| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#82
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
No blood for oil
On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 11:38:11 -0400, wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 14:44:56 -0700, wrote: On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 14:13:21 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 23:24:41 -0700, wrote: On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 22:52:53 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 19:35:05 -0700, wrote: On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 22:26:13 -0400, wrote: If you listened to any news outlet (no Fox doesn't count), you'd know that we'll be handing off more of the air bombing to others. I will feel better when it happens. So what? Do you think anyone really wants us to be in another war? Yet we are Yet that has nothing to do with your "endless" war paranoia. Endless war means the wars never end. I would feel better if we actually started ending a few. The only war we ended in 60 years was Vietnam. The rest are still on hold. The troops are still there armed to the teeth, just waiting for another provocation to start them up again. So according to you, Mr. Expert, we should just disband the military. I still remember the early talk about the NFZ there when it was "humanitarian" to save the Kurds with the bonus that they would topple Saddam if we could just give them a chance. I don't think Obama would go in but who knows what the next yahoo might do if he has it all teed up. I agree. Let's try and keep Jeb out of the White House. There won't be another Bush in there anytime soon. Huckabee could be scary. I don't really see a viable republican I like. I guess you'll be voting for Obama then. Good for you! I am not sure who I will vote for. Obama is not standing out as being much more than the 5th Bush brother. Feel free to vote for Palin. I would rather write in Ron Paul Feel free. It'll be about as likely that he'll win. |
|
#83
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
No blood for oil
|
|
#84
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
No blood for oil
On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 17:01:02 -0400, wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 10:47:35 -0700, wrote: According to you, Mr. Expert. In fact, it's just a fear-based rant that is getting old and worn out. Why don't you go back to the birth certificate rant, at least that's entertaining on some level. I suppose you should read a bit more dear. No credible economist right now thinks our entitlements are sustainable. It is particularly true when Obama signed on to the formerly "bush tax cuts" and then cut an additional 2% from the payroll taxes. Reagan would be proud ... except he actually raised the payroll taxes along with Tip O'neil to prop up social security. Obama hastened it's failure. Don't call me dear. It's demeaning and you're not qualified. You started the name calling By calling you Mr. Expert? Well, ok. Just because something is unsustainable doesn't mean it's an imminent problem. Nobody disputes that both need to be fixed. When are they going to start? Obama just made the problem worse by lowering taxes when they really should be going up. The only real fix will be adjusting eligibility age to reflect life expectancy and nobody will even talk about that. "They" already have. Changes are being discussed (rationally) on both sides of the isle. Even the lunatics who want to gut the safety net have a voice, albeit a hysterical one. Sometimes, and I know this is non-intuitive, but it's a long term problem not a short term problem. If your google is broken, I suppose I can find you the projections of what the debt will cost us at various increasing interest rates but I am sure you saw those projections and rejected them as fear mongering. It is just the math that makes me worry. Math shouldn't make you worry. It's just math. When the math shows us bankrupting the government and devaluing the dollar, it is a reason to worry. This is not a long term problem anymore. We are already upside down, borrowing money to cover the short fall. Nope. It's a long term problem. A short term problem is something like the nuclear plants in Japan. A middle term problem is something like job growth. A long term problem is something like SS/MC. |
|
#85
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
No blood for oil
