Anyone who supports energy independence needs to support non-petroleum energy sources.
And even more importantly conservation.
Currently, the US and Canada are producing and exporting huge amounts of oil.
Because of high oil prices previously unattainable oil, trapped in shale or other rock formations or in deep water or arctic waters, is now being produced. The US is now exporting lots of oil.
When (if) oil drops back to/below $75.00 a barrel these oil fields will stop being profitable. Some of the oil being claimed now is only profitable at above $90 a barrel.
This does not, in any way, add to oil independence.
Almost none of the oil produced belongs to the American public.
It belongs to multinational oil companies and is sold on the same world market that OPEC oil is sold on.
A little off the subject, but an ironic aside...
While many environmentalist and nations have whined about climate change, few have done anything to prepare for climate change.
The giant oil companies (who publicly deny global warming) have followed the science closely and were prepared to move into the arctic and start exploiting previously unavailable resources. Unavailable because before climate change they were under arctic ice.
lol @ bv being so obsessed with me that he thinks someone else is posting as me when im too busy to post
u 2 much bro
Don't flatter yourself, buddy. It's just that his inability to think critically reminded me of yours, nothing more. And I think you're sad enough to create an alias.
Latest Pew poll I believe has Romney and Obama neck and neck again, just like they were before the Republican Convention. Some were writing off Romney in that other presidential thread.
Romney didn't get a bump from the Republican Convention, but Obama did from the Democratic one. Then Romney fucks up with the 47% speech becoming public. Now the 1st debate has them right back to where they were before. This is not going to be a clear cut victory for Obama as some here were arguing. It's still up in the air.
Please, it know it is not Obama's fault the housing market collapsed in 2007. I am saying that lowering taxes increases growth. What is your opinion on that?
lol @ bv being so obsessed with me that he thinks someone else is posting as me when im too busy to post
u 2 much bro
Don't flatter yourself, buddy. It's just that his inability to think critically reminded me of yours, nothing more. And I think you're sad enough to create an alias.
more personal attacks instead of just owning up to your shit. You could have just said, "excuse me mr. Crazy. I should apologize for how I was acting earlier. I was completely mistaken and totally talking out of my ass." You can phrase it how you want. But nooooo, just a stream of shit coming from you.
How do you Rombots feel about his VMI speech? Mitt said he would send ships to the gulf to intimidate Iran, put Putin on watch, give Syrian Rebels missiles, said we should still be in Iraq, increase military spending by a trilliion...big talk from a certified draft dodging pussy.
Remind me how these things will help us grow jobs and reduce our debt.
How do you Rombots feel about his VMI speech? Mitt said he would send ships to the gulf to intimidate Iran, put Putin on watch, give Syrian Rebels missiles, said we should still be in Iraq, increase military spending by a trilliion...big talk from a certified draft dodging pussy.
Remind me how these things will help us grow jobs and reduce our debt.
When Medicare was put in place the average life span of Americans was 69. So for an average of 4 years seniors were covered by a healthcare system they had paid into. Now, people are living much long. How does that help reduce our debt?
How do you Rombots feel about his VMI speech? Mitt said he would send ships to the gulf to intimidate Iran, put Putin on watch, give Syrian Rebels missiles, said we should still be in Iraq, increase military spending by a trilliion...big talk from a certified draft dodging pussy.
Remind me how these things will help us grow jobs and reduce our debt.
When Medicare was put in place the average life span of Americans was 69. So for an average of 4 years seniors were covered by a healthcare system they had paid into. Now, people are living much long. How does that help reduce our debt?
Wow, you are a republican...dodge the question and then mention something that has nothing to do with the question.
But I will answer your question.
First of all, you are acknowledging that Medicare works. If the point of health care is to prevent people from dying too soon, then it is working. Since this is the case, then an increased number of patients is occurring. This means more doctors, nurses, pharmacists, physical therapists, custodians, receptionists, dietary workers, home care workers, utilization review workers, maintenance workers, scrub manufacturers, medical supply companies, etc. will have work...more hiring. If more people are working, the more people paying taxes, the more taxes paid, the more revenue, more revenue=more debt being reduced.
Ok answered your question, now answer mine.
If you bring up the lie that Obama "cut" 700 billion from beneficiaries, then I can only assume the rest of your answer is bullshit also.
The military goes into places that aren't that good and makes them better for their own well being, as well as, for our security. Military and security jobs are directly created. The enhanced security indirectly enables further job creation.
Additionally, if it is successful the places becomes capable of greater contribution to the global economy (jobs are created there and here). That is good for them and good for the rest of the world.
Therefore, the money borrowed to e spend on military is repaid.
When a 68 year old goes to the hospital for the umpteenth time, yeah, people will have work to do. Then they will pay a tax on the income they make and the tax will be spent by the person they just worked on the next time they come through the door.
The military goes into places that aren't that good and makes them better for their own well being, as well as, for our security. Military and security jobs are directly created. The enhanced security indirectly enables further job creation.
Additionally, if it is successful the places becomes capable of greater contribution to the global economy (jobs are created there and here). That is good for them and good for the rest of the world.
