thing and it is socialistic. 

GunnyL, You were not born into wasting energy, that is a decision you have made by your lifestyle. As much as I enjoy car travel in America I have never been dependent on a car. Just like many who think the problem is because of circumstances, you too excuse your (ours as a nation) bad decisions. Of course corporate America loves you for it. 

We are really a plutocracy, it will be interesting how much that will change after Obama is elected?

Military spending is absurd. We could destroy the world with ease but notice with all that power we cannot always control nations, Iraq, so corporations can exploit it - Oh, sorry, forgot Halliburton, et al. 

World Military Spending - Global Issues
NationMaster - Expenditures > Dollar figure (most recent) by country


*A vote for McCain is a vote against the fundamental principle of America, the right of the individual to lead their life without the government interfering.*


----------



## Gunny (Jun 29, 2008)

Kirk said:


> How much is your government retirement check each month?





Yurt said:


> what is it with people any gunny's or sargent's military service and retirement?  are you actually saying that a republican form of government cannot offer a salary, benefits, including retirement, to people who want to serve in the military?  pfft



'Tis a simple answer.  He is going to try and gloss over the fact that I earned a retirement check that happens to be from the US government and try and sell it as some kind of government subsidy.  Another member tried to drag up the same crap as well.

Surprised?

I sold my services to the government for a price, and like any other corporation, it offered retirement benefits as a means of securing those services for as long as it did.  And unlike the government, I fulfilled my end of the bargain with 20 years of faithful service while it is busily trying to rewrite my entitlements as we speak. 

There is also the fact that I paid taxes on my income while I was on active duty, and I am taxed on my retirement income.   

Anyone attempting to twist that into some kind of handout is full of shit, and I challenge any one of them to go take the same "handout" from the nearest Marine Corps recruiter.  Bearing in mind of course, that a handout is something for nothing.  

I only ask that they DO film it.  When you get your ass off the bus and fly onto those yellow footprints, I want documented evidence when you tell that Hat you get a handout and don't have to work for your pay and it's just a handout.

Or you can explain it to your OIC when they drop you from a 46 onto a gulf oil platform in the dark with orders to secure it by whatever means necessary.  I'm sure he'll understand.


----------



## Chris (Jun 29, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> 'Tis a simple answer.  He is going to try and gloss over the fact that I earned a retirement check that happens to be from the US government and try and sell it as some kind of government subsidy.  Another member tried to drag up the same crap as well.
> 
> Surprised?
> 
> ...



I hear you, but I have worked my entire life without getting a government check. If I live to be 70, maybe I will get one.


----------



## Gunny (Jun 29, 2008)

Kirk said:


> I hear you, but I have worked my entire life without getting a government check. If I live to be 70, maybe I will get one.



And?  Quit trying to purposefully cloud the issue of handouts/welfare and a government check.  

I earned my pay.  It happened to be I earned it working for the US government.  I earn one now that is not from the US government.  The government offered an employment opportunity and I took it.  I didn't go begging someone else to support me.  I provided a service to them, and they paid me for it.  

Welfare recipients are not being paid for services.  They are being subsidized by the government for NOT working, or earning enough to support their chosen lifestyles.  

Clearly, two different things.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 29, 2008)

Kirk said:


> I hear you, but I have worked my entire life without getting a government check. If I live to be 70, maybe I will get one.



Doesn't change the fact that military retirement is a CONTRACT we made and earned. Just like any other retirement deal.


----------



## jreeves (Jun 29, 2008)

midcan5 said:


> The 87 year old guy would have run out money long ago unless he were extremely wealthy. Irrelevant argument. SS is a great thing and it is socialistic.
> 
> GunnyL, You were not born into wasting energy, that is a decision you have made by your lifestyle. As much as I enjoy car travel in America I have never been dependent on a car. Just like many who think the problem is because of circumstances, you too excuse your (ours as a nation) bad decisions. Of course corporate America loves you for it.
> 
> ...



*SOCIAL SPENDING, which grew 14 times faster than the economy - - to a new high - - more than eating up the long-term decline of defense spending ratios shown by the black line in the chart. *The full report (link below) shows once the social spending ratio rose above 5% of national income in the late 1960s, citizen trust in government plummeted to half prior levels - - and inflation-adjusted median family incomes stagnated for all families and fell for single wage-earner families. Note social spending (red line) stopped rising in the early 1980s as if it hit a brick wall, and then fell - - and other data show trust in government surged, only to fall back later as social spending ratios again climbed. This is a powerful finding that deserves more attention. (the full report contains a link to a special report and chart on citizen trust polling data). 

The declining black trend line is defense spending, which in *2001 had dropped to 3.7% of the economy's national income*, below where it started - following a *5-decade downward slope*. The black defense line for 2003-06 increased to 4.9% of national income as shown in the graphic. This multi-decade declining defense ratio camouflaged a new direction for government - - surging social programs and spending.
Grandfather Federal Government Spending Report - summary - by MWHodges

Lmao...military spending is absurd compared to social spending


----------



## Shogun (Jun 30, 2008)

uh, Louisiana didn't just START selling sea food when oil rigs went up.  And there have been recent conversations weather or not they ARE good for oceanic environments too.
*
Are artificial reefs good for the environment?

Proponents say they replenish the ecosystem. Some scientists aren't so sure.

Environment: The Ecology of Artificial Reefs | Newsweek Project Green | Newsweek.com*

But, yes, I'd say that government allowance of a private company to drill a common NATIONAL RESOURCE for the sake of private profit IS akin to welfare.


----------



## WhoisJohnGault (Jul 1, 2008)

midcan5 said:


> I have been thinking about the price of oil, and the whimpering from the republicans and others. Oil prices are driven by supply, demand, and competition. Demand is driven by lifestyle. Now if a women cannot make a mistake and welfare participants cannot make a mistake then Americans who have made bad decisions regarding energy should suffer the same social darwinistic plight. So I guess I don't understand why republicans are blaming drilling, aka ruining our planet, for their own bad decisions.
> 
> Just as republicans and others complain about taxes, shouldn't citizens of the world complain about wasteful lifestyles that have the potential to ruin mother earth? It would seem from a moral point of view to be a fair conclusion. So again let me repeat my question, if we are irresponsible with energy then why the complaints? Didn't we create this situations? Answers welcome.


Excuse me, I am new here as of today, yet I have to ask you what mistakes have most of us made?  I live a very frugal lifestyle.  I live in Maine where most of the homes have been furnished with oil heat.  My home is 128 years old..and at this time I cannot afford to buy a new furnace.  Mine is oil heat, forced hot water driven baseboard heat.  It works pretty efficiently for what it is.  I do plan to buy a new more efficent model sometime next year.  I cannot change to another source of heat now.  I see most alternatives to fossil fuel heat is very very very expensive.  We do not qualify for low income loans that are avail.  to those who wish to buy a new furnace or upgrade.  We make too much for that, so we are caught in the perrenial position of making too much for help yet not enough to pay outright.   I keep my thermostat at 66 in the winter, not only to save oil, but I like it cooler than warmer.  We can always throw on a heavy sweater or whatever.  I use my water efficiently, I recyle all the time, I bought all those stupid "Al Gore" danged lightbulbs that suck big time.....so you tell me how I am wasteful?  I believe that most people are in my category.


----------



## BaronVonBigmeat (Jul 2, 2008)

midcan5 said:


> The 87 year old guy would have run out money long ago unless he were extremely wealthy. Irrelevant argument. SS is a great thing and it is socialistic.
> 
> *A vote for McCain is a vote against the fundamental principle of America, the right of the individual to lead their life without the government interfering.*



I certainly agree with your second statement.

But what is SS and socialism in general, if not government interference in your life?

Another interesting thing to ponder: I make a pretty average salary. My monthly paycheck deductions--SS, medicare/medicaid, income tax--are about $350 every two weeks. My employer's SS contribution is just over $100 every two weeks, and let's face it--that is money that would have otherwise gone into your salary, since it's a per-worker tax. That's $450 every two weeks that I'm missing. Or, to put it another way--$975 a month!

Do you think reaching my retirement goals would be a wee bit easier if I got to keep that money? Or even part of it. I could double my 401k contribution if I could just keep the SS part. Even if I just stuck it in a savings account, it would be better. 

To ponder further--I wonder how much more money private charities would receive if the average american were getting an extra $1,000 a month? How many people could take their kids out of failing government schools, how many  wouldn't need welfare anymore, how many could afford health care, etc?



Shogun said:


> But, yes, I'd say that government allowance of a private company to drill a common NATIONAL RESOURCE for the sake of private profit IS akin to welfare.



The government shouldn't even own the land to begin with. 

Aside from that, the oil companies aren't stealing anything; they're spending their own money. The closest analogy would be homesteading, where you stake off a claim on vacant land and then spend your own money to develop it, which is what this country was founded on.

As opposed to welfare, which is just theft.


----------



## editec (Jul 7, 2008)

Yurt said:


> what is it with people any gunny's or sargent's military service and retirement? are you actually saying that a republican form of government cannot offer a salary, benefits, including retirement, to people who want to serve in the military? pfft


 
I have NO PROBLEM with having a military, paying them well, treating them well, giving them retirement either.   I am also a veteran, remember?

But when these _lifers _start telling us that the civilians who PAY their salaries though FORCED TAXATION ought to more greatly appreciate the benefits of CAPITALISM, a capitism they themselves don't have to live in, I am merely pointing out what bullshit their views are.

Lifers are the beneficiaries of the government's _socialist_ military.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 8, 2008)

editec said:


> I have NO PROBLEM with having a military, paying them well, treating them well, giving them retirement either.   I am also a veteran, remember?
> 
> But when these _lifers _start telling us that the civilians who PAY their salaries though FORCED TAXATION ought to more greatly appreciate the benefits of CAPITALISM, a capitism they themselves don't have to live in, I am merely pointing out what bullshit their views are.
> 
> Lifers are the beneficiaries of the government's _socialist_ military.



Military benefits are not socialism....


----------



## midcan5 (Jul 10, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Doesn't change the fact that military retirement is a CONTRACT we made and earned. Just like any other retirement deal.



While I don't disagree, I think, wouldn't it be nice if business operated in a similar fashion? Instead we have dog eat dog capitalism for the poor and socialism for the rich in a matter of speaking. By the way business used to be that way, what changed? Republican voodoo economics maybe? Greed?


----------



## midcan5 (Jul 10, 2008)

WhoisJohnGault said:


> Excuse me, I am new here as of today, yet I have to ask you what mistakes have most of us made?  I live a very frugal lifestyle.



I love Maine - what I mean is the sprawl and the dependence we have placed on cars and the senseless energy inefficient too big homes we build. Mass transit hardly survives but we waste and pollute to drive to a home where we stay indoors. I bicycled and road public trans for most of my working life, the complaint is about the American ethos of waste.


----------



## DiamondDave (Jul 10, 2008)

midcan5 said:


> While I don't disagree, I think, wouldn't it be nice if business operated in a similar fashion? Instead we have dog eat dog capitalism for the poor and socialism for the rich in a matter of speaking. By the way business used to be that way, what changed? Republican voodoo economics maybe? Greed?



So ... in other words... you want this forced upon business... you are against the freedom our forefathers fought for...

In business... you can get retirement... you EARN it... you gain the skills in demand, or you come up with your own business or ideas or invention.... you accomplish things.... and you save, invest, take advantage of benefits businesses DO offer...

You don't just sit and think everyone else OWES you..

I believe fully that the only person that owes you anything is you... the very same person that is the only person responsible for your well being


----------



## editec (Jul 10, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> 'Tis a simple answer. He is going to try and gloss over the fact that I earned a retirement check that happens to be from the US government and try and sell it as some kind of government subsidy. Another member tried to drag up the same crap as well.


 
I'm not denying that you EARNED your retirement.

I AM denying that capitalism is paying your salary though.

SOCIETY is paying your salary now, just as it paid your salary when you were in the military.

Pretending that you are not the beneficary of the_ collectivism of society_ is absurd while at the same time, you are whining about social security and socialism.

You entire career benefitted from (what you call) socialism, sporto.


----------



## DiamondDave (Jul 10, 2008)

editec said:


> I'm not denying that you EARNED your retirement.
> 
> I AM denying that capitalism is paying your salary though.
> 
> ...



No... the military system is paying his salary.... by definition, what he is receiving is not a socialist entitlement.... that would be your little welfare checks and various other handouts for nothing....

jobs within government does not make that system a socialist one.... nor is it inherently a result of collectivism....

socialism - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

nice try


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 10, 2008)

diamonddave said:


> no... The Military System Is Paying His Salary.... By Definition, What He Is Receiving Is Not A Socialist Entitlement.... That Would Be Your Little Welfare Checks And Various Other Handouts For Nothing....
> 
> Jobs Within Government Does Not Make That System A Socialist One.... Nor Is It Inherently A Result Of Collectivism....
> 
> ...



Wrong.  Cops, Airforce Pensions, Congressional Pensions, Firemen Are All Being Paid By Our Tax Dollars Stupid So It Is Socialist!!!!


----------



## editec (Jul 10, 2008)

DiamondDave said:


> No... the military system is paying his salary.... *by definition, what he is receiving is not a socialist entitlement...*. that would be your little welfare checks and various other handouts for nothing....
> 
> jobs within government does not make that system a socialist one.... nor is it inherently a result of collectivism....
> 
> ...


 
By whose definition?

_Yours?_


----------



## DiamondDave (Jul 10, 2008)

editec said:


> By whose definition?
> 
> _Yours?_



try the definition of socialism


----------



## midcan5 (Jul 10, 2008)

BaronVonBigmeat said:


> But what is SS and socialism in general, if not government interference in your life?
> 
> The government shouldn't even own the land to begin with.
> 
> As opposed to welfare, which is just theft.



I think you are a bit of a utopian if you think people will do the right thing with our world. SS is insurance, it is insurance against the ups and down of life and is a small payment if our wages are sufficient. I have paid for 40 years now and counting.

If the government didn't own land our coastlines along with much of the US would be ruined, I may be liberal but I don't take a utopian view that freedom = wonderfulness.

Welfare is hardly theft as every citizen has a right to the resources of the land where they work and support. Welfare needs guidelines but it is hardly theft.


----------



## DiamondDave (Jul 10, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> Wrong.  Cops, Airforce Pensions, Congressional Pensions, Firemen Are All Being Paid By Our Tax Dollars Stupid So It Is Socialist!!!!



Governmental systems and activities are not all socialist because they are government run and because a government is funded, in part, on taxation of the populous...

try actually understanding the concept of socialism


----------



## midcan5 (Jul 10, 2008)

DiamondDave said:


> So ... in other words... you want this forced upon business... you are against the freedom our forefathers fought for...
> 
> In business... you can get retirement... you EARN it... you gain the skills in demand, or you come up with your own business or ideas or invention.... you accomplish things.... and you save, invest, take advantage of benefits businesses DO offer...
> 
> ...



Freedom is not freedom to screw up the world because you want to. Our founders had no concept of the power of modern corporations nor of the ability of modern society to ruin the earth. The pollution of the 50's and 60's proved that. No one owes you but no one has the right to ruin what is everyone's.


"It is not enough to ask, &#8216;Will my act harm other people?&#8217; Even if the answer is No, my act may still be wrong, because of its effects on other people. I should ask, &#8216;Will my act be one of a set of acts that will together harm other people?&#8217; The answer may be Yes. And the harm to others may be great." Derek Parfit


----------



## DiamondDave (Jul 10, 2008)

midcan5 said:


> Freedom is not freedom to screw up the world because you want to. Our founders had no concept of the power of modern corporations nor of the ability of modern society to ruin the earth. The pollution of the 50's and 60's proved that. No one owes you but no one has the right to ruin what is everyone's.
> 
> 
> "It is not enough to ask, Will my act harm other people? Even if the answer is No, my act may still be wrong, because of its effects on other people. I should ask, Will my act be one of a set of acts that will together harm other people? The answer may be Yes. And the harm to others may be great." Derek Parfit



What is EVERYONE's?? more socialist hogwash.... this is not a hive.... not a collective... not the freaking Borg... and not a freaking hippie commune

We have laws... laws to prevent discrimination based on race or creed or sex.... we have laws about just dumping a pile of shit on the road

but freedom is freedom... the good and the bad.... you socialists want the bad for the achievers at a no-effort benefit/handout to the lazy... I have the freedom to ride in a car that gets 8MPG, just as you have the freedom to walk in stinky sandals to work... I have the freedom to live with the consequences of my choice to take the job I have, or study on my own time at night, or screw the woman I met last weekend, or whatever... just as you have the freedom to live with the consequences of the choices you make... it is mot my responsibility, or the responsibility of Alfred in Idaho, or anyone else to make you have more in spite of your life choices


----------



## editec (Jul 10, 2008)

DiamondDave said:


> Governmental systems and activities are not all socialist because they are government run and because a government is funded, in part, on taxation of the populous...
> 
> try actually understanding the concept of socialism


 
I'm more than willing to use the word socialism in the way the word is meant to be used.

I'm just using it the way most people use it today..._to describe anything the goverment does EVER._

But as long as we tolerate  calling welfare socialism, or social security socialism, then calling everything that the government does socialism is perfectly accurate.


----------



## DiamondDave (Jul 10, 2008)

You ever see me calling Social Security socialism?

No

You will see me call people promoting socialist stances and wealth-redistribution concepts as socialists... and you will always see me shouting from the hilltops that socialism is a system that cannot work, for it's control based system is against freedom. Freedom which the human species strives for and yearns for. It is a system that cannot work as long as we have human nature. It can only work in a society of totalitarian elites taking power over slaves, robots, and prisoners and FORCING their control in the system


----------



## Anguille (Jul 10, 2008)

BaronVonBigmeat said:


> Originally Posted by midcan5 View Post
> "Suvs, suburban sprawl, lack of public transportation, lack of trains, lack of bike paths, etc. Irresponsible behavior is irresponsible behavior."
> 
> I agree that there is a problem with all of this and things need to change. It didn't happen by accident though; deliberate government policy created it.



As well as private enterprise. For example, the buying out of street railway companies by bus companies who then tore up the tracks.


