$98 per barrel oil

On 07-Nov-07 6:47, aluckyguess wrote:
The worst part is I dont see any end in sight.

Of course there is an end!

We have an intrepid president, who will intervene at once
and tell that we refuse to pay $98 for a $10 article.
The production will be bumped up, till normality will
return. He will of course send army, if negotiations
will not help. Finally, he lives from our taxes and has
our best interest at all times on his mind, even when he
is in the restroom.

I love this government, this influential standing with
other nations, foresight, impact on world market,
balanced budget with only 1.3 billion a day loss.
This devotion to the nation, its economical advancement,
stability and pursuit of happiness. Imagine: by the
end of his 2008 term we will have $4.5 per gallon gas,
$8 avgas, we will pay $1.6-$1.8 for an Euro, and we
will have increased national debt by mere 3,702 billions!

Nobody in the history of this country can even close
match such achievements. No problemo, our kids and
grandkids will pick up the tab. For generations to come.
And this is "the end" which I see clearly. Regrettably
a percentage of Americans failed to see it 3 years ago,
despite writing on the wall, in big capital letters...

Thomas


"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ups.com...
Well, boys and girls, here it comes. $4/gallon gas in America. This
will translate into $7/gallon avgas soon enough.

Our last fly-in guest at the hotel was almost two weeks ago... (And
we just had our 28th consecutive sell-out weekend, so business is
booming...)

:-(
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

ThomasH wrote:



I love this government, this influential standing with
other nations, foresight, impact on world market,
balanced budget with only 1.3 billion a day loss.
This devotion to the nation, its economical advancement,
stability and pursuit of happiness. Imagine: by the
end of his 2008 term we will have $4.5 per gallon gas,
$8 avgas, we will pay $1.6-$1.8 for an Euro, and we
will have increased national debt by mere 3,702 billions!

Nobody in the history of this country can even close
match such achievements. No problemo, our kids and
grandkids will pick up the tab. For generations to come.
And this is "the end" which I see clearly. Regrettably
a percentage of Americans failed to see it 3 years ago,
despite writing on the wall, in big capital letters...



Read your history book. Been there, done that. Late 70's early 80's.
Quit your whining.

Newps wrote in news:-NudnYeFoZIo8KvanZ2dnUVZ_h-
:



ThomasH wrote:



I love this government, this influential standing with
other nations, foresight, impact on world market,
balanced budget with only 1.3 billion a day loss.
This devotion to the nation, its economical advancement,
stability and pursuit of happiness. Imagine: by the
end of his 2008 term we will have $4.5 per gallon gas,
$8 avgas, we will pay $1.6-$1.8 for an Euro, and we
will have increased national debt by mere 3,702 billions!

Nobody in the history of this country can even close
match such achievements. No problemo, our kids and
grandkids will pick up the tab. For generations to come.
And this is "the end" which I see clearly. Regrettably
a percentage of Americans failed to see it 3 years ago,
despite writing on the wall, in big capital letters...



Read your history book. Been there, done that. Late 70's early 80's.
Quit your whining.


There was a national debt of 3.7 trillion in the late '70s?


Bertie

There was a national debt of 3.7 trillion in the late '70s?

Nope.

Just like the sub-prime mortgage lending debacle, our national debt
WILL collapse. It's as inevitable as sand through an hourglass.

What makes me sick is that both the Democrats and the Republicans
(formerly the "balanced budget champions" of my youth) now run up the
deficit as a matter of course, but feel it necessary to blame each
other for the problem. Actually, the only difference between the two
parties is the *reason* they run up the debt. Democrats blame the
war, Republicans blame "entitlements" -- but neither side has ever
seen a tax they didn't adore, or a spending program they wouldn't hump
dry.

I say throw them all out, and start over.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:
There was a national debt of 3.7 trillion in the late '70s?

Nope.

Just like the sub-prime mortgage lending debacle, our national debt
WILL collapse. It's as inevitable as sand through an hourglass.

