Drain The Swamp II

[Eddies66]

Originally Posted by Alan Roehrich

Profit ain't a dirty word. Figure the percentage compared to the volume. Figure the government is trying desperately to put them out of business. And figure how oil is involved in everything you have, wear, use, eat, or drink.




Sorry, the cries about oil company profits only bring jeers. The profit on oil is minuscule compared to insurance, banking, securities, or government.

I have no problem with businesses making a profit. But when that profit affects inflation because every form of transportation used petroleum. Of coarse that cost of fuel impacts every family and the supply chain. I am less impacted by it because I am no longer commuting, store I use is less than two blocks away. Medical is two miles from the house.

[Randy Wells]

Originally Posted by Eddies66

I have no problem with businesses making a profit. But when that profit affects inflation because very form of transportation used petroleum. Of coarse that cost of fuel impacts very family and the supply chain. I am less impacted by it because I am no longer commuting, store I use is less than two blocks away. Medical is two miles from the house.

Not sure what very form of transportation and very family means. LOL.

Randy

[Eddies66]

Originally Posted by Randy Wells

Not sure what very form of transportation and very family means. LOL.

Randy

Let’s try every

[Superpro]

Originally Posted by Eddies66

Let’s try every

Me thinks he was gettin' even for correcting his grammar earlier?....Not criticizing, but I guess what is good for the goose........!

[Eddies66]

Originally Posted by Superpro

Me thinks he was gettin' even for correcting his grammar earlier?....Not criticizing, but I guess what is good for the goose........!

No excuses, I don't have a problem with it, spell check would never see it.

[Alan Roehrich]

Originally Posted by Eddies66

I have no problem with businesses making a profit. But when that profit affects inflation because every form of transportation used petroleum. Of coarse that cost of fuel impacts every family and the supply chain. I am less impacted by it because I am no longer commuting, store I use is less than two blocks away. Medical is two miles from the house.

Talk to your boy Beijing Joe. When he took office, gas here went from $1.89 a gallon of regular to $3.29 for a gallon of regular. In under 6 months, strictly on the basis of Biden's energy policy, when he started on the first day by killing the Keystone pipeline, at the stroke of a pen, by executive fiat, putting thousands out of work in the process.Inflation is purely a product of government policy, mostly spending and debt. Inflation under Trump was around 3%. Even now, Biden refuses to accept ANY cuts in government spending, with inflation at near record levels. Not sure how anyone with a brain can believe that we need 87,000 new IRS agents. Not seeing how we need 2-3 IRS agents for every millionaire and billionaire. Between their spending and energy policies, it's the democrats driving fuel prices up, and running inflation to record levels. Jacking the prime interest rate through the Fed has predictably caused a serious credit crunch. There's your recession.


You are right about one thing. It was Hoover signing the Smoot Hawley tariffs that started the recession before World War II. But it was FDR that drove the nation further into economic failure, with massive government spending, and enacting a ponzi scheme, only rescued by a cataclysmic World War.


However, in the seventies it was the spending of a democrat congress, worsened by Jimmy Carter. In the nineties, more government spending, another democratic congress, although Bush Sr. was stupid enough to agree to tax hikes, never getting the promised spending cuts. In 2007-2008, the crisis was sub prime lending, forced by the democrats and their demands that banks write loans to borrowers who were terrible risks.


That's a pretty impressive pair of seriously dark tinted rose colored glasses you have there.

[Eddies66]

Originally Posted by Alan Roehrich

Talk to your boy Beijing Joe. When he took office, gas here went from $1.89 a gallon of regular to $3.29 for a gallon of regular. In under 6 months, strictly on the basis of Biden's energy policy, when he started on the first day by killing the Keystone pipeline, at the stroke of a pen, by executive fiat, putting thousands out of work in the process.Inflation is purely a product of government policy, mostly spending and debt. Inflation under Trump was around 3%. Even now, Biden refuses to accept ANY cuts in government spending, with inflation at near record levels. Not sure how anyone with a brain can believe that we need 87,000 new IRS agents. Not seeing how we need 2-3 IRS agents for every millionaire and billionaire. Between their spending and energy policies, it's the democrats driving fuel prices up, and running inflation to record levels. Jacking the prime interest rate through the Fed has predictably caused a serious credit crunch. There's your recession.


You are right about one thing. It was Hoover signing the Smoot Hawley tariffs that started the recession before World War II. But it was FDR that drove the nation further into economic failure, with massive government spending, and enacting a ponzi scheme, only rescued by a cataclysmic World War.


However, in the seventies it was the spending of a democrat congress, worsened by Jimmy Carter. In the nineties, more government spending, another democratic congress, although Bush Sr. was stupid enough to agree to tax hikes, never getting the promised spending cuts. In 2007-2008, the crisis was sub prime lending, forced by the democrats and their demands that banks write loans to borrowers who were terrible risks.


That's a pretty impressive pair of seriously dark tinted rose colored glasses you have there.

Alan you seemed to have cherry picked the issue, you conveniently missed Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan. All I am seeing is the dems did it. None of the Presidents had veto power?

The “King of Debt” Trump promised to reduce the national debt — then his tax cuts made it surge. Add in the pandemic, and he oversaw the third-biggest deficit increase of any president. This is going to affect our economy for years.