----------



## Anguille (Jul 10, 2008)

midcan5 said:


> While I don't disagree, I think, wouldn't it be nice if business operated in a similar fashion? Instead we have dog eat dog capitalism for the poor and socialism for the rich in a matter of speaking. By the way business used to be that way, what changed? Republican voodoo economics maybe? Greed?


----------



## Anguille (Jul 10, 2008)

DiamondDave said:


> ..
> 
> You don't just sit and think everyone else OWES you..
> 
> I believe fully that the only person that owes you anything is you... the very same person that is the only person responsible for your well being



You owe me for that beer!!!!


----------



## DiamondDave (Jul 10, 2008)

Anguille said:


> You owe me for that beer!!!!



Check's in the mail


----------



## Anguille (Jul 10, 2008)

DiamondDave said:


> ...
> 
> I have the freedom to ride in a car that gets 8MPG, just as you have the freedom to walk in stinky sandals to work... I have the freedom to live with the consequences of my choice to take the job I have, or study on my own time at night, or screw the woman I met last weekend, or whatever... just as you have the freedom to live with the consequences of the choices you make... it is mot my responsibility, or the responsibility of Alfred in Idaho, or anyone else to make you have more in spite of your life choices



Nor is it the responsibility of the poor to work as wage slaves and rely on welfare so that you can have more "freedom" to drive fast cars.


----------



## DiamondDave (Jul 10, 2008)

Anguille said:


> Nor is it the responsibility of the poor to work as wage slaves and rely on welfare so that you can have more "freedom" to drive fast cars.




But it IS their responsibility that they earn their way into the money they receive... not have it given to them at the expense of the efforts of others...


and funny... I thought slavery is illegal... if they wish to quit and take another job, they have that freedom.... but in a free society, they better make the personal choice and personal commitment to actually have a commodity/skill that they can sell themselves on...


----------



## Anguille (Jul 10, 2008)

DiamondDave said:


> But it IS their responsibility that they earn their way into the money they receive... not have it given to them at the expense of the efforts of others...


 
they or you? lol!


----------



## busara (Jul 10, 2008)

DiamondDave said:


> But it IS their responsibility that they earn their way into the money they receive... not have it given to them at the expense of the efforts of others...
> 
> 
> and funny... I thought slavery is illegal... if they wish to quit and take another job, they have that freedom.... but in a free society, they better make the personal choice and personal commitment to actually have a commodity/skill that they can sell themselves on...



i managed a Goodwill for a year. the starting wage for my workers was $6.75 an hour and would increase over time depending on a variety of things, up to $7.50 an hour. when i left the company, i asked many of the workers why they didnt go find a higher paying job. their answers? they didnt have cars and had no way of getting to other locations. physical limitations such as arthritis or bad backs limited the work they could do. not being able to afford going 3 or 4 weeks without a paycheck. not being able to afford going without health insurance for any amount of time. 

i had 2 people (out of 19) move on for better jobs. one went to ITT Tech and became a customer support technician (he was able to afford it because his mother, his girlfriends mother, his brother, and his girlfriend all chipped in). the other had a friend who worked at a phone help desk company, and he was able to get her a job there. 

so some people were able to move up. many others were stuck. it shouldnt be so difficult to better oneself.


----------



## DiamondDave (Jul 10, 2008)

busara said:


> i managed a Goodwill for a year. the starting wage for my workers was $6.75 an hour and would increase over time depending on a variety of things, up to $7.50 an hour. when i left the company, i asked many of the workers why they didnt go find a higher paying job. their answers? they didnt have cars and had no way of getting to other locations. physical limitations such as arthritis or bad backs limited the work they could do. not being able to afford going 3 or 4 weeks without a paycheck. not being able to afford going without health insurance for any amount of time.
> 
> i had 2 people (out of 19) move on for better jobs. one went to ITT Tech and became a customer support technician (he was able to afford it because his mother, his girlfriends mother, his brother, and his girlfriend all chipped in). the other had a friend who worked at a phone help desk company, and he was able to get her a job there.
> 
> so some people were able to move up. many others were stuck. it shouldnt be so difficult to better oneself.



No... they were not forced or "stuck"... they CHOSE not to do the extra it takes to move ahead...

Life is not easy.... but that still does not make it yours or my responsibility, or the government's responsibility, to take over your personal responsibility for your own well being or your advancement or your success


----------



## DiamondDave (Jul 10, 2008)

Anguille said:


> they or you? lol!



I do earn mine.. and worked hard to get where I am


----------



## midcan5 (Jul 10, 2008)

busara said:


> i managed a Goodwill for a year. the starting wage for my workers was $6.75 an hour and would increase over time depending on a variety of things, up to $7.50 an hour. when i left the company, i asked many of the workers why they didnt go find a higher paying job. their answers? they didnt have cars and had no way of getting to other locations. physical limitations such as arthritis or bad backs limited the work they could do. not being able to afford going 3 or 4 weeks without a paycheck. not being able to afford going without health insurance for any amount of time.
> 
> i had 2 people (out of 19) move on for better jobs. one went to ITT Tech and became a customer support technician (he was able to afford it because his mother, his girlfriends mother, his brother, and his girlfriend all chipped in). the other had a friend who worked at a phone help desk company, and he was able to get her a job there.
> 
> so some people were able to move up. many others were stuck. it shouldnt be so difficult to better oneself.



It is so nice to hear a voice of reason and experience. Bravo.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 10, 2008)

It's not difficult to better yourself. You just hve to have guts to do it. People who have no money can go to school. They have to jump through hoops to acquire grants and loans, but ANYBODY can do it. You don't need a car, you don't need anything except a willingness to get it done.

I work as a case worker and I've heard every excuse in the book for people not trying for better jobs. I've referred them to USA jobs, to schools, to the state, to employment centers. They don't want to do it. It's difficult and it requires follow through and it intimidates them. But it's SUPPOSED to be a little difficult, or there would be no sense of accomplishment, and achievement wouldn't be WORTH anything. Add that to the reluctance of people to move. They'd rather be on welfare half the time and work at menial jobs the rest of the time, and see their kids suffer through poverty than actually look for a good job that they are qualified for, or a school they could attend, outside of the area they're used to.


----------



## Anguille (Jul 10, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Welfare is money taken from those that work to give to those that do not.



By that reasoning, children in public schools are receiving welfare in the form of education and subsidized meals. 

Anyone who learned reading, writing and 'rithmatic on the government's dime started out on welfare. People don't like to recognize that. They prefer to bombast about how they  clawed their way up, are self made men, earned every dollar they've earned by their own effort alone....


----------



## BrianH (Jul 10, 2008)

Anguille said:


> By that reasoning, children in public schools are receiving welfare in the form of education and subsidized meals.
> 
> Anyone who learned reading, writing and 'rithmatic on the government's dime started out on welfare. People don't like to recognize that. They prefer to bombast about how they  clawed their way up, are self made men, earned every dollar they've earned by their own effort alone....



You're logic is flawed, considering anyone under 16 (at least in Texas anyway) is not allowed to hold a formal job.   What RGS means is that people who are capable of working legally but choose to suck off the rest of the population.  Everyone in our society who can and want to work are working.  There are many that can't work, but their are also many who won't work.  Welfare is a good program if it were unabused.  I have no problem helping someone get over a rough patch and get back on their feet.  By all mean, take some money out of my check if it'll keep a hard-working family out of the gutter.  What I do not like to tolerate, is my hard-earned money going to a repeated welfare recipient who cannot keep a job, keeps having children (even though financially stricken), relys on a child-support check for income, lives in a run-down home, and drives a Lexus.  There are many possible scenarios, but this is one I've witnessed personally.  IMO, if  I have to unrinate in a cup to earn my money, that drug-dealer on welfare needs to piss in a cup to get it.


----------



## BrianH (Jul 10, 2008)

busara said:


> i managed a Goodwill for a year. the starting wage for my workers was $6.75 an hour and would increase over time depending on a variety of things, up to $7.50 an hour. when i left the company, i asked many of the workers why they didnt go find a higher paying job. their answers? they didnt have cars and had no way of getting to other locations. physical limitations such as arthritis or bad backs limited the work they could do. not being able to afford going 3 or 4 weeks without a paycheck. not being able to afford going without health insurance for any amount of time.
> 
> i had 2 people (out of 19) move on for better jobs. one went to ITT Tech and became a customer support technician (he was able to afford it because his mother, his girlfriends mother, his brother, and his girlfriend all chipped in). the other had a friend who worked at a phone help desk company, and he was able to get her a job there.
> 
> so some people were able to move up. many others were stuck. it shouldnt be so difficult to better oneself.



Wow, that sucks. I'm sure there are many personal factors that contribute to things.  One I see alot is priorities.  Granted, there are those who try and are unable to succeed, however, there are many who simply have bad priorities.  I've had people come up to me and beg for money to go buy their kids some bread and milk, all while holding a cigarrette in between their two fingers and having a box of cigs in their front shirt pocket.  (It's funny they don't have   $.89 for a loaf of bread and $3.50 for a gallon of milk, yet they cna scrounge up $5.99 for a box of cigarrettes.    I've seen people pull up at the human resources department to get a welfare check in a lexus, BMW, and nicer vehicles than I drive, and I work for a living.  

I used to work at a grocery store when I was in high school, and I'd see people come to the checkout with a basket full of groceries (All bought on W.I.C.).  Then they'd buy a case of beer, cigarettes, and other non-essentials with their own cash.  All while their 6 children ran-around bare-footed and half-clothed in the store taking bites out of apples, oranges, and other fruits and leave them on the floor.  It made me sick to see someone who would spend $15.00 +  on a case of beer and $5.99 on a box of cigs...instead of saving it to buy their kids some clothes.  

I know everyone isn't like this, but I've seen MANY who are.  If I had to guess the percentage of responsible and prioritized welfare recipients that I witnessed used their welfare cards responsibly, I'd say maybe %20.  There were some who would come in and buy essentials and obviously save their money.  They would buy the cheapest food items they could and save the rest.  

I realize some people do need welfare, but we really need to fix the system that hands out our money to irresponsible and ambitionless people.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 10, 2008)

I have a problem, however, with people who judge welfare recipients based upon what they see them buying with their foodstamps. You don't see the whole picture. I have worked (hard) and also received FS. My fs allotment (it's a well-funded program thanks to FARMING SUBSIDIES and surplus) was more than we could eat in a month if we were frugal. We had little money for anything else...but by golly we ate like kings and if that's the only way you can splurge on your family, I've got absolutely no problem with people using their fs to buy crabs legs, lobster, steak, birthday cakes, etc. 

and of course a lot of welfare people have myriad issues....substance abuse being a big one. But just an inability to make good choices another. Just don't fall into the trap of being resentful because you see a family buying high-end items with food stamps. There could be a perfectly reasonable reason for it. And if they want to have a celebration, and have lots of food stamps for food, and enough money to buy a case of beer besides, are you really going to begrudge them? Provided they aren't trading the fs for the beer, or buying beer when their kid needs sunscreen?


----------



## busara (Jul 10, 2008)

BrianH said:


> Wow, that sucks. I'm sure there are many personal factors that contribute to things.  One I see alot is priorities.  Granted, there are those who try and are unable to succeed, however, there are many who simply have bad priorities.  I've had people come up to me and beg for money to go buy their kids some bread and milk, all while holding a cigarrette in between their two fingers and having a box of cigs in their front shirt pocket.  (It's funny they don't have   $.89 for a loaf of bread and $3.50 for a gallon of milk, yet they cna scrounge up $5.99 for a box of cigarrettes.    I've seen people pull up at the human resources department to get a welfare check in a lexus, BMW, and nicer vehicles than I drive, and I work for a living.
> 
> I used to work at a grocery store when I was in high school, and I'd see people come to the checkout with a basket full of groceries (All bought on W.I.C.).  Then they'd buy a case of beer, cigarettes, and other non-essentials with their own cash.  All while their 6 children ran-around bare-footed and half-clothed in the store taking bites out of apples, oranges, and other fruits and leave them on the floor.  It made me sick to see someone who would spend $15.00 +  on a case of beer and $5.99 on a box of cigs...instead of saving it to buy their kids some clothes.
> 
> ...



you raise some good points. many people do seem content to never advance and waste their money. and their are people who abuse the welfare system. the problem is the people who are truly stock get lost in the mess, and often suffer more because of the abusers.


----------



## BrianH (Jul 10, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> I have a problem, however, with people who judge welfare recipients based upon what they see them buying with their foodstamps. You don't see the whole picture. I have worked (hard) and also received FS. My fs allotment (it's a well-funded program thanks to FARMING SUBSIDIES and surplus) was more than we could eat in a month if we were frugal. We had little money for anything else...but by golly we ate like kings and if that's the only way you can splurge on your family, I've got absolutely no problem with people using their fs to buy crabs legs, lobster, steak, birthday cakes, etc.
> 
> and of course a lot of welfare people have myriad issues....substance abuse being a big one. But just an inability to make good choices another. Just don't fall into the trap of being resentful because you see a family buying high-end items with food stamps. There could be a perfectly reasonable reason for it. And if they want to have a celebration, and have lots of food stamps for food, and enough money to buy a case of beer besides, are you really going to begrudge them? Provided they aren't trading the fs for the beer, or buying beer when their kid needs sunscreen?



I have no problem seeing people by good food with their stamps.  What I do have a problem with, is people buying everything with foodstamps, then turning around and spending $50.00 on cigs, beer, and other non-essential items.  And that's exactly what I'm saying.  When people are blowing their money (That they should be saving) when their kids don't have shoes or clothes and haven't had a bath in days, there's a problem.

If people want to buy lobster with their foodstamps, that's fine...because their using up their foodstamps as anyone else would their money.  But they should not bitch about not having any money to feed their kids when they're blowing it all on beer, booze, and cigs.... Basically, they're having the rest of us pay for their food, while they pay for their fun....(it's very smart, but very unethical and it makes me mad)


----------



## BrianH (Jul 10, 2008)

busara said:


> you raise some good points. many people do seem content to never advance and waste their money. and their are people who abuse the welfare system. the problem is the people who are truly stock get lost in the mess, and often suffer more because of the abusers.



Exactly, there are people their that actually really NEED the money to get out of a bad spot.  They actually spend their welfare money wisely and save their own money. While many welfare recipients ,IMO, take money from the ones who really need it by blowing their own money on non-essential items.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 10, 2008)

Maybe they did save that $50 for just this event. And what does whether their kids have had a bath today have to do with the way they spend their money?

Most of the mothers who come into my office already work, and hard, but just don't make enough to pay all their bills. When you have a $200 electric bill, a $400 rent bill and your telephone has been cut off, and you get a windfall of $50 (say your mom sends it to you)...and that $50 isn't going to prevent the electricity from being shut off, or do anything to stop the eviction notice....who cares if they get a case of beer? I mean, they probably shouldn't. But if you can't get shoes for 3 kids for $50, and all three need them....and the money is just wasted money elsewhere, I say have a flipping party.

People don't understand how constantly living in poverty erodes your ability to think clearly, and destroys your ability to make a good choice. They're all bad choices, nothing you do really can get you ahead and you become defeatist.


----------



## BrianH (Jul 10, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Maybe they did save that $50 for just this event. And what does whether their kids have had a bath today have to do with the way they spend their money?
> 
> *The fact that they don't want to pay a water bill. That's exactly what I'm talking about, they need to save that money for getting out of the hole, or for food, or for an emergency, or for insurance, or for a vehicle, or for bills.  Not for getting wasted and or feeding an addictive habit.  They can do that when they can financially support themselves and their addicting habit.*
> 
> ...



Well then something needs to be done...if you can't rationally spend your money, then you don't need to be given someone elses money for free to irrationally spend.  That money that is taken out of my paycheck can go towards my bill and my kids rather than someone else's beer and party favors...

Here's a scenario.  Say you're at a job (any job) and you've been working really hard.  You're off on the coming Friday and you can't wait.  Your co-worker comes up and asks you if you could work for him/her on Friday because he has a family emergency.  You feel sympathy for him/her so you agree to give up your day off to allow your co-worker to have the day off in order to deal with the emergency.  On Saturday, your co-worker returns to work telling the rest of the co-workers (except you) about the great parties he/she went to on Friday night and how he/she had such a great time...you then realize that there was no family emergency and your co-worker actually had you give up your day off so that he/she could go partying...

How would that make you feel?


----------



## busara (Jul 10, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Maybe they did save that $50 for just this event. And what does whether their kids have had a bath today have to do with the way they spend their money?
> 
> Most of the mothers who come into my office already work, and hard, but just don't make enough to pay all their bills. When you have a $200 electric bill, a $400 rent bill and your telephone has been cut off, and you get a windfall of $50 (say your mom sends it to you)...and that $50 isn't going to prevent the electricity from being shut off, or do anything to stop the eviction notice....who cares if they get a case of beer? I mean, they probably shouldn't. But if you can't get shoes for 3 kids for $50, and all three need them....and the money is just wasted money elsewhere, I say have a flipping party.
> 
> People don't understand how constantly living in poverty erodes your ability to think clearly, and destroys your ability to make a good choice. They're all bad choices, nothing you do really can get you ahead and you become defeatist.



have you read Nickel and Dimed: On (not) Getting by in America; and/or Scratch Beginnings: Me, $25, and the Search for the American Dream ?

i found them quite interesting


----------



## Anguille (Jul 10, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> People don't understand how constantly living in poverty erodes your ability to think clearly, and destroys your ability to make a good choice. They're all bad choices, nothing you do really can get you ahead and you become defeatist.



Thoughtful post. Many people who have never experienced poverty cannot imagine how stressful it can be and how stress can interfere with your ability to think out useful, long term solutions to your problems.


----------



## Anguille (Jul 10, 2008)

BrianH said:


> Well then something needs to be done...if you can't rationally spend your money, then you don't need to be given someone elses money for free to irrationally spend.  That money that is taken out of my paycheck can go towards my bill and my kids rather than someone else's beer and party favors...
> 
> Here's a scenario.  Say you're at a job (any job) and you've been working really hard.  You're off on the coming Friday and you can't wait.  Your co-worker comes up and asks you if you could work for him/her on Friday because he has a family emergency.  You feel sympathy for him/her so you agree to give up your day off to allow your co-worker to have the day off in order to deal with the emergency.  On Saturday, your co-worker returns to work telling the rest of the co-workers (except you) about the great parties he/she went to on Friday night and how he/she had such a great time...you then realize that there was no family emergency and your co-worker actually had you give up your day off so that he/she could go partying...
> 
> How would that make you feel?



