$5 a Gallon?!

HBL wrote:I know I'll get hammered by the more liberal types on this. Gas in some places in Cali has hit just about $5/gallon. I know my bro is paying somewhere in the high 3's back in NYC, mostly because they have the crap taxed out of them. Back when Bush was in office he got hammered when gas was hitting $3/gallon. The media was screaming for him to tap into the strategic petroleum oil reserves and that he was playing to his big oil people. Why hasn't the current PResident received the same type of critism? When Bush tapped the reserve and put more into the market the price dropped. WHile I love the idea of sensible green technology it's not here yet. It's all so he can press his will and the government's will upon us, giving money to green initiatives that go bankrupt and waste more of our money. Are you going to pay for me to by a new car? Hmmm? I think the idea of the climbing carpool is sweet! I think it has the makings of an epic movie!!!

Count me in on the climbing carpool!!!!

David Sahalie wrote: yes, euros pay more in taxes in paychecks and at the pump because they have social welfare programs like subsidized housing, social security at any age, and healthcare. yes, they are going bankrupt, and also is the US. but the US is going bankrupt because of the the 1% of the 1% that don't want to pay any taxes.

David, the US is going bankrupt because we keep printing money without backing, and bailing out corporations, and funding lousy business plans, and waging endless wars, and skewing and screwing capitalistic functions, and pushing out business (ridiculous corporate tax rates), and relying on others to produce/manufacture the goods we consume (living on imports).

We're going broke because our political leaders are creating policies that support socialist doctrine/agenda and themselves, and foreign support (imports and money), and falsified feelgoodism (welfare states and environmental whackery); and illegal immigration, and poor (but ridiculously expensive) education, and. . . .

We're going broke because we are going European. Wake up. If it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck. . . shoot it!

You're a true fool if you think we are going broke because of the 1% of the 1% who aren't paying enough taxes. . . utter bloody rubbish.

EDIT: And Koch Industries employ over 67,000 people in 60 countries. Yeah, horrible fat bastards.

Umpa, fox is rotting your brain. Cancel cable and avoid am radio.
Oh, and visit Europe.

Oh, great insight dummas. . . I know "facts" to you are rot.
And I've been overseas, thanks. . . prefer to spend my $$ and time here in America - in general a much nicer place to be, too.

Umph! wrote: One of the big reasons it cost you more is becaue of taxation. One of the big reasons many European countries are going bankrupt or defaulting is because of those great socialist programs that you pay for (I'm sure you realize the healthcare that you state is "free" is actually paid for thru taxation) - the stinkin' Queen isn't giving up her Crown Jewels to fund these systems.

I'm not even going to give you the satisfaction of replying to that. Do you take me for a moron?

Umph! wrote: David, the US is going bankrupt because we keep printing money without backing, and bailing out corporations, and funding lousy business plans, and waging endless wars, and skewing and screwing capitalistic functions, and pushing out business (ridiculous corporate tax rates), and relying on others to produce/manufacture the goods we consume (living on imports). We're going broke because our political leaders are creating policies that support socialist doctrine/agenda and themselves, and foreign support (imports and money), and falsified feelgoodism (welfare states and environmental whackery); and illegal immigration, and poor (but ridiculously expensive) education, and. . . . We're going broke because we are going European. Wake up. If it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck. . . shoot it! You're a true fool if you think we are going broke because of the 1% of the 1% who aren't paying enough taxes. . . utter bloody rubbish. EDIT: And Koch Industries employ over 67,000 people in 60 countries. Yeah, horrible fat bastards.

I don't think our points of view are that far off from each other, but what socialist doctrine do you speak of? Obama hasn't really gotten anything done since he became president, certainly nothing that I would call socialist.

For everyone else:

"If you're not a liberal when you're young, you don't have a heart. If you're not a conservative when you're old, you don't have a brain."

David Sahalie wrote: winston churchill right? but the irony is that that doesn't apply these days: old people use a huge portion of US economy via social security, a liberal program.

"Spending on Social Security is projected to rise much less sharply, from less than 5 percent of GDP today to about 6 percent in 2030, and then to stabilize at roughly that level."