Alan I respect your well thought out opinion but let’s be real, there is enough blame to go around for both parties. I will continue to vote my agenda regardless if it Republican or Democrats. I want you to take a look at what the Congressional Budget Office proposed to Congress with regards to Veterans. I am totally offended my the mere suggestion of cutting benefits. I pressed my representative and got a canned response, “cuts need to be made”…Mr. Calvert, your *** is gone!”

[Alan Roehrich]

Originally Posted by Eddies66

Alan you seemed to have cherry picked the issue, you conveniently missed Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan. All I am seeing is the dems did it. None of the Presidents had veto power?

The “King of Debt” Trump promised to reduce the national debt — then his tax cuts made it surge. Add in the pandemic, and he oversaw the third-biggest deficit increase of any president. This is going to affect our economy for years.

Alan I respect your well thought out opinion but let’s be real, there is enough blame to go around for both parties. I will continue to vote my agenda regardless if it Republican or Democrats. I want you to take a look at what the Congressional Budget Office proposed to Congress with regards to Veterans. I am totally offended my the mere suggestion of cutting benefits. I pressed my representative and got a canned response, “cuts need to be made”…Mr. Calvert, your *** is gone!”

While Reagan and Trump may have increased the debt, BOTH created a roaring economy. Trump's tax cuts created RECORD REVENUE for the federal government, all the way into at least the first 9-12 months of the Biden crime spree. Neither Nixon nor Eisenhower created massive inflation nor serious recession. Democrats have often enjoyed seriously veto proof majorities for most of the last 90+ years.


I'm absolutely no fan of cutting veteran's benefits. We could spend 20% of what Democrats have spent on their "great society", their "great experiment", and their "war on poverty" since 1968, on veterans instead, and they'd be set for life. By the way, those entitlement programs easily account for 90% of the entire national debt. No one has been lifted out of poverty. And the social security ponzi scheme constantly teeters on the verge of insolvency, because congress voted to "borrow from it" (guess who held the majority), when it never should have been created, and has never been any adequate "insurance policy". An insurance policy assumes that premiums are deposited into investments. Social Security revenue has never been invested. Stolen? Yep. But never invested.





Oh, go back and look at one of your replies to my posts in your Fall of Saigon thread. Take a look at who was in the White House for all but one of what you claimed were successful military operations. Oh, and Saigon fell because democrats, including Joe Biden, voted to cease supporting the South Vietnamese allies. And was why Saigon fell, and why it fell the way that it did. Sort of a precursor to Afghanistan.


Keep voting your "agenda". It's not helping anything you complain about, but you keep right on voting that way.

[Eddies66]

Originally Posted by Alan Roehrich

While Reagan and Trump may have increased the debt, BOTH created a roaring economy. Trump's tax cuts created RECORD REVENUE for the federal government, all the way into at least the first 9-12 months of the Biden crime spree. Neither Nixon nor Eisenhower created massive inflation nor serious recession. Democrats have often enjoyed seriously veto proof majorities for most of the last 90+ years.


I'm absolutely no fan of cutting veteran's benefits. We could spend 20% of what Democrats have spent on their "great society", their "great experiment", and their "war on poverty" since 1968, on veterans instead, and they'd be set for life. By the way, those entitlement programs easily account for 90% of the entire national debt. No one has been lifted out of poverty. And the social security ponzi scheme constantly teeters on the verge of insolvency, because congress voted to "borrow from it" (guess who held the majority), when it never should have been created, and has never been any adequate "insurance policy". An insurance policy assumes that premiums are deposited into investments. Social Security revenue has never been invested. Stolen? Yep. But never invested.





Oh, go back and look at one of your replies to my posts in your Fall of Saigon thread. Take a look at who was in the White House for all but one of what you claimed were successful military operations. Oh, and Saigon fell because democrats, including Joe Biden, voted to cease supporting the South Vietnamese allies. And was why Saigon fell, and why it fell the way that it did. Sort of a precursor to Afghanistan.


Keep voting your "agenda". It's not helping anything you complain about, but you keep right on voting that way.

Please read “The Last Men Out” for a correction in you thoughts on Saigon. You missed the mark on that. If you don’t like SS don’t take it.

With regards to Keystone:

State Department found in its 2014 report.
In the report, the agency wrote that 10,400 estimated positions would be for seasonal construction work lasting four to eight-month periods. Since the State Department defines "job" as "one position that is filled for 1 year," that would equate to approximately 3,900 jobs over a two-year period. In short: Most of the estimated jobs were temporary.
The State Department forecasted that no more than 50 jobs, some of which could be located in Canada, would be required to maintain the pipeline. Thirty-five of them would be permanent, while 15 would be temporary contractors.

Keystone spills have sent more than 383,000 gallons of crude oil into rural wetlands in North Dakota and more than 200,000 gallons into a pasture in South Dakota. Do a little research on toxicity of tar sands and the effects on the environment. This is Canadian oil to be refined in the US and sold to who? Here is a thought, built a pipeline from Alberta to British Columbia, contract the US to build a refinery there, no environmental threat to the US. I guess that makes too much sense.

[Dick Nearhoof]

[QUOTE=Eddies66;680570]If you don’t like SS don’t take it WOW Every time you discuss SS with a democrat, they say the same thing "Don't like it don't take", Right, paid in double my whole life, (self employed) and I should just forego, makes sense