Are you saying that money taken out of your paycheck would be spent paying your bills and not for buying your own beer?


----------



## busara (Jul 10, 2008)

Anguille said:


> Are you saying that money taken out of your paycheck would be spent paying your bills and not for buying your own beer?



i like my beer 

mmmm, smithwicks


----------



## BrianH (Jul 10, 2008)

Anguille said:


> Are you saying that money taken out of your paycheck would be spent paying your bills and not for buying your own beer?



No, what I'm saying is that I would rather the money NOT be taken out of my paycheck so that I can pay bills, rather than the money being taken out for someone else to party...

And, if I decided to buy beer...I can afford it.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 10, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> It's not difficult to better yourself. You just hve to have guts to do it. People who have no money can go to school. They have to jump through hoops to acquire grants and loans, but ANYBODY can do it. You don't need a car, you don't need anything except a willingness to get it done.
> 
> I work as a case worker and I've heard every excuse in the book for people not trying for better jobs. I've referred them to USA jobs, to schools, to the state, to employment centers. They don't want to do it. It's difficult and it requires follow through and it intimidates them. But it's SUPPOSED to be a little difficult, or there would be no sense of accomplishment, and achievement wouldn't be WORTH anything. Add that to the reluctance of people to move. They'd rather be on welfare half the time and work at menial jobs the rest of the time, and see their kids suffer through poverty than actually look for a good job that they are qualified for, or a school they could attend, outside of the area they're used to.



1.  I feel sorry for anyone who gets stuck with you as their caseworker.

2.  no wonder you are bitter.  you're like a prison guard.

3.  I make 2 times what you make.

lol


----------



## DiamondDave (Jul 10, 2008)

And I probably make 2 times what you make... nanny nanny boo boo 

Jesus.... how childish can you freaking get? Bad enough you support socialism....


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 10, 2008)

I make a good living, but it comes at a cost. I am away from my wife and kids for 3 weeks at a time while I am driving. However seeing how I live in Michigan (10% unemployment) my current job is really my only good choice.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 10, 2008)

DiamondDave said:


> And I probably make 2 times what you make... nanny nanny boo boo
> 
> Jesus.... how childish can you freaking get? Bad enough you support socialism....



Not uh, I make 2 times more than you

My god I thought his other posts were the biggest displays of ignorance....
He just out did himself.....


----------



## midcan5 (Jul 11, 2008)

DiamondDave said:


> And I probably make 2 times what you make... nanny nanny boo boo



Comparing or bragging about what you make online is plain silly.

So called socialistic entitlements are only 4% of each tax dollar, hardly enough to complain about but the complaints are really about other things.

Oxford Analytica - News - Reagan's Legacy

"ANALYSIS: The fiscal legacy of the early Reagan years was large budget deficits resulting from his programme to cut tax rates and bolster defence spending. During his first term, the deficit rose from 2.6% of GDP to a peak of 6.0% in 1983. However, in contrast to the current administration of President George Bush, he was not oblivious to the risk of large fiscal deficits and accepted numerous tax rises after the large tax cut bill in 1981:

The primary thrust of the 1981 tax bill was to reduce the top marginal income tax rate from 70% to 50% and significantly bolster business investment allowances. In the subsequent tax bills, he protected the reduction in marginal tax rates but took back much of the business tax relief."


----------



## Taco (Jul 11, 2008)

Your analogy is ignorant. We have available the oil we need, yet we should ignore it because YOU don't like drilling. The impact from drilling is so small now as to be meaningless. We had several cat 5 hurricanes in the Gulf, remind me of all the oil spills from those rigs out there? We have nuclear technology, remind how we should not use it cause you don't like it?

Prices are high because of speculation. There is more than enough oil for now and the future. We should use OUR oil so we are not paying the Arabs for theirs.

Can you share where you are getting your oil data from?

Methinks you are full of it.


----------



## Taco (Jul 11, 2008)

RGS SAID:


Your analogy is ignorant. We have available the oil we need, yet we should ignore it because YOU don't like drilling. The impact from drilling is so small now as to be meaningless. We had several cat 5 hurricanes in the Gulf, remind me of all the oil spills from those rigs out there? We have nuclear technology, remind how we should not use it cause you don't like it?

Prices are high because of speculation. There is more than enough oil for now and the future. We should use OUR oil so we are not paying the Arabs for theirs.


Can you share where you are getting your oil data from?

Methinks you are full of it.


----------



## Taco (Jul 11, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> People don't understand how constantly living in poverty erodes your ability to think clearly, and destroys your ability to make a good choice. They're all bad choices, nothing you do really can get you ahead and you become defeatist.




I agree.  I used to work in a public housing project, running an afterschool program there.  During the day, I taught school in the area.  What people who come from good areas don't get, is how kids from the projects tend to see the world.   It's nothing like how you and I see the world.  I used to think of it as 'limited horizons'.  They don't know much about what lies beyond.   Mom isn't taking them on excursions to see the world.  College is a subject seldom talked about at home...They live in and conceptualize a world of very limited choices, where their actions have very limited effect.  For them, there is not "better", there's just ... is.  And yes, there is also a natural human inclination to stick to the area you grow up in...when people say, 'they should save up and move', they don't know what they are asking these folks.  For many of them, their little neighborhood IS ALL THEY EVER HAVE KNOWN, and while they may not have much material wealth, at least they have friends and family near by, and when times are tough that's what people cling to.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 11, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> I make a good living, but it comes at a cost. I am away from my wife and kids for 3 weeks at a time while I am driving. However seeing how I live in Michigan (10% unemployment) my current job is really my only good choice.



I live in Michigan too!!!


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 11, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Not uh, I make 2 times more than you
> 
> My god I thought his other posts were the biggest displays of ignorance....
> He just out did himself.....



My point is that Republican voters are either one of two things.  Rich, or dumb.  He is clearly not rich so......

LOL.


----------



## DiamondDave (Jul 11, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> My point is that Republican voters are either one of two things.  Rich, or dumb.  He is clearly not rich so......
> 
> LOL.



Where as all liberals have an IQ under 50. The male ones are hung like a mouse, and the females walk around with their unshaven armpits breeding with any biped or quadruped that happens to walk by.

See... anyone can make ignorant generalizations

crawl back under your rock, moron


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 11, 2008)

Taco said:


> I agree.  I used to work in a public housing project, running an afterschool program there.  During the day, I taught school in the area.  What people who come from good areas don't get, is how kids from the projects tend to see the world.   It's nothing like how you and I see the world.  I used to think of it as 'limited horizons'.  They don't know much about what lies beyond.   Mom isn't taking them on excursions to see the world.  College is a subject seldom talked about at home...They live in and conceptualize a world of very limited choices, where their actions have very limited effect.  For them, there is not "better", there's just ... is.  And yes, there is also a natural human inclination to stick to the area you grow up in...when people say, 'they should save up and move', they don't know what they are asking these folks.  For many of them, their little neighborhood IS ALL THEY EVER HAVE KNOWN, and while they may not have much material wealth, at least they have friends and family near by, and when times are tough that's what people cling to.




tough times require tough decisions. If you're unwilling to make them, then you are choosing your lifestyle. Which is my point.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 11, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> 1.  I feel sorry for anyone who gets stuck with you as their caseworker.
> 
> 2.  no wonder you are bitter.  you're like a prison guard.
> 
> ...



I'm not bitter at all. I'm not judgmental with people, nor do I hold back assistance when it's available. I want people to do well, but I recognize the barriers and I know how difficult it is. But the people who succeed are the ones who bite the bullet and make grown up decisions, set goals, and follow through.

I've been on welfare, btw. I have all sorts of sympathy for the people I help and I do everything I can for them. But that doesn't change the truth.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 11, 2008)

Kirk said:


> That's like my 87 year old father complaining about welfare....meanwhile he gets a government check every month.



If he gets SS thats not welfare. It is money he paid in that he is getting back.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 11, 2008)

Well, in some cases. Some people get SSD, which is social security disability...and some get SSI, which is social security for people who never have worked. Some get both.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 11, 2008)

DiamondDave said:


> Where as all liberals have an IQ under 50. The male ones are hung like a mouse, and the females walk around with their unshaven armpits breeding with any biped or quadruped that happens to walk by.
> 
> See... anyone can make ignorant generalizations
> 
> crawl back under your rock, moron



Sorry, it is a fact you are either dumb or rich, and I'll prove it.  

You may be racist, have a hard on about gays guns or abortion, but the fact is, the GOP doesn't have your economic interests in mind when they make their policies.  They're sending jobs overseas so the Corporations can make more money.

Oh, I forgot, you have a socialist job, case worker.  So outsourcing doesn't affect you.  Ok, but the GOP weakened the dollar and now your $40K a year job doesn't get you as far as it used to.  

But having the job that you do, proves that most middle class GOP'ers are not being affected by Bushanomics, so they have the luxury of not realizing what is going on.  But at least you are paying more for food and gas like the rest of us.  But as long as you keep your job, you have the luxury of remaining ignorant of the facts.  I work with people like you.  They are making "ok" money, so they can overlook their home went down in value, the dollar isn't what it used to be, things cost more, their 401k's took a dump, etc.  They are young so they just "hope" things will get better in time.   

Anyways, they use wedge issues to trick you and to put it bluntly, if you are voting because of abortion or gays and not with your economic interests in mind, you are a fool. 

Sure when the economy was good (under clinton), you could afford such to be cocky, but the economy is falling apart and for some reason, you refuse to see that it was the GOP that did it.  

Let's put it this way.  If you were going to retire at 60, make it 70 now.  If you will ever retire.  Do you get a pension as a case worker?  Do they pay for your gas when you drive around?  Probably, ignorant bastard.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 11, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Well, in some cases. Some people get SSD, which is social security disability...and some get SSI, which is social security for people who never have worked. Some get both.



Prove some get both.

And back to my other point.  Anyways, how is it that I was warning people like you in 2004, 2005, 2006, etc that we were headed in this direction, and people like you were saying, "no, the economy was strong".  How were you denying what we were saying and now you are trying to blame us for what we told you was going to happen?  And now you guys want to blame the Democrats who took control in 2007?  

Mitt Romney in January 2008 was campaigning in Michigan.  He said what my GOP friends had been saying to me from 04-07.  Michigan was in a one state recession.  I said over and over, THAT'S A LIE!!!!  And they would use Bush's fudged economic numbers to "prove" me wrong.  

I showed them exactly how Bush fudged the numbers, and they still kept saying, "it's Jennifer Granholms (GOVERNOR of Michigan) fault.  

Not a month later, the housing market crashed and the entire country started talking about recession.

So I can either see into the future or I was just not swallowing the lies the mainstream media was selling to you.  

Anyways, you guys want to have it both ways.  Bottom line, your party fucked up the economy and now they are trying to blame the Democrats.  

Carter caused the problems Reagan dealt with, HW Bush's recession was just a natural recession because the economy goes up and sometimes goes down.  Clinton benefitted from HW's good deeds and was just lucky because of the dot com boom.  Then GW walked into Clinton's mess.  And the 2nd recession GW got us in was just another natural recession that happens.

If you don't see that this recession is because of Bush's economic policies, you really have no business voting in November, or ever again.  Read a book dummy.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 11, 2008)

You cooperation haters do realize that anyone who owns stock, has a 401k, or Mutual fund, or pension gains when Cooperations gain right.

I swear you people act like Cooperations are not owned by the public through stocks and are instead owned by a bunch of guys hiding in back rooms.

For instance over half of Exxon stock is owned by major Mutual funds. which are the back bone of most americans retirement funds.

So I guess most of us are all evil Exxon people.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 11, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> You cooperation haters do realize that anyone who owns stock, has a 401k, or Mutual fund, or pension gains when Cooperations gain right.
> 
> I swear you people act like Cooperations are not owned by the public through stocks and are instead owned by a bunch of guys hiding in back rooms.
> 
> ...



You are losing your ass in the stock market.  Exxon spent more money last year buying back their stock than they did doing oil exploration.

Just like Bush said we would all be affected by a tax hike on capital gains because we all have 401k's.  We don't pay capital gains on 401k's.

Is he dumb or trying to mislead us.  I'll ask you the same thing.

And with the way things are, who can afford to buy stocks?  We're trying to keep our jobs and our heads above water. 

What a joke you are!!!  

I also work for a big corporation.  I guess that makes me a sellout?

YOu won't be able to post one thought that my GOP friends haven't already thrown at me.  Now they all admit, their stocks suck, their homes lost value and the dollar aint worth shit.

They can't deny I told them so because one guy has 2 years worth of emails from me in a folder.  2 years of me telling him this was going to happen.  I'm not that smart.  Just smarter than you.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 11, 2008)

The only thing clear is your an arrogant ass who thinks he knows alot more than he does.

Go ahead throw around more insults asshole.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 11, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> The only thing clear is your an arrogant ass who thinks he knows alot more than he does.
> 
> Go ahead throw around more insults asshole.



Well I'm sorry, but when I lose my job because they outsource it to India, I won't be able to tap into my 401K.  If I do, they will take 50%.

And meanwhile, CEO's are making record profits.  So maybe my 401K would do better if our CEO's weren't gouging the company.  

My brother is a VP of a Corporation too.  Whenever I argue that it isn't fair he says, "rule number one is to feed the generals first".  Then he says, "do you know what rule number two is?  Never forget rule number 2".  

There is no question that they are greedy.  That's why I get mad when people suggest it is us middle class Americans that are the greedy ones.

He doesn't deserve that much money, but we deserve a decent wage.  We work our asses off so he can be rich?

Yes, he/she deserves to be rich because he made it up to the CEO level.  Good for them.  But at what point is too rich.  

And you have to admit, if college educated Americans are asked to make $30k a year so the company can make a better profit, then screw stocks and 401K's because we will need our salaries to pay our bills.  And we will just go further into debt.  And no, the people in debt and losing their homes are not at fault.  A small percentage might but it is happening to too many of us for it to be all of their faults.  Someone did this to us.  GOP and Corporate America!!!  

Isn't that what free markets are all about?   Why pay an American $50K when they can pay India or Chinese workers $10K a year.  So where does that leave us?  So screw free markets.  There is no such thing.  If it weren't for governments, government regulations and labor laws, we wouldn't have a strong middle class.

Bush deregulated business so they could be "free".  

If it hasn't happened to you yet, good for you.  But it is happening to a lot of people.

You know who else is cocky?  My cop friend.  He makes a decent wage, has a pension coming and his father in law is rich.  So he has the luxury of blaming the democrats for high gas prices and the bad economy.  He even knows he is full of shit because when I fact him into a corner, he just says, "i'm just not going to vote this time".  And I say, "good, if I can't get you to vote for Obama, the next best thing is if you just stay home".

Can you tell i'm passionate about this?  

A guy sent me an email today from the RNC suggesting that the economy got worse ever since the Dems took over Congress.  My head almost exploded.  It is such propoganda and false information.  My other buddy snoped it and it is all bullshit!!! 

If you are not rich, start waking up.  You have 4 months to snap out of it.  Hurry before it is your job that goes away.  

It's already too late with the housing market.  But the dems might stop companies from going overseas.  They might re-regulate things that were regulated in the first place for a reason.  Yada.  Have a nice weekend.

We are all Americans and we all want the same thing.  I just want it for 90% of America, not 50%.  10% will always be lazy.  But don't suggest that 50% of America should be poor.  That's not America!!!


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 11, 2008)

Who are you to say what other people "deserve"?

I don't think you deserve a computer, because I don't think you should spread your silliness all over the internet. Do you think I should have the right to take it from you?

I don't think you deserve to have shoes on your feet while people who live in poverty don't have any. Should I take them from you?

Nobody has the right to determine the worth of others. It doesn't matter if you think others deserve things or not. YOu don't get to make that decision. Period.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 11, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> Prove some get both.
> 
> And back to my other point.  Anyways, how is it that I was warning people like you in 2004, 2005, 2006, etc that we were headed in this direction, and people like you were saying, "no, the economy was strong".  How were you denying what we were saying and now you are trying to blame us for what we told you was going to happen?  And now you guys want to blame the Democrats who took control in 2007?
> 
> ...



Er..I work as a case worker. There are instances where people get SSI and disability. They work it out so the total amount comes up to an established total between the two of them.

I can't prove it because the screens I get this information from are secure and client information is secure, but I'm sure you could call a social security office and get specifics.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 11, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Who are you to say what other people "deserve"?
> 
> I don't think you deserve a computer, because I don't think you should spread your silliness all over the internet. Do you think I should have the right to take it from you?
> 
> ...



Yet you GOP'ers have been saying all along that Union Workers on an Assembly Line don't deserve to make $35 an hour?  Now that they don't anymore, no one's buying Ford cars?  EXACTLY!!!


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 11, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Er..I work as a case worker. There are instances where people get SSI and disability. They work it out so the total amount comes up to an established total between the two of them.
> 
> I can't prove it because the screens I get this information from are secure and client information is secure, but I'm sure you could call a social security office and get specifics.



I only asked you to prove it because whenever you guys don't like my facts, you ask me to prove it.  Just fucking with you Allie.  LOL.  

But your last post about no one should decide what someone else makes is rediculous.  It is a problem and that's why we have governments.  Did you not see my post from earlier?  

Thomas Jefferson explicitly suggested that if individuals became so rich that their wealth could influence or challenge government, then their wealth should be decreased upon their death. He wrote, "If the overgrown wealth of an individual be deemed dangerous to the State, the best corrective is the law of equal inheritance to all in equal degree..." 

You want to argue with Thomas Jefferson?


----------



## Anguille (Jul 11, 2008)

busara said:


> i like my beer
> 
> mmmm, smithwicks





Diamond Dave is buying. I'll have a Magic hat #9.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 11, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> I only asked you to prove it because whenever you guys don't like my facts, you ask me to prove it.  Just fucking with you Allie.  LOL.
> 
> But your last post about no one should decide what someone else makes is rediculous.  It is a problem and that's why we have governments.  Did you not see my post from earlier?
> 
> ...