Therefore, the money borrowed to e spend on military is repaid.
When a 68 year old goes to the hospital for the umpteenth time, yeah, people will have work to do. Then they will pay a tax on the income they make and the tax will be spent by the person they just worked on the next time they come through the door.
If military money spent is repaid, when should expect that Trillion from Iraq and Afghanistan to show up?
Also, if I am reading between the lines correctly, a budget solution you are proposing is to let the elderly die sooner in order to ease our financial burden.
If military money spent is repaid, when should expect that Trillion from Iraq and Afghanistan to show up?
Also, if I am reading between the lines correctly, a budget solution you are proposing is to let the elderly die sooner in order to ease our financial burden.
I thought you would ask that. The only example I can think of at the moment of repayment from Afghanistan and Iraq is homeland security. Hopefully, those places are improved and will be able to give back in the future.
And no, I'm not even fully convinced that either path will lead to a "solution." In reference to Medicare, I think moving the age of 65 to say 68 would be a fine compromise.
There a fire dept in Iowa that charges $10 a month for fire fighting insurance. The is a house without insurance in a neighborhood that catches on fire. Both neighbors have insurance so they call the fire dept. and they arrive and start spraying down the sides of the houses with insurance so they don't catch on fire while the one without insurance burns.
If military money spent is repaid, when should expect that Trillion from Iraq and Afghanistan to show up?
Also, if I am reading between the lines correctly, a budget solution you are proposing is to let the elderly die sooner in order to ease our financial burden.
I thought you would ask that. The only example I can think of at the moment of repayment from Afghanistan and Iraq is homeland security. Hopefully, those places are improved and will be able to give back in the future.
They no doubt feel indebted and will be very grateful for all the United States has done for them once the smoke clears.
I think it is in everyone's best interest that no house burns down.
There is nothin in it for the children.
Except the children who live in the house that is burning down...and the children who are friends with the children that live in that house...and the neighborhood children are safer not having a burned down house to tempt them to play in the mess left behind...and the school children whose schools are paid for by propery taxes having less revenue to support their schools because we are letting houses burn down, thus less property taxes collected...
I think it is in everyone's best interest that no house burns down.
There is nothin in it for the children.
Except the children who live in the house that is burning down...and the children who are friends with the children that live in that house...and the neighborhood children are safer not having a burned down house to tempt them to play in the mess left behind...and the school children whose schools are paid for by propery taxes having less revenue to support their schools because we are letting houses burn down, thus less property taxes collected...
This is a ridiculous conversation but since it's already there....
So if the homeowners didn't have fire insurance on their home should the government rebuild it for them?.....think of the children.
I think it is in everyone's best interest that no house burns down.
There is nothin in it for the children.
Except the children who live in the house that is burning down...and the children who are friends with the children that live in that house...and the neighborhood children are safer not having a burned down house to tempt them to play in the mess left behind...and the school children whose schools are paid for by propery taxes having less revenue to support their schools because we are letting houses burn down, thus less property taxes collected...
This is a ridiculous conversation but since it's already there....
So if the homeowners didn't have fire insurance on their home should the government rebuild it for them?.....think of the children.
He wasn't talilkng about that kind of insurance Rock.
I think it is in everyone's best interest that no house burns down.
There is nothin in it for the children.
Except the children who live in the house that is burning down...and the children who are friends with the children that live in that house...and the neighborhood children are safer not having a burned down house to tempt them to play in the mess left behind...and the school children whose schools are paid for by propery taxes having less revenue to support their schools because we are letting houses burn down, thus less property taxes collected...
Until the other members of the neighborhood see that they can not-pay up an will get away with irresponsibility (less insurance/fewer fire fighters/less children who live in fire fighters house, ect) and it happens again.
I think it is in everyone's best interest that no house burns down.
There is nothin in it for the children.
Except the children who live in the house that is burning down...and the children who are friends with the children that live in that house...and the neighborhood children are safer not having a burned down house to tempt them to play in the mess left behind...and the school children whose schools are paid for by propery taxes having less revenue to support their schools because we are letting houses burn down, thus less property taxes collected...
This is a ridiculous conversation but since it's already there....
So if the homeowners didn't have fire insurance on their home should the government rebuild it for them?.....think of the children.
He wasn't talilkng about that kind of insurance Rock.
I think it is in everyone's best interest that no house burns down.
There is nothin in it for the children.
Except the children who live in the house that is burning down...and the children who are friends with the children that live in that house...and the neighborhood children are safer not having a burned down house to tempt them to play in the mess left behind...and the school children whose schools are paid for by propery taxes having less revenue to support their schools because we are letting houses burn down, thus less property taxes collected...
This is a ridiculous conversation but since it's already there....
So if the homeowners didn't have fire insurance on their home should the government rebuild it for them?.....think of the children.
He wasn't talilkng about that kind of insurance Rock.
I know...but I am.
It's a moot point if don't let it burn down. Again it is in everybody's best interest that we don't let any house burn down. It is ridiculous that my point is in dispute.