On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 17:05:45 -0400, wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 10:48:35 -0700, wrote: On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 11:38:11 -0400, wrote: On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 14:44:56 -0700, wrote: On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 14:13:21 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 23:24:41 -0700, wrote: On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 22:52:53 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 19:35:05 -0700, wrote: On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 22:26:13 -0400, wrote: If you listened to any news outlet (no Fox doesn't count), you'd know that we'll be handing off more of the air bombing to others. I will feel better when it happens. So what? Do you think anyone really wants us to be in another war? Yet we are Yet that has nothing to do with your "endless" war paranoia. Endless war means the wars never end. I would feel better if we actually started ending a few. The only war we ended in 60 years was Vietnam. The rest are still on hold. The troops are still there armed to the teeth, just waiting for another provocation to start them up again. So according to you, Mr. Expert, we should just disband the military. No, I just want the military to do what it is constitutionally authorized to do, protect the USA. How do they do that without being involved elsewhere and being prepared? We could certainly cut the DoD budget by half tho and still be spending more than anyone else in the world. It is funny when I am the one saying the pentagon budget is bloated, to a lefty. I've already said several times that we need to cut the DoD budget. So, your last comment is disingenuous. I still remember the early talk about the NFZ there when it was "humanitarian" to save the Kurds with the bonus that they would topple Saddam if we could just give them a chance. I don't think Obama would go in but who knows what the next yahoo might do if he has it all teed up. I agree. Let's try and keep Jeb out of the White House. There won't be another Bush in there anytime soon. Huckabee could be scary. I don't really see a viable republican I like. I guess you'll be voting for Obama then. Good for you! I am not sure who I will vote for. Obama is not standing out as being much more than the 5th Bush brother. Feel free to vote for Palin. I would rather write in Ron Paul Feel free. It'll be about as likely that he'll win. I have not voted for a winning candidate since Reagan and I don't feel bad about it at all. At least I felt good about my vote. Good for you. That's not a great track record for making a difference in this country though. |
|
#86
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
No blood for oil
On 24/03/2011 4:04 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 17:01:02 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 10:47:35 -0700, wrote: According to you, Mr. Expert. In fact, it's just a fear-based rant that is getting old and worn out. Why don't you go back to the birth certificate rant, at least that's entertaining on some level. I suppose you should read a bit more dear. No credible economist right now thinks our entitlements are sustainable. It is particularly true when Obama signed on to the formerly "bush tax cuts" and then cut an additional 2% from the payroll taxes. Reagan would be proud ... except he actually raised the payroll taxes along with Tip O'neil to prop up social security. Obama hastened it's failure. Don't call me dear. It's demeaning and you're not qualified. You started the name calling By calling you Mr. Expert? Well, ok. Just because something is unsustainable doesn't mean it's an imminent problem. Nobody disputes that both need to be fixed. When are they going to start? Obama just made the problem worse by lowering taxes when they really should be going up. The only real fix will be adjusting eligibility age to reflect life expectancy and nobody will even talk about that. "They" already have. Changes are being discussed (rationally) on both sides of the isle. Even the lunatics who want to gut the safety net have a voice, albeit a hysterical one. Sometimes, and I know this is non-intuitive, but it's a long term problem not a short term problem. If your google is broken, I suppose I can find you the projections of what the debt will cost us at various increasing interest rates but I am sure you saw those projections and rejected them as fear mongering. It is just the math that makes me worry. Math shouldn't make you worry. It's just math. When the math shows us bankrupting the government and devaluing the dollar, it is a reason to worry. This is not a long term problem anymore. We are already upside down, borrowing money to cover the short fall. Nope. It's a long term problem. A short term problem is something like the nuclear plants in Japan. A middle term problem is something like job growth. A long term problem is something like SS/MC. Actually, US economic problems are near, mid and long term. USD is loosing value pretty fast and accelerating. Faster she goes, the harder it is to stop. Widmark? Zimbabwe? 1948 German currency reform. Hey, USD might be revalued at 10 cents on the dollar tomorrow. If you own gold or oil, who cares. If you own USD, you got wiped out. |
|
#87
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
No blood for oil
On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 16:55:40 -0600, Canuck57