No, it is not why we have a government. The government's sole purpose is to protect our freedoms, and to assure that no one faction attains all the power.

Tyranny is what you have when you have a select few determining what the masses should or should not receive. And the overgrown wealth of a CEO is not dangerous to the state. What is dangerous to the state is putting a limit on how successful or how much money any individual can make.

Monopolies are a little different thing....if you have an individual who has complete control over something that is necessary to the every day lives of people, that's a little different. And when that happens, the government has and will step in to break up the monopoly. And I think that's what Jefferson was referring to. Individuals should not be more powerful than our own government and military. And that's not happening. But to say that Thomas Jefferson thought that wealth should be evenly distributed amongst everyone, regardless of who is earning what, is just idiotic.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 11, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> No, it is not why we have a government. The government's sole purpose is to protect our freedoms, and to assure that no one faction attains all the power.
> 
> Tyranny is what you have when you have a select few determining what the masses should or should not receive. And the overgrown wealth of a CEO is not dangerous to the state. What is dangerous to the state is putting a limit on how successful or how much money any individual can make.
> 
> Monopolies are a little different thing....if you have an individual who has complete control over something that is necessary to the every day lives of people, that's a little different. And when that happens, the government has and will step in to break up the monopoly. And I think that's what Jefferson was referring to. Individuals should not be more powerful than our own government and military. And that's not happening. But to say that Thomas Jefferson thought that wealth should be evenly distributed amongst everyone, regardless of who is earning what, is just idiotic.



Even the founding fathers argued about what the government should and shouldn't be, so we might have to agree to disagree on what government should and shouldn't do.  

And I don't think Jefferson meant someones wealth should be distributed among everyone when they die.  I think he meant, in order to avoid a family or person becoming too rich, we should tax their fortune in half when they die.  That way no one gets too powerful.  

But, I tried to find out exactly what he meant and I'm a little confused too.  


Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Joseph Milligan 1816

Jefferson is explicit in the fact that an extra taxation on inheritance violate the law of nature. The property should be divided among the inheritors equally. Maybe we need clarification as to all in equal degree he was talking about. He says it before to Madison.  They talked funny back then, huh?  

The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree is a political measure, and a practicable one.

Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Madison 1785

"an enormous proportion of property vested in a few individuals is dangerous to the rights, and destructive of the common happiness of mankind, and, therefore, every free state hath a right by its laws to discourage the possession of such property." 


HELP EVERYONE ELSE!!!


----------



## DiamondDave (Jul 11, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> Sorry, it is a fact you are either dumb or rich, and I'll prove it.
> 
> You may be racist, have a hard on about gays guns or abortion, but the fact is, the GOP doesn't have your economic interests in mind when they make their policies.  They're sending jobs overseas so the Corporations can make more money.
> 
> ...



1) You have your people mixed up, ignoramus
2) You are speaking more left-wing slogans with no meat behind them, as usual
3) The bubble economy of false growth was corrected. If we had slow stead growth under Clinton based on something more than dot bomb speculation, venture capitalist funny work, etc, I would agree that the economy under Clinton was 'good' or some similar adjective. It was, in fact, horrible because of it's lack of stable footing and inherent instability. This was, in fact, not all on the shoulders of Clinton. As no full economic trend is all on the shoulders of any President.
4) You need to actually get a clue on economics and the economics of business. You are showing yourself completely ignorant.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 11, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> Well I'm sorry, but when I lose my job because they outsource it to India, I won't be able to tap into my 401K.  If I do, they will take 50%.
> 
> And meanwhile, CEO's are making record profits.  So maybe my 401K would do better if our CEO's weren't gouging the company.
> 
> ...




My point was that "they" are publicly owned cooperations. Do you even know what that means. When they make profits millions of Americans who own stock, or have 401k's or mutual funds also make money. When they lose money so do the people who own stocks.

Sure the people at the top make too much. I will not argue with that, but you can not argue with the fact that Millions and Millions of Americans also have a vested interest in them doing well.

Oh and I have made money in the market over the last few years. Because as soon as it was clear we were going to Invade Iraq. I moved most of my money into energy, gold and Defense stocks. Even in a poor market a smart investor can make money. You just need to be able to read the signs of what is coming. When we invaded Iraq you did not have to be a rocket scientist to see Energy and Defense stocks would sky rocket.

Also I saw the housing crisis coming long ago, as I was working as a contractor and saw that to many people were buying well beyond their means counting on interest rates staying at the low rates they were. 

I have even made out from the housing crisis, as I just bought a house that was 180k 4 years ago, for only 55k, and I used almost all cash to do it so the Crisis will not hurt me. Evenentually the market will rebound as it always does and I will make a nice profit on my home.

Finally when it was clear the housing market here in Michigan was going to collapse I got out of construction and took a job in OVT trucking, which is a good place to be as the Nation is in the mist of a shortage of truck drivers which is only going to get worse because so many of them are baby boomers looking to retire and so many owner operators are going under with the price of diesel. I even was wise enough to work for a company driving their truck and not try to be an owner operator. So they can pay for the gas and I can just get paid to drive. It pays about 50k a year and has very good benefits and the promise of making more as I do it longer.

The only draw back is I spend a lot of time away from my wife and kids, but at least I get to go out and see the country and not have to pay for the gas


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 11, 2008)

Anyone who wants to work in this country can get a job. And anyone who wants to make more money can find a way to do it. It may require a move or return to school, but it can be done.


----------



## midcan5 (Jul 11, 2008)

DiamondDave said:


> 1) You have your people mixed up, ignoramus
> 2) You are speaking more left-wing slogans with no meat behind them, as usual
> 3) The bubble economy of false growth was corrected. If we had slow stead growth under Clinton based on something more than dot bomb speculation, venture capitalist funny work, etc, I would agree that the economy under Clinton was 'good' or some similar adjective. It was, in fact, horrible because of it's lack of stable footing and inherent instability. This was, in fact, not all on the shoulders of Clinton. As no full economic trend is all on the shoulders of any President.
> 4) You need to actually get a clue on economics and the economics of business. You are showing yourself completely ignorant.



I am always amazed at this sort of post from the wackos on the right, it doesn't matter what it is when it happened what happened or for that matter if it happened, it is always something that happened when Clinton controlled every aspect of the working universe. Damn that is old, and oh, so stupid.



*A vote for John McCain is a vote against the fundamental principle of America, the right of the individual to lead their life privately without the government interfering.*

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Deer-Hunting-Jesus-Dispatches-Americas/dp/0307339378/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1215176375&sr=1-1]Amazon.com: Deer Hunting with Jesus: Dispatches from America's Class War: Joe Bageant: Books[/ame]


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 12, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Anyone who wants to work in this country can get a job. And anyone who wants to make more money can find a way to do it. It may require a move or return to school, but it can be done.



here's a few facts you can't deny.

1  yes anyone can, but everone can't.  Example:  remember the great depression?  Are you suggesting people were just lazy back then or it was EVERYONES fault?

2  chances are if you lose your job right now, you will probably make less at your next job.  Its easy to tell everyone unemplyed to go back to school.  its a lot harder to do.  depending on how old you are, the $40k school wil cost you might not be the right move.  

3  Even after you retrain yourself, you will find it is harder to find a job in that field too because almost every industry is struggling.

4  What would you go back to school for?  What would be your challenges?

America is no longer the land of oportunity, unless you are a poor foreigner or rich one.  the opportunities are in china and india.  lol.

foreigners used to come here because of their countries unemployment rates.  now americans are moving out.  sad.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 12, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> My point was that "they" are publicly owned cooperations. Do you even know what that means. When they make profits millions of Americans who own stock, or have 401k's or mutual funds also make money. When they lose money so do the people who own stocks.
> 
> Sure the people at the top make too much. I will not argue with that, but you can not argue with the fact that Millions and Millions of Americans also have a vested interest in them doing well.
> 
> ...



omg!  you are a trucker!  the gop is trying to let mexican truckers in!  proof you are voting against your own best interests!  excellent.  the more I talk to you guys, the more I know i'm right. 

and based on your first argument, as an investor, I should be in favor of this because it will help my stocks.  so what it wil lower your wages and maybe someday put you out of a job?  as long as its not happening to my job....

andit will be YOUR FAULT for picking the wrong profession.  but no biggy, you can just go back to school again, right?


----------



## midcan5 (Jul 14, 2008)

I heard today Bush was pressing congress for drilling. Can someone please tell that fool that that oil will enter the same market which has plenty of supply already, it will enter the same market that has created our current prices and will have little or no impact as we ruin the wilderness forever. 

Ismael Hossein-Zadeh: Is There an Oil Shortage?

"Wallace then asks, So what is going on here? Why would our Energy Secretary say there's a supply and demand problem when none exists? Why would he say that speculators have little or nothing to do with the incredibly high price of oil and gasoline, when it's clear they do? President Busha former oilmangives the ever-growing demand for gasoline as the primary reason prices are so high, yet that notion can be dispelled with one minute of research.[3]

So, if indeed there is no imbalance between production and consumption of oil in global markets, how do we then explain the skyrocketing oil prices?

The answer, in a nutshell, is: war and geopolitical instability in oil markets. Contrary to the claims of the champions of war and militarism, of the Wall Street speculators in energy markets, and of the proponents of Peak Oil, the current oil price shocks are caused largely by the destabilizing wars and political turbulences in the Middle East. These include not only the raging wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also the danger of a looming war against Iran that would threaten the flow of oil out of Persian Gulf through the Strait of Hormuz."


----------



## Bern80 (Jul 14, 2008)

midcan5 said:


> I have been thinking about the price of oil, and the whimpering from the republicans and others. Oil prices are driven by supply, demand, and competition. Demand is driven by lifestyle. Now if a women cannot make a mistake and welfare participants cannot make a mistake then Americans who have made bad decisions regarding energy should suffer the same social darwinistic plight. So I guess I don't understand why republicans are blaming drilling, aka ruining our planet, for their own bad decisions.



You are starting with the faulty premise that somehow the right thinks people shouldn't be allowed to make mistakes and that we shouldn't help them when they do.  Few people on the right have a problem helping people when they need help.  That needs to be balanced with a bit of personal responsibility however.  A message that seems to be pretty mich omitted from any leftist talking points.



midcan5 said:


> Just as republicans and others complain about taxes, shouldn't citizens of the world complain about wasteful lifestyles that have the potential to ruin mother earth? It would seem from a moral point of view to be a fair conclusion. So again let me repeat my question, if we are irresponsible with energy then why the complaints? Didn't we create this situations? Answers welcome.



The blame can be shared by money on both the right and left. The left can be blamed for not letting us use what we have right under our feet and this contributing to the cost now and the right can be blamed for a hell of a lot of wastefil spending;

But you can ultimately blame freedom.  In a free society, you get be wasteful.  That's the definition of freedom.  The abilty to do what you WANT to do.  Ignorance and extravagance are the high price of freedom.  We don't get politically involved as country for the most part because for the most part in our day to day lives,it doesn't effect us.  Now that prices at the pump are starting to hurt we are taking notice.

If you want to start mandating what peolpe should allowed to have or what the have right to complain about fine, just make sure you take the banner of freedom when you leave.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 14, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> omg!  you are a trucker!  the gop is trying to let mexican truckers in!  proof you are voting against your own best interests!  excellent.  the more I talk to you guys, the more I know i'm right.
> 
> and based on your first argument, as an investor, I should be in favor of this because it will help my stocks.  so what it wil lower your wages and maybe someday put you out of a job?  as long as its not happening to my job....
> 
> andit will be YOUR FAULT for picking the wrong profession.  but no biggy, you can just go back to school again, right?



For gods sake I am not VOTING REPUBLICAN wake the hell up and read.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 14, 2008)

midcan5 said:


> I heard today Bush was pressing congress for drilling. Can someone please tell that fool that that oil will enter the same market which has plenty of supply already, it will enter the same market that has created our current prices and will have little or no impact as we ruin the wilderness forever.
> 
> Ismael Hossein-Zadeh: Is There an Oil Shortage?
> 
> ...



Were driving so much less that they say driving deaths are down 1/3rd.  So why isn't  price going down with demand?  Because it isn't  supply and demand!  They are gouging us when they lowered the value of the dollar.  Its like when they caused the sub prime fiasco and bailed themselves out with our tax dollars.  

viva revolution!  lol


----------



## jreeves (Jul 14, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> Were driving so much less that they say driving deaths are down 1/3rd.  So why isn't  price going down with demand?  Because it isn't  supply and demand!  They are gouging us when they lowered the value of the dollar.  Its like when they caused the sub prime fiasco and bailed themselves out with our tax dollars.
> 
> viva revolution!  lol



Now the oil companies are responsible for the weak dollar? Wow, you need to pop your medication....


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 14, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> You are starting with the faulty premise that somehow the right thinks people shouldn't be allowed to make mistakes and that we shouldn't help them when they do.  Few people on the right have a problem helping people when they need help.  That needs to be balanced with a bit of personal responsibility however.  A message that seems to be pretty mich omitted from any leftist talking points.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



PNAC said things would have to be bad in order for the neo cons to push their radical agenda.  Disaster capitalism!  So create a fake oil shortage and that will help sell us on tapping ANWAR and offshore.

Because we know they are doing it, we should nationalize oil like chavez did.  Either that or regulate them better.  If only Bush/McCain appointees would regulate them at all.  But how do you regulate your boss.  This is why the gop should never be in charge.  

There isn't  a shortage in oil.  Not enough to raise gas to $4.50 a gallon.

So their next plan is to invade Iran.  You'll  let them tap ANWAR if gas is $10 a gallon.

All this is on purpose.  And Bush is the perfect stooge to make it look like it was a mistake.  Pretending to be religious makes you believe they would never do this on purpose.  Free markets, socialism, terrorists, welfare.  confused yet?

Don't worry, the gop will save us.  

If the dems don't save us, no one will.  Got to take a chance on them.


----------



## Annie (Jul 14, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> PNAC said things would have to be bad in order for the neo cons to push their radical agenda.  Disaster capitalism!  So create a fake oil shortage and that will help sell us on tapping ANWAR and offshore.
> 
> Because we know they are doing it, we should nationalize oil like chavez did.  Either that or regulate them better.  If only Bush/McCain appointees would regulate them at all.  But how do you regulate your boss.  This is why the gop should never be in charge.
> 
> ...



Here's the deal, most I know want alternatives explored and given incentives to do so. Obama is against all drilling. McCain recently onboard with drilling. I'm voting McCain. He may not be really in favor of, any more than he is on tightening the borders, but he's a poll meister, as is Obama. The later's problem is his base, he's now way right of them and they are 'true believers.'


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 14, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> My point was that "they" are publicly owned cooperations. Do you even know what that means. When they make profits millions of Americans who own stock, or have 401k's or mutual funds also make money. When they lose money so do the people who own stocks.
> 
> Sure the people at the top make too much. I will not argue with that, but you can not argue with the fact that Millions and Millions of Americans also have a vested interest in them doing well.
> 
> ...



You have not made money in the stock market you bullshitter.  My neocon buddy at work tried to claim that and he was lying too.  defense, cheap house, oil and gold.  you must be the smartest trucker in the world.

what a fucking LIAR.

But you tell a good story.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 14, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> You have not made money in the stock market you bullshitter.  My neocon buddy at work tried to claim that and he was lying too.  defense, cheap house, oil and gold.  you must be the smartest trucker in the world.
> 
> what a fucking LIAR.
> 
> But you tell a good story.



What is your profession?


View attachment $sealybobo.bmp<--------SEALYBOBO


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 14, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> You have not made money in the stock market you bullshitter.  My neocon buddy at work tried to claim that and he was lying too.  defense, cheap house, oil and gold.  you must be the smartest trucker in the world.
> 
> what a fucking LIAR.
> 
> But you tell a good story.



LOL typical lib, if it does not agree with his all knowing assesment of the world, it must be a lie. It is not a lie bud. Plenty of people have made money in the market just like I have. You ever think that it is you who are not so smart? Why is a trucker automatically dumb anyways? I make good living at it, and enjoy it, that is why I do it. Before that I made a good living and enjoyed being a contractor. one thing is crystal clear, you think you are the smartest man alive, and it is pretty funny considering some of the dumb stuff you say in here.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 14, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Now the oil companies are responsible for the weak dollar? Wow, you need to pop your medication....



Why did we go to iraq?  oil?

where did we spend so much money that the fed reserve had to print more money?  iraq

PNAC is made up of bankers, oil men, richest men on earth.

See stupid, you think facts are conspiracy theories. 

You haven't connected the dots yet.

You think i'm nuts but you are clueless.  

explaining to you is a waste of time.

The same men that started the federal reserve also started Standard Oil.  wake up clueless!


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 14, 2008)

Yes yes anyone who does not agree with sealybobo is just dumb, or a liar.

You fit the delusional Liberal profile to a T pal.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 14, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> *Why did we go to iraq?  oil?
> 
> where did we spend so much money that the fed reserve had to print more money?  iraq*
> PNAC is made up of bankers, oil men, richest men on earth.
> ...



Look your schizo....Show me where we have imported mass oil from Iraq?


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 14, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Look your schizo....Show me where we have imported mass oil from Iraq?



were not. we damn well should be getting it at a deal to pay for the war, but we are not. War for oil my ass.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 14, 2008)

there is an illuminati and their greatest accomplishment wasn't taking over America, it was doing it underneath your nose without you knowing it.  

they conspire against us and convinced you that anyone that knows it is a conspiracy theorist.

just like they let 9 11 happen and you don't believe that, even though they were warned and they lied about being warned.  and you don't even consider them neglegent.  open your eyes ppl.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 14, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> there is an illuminati and their greatest accomplishment wasn't taking over America, it was doing it underneath your nose without you knowing it.
> 
> they conspire against us and convinced you that anyone that knows it is a conspiracy theorist.
> 
> just like they let 9 11 happen and you don't believe that, even though they were warned and they lied about being warned.  and you don't even consider them neglegent.  open your eyes ppl.