-From the CBO 2011 Long-Term Budget Outlook

Umph! wrote: No thanks to drilling on Federal lands. On Fed lands the production is significantly down; as is the refining capacity, production, future permits and unnecessary "red tape" (which is up) - down, down , down. Production is UP 5% because of drilling on Private lands. Production is down 14% on Federal lands. . . that's significant. The international demand for oil is UP (in case that wasn't obvious).

I heard most of the big drilling is happening in North Dakota right now. Seems to be booming up there, from what I hear. Pretty sure it isn't Federal land; certainly not preserves.

Ryan Williams wrote: For everyone else: "If you're not a liberal when you're young, you don't have a heart. If you're not a conservative when you're old, you don't have a brain."

And: "Compromise is the cornerstone of democracy."

David Sahalie wrote: but the US is going bankrupt because of the the 1% of the 1% that don't want to pay any taxes.

You could rob every billionare in the US blind and it wouldn't come close to paying off the debt.

matt davies wrote: "Spending on Social Security is projected to rise much less sharply, from less than 5 percent of GDP today to about 6 percent in 2030, and then to stabilize at roughly that level." -From the CBO 2011 Long-Term Budget Outlook

Then you won't mind if I opt-out, then

Ball wrote: Then you won't mind if I opt-out, then

I'm curious as to what you think I would mind and what I wouldn't, based on quoting a neutral statistic from the CBO.

David Sahalie wrote: but the US is going bankrupt because of the the 1% of the 1% that don't want to pay any taxes.

Haha, that's me, I started paying taxes in France, and it's saving me money and I get more from what I put in. Maybe I am the reason the system is messed up?

If your all pissed at the 1% of the 1% blame me, I take full responsibility.

David Sahalie wrote: . . . if the koch brothers and their ilk were 'job creators' in this country as fox likes to call them (not 60 countries), i could buy your argument. instead, they hoard their money because they know the chaos coming and want a yacht while the ship is sinking while the rest of us don't have a lifeboat.

Here ya go, David:

“As an American company, Koch Industries employs over 50,000 Americans. In total, the number of American jobs that indirectly supported Koch Industries is over 200,000. In Wisconsin, Koch Industries provides nearly 3,000 jobs directly and 11,000 jobs indirectly. More importantly, many of those jobs are good-paying union jobs. So why the hate?”

“. . .Kochs have given more than $600 million in pledged or donated money to arts, education, and medical research, including (but not limited to):
New York-Presbyterian Hospital Weill Cornell: $15 million
M.D. Anderson Cancer Center: $25 million
The Hospital for Special Surgery: $26 million
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center: $30 million
Prostate Cancer Foundation: $41 million
Deerfield Academy: $68 million
Lincoln Center's NY State Theater: $100 million
Massachusetts Institute of Technology: $139 million

Here we have civic-minded business leaders engaging in their right to participate in the political process -- and also donating large amounts of wealth to philanthropic causes."

Looks like they're job creators and big American philanthropists.

Why all the "Koch" hate?

Ryan Williams wrote: . . . but what socialist doctrine do you speak of? Obama hasn't really gotten anything done since he became president, certainly nothing that I would call socialist.

He (Obama) has made it very clear from the onset that he favors, and will strive for “redistribution of wealth”. His own words: “. . . when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

There are the well-known, highly public policies/acts: Obamacare, the bailing out of the auto industry and banks (of course I know Bush “started it”, but Obama expanded on it, and we aren’t talking about yesterday’s pile of crap, we’re talking about today’s), American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
All the while attacking corporations (and Wall Street components) that don’t support Big Government visions and involvement.

Umph! wrote: He (Obama) has made it very clear from the onset that he favors, and will strive for “redistribution of wealth”. His own words: “. . . when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” There are the well-known, highly public policies/acts: Obamacare, the bailing out of the auto industry and banks (of course I know Bush “started it”, but Obama expanded on it, and we aren’t talking about yesterday’s pile of crap, we’re talking about today’s), American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. All the while attacking corporations (and Wall Street components) that don’t support Big Government visions and involvement.