wrote: On 24/03/2011 4:04 PM, wrote: On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 17:01:02 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 10:47:35 -0700, wrote: According to you, Mr. Expert. In fact, it's just a fear-based rant that is getting old and worn out. Why don't you go back to the birth certificate rant, at least that's entertaining on some level. I suppose you should read a bit more dear. No credible economist right now thinks our entitlements are sustainable. It is particularly true when Obama signed on to the formerly "bush tax cuts" and then cut an additional 2% from the payroll taxes. Reagan would be proud ... except he actually raised the payroll taxes along with Tip O'neil to prop up social security. Obama hastened it's failure. Don't call me dear. It's demeaning and you're not qualified. You started the name calling By calling you Mr. Expert? Well, ok. Just because something is unsustainable doesn't mean it's an imminent problem. Nobody disputes that both need to be fixed. When are they going to start? Obama just made the problem worse by lowering taxes when they really should be going up. The only real fix will be adjusting eligibility age to reflect life expectancy and nobody will even talk about that. "They" already have. Changes are being discussed (rationally) on both sides of the isle. Even the lunatics who want to gut the safety net have a voice, albeit a hysterical one. Sometimes, and I know this is non-intuitive, but it's a long term problem not a short term problem. If your google is broken, I suppose I can find you the projections of what the debt will cost us at various increasing interest rates but I am sure you saw those projections and rejected them as fear mongering. It is just the math that makes me worry. Math shouldn't make you worry. It's just math. When the math shows us bankrupting the government and devaluing the dollar, it is a reason to worry. This is not a long term problem anymore. We are already upside down, borrowing money to cover the short fall. Nope. It's a long term problem. A short term problem is something like the nuclear plants in Japan. A middle term problem is something like job growth. A long term problem is something like SS/MC. Actually, US economic problems are near, mid and long term. USD is loosing value pretty fast and accelerating. Faster she goes, the harder it is to stop. Widmark? Zimbabwe? 1948 German currency reform. Hey, USD might be revalued at 10 cents on the dollar tomorrow. If you own gold or oil, who cares. If you own USD, you got wiped out. Paranoia is obviously your forte. The value of the dollar fluctuates quite a bit. A strong dollar doesn't necessarily mean good things for the US economy. It's a tradeoff when it's strong and when it's weak. |
|
#88
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
No blood for oil
On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 18:38:24 -0400, wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 15:06:37 -0700, wrote: I have not voted for a winning candidate since Reagan and I don't feel bad about it at all. At least I felt good about my vote. Good for you. That's not a great track record for making a difference in this country though. I could not, in good conscience vote for either Bush or Clinton. Obama had me in 2007 but by the summer of 2008 he was just GW Bush with a tan. What he has done since has not changed my opinion. Not much changed. I think Clinton exceeded many people's expectations. Bush I wasn't so bad, but he was really out of touch. GWB was an abomination. |
|
#89
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
No blood for oil
On 24/03/2011 5:42 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 16:55:40 -0600, wrote: On 24/03/2011 4:04 PM, wrote: On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 17:01:02 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 10:47:35 -0700, wrote: According to you, Mr. Expert. In fact, it's just a fear-based rant that is getting old and worn out. Why don't you go back to the birth certificate rant, at least that's entertaining on some level. I suppose you should read a bit more dear. No credible economist right now thinks our entitlements are sustainable. It is particularly true when Obama signed on to the formerly "bush tax cuts" and then cut an additional 2% from the payroll taxes. Reagan would be proud ... except he actually raised the payroll taxes along with Tip O'neil to prop up social security. Obama hastened it's failure. Don't call me dear. It's demeaning and you're not qualified. You started the name calling By calling you Mr. Expert? Well, ok. Just because something is unsustainable doesn't mean it's an imminent problem. Nobody disputes that both need to be fixed. When are they going to start? Obama just made the problem worse by lowering taxes when they really should be going up. The only real fix will be adjusting eligibility age to reflect life expectancy and nobody will even talk about that. "They" already have. Changes are being discussed (rationally) on both sides of the isle. Even the lunatics who want to gut the safety net have a voice, albeit a hysterical one. Sometimes, and I know this is non-intuitive, but it's a long term problem not a short term problem. If your google is broken, I suppose I can find you the projections of what the