Still waiting for proof oil being imported from Iraq, schitzo?


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 14, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> there is an illuminati and their greatest accomplishment wasn't taking over America, it was doing it underneath your nose without you knowing it.
> 
> they conspire against us and convinced you that anyone that knows it is a conspiracy theorist.
> 
> just like they let 9 11 happen and you don't believe that, even though they were warned and they lied about being warned.  and you don't even consider them neglegent.  open your eyes ppl.



Ahh it all becomes clear now.

Oh and I am well aware we were warned and did nothing, and I do feel they ere neglegant. Sorry to not fit into your tidy little mold of the world yet again.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 14, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> Yes yes anyone who does not agree with sealybobo is just dumb, or a liar.
> 
> You fit the delusional Liberal profile to a T pal.



but I am right that the same men who own our banking system also own oil.  I notice you didn't argue that point.

that doesn't bother you?

that doesn't prove to you that a very small number of men own everything?

do you even know what pnac is?

typical when I make a good point that stumps you, you post a pointless reply not even arguing what I said.

apology accepted.

and you defend these richest men in the world.  you argue for them tov get tax breaks.  you are a house slave.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 14, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> but I am right that the same men who own our banking system also own oil.  I notice you didn't argue that point.
> 
> that doesn't bother you?
> 
> ...



US oil imports from Iraq?


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 14, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> but I am right that the same men who own our banking system also own oil.  I notice you didn't argue that point.
> 
> that doesn't bother you?
> 
> ...



Why would I continue debating with a jerk, who will simply call me a liar or stupid in response to everyone of my posts.

I didn't apologize to you for anything, and never would, you are a rude mindless liberal autobot. 

Oh and just because someone does not argue with your delusional rantings does not mean they are agreeing with you, it just means you are not worth the time.

You constantly claim I say things I never said. I have not defended those "rich men" and have not argued for giving them tax breaks. I am starting to think you do not even read peoples posts. You just put people into  groups and assume you know what they think about everything. 

Enjoy your delusions Bobo

illuminati lol to rich!!!


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 14, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Look your schizo....Show me where we have imported mass oil from Iraq?



hahaha!  who said we're sharing exxons spoils in iraq.  you totally don't get what I said.  Bush spent your tax dollars so exxon could get rich, not so you can get cheap oil.  what a funny guy you are.  and he spent so much, they actually had to print more.  put more money on the market and it makes each dollar weaker.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 14, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> hahaha!  who said we're sharing exxons spoils in iraq.  you totally don't get what I said.  Bush spent your tax dollars so exxon could get rich, not so you can get cheap oil.  what a funny guy you are.  and he spent so much, they actually had to print more.  put more money on the market and it makes each dollar weaker.



You mean exxon the publicly owned cooperation?


----------



## jreeves (Jul 14, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> hahaha!  who said we're sharing exxons spoils in iraq.  you totally don't get what I said.  Bush spent your tax dollars so exxon could get rich, not so you can get cheap oil.  what a funny guy you are.  and he spent so much, they actually had to print more.  put more money on the market and it makes each dollar weaker.



We have been printing more money forever, you really think printing of debt money started with Iraq? Fine your delusions change now, show me where Exxon has mass exported oil from Iraq for profits?


----------



## jreeves (Jul 14, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> You mean exxon the publicly owned cooperation?



Now, Now don't ruin his delusions.....


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 14, 2008)

jreeves said:


> We have been printing more money forever, you really think printing of debt money started with Iraq? Fine your delusions change now, show me where Exxon has mass exported oil from Iraq for profits?



This is an exercise in futility. bobo is an illuminati true believer. These guys believe in self reinforcing Delusions. If you post something that does not jive with his fanatical beliefs, you are either a liar, Stupid, or using a source that is under the control of the illuminati.

At first I thought this guy was just a jerk, now I see he has serious mental issues, and I feel sorry for him. I hope he gets some help.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 14, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> were not. we damn well should be getting it at a deal to pay for the war, but we are not. War for oil my ass.



the top 1 percent are benefitting.  notice one of your buddies said he invested I defense and oil.  the genious trucker.  that should be his name here.  lol.

but no, not oil for you.

and why should they share with you?  free markets baby.  they should be able to gouge you and at the same time finance their operations with your tax dollars, right?

are you waking up yet?  go listen to rush and come back to me with your next lie.

now you know, you don't mean shit to the gop.  the war was for them, not us.

as soon as you realize you are one  of the have nots, the sooner you will help us take back our country.  
they can't use our tax dollars and take our oil and claim free markets.  get it?  its hard to admit you are wrong, but i'll forgive you.

if you keep arguing though, I won't.  lol  yes I will.  better late than never.

I defended the iraq war for about 2 yrs.  then I woke up.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 14, 2008)

Don't worry Bobo I have already decided to not argue with you anymore. You are far to gone into your delusions to be worth the time.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 14, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> the top 1 percent are benefitting.  notice one of your buddies said he invested I defense and oil.  the genious trucker.  that should be his name here.  lol.
> 
> but no, not oil for you.
> 
> ...



Exxon oil exports from Iraq for profits or is it another delusional rant? Nevermind I know the answer....


----------



## Bern80 (Jul 14, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> but I am right that the same men who own our banking system also own oil.  I notice you didn't argue that point.
> 
> that doesn't bother you?
> 
> ...



The reason a very small number of people control those things and wealth in general is because a very small number of people have the brains and/or motivation to figure it out.

The rest (like you) spend that amount time complaining about it.

The other part of you that fits the stereotypical lib to a T is your victim mentality.  If you spent a little time working aat it and had a shred of common sense you would know that a lot of tomorrow's fortunes are gonna be started now, in the stock market and real estate for example.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 14, 2008)

jreeves said:


> US oil imports from Iraq?



This is proof you will never understand the truth.  I said NOTHING about imports from iraq.  If that's what you got out of my post, hang it up.  wow!  WOW!

Either you are one of them and pretending to be ignorant or you are just a dumb shit.  I refuse to further explain because its like explaining to my dog why she can't eat chocolate.

So my points locked up your brain or what?  

The private families that own the federal reserve also own the oil companies.  They benefit from iraq, the housing crash, they benefit from americans going further in debt, outsourcing to china, they let bush spy on us via the phone companies they own, they set energy policies.

one I know of owns vegas resorts.  sheldon adelson.  he's the third richest man in america and he sets our israel/arab foreign policy.

pnac.  I know how it benefits them.  I just wonder how you benefit.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 14, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> This is proof you will never understand the truth.  I said NOTHING about imports from iraq.  If that's what you got out of my post, hang it up.  wow!  WOW!
> 
> Either you are one of them and pretending to be ignorant or you are just a dumb shit.  I refuse to further explain because its like explaining to my dog why she can't eat chocolate.
> 
> ...



So no proof of your original delusion or your morphed delusion, I see....

The offer still stands, show proof the US has been massively importing oil from Iraq or that Exxon has been massively exporting oil from Iraq for profits? If you can't prove either you may want to see a mental health professional to deal with your schitzo delusions....


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 14, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> The reason a very small number of people control those things and wealth in general is because a very small number of people have the brains and/or motivation to figure it out.
> 
> The rest (like you) spend that amount time complaining about it.
> 
> ...


----------



## jreeves (Jul 14, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > The reason a very small number of people control those things and wealth in general is because a very small number of people have the brains and/or motivation to figure it out.
> ...


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 14, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > The reason a very small number of people control those things and wealth in general is because a very small number of people have the brains and/or motivation to figure it out.
> ...


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 14, 2008)

jreeves said:


> So no proof of your original delusion or your morphed delusion, I see....
> 
> The offer still stands, show proof the US has been massively importing oil from Iraq or that Exxon has been massively exporting oil from Iraq for profits? If you can't prove either you may want to see a mental health professional to deal with your schitzo delusions....



exxon just won a major oil contract in iraq.  I have to prove that to you or I have to prove they are doing it for profit?  or do I have to prove we are paying for it?  OR, do I have to prove we aren't  sharing in the spoils or that they aren't  paying for reconstruction but you and I are?

chaney said iraq oil would pay for the war.  do I have to prove he said that or the fact oil is not paying for reconstruction?


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 14, 2008)

Set the bong on the floor and step away!!


----------



## jreeves (Jul 14, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> exxon just won a major oil contract in iraq.  I have to prove that to you or I have to prove they are doing it for profit?  or do I have to prove we are paying for it?  OR, do I have to prove we aren't  sharing in the spoils or that they aren't  paying for reconstruction but you and I are?
> 
> chaney said iraq oil would pay for the war.  do I have to prove he said that or the fact oil is not paying for reconstruction?



Exxon exports or US imports from Iraq....its quite simple....focus??


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 14, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> The reason a very small number of people control those things and wealth in general is because a very small number of people have the brains and/or motivation to figure it out.
> 
> The rest (like you) spend that amount time complaining about it.
> 
> The other part of you that fits the stereotypical lib to a T is your victim mentality.  If you spent a little time working aat it and had a shred of common sense you would know that a lot of tomorrow's fortunes are gonna be started now, in the stock market and real estate for example.



people like arianna huffington, john stewart and dave letterman see what I see.  they are all multi millionaires, unlike you.  why do they see it but you don't?  They don't have a victim mentality.  They seee when something is wrong with America.  If they were greedy and brainwashed like you, they would agree with you.

Liberals are just better people.  You only care about you and yours.  I really hate people like you.  And I know people like you.  We get along but I can't help to wish ill on them.  God will deal with you.  So will karma.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 14, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> people like arianna huffington, john stewart and dave letterman see what I see.  they are all multi millionaires, unlike you.  why do they see it but you don't?  They don't have a victim mentality.  They seee when something is wrong with America.  If they were greedy and brainwashed like you, they would agree with you.
> 
> Liberals are just better people.  You only care about you and yours.  I really hate people like you.  And I know people like you.  We get along but I can't help to wish ill on them.  God will deal with you.  So will karma.



LMAO...so you represent the typical liberal mindset right??

Delusional rantings without a scant bit of evidence?


----------



## Bern80 (Jul 14, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> so the masses in america should be suffering because we don't have the brains to figure it out?  the prosperous middle class is why america was great.
> 
> and funny you blame the victims for having the victim mentality.  when you get raped, it goes easier if you relax and just take it.



There is slight (as in not slight since subtley apparently is not your strong suit) between actual victims (whom i have every sympathy for and am perfectally happyy to help and those who claim victim status.  Which would be those who don't look at themselves for the answer as to why they are where they are.



sealybobo said:


> a lot took it in the ass in real estate and the stock market.  now you say they are just winers because their $500k property is worth $300k?  and you are smart because your timing is better?  I know ppl like you who say what you are saying but they aren't  taking advantage of shit.  are you just a glass half full of shit kind of guy?



You are familiar with economic cyucles aren't you?  As I said before there are opportunities out there to make a lot of money in the near future but it takes a bit of common sense as well.  Like if you got in while the market was up, it's probably going to go down.  I understand if you don't get it.  It truly is rocket science.



sealybobo said:


> these 1 percenters enherited their fortunes and figured out how to ruin america for millions of americans.
> 
> its called disaster capitalism.  and if you are benefitting, its not because you were smart. its because you are financially lucky enough to take advantage.



Thanl you for illustrating how little you know about the wealthy of this country.  I understand that as a lib being a victim is so much easier and that it must all be just dumb like instead of haveing the balls to admit you are where you are predominantly because of YOU.  There are two types of people.  People that wait for things to happen and people that make things happen.  Due to the high price of freedom there are a lot more of one than there are the other.  In this country even not working at it, you'll probably get by fairly comfortablely.  If you do work at it there is a lot of money to be made.



sealybobo said:


> and this proves the rights greed and that you are not compassionate.  you want america to be survival of the fittest when we did not start off on an even playing field.



No, I want to people to be personally accountable and not blame someone else for the situations they put themselves in.




sealybobo said:


> you are a joke too.  so many holes in your post I don't know how to fully explain how you are wrong on so many levels.



There is only giant gaping hole in yours and that is your refusal (and the lefts in general) to admite that you have more control and responsibility over yourself then you feel comfortable admitting.



sealybobo said:


> small business' are suffering.  they thought the gop was for them, but I guess they were dumb for not going into real estate, gold defense and oil.



Again passing teh buck.  In legal terms, businesses are looked at as an individual.  Just as it isn't government's job to make you succesful, it isn't government's job to make businesses, small or large, sucessful.



sealybobo said:


> you guys don't care because it hasn't happened to you.  it did, but not bad enough to get you to understand.  I have a job.  I save.  I bought my home cheap 12 yrs ago.  i'm like you.  i'll survive this.  I just care about other people.



I have a job as well.  I make $25k a year.  Very little.  I know that if I put my mind to it I can make more doing something else.  I simply am not motivatad to do so.  That isn't government's fault or anyone elses problem it's mine.  I'm not complaining about it or anything but I know I am the one responsible for my own success (however I choose to define it)  I can achieve despite whatever I want even in spiite fo adversity.  those that do are the succesful and often rich  people of this country.  



sealybobo said:


> I don't hae to be raped to feel for a rape victim.  you should be ashamed.



You should be to take such an easy road instead of see the obvious difference between someone who was raped (an actuial victim) and those by default claiming victim status (you).


----------



## Bern80 (Jul 14, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Unlike you I don't sit around judging other people, But just for you I will make one. You are a delusional fool and arrogant. Which is a very sad combination indeed. I hope for your sake you seek the professional Help you so clearly are in dire need of.
> ...


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 14, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Unlike you I don't sit around judging other people, But just for you I will make one. You are a delusional fool and arrogant. Which is a very sad combination indeed. I hope for your sake you seek the professional Help you so clearly are in dire need of.
> ...


----------



## jreeves (Jul 14, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > your buddy bern80 said a very small percentage of people have the brains or motivation.  do you agree?  then you are judging an entire society.  or the majority of it.  hypocrites.
> ...


----------



## Bern80 (Jul 14, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> your buddy bern80 said a very small percentage of people have the brains or motivation.  do you agree?  then you are judging an entire society.  or the majority of it.  hypocrites.
> 
> if not, lets here you argue withhim.  you can't because you agree with that statement.  I judge.  you guys have some bad karma coming your way.  you will be reincarnated as slave labor.  lets se you dig your way out of that position in life.
> 
> or am I wrong about slave laborers?  is it their fault they are where they are in life?



You aren't listening.  I have zero problem helping those that really got a raw deal.  It is not as difficult as you may think to trace the steps as why peolpe got to be where they are.  

A rape victim for example obviously made no concious choice or did anything that could justify being raped.  They are a true victim.  They are in no way responsible for the situatoin they found themselves in.  

That is unequivocally , untrue of many many people in this country.  You can do it with yourself just as I can with myself and trace back the environment (which admittedly plays a significant part in) and decisions you made to see how you got to where you are.  Yes a very small percentage of rich probably fell into money with absolutely no effort on their part.  But statistically that is not what constitutes how the majority of the wealthy became so. 

I am confident in that because I can see it everyday.  Where I live isn't some anomally.  How many people do you think can say they are doing every thing they can physcally, mentally, etc. to gain wealth?  How many can say they are put all or even a significant amount of effort toward that end?  Do you honeslty think it's over 50% or even over 15%?


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 14, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > So you are willing to claim for yourself then that you have no ownsership in where you currently find yourself in life?
> ...


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 14, 2008)

jreeves said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Omg....the guy believes in reincarnation.....Lmao
> ...


----------



## jreeves (Jul 14, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > not really, but I do believe in karma.  you will run into financial troubles, not have insurance and have a pre existing condition or something.
> ...


----------



## Bern80 (Jul 14, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > of course I do.  but what abut my brother?  he makes $400k as a vp at a tier one auto supplier.  he got a masters at a great univ. and worked his way up.  if that supplier goes overseas and he loses his job, it won't be his fault.  and it will be hard to find another job like that.  so he didn't buy a mansion and he saves.  he's worried like the rest of us.  many ppl like him have lost their jobs and took a step backward.  I blame the gop for doing away with manufacturing.
> ...


----------



## Bern80 (Jul 14, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > not really, but I do believe in karma.  you will run into financial troubles, not have insurance and have a pre existing condition or something.
> ...


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 14, 2008)

I fell sorry for, and am willing to help those less well off than me, just not Bobo, that guys a whinny little baby.

Oh and it seems the quote feature is messed up again, I see all sorts of quotes of me, that are not actually of me in the last few posts.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 14, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> You aren't listening.  I have zero problem helping those that really got a raw deal.  It is not as difficult as you may think to trace the steps as why peolpe got to be where they are.
> 
> A rape victim for example obviously made no concious choice or did anything that could justify being raped.  They are a true victim.  They are in no way responsible for the situatoin they found themselves in.
> 
> ...



The county needs ditch diggers, factory workers, customer service, teachers, salespeople, should I go on?  Sure, they should have ALL become doctors, lawyers, engineers.

that's not reality.

the reality is america was great because of our great middle class.  sure, we have the most millionaires but we also had a booming middle class.  that doesn't have to go away but it will if the gop and corporate america can sell us on it.  they already sold you.

without government regulations, we wouldn't have a great middle class.  free markets won't make companies pay a decent wage.

and my ideal america is everyone dies with dignity.  no not everyone is rich, but the majority of americans live comfortably and aren't  in massive debt.  unregulated companies wil cut our throats if they can get away with it.

i'm in sales.  my company won't raise our salaries and every year they raise the quotas.  so they make more and we make less.  it isn't  better at the competition either.  and neither company is hiring.

sorry I went to colege and got into sales.  typically sales are the highest paid employees in every company.  we stil are, but every yr it gets harder and harder.  

This is why unions got started in the first place.  We took for granted what they achieved and now that none of us are union anymore, corporate america is starting to take back.

ps.  IT people are taking pay cuts and at the same time bill gates says we need more visa's for indian tech help.  if corporate america needs IT staff, wages should be going up.  but they are not.  ibm just cut wages 15 percent.  so they want to outsource instead.  corporate america is fucking american workers.  it must not be happening to you, but it is happening on a grand scale. 

all these workers are not at fault.  its ok until it happens to you, but then there won't be anyone left to complain to.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 15, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> The county needs ditch diggers, factory workers, customer service, teachers, salespeople, should I go on?  Sure, they should have ALL become doctors, lawyers, engineers.
> 
> that's not reality.
> 
> ...