What makes me sick is that both the Democrats and the Republicans
(formerly the "balanced budget champions" of my youth) now run up the
deficit as a matter of course, but feel it necessary to blame each
other for the problem. Actually, the only difference between the two
parties is the *reason* they run up the debt. Democrats blame the
war, Republicans blame "entitlements" -- but neither side has ever
seen a tax they didn't adore, or a spending program they wouldn't hump
dry.

I say throw them all out, and start over.

I'm game, but it will never happen. Remember the old quote about the
fatal flaw of democracy:

Scottish professor Sir Alex Fraser Tytler (1714-1778) of the University
of Edinburgh: "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of
government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote
themselves largess from the public treasury.

From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates
promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result
that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always
followed by dictatorship."

And I think we are in the next to last stage outlined he
http://www.apatheticvoter.com/Articl...emocracies.htm

Nobody will vote out THEIR congress critter as then someone else would
get more of the money. Everyone wants someone else to vote out their
congress critter first.

Matt

On 11-Nov-07 6:11, Matt Whiting wrote:
Jay Honeck wrote:
There was a national debt of 3.7 trillion in the late '70s?

Nope.

Just like the sub-prime mortgage lending debacle, our national debt
WILL collapse. It's as inevitable as sand through an hourglass.

What makes me sick is that both the Democrats and the Republicans
(formerly the "balanced budget champions" of my youth) now run up the
deficit as a matter of course, but feel it necessary to blame each
other for the problem. Actually, the only difference between the two
parties is the *reason* they run up the debt. Democrats blame the
war, Republicans blame "entitlements" -- but neither side has ever
seen a tax they didn't adore, or a spending program they wouldn't hump
dry.

I say throw them all out, and start over.

Maybe its less about the parties and the reputation attached
to them, and more about people on the top and their teams?
I read Alan Greenspan's comments about Clinton and his fiscal
discipline. There was this democratic government, making
actually profit, what a concept, and as a sideline, spoiled
its own legacy by personal misbehavior of its leader.

In a long run I always prefer the team with the eye on the
ficus, the rest is barely a sideline.

Thomas


I'm game, but it will never happen. Remember the old quote about the
fatal flaw of democracy:

Scottish professor Sir Alex Fraser Tytler (1714-1778) of the University
of Edinburgh: "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of
government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote
themselves largess from the public treasury.

From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates
promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result
that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always
followed by dictatorship."

And I think we are in the next to last stage outlined he
http://www.apatheticvoter.com/Articl...emocracies.htm

Nobody will vote out THEIR congress critter as then someone else would
get more of the money. Everyone wants someone else to vote out their
congress critter first.

Matt

Wolfgang Schwanke writes:

The argument is flawed because it rests on a number of wrong
assumptions.

It has worked historically.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Wolfgang Schwanke writes:

The argument is flawed because it rests on a number of wrong
assumptions.

It has worked historically.


You're an idiot.


Bertie

In article , Wolfgang Schwanke
wrote:

From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates
promising the most benefits from the public treasury,

The argument is flawed because it rests on a number of wrong
assumptions.

such as?


with the result
that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always
followed by dictatorship."

The German democracy collapsed after a period of very strict fiscal
policy and fierce welfare cuts. Hitler took over a debt free government.

Note that loose fical policy is not the only possible cause of a collapse of
democracy.

Hitler took over a country desperate to overcome the humilitation of WWI

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

In article , Wolfgang Schwanke
wrote:

Bob Noel wrote in
:

In article , Wolfgang Schwanke
wrote:

From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates
promising the most benefits from the public treasury,

The argument is flawed because it rests on a number of wrong
assumptions.

such as?

1. That the majority of voters will decide on egoistic motivations over
other considerations

That does not appear to be a false assumption

2. That politicians actually do what they promise before elections

What? A politician that lies? ;-)

You don't have to listen to the lies, just look at the voting record. Very
few politicians in the USA get re-elected without bringing more and more
pork to their home districts.

3. That pro-welfare policies will always be implemented without also
rising the taxes

That is not an assumption in play here. In fact, you can count on the
taxes being raised ("for the children") to pay for all the spending and
spending and spending and ....

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)