If Obama has had any practical influence on the redistribution of wealth, it is from the bottom up via bail outs and stimulus. I am not going to argue these were absolutely bad policies, but it f'ed up the natural ebb and flow of markets, which is the very justification for the supposed egalitarian and self-correcting nature of capitalism. In a way, he (and Bush) broke it and then said it didn't work. The justification was not doing anything would have been worse for everyone, we'll never know.
There needs to be some governmental enforced redistribution of wealth, in my opinion. We are in critical danger of accidentally creating an American aristocracy based on the influence of wealth, some might even say a Kleptocracy, which has amassed fortunes that almost guarantee inexhaustible political and social favor forever. The players at the top end of the financial system who are supposed to be the guardians of the free market rigged the system in their favor, and the govn't helped them, then didn't hold them to their supposed free-market values when the music stopped and it came time to pay the band. Every American taxpayer is now on the hook for what a very small cabal of crooks perpetrated on the economy. Then they gave themselves bonuses.
As a society, we are to blame as well. Free money is bullshit, but even "responsible" investors got talked into believing it existed in ridiculously complicated algorithms manipulated to show infinite wealth creation with no production of anything. Sure, I'll take 2!
I am definitely a small government, classical liberal, social Libertarian-leaning kind of guy, but I do believe one of the legitimate functions of government is to protect society from predators, especially economic ones. If the gov't isn't going to let markets work, it should also not allow those who profit from their dysfunction keep their ill-gotten-gains. Tax them, and if they want to relocate, ban their services in the USA, or prohibitively tariff their products. This is still the number one market in the world, where the most wealth is created. I don't believe for a second that a political will to hold corporations socially responsible to the system in which they operate is going to plunge us into the dark ages, or even make us non-competitive in the world market.
A little quote from my man TJ: "There is also an artificial aristocracy founded on wealth and birth, without either virtue or talents; for with these it would belong to the first class. The natural aristocracy I consider as the most precious gift of nature for the instruction, the trusts, and government of society. And indeed it would have been inconsistent in creation to have formed man for the social state, and not to have provided virtue and wisdom enough to manage the concerns of the society. May we not even say that that form of government is the best which provides the most effectually for a pure selection of these natural aristoi into the offices of government?"

Umph! wrote: He (Obama) has made it very clear from the onset that he favors, and will strive for “redistribution of wealth”. His own words: “. . . when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” There are the well-known, highly public policies/acts: Obamacare, the bailing out of the auto industry and banks (of course I know Bush “started it”, but Obama expanded on it, and we aren’t talking about yesterday’s pile of crap, we’re talking about today’s), American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. All the while attacking corporations (and Wall Street components) that don’t support Big Government visions and involvement.

Sure, in that context it comes across as a fairly socialist position. But in the context of the way wealth distributions in the US has been moving for decades, I think it becomes more reasonable - wealth has been being redistributed by the "free market" for quite some time. What I don't understand is why the most wealthy don't see it as a problem? Huge disparity of incomes doesn't make for a very nice place to live, just look at the banana republics of the world. But perhaps I'm being too optimistic about the type of world most people would like to live in.

The role of government is to put us in our place so the people above the law can take it easy. They're doing a very good job

Ball wrote: Then you won't mind if I opt-out (of Social Security), then

I won't mind as long as I'm not paying taxes to support you if you run out of money from a bad private sector investment.

Jason N. wrote: Sure, in that context it comes across as a fairly socialist position. But in the context of the way wealth distributions in the US has been moving for decades, I think it becomes more reasonable - wealth has been being redistributed by the "free market" for quite some time. What I don't understand is why the most wealthy don't see it as a problem? Huge disparity of incomes doesn't make for a very nice place to live, just look at the banana republics of the world. But perhaps I'm being too optimistic about the type of world most people would like to live in.

Ding Ding Ding!

The wealthiest of the wealthy don't even understand what it's like to live in the real world.

I don't know the statistics, but London has to be one of the most imbalanced cities in the world in regards to the distribution of wealth. The family that my wife works for quite literally can't get along normally in the world w/o a live in nanny, a cleaner, a cook and a Personal Assistant (my wife). When my wife is on vacation she gets calls from her boss asking about the simplest things.

I don't think that everyone should earn the same amount of money (and I'm quite happy with the existance of rich people), but when you see someone lose a watch that costs more than you and your wife's combined salaries and the go and buy another one the next day, you begin to wonder if this is the best possible system for all people.