Now I get some of your rage, I worked in sales, selling computers when I was younger, the pressure sucked ass and drove me nuts.


----------



## jreeves (Jul 15, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> Now I get some of your rage, I worked in sales, selling computers when I was younger, the pressure sucked ass and drove me nuts.



Sales=ulcers


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 15, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> I fell sorry for, and am willing to help those less well off than me, just not Bobo, that guys a whinny little baby.



no, I am willing, not you.  I am arguing for them and you are arguing they did it to themselves.  I don't need your help.  actually, I need you to understand when it is us vs them, you have more in common with me than you do with them.  unless your job is recession proof, you didn't buy a home that lost value, you don't work for money but instead your money works for you, goods and services don't cost more in your neighborhood, you get paid in euros, your stocks are booming, your job can't be outsourced and your healthcare costs aren't  outrageous.  then you are one of them.

but don't go saying you have any compassion when you've been arguing that millions of americans are just lazy, responsibe for what's going on and stupid.  

you go back to school and pay $40k and start all over again schmuck


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 15, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> no, I am willing, not you.  I am arguing for them and you are arguing they did it to themselves.  I don't need your help.  actually, I need you to understand when it is us vs them, you have more in common with me than you do with them.  unless your job is recession proof, you didn't buy a home that lost value, you don't work for money but instead your money works for you, goods and services don't cost more in your neighborhood, you get paid in euros, your stocks are booming, your job can't be outsourced and your healthcare costs aren't  outrageous.  then you are one of them.
> 
> but don't go saying you have any compassion when you've been arguing that millions of americans are just lazy, responsibe for what's going on and stupid.
> 
> you go back to school and pay $40k and start all over again schmuck



You do not know shit about me pal. The only people I said did it to themselves is some of the people currently having trouble making their house payments. I am sorry but when I see people who make 60,000 a year as couple buying a 480,000 dollar house, I call it for what it is. Irresponsible.

 I never made such statements about poor people in general. I have never said millions of Americans are just lazy. You are making shit up now and I do not appreciate it at all. Isn't posting blatant lies about other members against the rules or some shit. Please show me where I have ever said any of the shit you just claimed I said, or shut your god damn lie spewing trap.

I also never said my stocks are booming, I said I made some money in this current market.

man you are a real piece of work pal.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 15, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Sales=ulcers




I bitch about my 401k, home value, the debt, iraq, gas, value of the dollar, etc too guys.  lol.  and I bitched about the gop back in the 90's when sales were easier.  

hey, thanks for chatting.  my coworkers can't believe I like arguing politics this much.  look, its 1 30 am.  lol

we are all americans and I really wish well for all of us, regardless of what I have said in the past.

I just want everyone o be happy.  I know that's impossible, but maybe 10 percent more than are happy now and things will be back to normal.

good nite.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 15, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> I bitch about my 401k, home value, the debt, iraq, gas, value of the dollar, etc too guys.  lol.  and I bitched about the gop back in the 90's when sales were easier.
> 
> hey, thanks for chatting.  my coworkers can't believe I like arguing politics this much.  look, its 1 30 am.  lol
> 
> ...



Sure go to bed with out answering my last post. I want to know why you are making shit up about me. Claiming I said shit I never said.

What a piece of work. Get some sleep you clearly need it.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 15, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> Sure go to bed with out answering my last post. I want to know why you are making shit up about me. Claiming I said shit I never said.
> 
> What a piece of work. Get some sleep you clearly need it.



you are a terrorist ruining the county from within.

you said I said something I didn't.  please provide proof I did liar.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 15, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> Sure go to bed with out answering my last post. I want to know why you are making shit up about me. Claiming I said shit I never said.
> 
> What a piece of work. Get some sleep you clearly need it.





and if I did its because all you assholes sound the same.  I confused you with another prick maybe.


----------



## Bern80 (Jul 15, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> The county needs ditch diggers, factory workers, customer service, teachers, salespeople, should I go on?  Sure, they should have ALL become doctors, lawyers, engineers.
> 
> that's not reality.
> 
> ...



Contrary to popular opinion the business or the company you work for does't owe you anything above and beyond what is agreed upon in your contract.  There is a contract between you and the company you work for that says if you do x they will give you money.  They don't owe you a raise because you grace them with your presence for another year. If you think you're working for an evil greedy company, don't work for them.  Again you are placing limitation on yourslef and making excuses when you have far more control over your employment situatoin then you are willing to take responsibility for.

I have never heard such a typically liberal mantra as yours when you say we need government regulation for this and for that.  Government regulation is part of the problem, not the solution and with it the market will be unable to correct itself.  Government refulation artificially inflates the prices of goods and service. IT MAKES THINGS MORE EXPENSIVE.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 15, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> Contrary to popular opinion the business or the company you work for does't owe you anything above and beyond what is agreed upon in your contract.  There is a contract between you and the company you work for that says if you do x they will give you money.  They don't owe you a raise because you grace them with your presence for another year. If you think you're working for an evil greedy company, don't work for them.  Again you are placing limitation on yourslef and making excuses when you have far more control over your employment situatoin then you are willing to take responsibility for.
> 
> I have never heard such a typically liberal mantra as yours when you say we need government regulation for this and for that.  Government regulation is part of the problem, not the solution and with it the market will be unable to correct itself.  Government refulation artificially inflates the prices of goods and service. IT MAKES THINGS MORE EXPENSIVE.


\
NOPE

Government de-regulations got us in the mess we are in.  You are brainwashed with right wing propoganda.  

And I've heard it all before.  Your company doesn't owe me, blabla. 

I wish your company would pay you $1 an hour and then you can go look for another job.  And when every company in America is doing the same thing, we no longer become a successful middle class.

I'm not complaining for myself idiots.  I'm complaining for what's happening all over America.

You guys are masters at not listening and spinning the conversations in circles.  I'm getting dizzy.  Later.  I got to go make some paper.  That's money.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 15, 2008)

jreeves said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Unlike your liberal delusional mind, I don't believe we are a victim to fate. At least in the US, we control what we do or don't do.
> ...


----------



## Bern80 (Jul 15, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> \
> NOPE
> 
> Government de-regulations got us in the mess we are in.  You are brainwashed with right wing propoganda.
> ...




I'm listening quite well.  And I here you blamining everybody but yourself for your position in life.  

When government regulation is in place it puts an added financial burden on companies to comply with them.  A burden that is invariably passed on to the consumer.  So what's your plan?  Tell comanies they just have to eat it?


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 15, 2008)

jreeves said:


> So no proof of your original delusion or your morphed delusion, I see....
> 
> The offer still stands, show proof the US has been massively importing oil from Iraq or that Exxon has been massively exporting oil from Iraq for profits? If you can't prove either you may want to see a mental health professional to deal with your schitzo delusions....



i never said the us imports oil from iraq.  so you pussies cryin because i apparently put words in your  mouth are just projecting again.  You can't help it.  When you don't have a good argument, you get mad and start attacking.  PUSSIES!!!


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 15, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> Contrary to popular opinion the business or the company you work for does't owe you anything above and beyond what is agreed upon in your contract.  There is a contract between you and the company you work for that says if you do x they will give you money.  They don't owe you a raise because you grace them with your presence for another year. If you think you're working for an evil greedy company, don't work for them.  Again you are placing limitation on yourslef and making excuses when you have far more control over your employment situatoin then you are willing to take responsibility for.
> 
> I have never heard such a typically liberal mantra as yours when you say we need government regulation for this and for that.  Government regulation is part of the problem, not the solution and with it the market will be unable to correct itself.  Government refulation artificially inflates the prices of goods and service. IT MAKES THINGS MORE EXPENSIVE.



Employees are the group most responsible for a company's success, since a business is essentially nothing more than a collection of individuals gathered together for a common purpose and with a certain amount of infrastructure and capital. Without employees (and I include management in this category), a business literally could not exist. Profitable companies do not spontaneously form out of piles of equipment, software, and money.

An important caveat, however. Companies owe an ethical responsibility to employees only insofar as the employees contribute to the success of the company. It is not unethical to fire an underperforming employee. It is also important to keep in mind that changing industry or economic conditions may force a company to do things (like lay people off) which hurt employees, but are necessary to the survival of the business.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 15, 2008)

Democracy - the idea of government of, by, and for the people - has been twisted and perverted and essentially taken over by entities driven by a single value: profit. And it's happening all over the world. 

Which is not to say that profit is a bad thing. Carl, for example, was happy that the company he worked for made enough profit that its owners would keep it in business and pay him a salary. Profit can drive healthy economies, and has its rightful place in the halls of business. 

But profit has no place in the halls of governments, which were created by and for living humans. When corporations took over writing the rules that "we, the people" originally put in place to regulate and control profit-driven enterprises, then a sickness known as corporatism seized control of governments, and their people were the first ones to suffer for it. Virtually all legislation in nations that still call themselves democracies now passes through the filters of corporate lobbyists and corporate-funded think-tanks: democracy itself is at risk. 

The main engine of corporatism - the chink in governmental law that makes it possible for corporations to so corrupt governmental processes - is an obscure legal doctrine first embraced in 1886 by the Reporter of the U.S. Supreme Court called "corporate personhood." This doctrine suggests that non-living, non-breathing entities called corporations should have the same rights the Founders of democracy defined (in the US in the "Bill of Rights") first for white men, and were extended after the U.S. Civil War to freed slaves, and to women and more fully to people of color in the 1960s via several different anti-discrimination laws. 

It turns out that this doctrine of corporations as "persons" was a mistake from the beginning: while the reporter wrote that the Court had agreed with corporate personhood, the court itself, and its chief justice, had specifically and repeatedly ruled against it. (You'll find a photograph of the actual handwritten letter from Morrison R. Waite, the U.S. Supreme Court's Chief Justice, on my website: he said: "we avoided meeting the constitutional question [of corporate personhood] in the decision.") 

But because of the words of the reporter, and the promotion of those words by corporations in the decades following 1886, corporations have seized so many "human rights" that they can now prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from performing inspections of their factories by claiming 4th Amendment "privacy rights." They claim they can give unlimited money to politicians - a process that before 1886 was called bribery and was criminal behavior for corporations in virtually all states - by claiming that they are entitled to 1st Amendment free speech rights. They claim that if the majority of the citizens of a local community do not want them to do business in that community, then they are the victims of "discrimination" and can sue that community and its elected officials. 

Even though corporations are not alive and cannot vote, they claim the right to influence elections. Even though they do not need fresh water to drink or clean air to breathe, they claim the right to influence the government agencies that were created to regulate them. Even though they have no color or creed or religion, they claim that human people who speak against them are violating their civil rights. Even though they can live for hundreds of years and are not harmed by asbestos, arsenic, tobacco, or other toxins, they claim the human right of privacy to not disclose to governments or to workers and consumers the dangers they know about their own products. 

So we now face a crisis that is at once environmental, political, and spiritual/moral. According to the AFL-CIO in a report released for April 28ths Workers Memorial Day, "On an average day in 2004, 152 workers lost their lives as a result of workplace injuries and diseases and another 11,780 were injured." The rate of death and disability among workers has been climbing since Bush became president for the first time in decades, in large part because funding for OSHA and mine safety have been cut. At the same time, Bill Frist and Senate and House Republicans want to wipe out asbestos victim's right to sue for damages (they promote it as "helping asbestos victims"), to protect companies like Halliburton that have huge asbestos liabilities. 

How can we best return to our governments the essential values of protecting the "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" of their people, and separate from our governments contamination by the profit motive, which rightly should remain in the realm of business and not politics? How do we awaken our voters from the spiritual malaise of consumerism run amok? And what are the most appropriate and practical and positive steps we can take now to remedy the damage already done to our air, food, water, and other commons by the recent insinuation of corporatism into our legislatures and high political offices? 

The first part of the answer is for us to awaken to the very real moral and spiritual dilemma we face. This a moral and spiritual dilemma because it transcends politics: it literally means life or death for our citizens and our planet. 

Next, we must show up at the ballot box and send clear messages to our elected officials to correct this illness in our body politic. And, then (or perhaps concurrently), we must convince our governments to use their powers of persuasion (through policies like tax breaks and other incentives) to promote renewable and non-toxic forms of energy, agriculture, and medicine, and re-empower our regulatory agencies which have been so badly infiltrated and taken over by the very corporations they were put in place to constrain. 

If we do this, and do it soon, our children may still inherit a world that can is just and decent and healthy. 

And if you'd like to say a prayer for Carl, I know him well enough to believe that he'd appreciate it. I was his first child.


----------



## editec (Jul 15, 2008)

jreeves said:


> so No Proof Of Your Original Delusion Or Your Morphed Delusion, I See....
> 
> The Offer Still Stands, Show Proof The Us Has Been Massively Importing Oil From Iraq Or That Exxon Has Been Massively Exporting Oil From Iraq For Profits? If You Can't Prove Either You May Want To See A Mental Health Professional To Deal With Your Schitzo Delusions....


 
Fyi:




> *baghdad: Iraq's Oil Output Shot Up In November 2007 And The Ministry In Charge Of Production Forecast On Wednesday That It Will Reach 3 Million Barrels Per Day By The End Of 2008.*
> 
> *ministry Spokesman Assem Jihad Said Iraq's Average Production Was 2.4 Million Barrels Per Day In November. Exports Stood At Around 1.9 Million Barrels Per Day, Sold At An Average Price Of Us$83.87 Per Barrel.*
> 
> ...


*,*


----------



## editec (Jul 15, 2008)

jreeves said:


> so No Proof Of Your Original Delusion Or Your Morphed Delusion, I See....
> 
> The Offer Still Stands, Show Proof The Us Has Been Massively Importing Oil From Iraq Or That Exxon Has Been Massively Exporting Oil From Iraq For Profits? If You Can't Prove Either You May Want To See A Mental Health Professional To Deal With Your Schitzo Delusions....


 
Fyi:



> *baghdad: Iraq's Oil Output Shot Up In November 2007 And The Ministry In Charge Of Production Forecast On Wednesday That It Will Reach 3 Million Barrels Per Day By The End Of 2008.*
> 
> *ministry Spokesman Assem Jihad Said Iraq's Average Production Was 2.4 Million Barrels Per Day In November. Exports Stood At Around 1.9 Million Barrels Per Day, Sold At An Average Price Of Us$83.87 Per Barrel.*
> 
> ...


*,*


----------



## Wow (Jul 15, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Now the oil companies are responsible for the weak dollar? Wow, you need to pop your medication....


The USD is weak compared too......the Euro dollar? Who cares?
Do not buy Euro products and start buying American products, we will see the value of the USD increase.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 15, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> I'm listening quite well.  And I here you blamining everybody but yourself for your position in life.
> 
> When government regulation is in place it puts an added financial burden on companies to comply with them.  A burden that is invariably passed on to the consumer.  So what's your plan?  Tell comanies they just have to eat it?



I'm in a pretty good position in life.  See, you neo nuts always think Liberals are complaining for themselves, when that's not the case.  I make more than enough to save for retirement.  Things just could be better.  I make more than enough to pay the outragous gas prices.  I didn't cause gas gouging.  I bought my home 12 years ago for CHEAP.  I can wait out the sub prime crash that the gop caused.

You are the ones making excuses for politicians who you admit are greedy and corrupt.  

So now you can fall back on the argument that, "democrats are just as bad as Republicans", because you really know not what you are talking about.  LOL.  

I have a 401K.  I supposed it is my fault that my stocks took a dump?  Or it's the Unions fault?  Or it is lazy American workers fault?  You are the one blaming everyone else, except for the real culprits.  YOu are gullable and a house slave.  Please don't vote!


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 15, 2008)

Wow said:


> The USD is weak compared too......the Euro dollar? Who cares?
> Do not buy Euro products and start buying American products, we will see the value of the USD increase.



what american products dumb shit.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 15, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > So you are willing to claim for yourself then that you have no ownsership in where you currently find yourself in life?
> ...


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 15, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> I'm listening quite well.  And I here you blamining everybody but yourself for your position in life.
> 
> When government regulation is in place it puts an added financial burden on companies to comply with them.  A burden that is invariably passed on to the consumer.  So what's your plan?  Tell comanies they just have to eat it?



This will debunk your theory that regulations and government involvement is the problem.  

1. There is no such thing as a "free market." 

2. The "middle class" is the creation of government intervention in the marketplace, and won't exist without it (as millions of Americans and Europeans are discovering). 

The conservative belief in "free markets" is a bit like the Catholic Church's insistence that the Earth was at the center of the Solar System in the Twelfth Century. It's widely believed by those in power, those who challenge it are branded heretics and ridiculed, and it is wrong. 

In actual fact, there is no such thing as a "free market." Markets are the creation of government. 

Governments provide a stable currency to make markets possible. They provide a legal infrastructure and court systems to enforce the contracts that make markets possible. They provide educated workforces through public education, and those workers show up at their places of business after traveling on public roads, rails, or airways provided by government. Businesses that use the "free market" are protected by police and fire departments provided by government, and send their communications - from phone to fax to internet - over lines that follow public rights-of-way maintained and protected by government. 

And, most important, the rules of the game of business are defined by government. Any sports fan can tell you that football, baseball, or hockey without rules and referees would be a mess. Similarly, business without rules won't work. 

Which explains why conservative economics wiped out the middle class during the period from 1880 to 1932, and why, when Reagan again began applying conservative economics, the middle class again began to vanish in America in the 1980s - a process that has dramatically picked up steam under George W. Bush. 

The conservative mantra is "let the market decide." But there is no market independent of government, so what they're really saying is, "Stop corporations from defending workers and building a middle class, and let the corporations decide how much to pay for labor and how to trade." This is, at best, destructive to national and international economies, and, at worst, destructive to democracy itself. 

Markets are a creation of government, just as corporations exist only by authorization of government. Governments set the rules of the market. And, since our government is of, by, and for We The People, those rules have historically been set to first maximize the public good resulting from people doing business. 