debt will cost us at various increasing interest rates but I am sure you saw those projections and rejected them as fear mongering. It is just the math that makes me worry. Math shouldn't make you worry. It's just math. When the math shows us bankrupting the government and devaluing the dollar, it is a reason to worry. This is not a long term problem anymore. We are already upside down, borrowing money to cover the short fall. Nope. It's a long term problem. A short term problem is something like the nuclear plants in Japan. A middle term problem is something like job growth. A long term problem is something like SS/MC. Actually, US economic problems are near, mid and long term. USD is loosing value pretty fast and accelerating. Faster she goes, the harder it is to stop. Widmark? Zimbabwe? 1948 German currency reform. Hey, USD might be revalued at 10 cents on the dollar tomorrow. If you own gold or oil, who cares. If you own USD, you got wiped out. Paranoia is obviously your forte. The value of the dollar fluctuates quite a bit. A strong dollar doesn't necessarily mean good things for the US economy. It's a tradeoff when it's strong and when it's weak. Generally down. In the last few years lost 20% against the Yuan. Lost against the CAD too -- bad since the CAD value is mush too. |
|
#90
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
No blood for oil
On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 22:11:10 -0600, Canuck57
wrote: On 24/03/2011 5:42 PM, wrote: On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 16:55:40 -0600, wrote: On 24/03/2011 4:04 PM, wrote: On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 17:01:02 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 10:47:35 -0700, wrote: According to you, Mr. Expert. In fact, it's just a fear-based rant that is getting old and worn out. Why don't you go back to the birth certificate rant, at least that's entertaining on some level. I suppose you should read a bit more dear. No credible economist right now thinks our entitlements are sustainable. It is particularly true when Obama signed on to the formerly "bush tax cuts" and then cut an additional 2% from the payroll taxes. Reagan would be proud ... except he actually raised the payroll taxes along with Tip O'neil to prop up social security. Obama hastened it's failure. Don't call me dear. It's demeaning and you're not qualified. You started the name calling By calling you Mr. Expert? Well, ok. Just because something is unsustainable doesn't mean it's an imminent problem. Nobody disputes that both need to be fixed. When are they going to start? Obama just made the problem worse by lowering taxes when they really should be going up. The only real fix will be adjusting eligibility age to reflect life expectancy and nobody will even talk about that. "They" already have. Changes are being discussed (rationally) on both sides of the isle. Even the lunatics who want to gut the safety net have a voice, albeit a hysterical one. Sometimes, and I know this is non-intuitive, but it's a long term problem not a short term problem. If your google is broken, I suppose I can find you the projections of what the debt will cost us at various increasing interest rates but I am sure you saw those projections and rejected them as fear mongering. It is just the math that makes me worry. Math shouldn't make you worry. It's just math. When the math shows us bankrupting the government and devaluing the dollar, it is a reason to worry. This is not a long term problem anymore. We are already upside down, borrowing money to cover the short fall. Nope. It's a long term problem. A short term problem is something like the nuclear plants in Japan. A middle term problem is something like job growth. A long term problem is something like SS/MC. Actually, US economic problems are near, mid and long term. USD is loosing value pretty fast and accelerating. Faster she goes, the harder it is to stop. Widmark? Zimbabwe? 1948 German currency reform. Hey, USD might be revalued at 10 cents on the dollar tomorrow. If you own gold or oil, who cares. If you own USD, you got wiped out. Paranoia is obviously your forte. The value of the dollar fluctuates quite a bit. A strong dollar doesn't necessarily mean good things for the US economy. It's a tradeoff when it's strong and when it's weak. Generally down. In the last few years lost 20% against the Yuan. Lost against the CAD too -- bad since the CAD value is mush too. Yes, generally down, but that's great for items we sell elsewhere... e.g., Caterpillar and such. It's just not cut and dried that it's a bad thing or a good thing. Ideally, all currencies shouldn't fluctuate much. That fluctuation certainly gives currency arbitrage some legs though. FYI, very nice, near coherent discussion from you. I'm hoping it'll last. LOL |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| The Smell of Blood | General | |||
| A little something to get the blood moving... | General | |||
| Blood on my mast | ASA | |||
| Kira draw blood yet? | ASA | |||
| O/T Any French blood out there? | General | |||
Linear Mode
