$98 per barrel oil

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

This assumption seems to hold true most of the time. What evidence do
you have that it is a wrong assumption?

2. That politicians actually do what they promise before elections

I don't think it assumes that at all. In reality, the politicians tend
to do even more than they promise when it comes to spending money.


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

I don't see where this assumption is present, but even it it was
present, it still supports the trend towards a collapse as rising taxes
will eventually kill the economy and bankrupt the nation.

Matt

Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
Matt Whiting wrote
in :

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,

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

Such as? In any event, the trend in the USA is looking very much like
this forecast.

Matt

Matt Whiting wrote in
:

Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
Matt Whiting wrote
in :

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,

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

Such as? In any event, the trend in the USA is looking very much like
this forecast.


No, it isn't

Bertie

Jay Honeck wrote in news:1194789238.207070.122700
@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:

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.

That's not entirely true.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt



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.

"Newps" wrote in message
...


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.

And two or three years from now, when gas is $5 a gallon, and 100LL, if
available at all, will be $7, I'm sure he'll have some more alibi when
Shrillary and the Dem's run up the price and gas lines return with a
vengeance.

On Nov 10, 11:49 pm, "Matt W. Barrow"
wrote:

And two or three years from now, when gas is $5 a gallon, and 100LL, if
available at all, will be $7, I'm sure he'll have some more alibi when
Shrillary and the Dem's run up the price and gas lines return with a
vengeance.- Hide quoted text -
MXMatt, How are things at the mental hospital ? I see you have been
good and earned some internet priveleges today. Good to hear from you.

"F. Baum" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Nov 10, 11:49 pm, "Matt W. Barrow"
wrote:

And two or three years from now, when gas is $5 a gallon, and 100LL, if
available at all, will be $7, I'm sure he'll have some more alibi when
Shrillary and the Dem's run up the price and gas lines return with a
vengeance.- Hide quoted text -
MXMatt, How are things at the mental hospital ? I see you have been
good and earned some internet priveleges today. Good to hear from you.

I see you're the same half-literate CS as always.

Better dash, I hear your mommy calling.