If you want to play the game of business, we've said in the US since 1784 (when Tench Coxe got the first tariffs passed "to protect domestic industries") then you have to play in a way that both makes you money AND serves the public interest. 

Which requires us to puncture the second balloon of popular belief. The "middle class" is not the natural result of freeing business to do whatever it wants, of "free and open markets," or of "free trade." The "middle class" is not a normal result of "free markets." Those policies will produce a small but powerful wealthy class, a small "middle" mercantilist class, and a huge and terrified worker class which have traditionally been called "serfs." 

The middle class is a new invention of liberal democracies, the direct result of governments defining the rules of the game of business. It is, quite simply, an artifact of government regulation of markets and tax laws. 

When government sets the rules of the game of business in such a way that working people must receive a living wage, labor has the power to organize into unions just as capital can organize into corporations, and domestic industries are protected from overseas competition, a middle class will emerge. When government gives up these functions, the middle class vanishes and we return to the Dickens-era "normal" form of totally free market conservative economics where the rich get richer while the working poor are kept in a constant state of fear and anxiety so the cost of their labor will always be cheap. 

When conservatives rail in the media of the dangers of "returning to Smoot Hawley, which created the Great Depression," all they do is reveal their ignorance of economics and history. The Smoot-Hawley tariff legislation, which increased taxes on some imported goods by a third to two-thirds to protect American industries, was signed into law on June 17, 1930, well into the Great Depression. In the following two years, international trade dropped from 6 percent of GNP to roughly 2 percent of GNP (between 1930 and 1932), but most of that was the result of the depression going worldwide, not Smoot-Hawley. The main result of Smoot-Hawley was that American businesses now had strong financial incentives to do business with other American companies, rather than bring in products made with cheaper foreign labor: Americans started trading with other Americans. 

Smoot-Hawley "protectionist" legislation did not cause the Great Depression, and while it may have had a slight short-term negative effect on the economy ("1.4 percent at most" according to many historians) its long-term effect was to bring American jobs back to America. 

The fact that the "marketplace" was an artifact of government activity was well known to our Founders. As Thomas Jefferson said in an 1803 letter to David Williams, "The greatest evils of populous society have ever appeared to me to spring from the vicious distribution of its members among the occupations... But when, by a blind concourse, particular occupations are ruinously overcharged and others left in want of hands, the national authorities can do much towards restoring the equilibrium." 

And the "national authorities," in Jefferson's mind, should be the Congress, as he wrote in a series of answers to the French politician de Meusnier in 1786: "The commerce of the States cannot be regulated to the best advantage but by a single body, and no body so proper as Congress." 

Of course, there were conservatives (like Hamilton and Adams) in Jefferson's time, too, who took exception, thinking that the trickle-down theory that had dominated feudal Europe for ten centuries was a stable and healthy form of governance. Jefferson took exception, in an 1809 letter to members of his Democratic Republican Party (now called the Democratic Party): "The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government." 

But, conservatives say, government is the problem, not the solution. 

Of course, they can't explain how it was that the repeated series of huge tax cuts for the wealthy by the Herbert Hoover administration brought us the Great Depression, while raising taxes to provide for an active and interventionist government to protect the rights of labor to organize throughout the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s led us to the Golden Age of the American Middle Class. (The top tax rate in 1930 under Hoover was 25 percent, and even that was only paid by about a fifth of wealthy Americans. Thirty years later, the top tax rate was 91 percent, and held at 70 percent until Reagan began dismantling the middle class. As the top rate dropped, so did the middle class it helped create.) 

Thomas Jefferson pointed out, in an 1816 letter to William H. Crawford, "Every society has a right to fix the fundamental principles of its association." He also pointed out in that letter that some people - and businesses - would prefer that government not play referee to the game of business, not fix rules that protect labor or provide for the protection of the commons and the public good. 

We must, Jefferson wrote to Crawford, "...say to all [such] individuals, that if they contemplate pursuits beyond the limits of these principles and involving dangers which the society chooses to avoid, they must go somewhere else for their exercise; that we want no citizens, and still less ephemeral and pseudo-citizens [like corporations], on such terms. We may exclude them from our territory, as we do persons infected with disease." 

Most of the Founders advocated - and all ultimately passed - tariffs to protect domestic industries and workers. Seventy years later, Abraham Lincoln actively stood up for the right for labor to organize, intervening in several strikes to stop corporations and local governments from using hired goon squads to beat and murder strikers. 

But conservative economics - the return of ancient feudalism - rose up after Lincoln's death and reigned through the Gilded Age, creating both great wealth and a huge population of what today we call the "working poor." American reaction to these disparities gave birth to the Populist, Progressive, and modern Labor movements. Two generations later, Franklin Roosevelt brought us out of Herbert Hoover's conservative-economics-produced Great Depression and bequeathed us with more than a half-century of prosperity. 

But now the conservatives are back in the driver's seat, and heading us back toward feudalism and serfdom (and possibly another Great Depression). 

Only a return to liberal economic policies - a return to We The People again setting and enforcing the rules of the game of business - will reverse this dangerous trend. We've done it before, with tariffs, anti-trust legislation, and worker protections ranging from enforcing the rights of organized labor to restricting American companies' access to cheap foreign labor through visas and tariffs. The result was the production of something never before seen in history: a strong and vibrant middle class. 

If the remnants of that modern middle class are to survive - and grow - we must learn the lessons of the past and return to the policies that in the 1780s and the late 1930s brought this nation back from the brink of economic disaster.


----------



## Bern80 (Jul 15, 2008)

You couldn't be more wrong if you wanted to be.  you are saying if they were no government people wouldn't trade or sell goods? oooookaaay.

You are absolutely amazing.  You piss and moan about the cost of things.  healthcare is a prime example of how cost have been driven up due to government regulation.

the people in Detroit you cry for are not absolved of responsibility from the position they found themselves in.  No one made them work for Ford.  No one made them stay ate the level of education they had that made them disposable.  Unless they had a contract that garunteed a job for life, while unfortuante, where they were and where they will go lies largely upon them.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 15, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> You couldn't be more wrong if you wanted to be.  you are saying if they were no government people wouldn't trade or sell goods? oooookaaay.
> 
> You are absolutely amazing.  You piss and moan about the cost of things.  healthcare is a prime example of how cost have been driven up due to government regulation.
> 
> the people in Detroit you cry for are not absolved of responsibility from the position they found themselves in.  No one made them work for Ford.  No one made them stay ate the level of education they had that made them disposable.  Unless they had a contract that garunteed a job for life, while unfortuante, where they were and where they will go lies largely upon them.



That's what you got out of that article?  I'm saying if there were no government, you'd be a fucking pesant, surf or broke ass.  The man would keep you down.  Corporations don't pay well because they are kind and generous and you know it.  It isn't supply and demand.  If it weren't for government, EVERY COMPANY would pay you shit.  Why do you think people came over on the Mayflower?  It wasn't just "freedom of religion", but that's all you learned in your history book.

Oh My God you are so simple minded.  You are too conservative to even try to learn.  WOW!!  WOW!!!


----------



## Wow (Jul 15, 2008)

The American people own this oil.
Not Congress nor Obama.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 15, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> You couldn't be more wrong if you wanted to be.  you are saying if they were no government people wouldn't trade or sell goods? oooookaaay.
> 
> You are absolutely amazing.  You piss and moan about the cost of things.  healthcare is a prime example of how cost have been driven up due to government regulation.
> 
> the people in Detroit you cry for are not absolved of responsibility from the position they found themselves in.  No one made them work for Ford.  No one made them stay ate the level of education they had that made them disposable.  Unless they had a contract that garunteed a job for life, while unfortuante, where they were and where they will go lies largely upon them.




You don't feel sorry for anyone.  You are faulting American workers for taking jobs that were considered good jobs until the GOP sent those jobs down south, AND THEN TO MEXICO!!! 

Next you will blame the people that took jobs down south with Toyota when those jobs go to Mexico.  

Why the fuck do you think communities are so happy when a car manufacturer moves to their state/community?  It means jobs for the masses.

You are blaming the masses because they didn't all go to college and all become doctors.

The world needs ditch diggers.

You think I'm complaining for myself, and I am not.

But you are blaming people for taking what were good jobs. 

People like you sicken me.  You are so unable to put yourself in someone elses shoes.

So, tell me who you do feel sorry for.  You said you feel sorry for some people.  Give us some examples, and I'll play devils advocate and show you how I can be just as ignorant and arrogant as you are.  

Fuck I can't stand people like you.  As if you are one of the rich.  As if you aren't a middle class person yourself.  I hope you lose your job and have to practice what you preach.  You'll be the first one applying for welfare and you will say, "i paid into the system so I deserve it", well we all paid into the system.  And most of us will never need to beg for government cheese.  But we don't begrudge people that do.  But you do, selfish arrogant prick.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 15, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> You couldn't be more wrong if you wanted to be.  you are saying if they were no government people wouldn't trade or sell goods? oooookaaay.
> 
> You are absolutely amazing.  You piss and moan about the cost of things.  healthcare is a prime example of how cost have been driven up due to government regulation.
> 
> the people in Detroit you cry for are not absolved of responsibility from the position they found themselves in.  No one made them work for Ford.  No one made them stay ate the level of education they had that made them disposable.  Unless they had a contract that garunteed a job for life, while unfortuante, where they were and where they will go lies largely upon them.



And you are saying Thom Hartmann is wrong?  You don't say you disagree. You actually have the balls to say that genious is WRONG???   Who the fuck are you?  What op ed pieces do you write that people publish.

I read your opinions and I want to vomit.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 15, 2008)

Wow said:


> The American people own this oil.
> Not Congress nor Obama.



Wow, you have it half right.  We do own the oil.  So why are the oil companies not selling it to us for cheap?


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 15, 2008)

Wow said:


> The American people own this oil.
> Not Congress nor Obama.



We don't have a free market in the energy industry. Everybody knows that. We give a trillion a year in subsidies, direct and indirect subsidies, to oil, and somewhere near a trillion dollars to coal. Nuclear energy is also highly subsidized. If we had a real free market that does what a market is supposed to do, which is to reward good behavior and punish bad behavior and inefficiency, wind, solar, geothermal and tidal would easily triumph in the marketplace. You would see them immediately taking over the marketplace. The biggest impediment is these huge subsidies we're pouring into incumbents.


----------



## Bern80 (Jul 15, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> And you are saying Thom Hartmann is wrong?  You don't say you disagree. You actually have the balls to say that genious is WRONG???   Who the fuck are you?  What op ed pieces do you write that people publish.
> 
> I read your opinions and I want to vomit.



you are obviously far too emotional and close minded to have an inteligent conversation.  You hear what you want to hear.

In regards to your other posts and for the sake of being clear; I have plenty of sympathy for people.

the people I have no sympathy for are those that have the ability to improve themselves, but dont' and blame others for it.


----------



## BrianH (Jul 15, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> you are a terrorist ruining the county from within.
> 
> you said I said something I didn't.  please provide proof I did liar.



And you have room to talk???


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 15, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> and if I did its because all you assholes sound the same.  I confused you with another prick maybe.



ahh lol, likely excuse. 

no you just tell lies and hope nobody will call you on them. Not to mention you can not make a post with out spewing name calling and insults. The surest sign of a weak mind.



sealybobo said:


> you said I said something I didn't. please provide proof I did liar.



Wow, your one to talk on this count. You have repeatedly told lies about me. Completely making up things I said. 

what a piece of work you are.


----------



## editec (Jul 15, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> We don't have a free market in the energy industry. Everybody knows that. We give a trillion a year in subsidies, direct and indirect subsidies, to oil, and somewhere near a trillion dollars to coal. Nuclear energy is also highly subsidized. If we had a real free market that does what a market is supposed to do, which is to reward good behavior and punish bad behavior and inefficiency, wind, solar, geothermal and tidal would easily triumph in the marketplace. You would see them immediately taking over the marketplace. The biggest impediment is these huge subsidies we're pouring into incumbents.


 
Spot on.


----------



## Bern80 (Jul 15, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> We don't have a free market in the energy industry. Everybody knows that. We give a trillion a year in subsidies, direct and indirect subsidies, to oil, and somewhere near a trillion dollars to coal. Nuclear energy is also highly subsidized. If we had a real free market that does what a market is supposed to do, which is to reward good behavior and punish bad behavior and inefficiency, wind, solar, geothermal and tidal would easily triumph in the marketplace. You would see them immediately taking over the marketplace. The biggest impediment is these huge subsidies we're pouring into incumbents.



Make up your mind would ya.  You spend all this time railing against the free market then complain about oil and how much it costs claiming it is not in the free market.  Maybe try connecting the dots on that one.  Or are you perfectly happy with the non-free market, energy industry has brought us?


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 15, 2008)

Bern80 said:


> Make up your mind would ya.  You spend all this time railing against the free market then complain about oil and how much it costs claiming it is not in the free market.  Maybe try connecting the dots on that one.  Or are you perfectly happy with the non-free market, energy industry has brought us?



Thank you for proving this conversation is way over your head.

PS.  You Neo Nuts can start claiming victory in Iraq:

Iraqis want U.S. Troops out. No one was expecting Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to speak up in favor of withdrawalafter all, he's close with the Bush administration. But with elections in Iraq coming up, and a great majority of Iraqis opposed to a prolonged U.S. occupation, Maliki can't afford to toe the Bush line. So he's surprised everyone by standing up this week for a timetable for troop withdrawals and a date certain to end the war. The LA Times headline reads, "Iraqi prime minister advocates withdrawal timeline."

As a result, the "endless war agreement" Bush has been pushing fell through. Since January, hundreds of thousands of us pushed Congress to stand up to President Bush's proposed treaty with Iraq, which would have tied the next President's hands and made it much harder to get out. This week, the Washington Post reported that that agreement has fallen throughIraqi leaders are putting their feet down and demanding a much shorter agreement.

And now even the Pentagon is considering faster timelines. According to reporter Michael Hirsh at Newsweek, "a forthcoming Pentagon-sponsored report" will recommend a big drawdown of troopssuggesting "that U.S. forces be reduced to as few as 50,000 by the spring of 2009, down from about 150,000 now."


----------



## editec (Jul 15, 2008)

_Man!_

 I've just waded though four or five of your longer posts, here.

Shit dude, you're on fire.

Frustrating trying to teach people the complex issues that frame our world, isn't it?

The only thing you can fall back on is that *reality inevitably trumps bullshit*. (AKA Truth will out!)

Small comfort, I know, given that today's reality is a rising price of oil and food, a falling market, idiotic wars in Asia

Even more so given that tomorrow's reality is  likely to get worse, for precisely some of the issues that you are now ATTEMPTING to school these people about, is it not?

Take heart that _some _of the stuff you tell them, now, will help them when the;re ready to take off their ideological tinted glasses and just look at the facts *no matter where those facts take them.*

Partisans are blind, dude.

Trying to explain to them that there are hues of colors is sort of a waste of good ascii.


----------



## Bern80 (Jul 15, 2008)

editec said:


> _Man!_
> 
> I've just waded though four or five of your longer posts, here.
> 
> ...



I'm not sure who you're trying to boost up, me or bobo, but you're right.  Truth will win out in the end.  And the truth is the vast majority of people do not exercise their full potential.  Few people test themselves to see what they can actually achieve.  As I said before this is something that is easily observable every single day.  You can look at the people you work with or your friends and ask yourself why they aren't they wealthy?

In bobo's case the answer is going to be it's the MAN keeping them down.  Which can be true only if that person has exercised their fullest potential and been meat by the MAN road blocking them at every turn. 

Any person who is honest with themselves can see that ultimately the buck stops with yourself.  Even if you've been dealth the worst of hands how you deal with it is your decision.  The left seems to leave that out or not acknowledge that people have far more control over their destinies then they want to give credit for.  I guess if people did we wouldn't need democrats would we?  

A wise man once said circumstances don't make the person.  They reveal him for the person he is.


----------



## midcan5 (Jul 16, 2008)

Most people who live their lives in the real world know the Free Market is a myth. But still the libertarian believers and capitalist church worshipers worship at its altar, what they usually mean is I got mine....

A $250 "Freebie" for Every Taxpayer - Bush's Voodoo Stimulus Package
By Mike Whitney 

"Former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers has recommended a "timely, targeted and temporary" tax rebate "of $250 per tax-filer, and $500 per couple for families with taxable income of less than $100,000." (WSJ) Some variation of Summer's plan will undoubtedly be implemented in the near future. The "invisible hand" of the market---which Bush praises ad nauseam---will be used to steer the Fed's helicopters as they scatter the nation's wealth like confetti across the fruited plains."
...
"30 years of Reaganism has destroyed the country. It's eviscerated our industrial base, broken the social contract, crushed our unions, savaged our schools and infrastructure, and shifted the nation's wealth from the middle class to the upper 5 per cent. Wages have stagnated, the dollar is nosediving, the banking system is paralyzed, and subprime poison is surging through the global system shuddering banks and businesses around the world."

Mike Whitney: Bush's Voodoo Stimulus Package


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 16, 2008)

Of course it is not totally free, FDR and the Dems, and yes even the Republican have seen to that, but then it is still more free than many markets around the world.


----------



## BrianH (Jul 16, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> what american products dumb shit.



American Made Products and/or Services Made in USA

there's plenty of American products dumb shit Sr.  Believe it or not, there's even gas stations that you can get your gas that was refined out of oil drilled right here in the U.S.  The company itself may get some gas from overseas, but some companies get the majority of their gas from here.


----------



## midcan5 (Jul 19, 2008)

This was placed in the flame zone and locked, I still have no idea why?

[ I have been thinking about the price of oil, and the whimpering from the republicans and others. Oil prices are driven by supply, demand, and competition. Demand is driven by lifestyle. Now if a women cannot make a mistake and welfare participants cannot make a mistake then Americans who have made bad decisions regarding energy should suffer the same social darwinistic plight. So I guess I don't understand why republicans are blaming drilling, aka ruining our planet, for their own bad decisions.

Just as republicans and others complain about taxes, shouldn't citizens of the world complain about wasteful lifestyles that have the potential to ruin mother earth? It would seem from a moral point of view to be a fair conclusion. So again let me repeat my question, if we are irresponsible with energy then why the complaints? Didn't we create this situations? Answers welcome. ]

Additional thoughts:

It has to be clear to any thinking person that our energy usage is wasteful, our homes are too big, our cars are too big, and we live too far from work and each other. Having all this space is both a blessing and a curse.

Al Gore is now talking about a concerted effort to wean us off fossil fuels. Does anyone remember Jimmy Carter saying the same thing and being castigated for his honesty? Let's hope Americans see the light this time, but if prices go down, as they should, we will all return to our bubble until the next gnashing of teeth and finger pointing. But do this next time, point the finger at yourself if your life is one of wasted energy.

original
http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-flame-zone/54977-is-drilling-equivalent-to-welfare.html

*PS* the silliness of the 'drilling will reduce prices' propaganda is beyond stupid considering there are 68 million acres they aren't drilling now. Know why? Cause you fools are paying the price and there's plenty of the damned stuff available already.

*Footnote:* I have noticed some very angry conservatives recently, while that is not hard to understand given the failures of conservatism since Reagan, it is troubling as their only goal is bash the opponent, their own policies being a complete failure. 



*A vote for John McCain is a vote against the fundamental principle of America, the right of the individual to lead their life privately without the government interfering.*


----------



## midcan5 (Jul 20, 2008)

LordBrownTrout said:
			
		

> Well, if we just sit here in limbo and do nothing about our energy we're gonna be in some serious trouble soon. I hate the "can't do" attitude that this country has become accustomed to. We can solve our problems but too many politicians are happy creating wedge issues to drive one against the other and we're the unfortunate beneficiaries of such lunacy. The problem is Washington.



Washington? or is it the power of corporate interests in Washington? Jimmy Carter once talked about this in a serious manner and he was criticized soundly. Have we changed, have corporations changed? Doubtful. Now Al Gore talks of it and Gore is another person who is criticized. Anyone notice a pattern here?


----------



## Gunny (Jul 20, 2008)

midcan5 said:


> This was placed in the flame zone and locked, I still have no idea why?



Try reading the last post in the thread in the flame zone.  I spelled it out pretty well.

Once you post this, it is the intellectual property of USMB, and will be moved, closed or both or left open or otherwise regulated at moderator discretion.  Obviously I had no problem with the thread itself or I would not have told you that you could repost it.  But I'm even going to help you out a little.


----------



## midcan5 (Jul 22, 2008)

In the event of a shortage there would be chaos, wise words from a president often criticized but who had more sense than most. 


"Tonight I want to have an unpleasant talk with you about a problem unprecedented in our history. With the exception of preventing war, this is the greatest challenge our country will face during our lifetimes. The energy crisis has not yet overwhelmed us, but it will if we do not act quickly.

It is a problem we will not solve in the next few years, and it is likely to get progressively worse through the rest of this century.

We must not be selfish or timid if we hope to have a decent world for our children and grandchildren.

We simply must balance our demand for energy with our rapidly shrinking resources. By acting now, we can control our future instead of letting the future control us.

Two days from now, I will present my energy proposals to the Congress. Its members will be my partners and they have already given me a great deal of valuable advice. Many of these proposals will be unpopular. Some will cause you to put up with inconveniences and to make sacrifices.

.....

*The world has not prepared for the future. During the 1950s, people used twice as much oil as during the 1940s. During the 1960s, we used twice as much as during the 1950s. And in each of those decades, more oil was consumed than in all of mankind's previous history.

World consumption of oil is still going up. If it were possible to keep it rising during the 1970s and 1980s by 5 percent a year as it has in the past, we could use up all the proven reserves of oil in the entire world by the end of the next decade."*

Jimmy Carter delivered this televised speech on April 18, 1977.

American Experience | Jimmy Carter | Primary Sources


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 22, 2008)

BrianH said:


> American Made Products and/or Services Made in USA
> 
> there's plenty of American products dumb shit Sr.  Believe it or not, there's even gas stations that you can get your gas that was refined out of oil drilled right here in the U.S.  The company itself may get some gas from overseas, but some companies get the majority of their gas from here.



Silly man.  Look around your home.  You'll find everything is made outside the USA.  

Gas stations?  You mean the US gas stations like Exxon that are gouging us?  HOw patriotic you are to buy from them, sucker.

Read this sucker.

According to ScrewThatBulb.org (Screw That Bulb), GE is asking consumers and its employees to sign a pledge to use compact fluorescent bulbs. Since GE makes incandescent bulbs in the U.S. and CFs are made in China, GE Lighting employees contend they're being forced to pledge to put themselves out of a job.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 22, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> Silly man.  Look around your home.  You'll find everything is made outside the USA.
> 
> Gas stations?  You mean the US gas stations like Exxon that are gouging us?  HOw patriotic you are to buy from them, sucker.




So where do you by your gas then??


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 22, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> So where do you by your gas then??



The cheapest gas station I can find!!!!!!

Fuck the oil companies.  

But I only buy American made cars.  And I have a Focus for the 35 miles to the gallon because I drive 70 miles round trip a day.  I used to drive an F150 or sometimes a Ranger 4x4.  

I always lease.  Ford A Plan baby!!!


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 22, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> Of course it is not totally free, FDR and the Dems, and yes even the Republican have seen to that, but then it is still more free than many markets around the world.



Free markets.  Translation.  Let the consumers get gouged on necessities.  The company lighting my home doesn't have competition.  The cable companies and oil companies are in collution together.

The banks can not be trusted to regulate themselves.

Neither can the home loan industry, or credit card companies or telephone companies or health care companies.  

Free markets.  Free to fuck you in the #2 hole buddy.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 22, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> The cheapest gas station I can find!!!!!!
> 
> Fuck the oil companies.
> 
> ...



so you admit you buy your gas from the same place we all do, big oil.


oh Both cars I own are made in America 

A Saturn SL1 and a Dodge Dakota which is rusting in the driveway because it costs to damn much to drive


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 22, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> Free markets.  Translation.  Let the consumers get gouged on necessities.  The company lighting my home doesn't have competition.  The cable companies and oil companies are in collution together.
> 
> The banks can not be trusted to regulate themselves.
> 
> ...



Yep, the idea is to get a good balance between free markets, and proper control and over sight of those markets.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 22, 2008)

midcan5 said:


> Washington? or is it the power of corporate interests in Washington? Jimmy Carter once talked about this in a serious manner and he was criticized soundly. Have we changed, have corporations changed? Doubtful. Now Al Gore talks of it and Gore is another person who is criticized. Anyone notice a pattern here?



Exactly.

Ever see the movie There Will Be Blood?  It's about an oil man from late 1800's to the Great Depression.  Daniel Day Lewis.  Pretty good movie.  He was a self made man, but also ruthless!!!!

Here is my favorite line from the movie.  This preacher wants to sell him a plot of land because he is desperate, because it is the great depression.  This oil man already robbed him of land earlier in the movie.  So the oil man makes the preacher yell, "there is no god and I'm a false profit", then he tells him that he has already taken the oil because he owns all the land surrounding it:

Plainview: I'm so sorry, here, if you have a milkshake, and I have a straw. There it is, that's a straw, you see? You watching?. And my straw reaches acroooooooss the room, and starts to drink your milkshake... I... drink... your... milkshake! 
[sucking sound] 
Plainview: I drink it up! 

And then the oil man killed the preacher with a bowling pin.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 22, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> Yep, the idea is to get a good balance between free markets, and proper control and over sight of those markets.



oh my god!!!  It wasn't you, but do you know how many right wing loonies have called me a socialist for saying that very same thing?


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 22, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> oh my god!!!  It wasn't you, but do you know how many right wing loonies have called me a socialist for saying that very same thing?



Well, despite what you may think I am no right wing loon. We live in the real world, were only practical solutions work, not blind devotion to your party of choice.


----------



## BrianH (Jul 22, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> Well, despite what you may think I am no right wing loon. We live in the real world, were only practical solutions work, not blind devotion to your party of choice.


----------



## midcan5 (Jul 24, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> Well, despite what you may think I am no right wing loon. We live in the real world, were only practical solutions work, not blind devotion to your party of choice.



And when president Cheney met with oil executives in secret do you think they were planning 'practical solutions' that would help the average American?


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 24, 2008)

midcan5 said:


> And when president Cheney met with oil executives in secret do you think they were planning 'practical solutions' that would help the average American?



That's why Charlie is voting for Bob Barr.  You know, the guy that harrassed Bill Clinton for 8 years even though he had a mistress himself?  You know, the guy who with Ken Starr cost America millions of dollars for NOTHING.  

But Bob is counting on the fact that voters have short memories.  

And Charlie wants change and thinks Bob Barr is going to give it to him.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 24, 2008)

BrianH said:


>



Why don't you switch up the Jim Carrey picture to something else?


----------



## midcan5 (Jul 24, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> That's why Charlie is voting for Bob Barr.  You know, the guy that harrassed Bill Clinton for 8 years even though he had a mistress himself?  You know, the guy who with Ken Starr cost America millions of dollars for NOTHING.
> 
> But Bob is counting on the fact that voters have short memories.
> 
> And Charlie wants change and thinks Bob Barr is going to give it to him.



I agree, Barr has the charisma of a tired drunk railing against the perils of drinking.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 24, 2008)

I just love how Bobo continues to tell people why I am voting for Barr, ignoring what I have said repeatedly. I am voting for him in the hopes of giving the LP a boost, and sending a message to the Republican party that Conservatives have had it with them. 

I have said on several occasions if I actually thought Barr could win, I would rethink my vote.

Not at all shocking that Bobo would make false claims about me again though. He does it all the time.


----------



## BrianH (Jul 24, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> Why don't you switch up the Jim Carrey picture to something else?



Because it represents what I do every time I read one of you incoherent and illogical posts.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 24, 2008)

midcan5 said:


> I agree, Barr has the charisma of a tired drunk railing against the perils of drinking.



Yep, good thing charisma is the only thing a president needs, considering you are voting for Obama.(sarcasm)

LOL

man you guys are so lost.


----------



## midcan5 (Jul 25, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> Yep, good thing charisma is the only thing a president needs, considering you are voting for Obama.(sarcasm)



Isn't it a bit presumptuous for you to know why I would be voting for anyone? You're not twelve are you? You voted for the worst president in modern history, it may behoove you to follow the choice of others?


----------



## midcan5 (Aug 3, 2008)

McCain Embraces Newts Big Oil Lie, Chants Drill More, Drill Now, Pay Less

"McCain in Bakersfield, CA (AP)Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has completed his journey from maverick to the heart of the right-wing/Big Oil movement. His travels began last month when he abandoned his longheld opposition to offshore drilling. With increasing ease, McCain is shilling for the oil industrys agenda. In todays appearance before the Urban League, McCain said...."

Wonk Room  McCain Embraces Newt&#8217;s Big Oil Lie, Chants &#8216;Drill More, Drill Now, Pay Less&#8217;

Think Progress  Report: McCain Received $881,450 From Big Oil Since He Announced Support For Offshore Drilling


----------



## jreeves (Aug 3, 2008)

midcan5 said:


> McCain Embraces Newts Big Oil Lie, Chants Drill More, Drill Now, Pay Less
> 
> "McCain in Bakersfield, CA (AP)Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has completed his journey from maverick to the heart of the right-wing/Big Oil movement. His travels began last month when he abandoned his longheld opposition to offshore drilling. With increasing ease, McCain is shilling for the oil industrys agenda. In todays appearance before the Urban League, McCain said...."
> 
> ...



Here's the same lie spread on another thread....
You don't think 4$ a gallon would cause someone to rethink their position of limiting our domestic supply?


----------



## midcan5 (Aug 4, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Here's the same lie spread on another thread....
> You don't think 4$ a gallon would cause someone to rethink their position of limiting our domestic supply?



Where is the lie? Are you thinking for him? If he truly had any sense he would not be for drilling as oil prices are going down now as we use it more efficiently. With competition it would return to normal in a minute and you jackasses who want to ruin our grandchildren's world can find some other distraction to dwell on and on and on.....


----------



## midcan5 (Aug 5, 2008)

Tire pressure v Drilling - I found this interesting.

The Tire-Gauge Solution: No Joke - TIME


----------



## jreeves (Aug 5, 2008)

midcan5 said:


> Where is the lie? Are you thinking for him? If he truly had any sense he would not be for drilling as oil prices are going down now as we use it more efficiently. With competition it would return to normal in a minute and you jackasses who want to ruin our grandchildren's world can find some other distraction to dwell on and on and on.....



So you think "Big Oil" has bought MCcain? So these Big Oil Corporations have directly funded Mccain's campaign? If not then that would make your previous statement a lie.


----------



## jreeves (Aug 5, 2008)

midcan5 said:


> Tire pressure v Drilling - I found this interesting.
> 
> The Tire-Gauge Solution: No Joke - TIME



But what are we to do with the people with slow leaking tires...


----------



## Chris (Aug 6, 2008)

jreeves said:


> So you think "Big Oil" has bought MCcain? So these Big Oil Corporations have directly funded Mccain's campaign? If not then that would make your previous statement a lie.



Industry Gushed Money After Reversal on Drilling - washingtonpost.com


----------



## jreeves (Aug 6, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Industry Gushed Money After Reversal on Drilling - washingtonpost.com



Rasmussen Reports: The most comprehensive public opinion coverage ever provided for a presidential election.
A new Rasmussen Reports telephone surveyconducted before McCain announced his intentions on the issue--*finds that 67% of voters believe that drilling should be allowed off the coasts of California, Florida and other states. *


----------



## jreeves (Aug 6, 2008)

Kirk said:


> Industry Gushed Money After Reversal on Drilling - washingtonpost.com


Citizens' Guide
Corporations and Unions
*The law also prohibits contributions from corporations and labor unions. *This prohibition applies to any incorporated organization, profit or nonprofit. For example, the owner of an incorporated "mom and pop" grocery store is not permitted to use a business account to make contributions. Instead, the owner would have to use a personal account. A corporate employee may make contributions through a nonrepayable corporate drawing account, which allows the individual to draw personal funds against salary, profits or other compensation.


----------



## editec (Aug 6, 2008)

midcan5 said:


> And when president Cheney met with oil executives in secret do you think they were planning 'practical solutions' that would help the average American?


 
Given the mess they made of the Iraqi occupation, and the Katrina incident (and while I personally _seriously doubt_ either Bush's or Cheyney's first concern is the welfare of the American people) it is _possible _that they screwed up the national energy plan badly, as well.

An unlikely explanation, I'll admit, but not entirely out of the realm of possibility.

Per usual, when it comes to evaluating the Bush regime's record, one finds oneself either thinking they are truly bad guys who just don't care about America and its people, or they're simply the kind of people for whom the concept of the PETER PRINCIPLE was invented.


----------



## midcan5 (Aug 7, 2008)

jreeves said:


> *finds that 67% of voters believe that drilling should be allowed off the coasts of California, Florida and other states. *



Only 67% - let's face it if people think drilling will reduce cost most don't care about the coast line or the future.


----------



## jreeves (Aug 8, 2008)

midcan5 said:


> Only 67% - let's face it if people think drilling will reduce cost most don't care about the coast line or the future.



No most people don't have their heads shoved up the enviromentalist's asses..
They know that drilling is not a major contributor to oil spills. They know that Oil companies have to follow stringent enviromental laws.


----------



## editec (Aug 9, 2008)

I do not think drilling represents a major threat to the environment.

Neither do I think that in the short run drilling will do much for the current cost of energy.


----------



## midcan5 (Aug 10, 2008)

editec said:


> I do not think drilling represents a major threat to the environment.
> 
> Neither do I think that in the short run drilling will do much for the current cost of energy.



Having seen some of the damage from oil spills I can't be sure. But the key item is any oil will enter the same market and only demand and the price the consumer is willing to pay will affect it until competition for petroleum based energy is real.


----------



## jreeves (Aug 10, 2008)

midcan5 said:


> Having seen some of the damage from oil spills I can't be sure. But the key item is any oil will enter the same market and only demand and the price the consumer is willing to pay will affect it until competition for petroleum based energy is real.



That's the reason oil prices have been dropping like a rock since President Bush announced the lifting of the executive ban on offshore drilling......


----------



## chapstic (Aug 11, 2008)

midcan5 said:


> Having seen some of the damage from oil spills I can't be sure. But the key item is any oil will enter the same market and only demand and the price the consumer is willing to pay will affect it until competition for petroleum based energy is real.



I'll go with nuclear power plants and coal power plants.  the "smoke" you see coming out of a coal power plant's smoke stack is cleaner then the "smoke" you see coming out of your car.


----------



## editec (Aug 11, 2008)

midcan5 said:


> Having seen some of the damage from oil spills I can't be sure.


 
While oil spills are often disasterous in the short and medium run, in the long run oil is biodegradable.



> But the key item is any oil will enter the same market and only demand and the price the consumer is willing to pay will affect it until competition for petroleum based energy is real.


 
The price people pay for oil will never be really market driven as long as the supply side of oil is controlled a very limited number of players.

Since the sources of petroleum are limited by mother nature, and since the cost of becoming a player on the supply side is so damned expensive, having a truly competitive market is virtually impossible.

Yes, the market for petro is probably an honestly market driven, once it leaves the wells, I acknowledge that much.

But being a supplier of the resource itself is not market driven in that 8th grade understanding of economics that most of us mean when we talk about free markets.

The truest "free market" we see in this world is the labor market, folks.

That is because basically there are 7 billion suppliers of labor all more or less competing for work. (Hence in the USA, for example, economists speak of having only 95% of us working as _full employment_)

As labor unions are on the decline, and since there is such a glut of talent in the world compared to the billets to fill them, there really is no market more competitive than the labor market.

That is basically why the value of _most_ people's labor is so low.

What the working classes really need to change economic dynamic is a really deadly world wide pandemic.

It's coming.. sooner or later the world (and the economy) we think is so permanent will change one way or the other.


----------



## midcan5 (Aug 13, 2008)

jreeves said:


> That's the reason oil prices have been dropping like a rock since President Bush announced the lifting of the executive ban on offshore drilling......



Bubbles burst, this one will too. And dropping a ban did that! We should shout from the roof tops: we are drilling and drilling and drilling, your imaginary world sounds like fun.


----------