I think it is in everyone's best interest that no house burns down.
There is nothin in it for the children.
Except the children who live in the house that is burning down...and the children who are friends with the children that live in that house...and the neighborhood children are safer not having a burned down house to tempt them to play in the mess left behind...and the school children whose schools are paid for by propery taxes having less revenue to support their schools because we are letting houses burn down, thus less property taxes collected...
This is a ridiculous conversation but since it's already there....
So if the homeowners didn't have fire insurance on their home should the government rebuild it for them?.....think of the children.
He wasn't talilkng about that kind of insurance Rock.
I know...but I am.
It's a moot point if don't let it burn down. Again it is in everybody's best interest that we don't let any house burn down. It is ridiculous that my point is in dispute.
I'm certain what Gatorteef is referring to (Lord help me for even trying to make sense of this dude) is a real life case in Tennessee where a family did not pay the mandatory fee for service from the local Fire Dept. and then when their house caught fire the Fire Dept. refused to service them.
My totally separate question to you is..."If a house burns down and the family did not have homeowners insurance that covered fire should the government rebuild their home for them or are they just SOL:?"
I think it is in everyone's best interest that no house burns down.
There is nothin in it for the children.
Except the children who live in the house that is burning down...and the children who are friends with the children that live in that house...and the neighborhood children are safer not having a burned down house to tempt them to play in the mess left behind...and the school children whose schools are paid for by propery taxes having less revenue to support their schools because we are letting houses burn down, thus less property taxes collected...
This is a ridiculous conversation but since it's already there....
So if the homeowners didn't have fire insurance on their home should the government rebuild it for them?.....think of the children.
He wasn't talilkng about that kind of insurance Rock.
I know...but I am.
It's a moot point if don't let it burn down. Again it is in everybody's best interest that we don't let any house burn down. It is ridiculous that my point is in dispute.
I'm certain what Gatorteef is referring to (Lord help me for even trying to make sense of this dude) is a real life case in Tennessee where a family did not pay the mandatory fee for service from the local Fire Dept. and then when their house caught fire the Fire Dept. refused to service them.
My totally separate question to you is..."If a house burns down and the family did not have homeowners insurance that covered fire should the government rebuild their home for them or are they just SOL:?"
How about a government backed loan to rebuild? A loan isn't charity.
Also, isn't it required that homeowners insurance be in place if you have a mortgage? I would think the bank would want to be covered since they technically own the home. So your scenario is kind of ridiculous.
But in the rare scenario of a destitute family that was able to pay off their home but not pay for insurance, then sure, let them do it on their own.
I think it is in everyone's best interest that no house burns down.
There is nothin in it for the children.
Except the children who live in the house that is burning down...and the children who are friends with the children that live in that house...and the neighborhood children are safer not having a burned down house to tempt them to play in the mess left behind...and the school children whose schools are paid for by propery taxes having less revenue to support their schools because we are letting houses burn down, thus less property taxes collected...
This is a ridiculous conversation but since it's already there....
So if the homeowners didn't have fire insurance on their home should the government rebuild it for them?.....think of the children.
He wasn't talilkng about that kind of insurance Rock.
I know...but I am.
It's a moot point if don't let it burn down. Again it is in everybody's best interest that we don't let any house burn down. It is ridiculous that my point is in dispute.
I'm certain what Gatorteef is referring to (Lord help me for even trying to make sense of this dude) is a real life case in Tennessee where a family did not pay the mandatory fee for service from the local Fire Dept. and then when their house caught fire the Fire Dept. refused to service them.
My totally separate question to you is..."If a house burns down and the family did not have homeowners insurance that covered fire should the government rebuild their home for them or are they just SOL:?"
How about a government backed loan to rebuild? A loan isn't charity.
Also, isn't it required that homeowners insurance be in place if you have a mortgage? I would think the bank would want to be covered since they technically own the home. So your scenario is kind of ridiculous.
Not only is it not ridiculous, it happens every day....people pay off their mortgage and cancel their homeowners insurance either because they can't afford it or they just don't want to spend the money.
So you agree that if you don't pay for insurance, you are not insured and should receive no benefit?
I think it is in everyone's best interest that no house burns down.
There is nothin in it for the children.
Except the children who live in the house that is burning down...and the children who are friends with the children that live in that house...and the neighborhood children are safer not having a burned down house to tempt them to play in the mess left behind...and the school children whose schools are paid for by propery taxes having less revenue to support their schools because we are letting houses burn down, thus less property taxes collected...
This is a ridiculous conversation but since it's already there....
So if the homeowners didn't have fire insurance on their home should the government rebuild it for them?.....think of the children.
He wasn't talilkng about that kind of insurance Rock.
I know...but I am.
It's a moot point if don't let it burn down. Again it is in everybody's best interest that we don't let any house burn down. It is ridiculous that my point is in dispute.
I'm certain what Gatorteef is referring to (Lord help me for even trying to make sense of this dude) is a real life case in Tennessee where a family did not pay the mandatory fee for service from the local Fire Dept. and then when their house caught fire the Fire Dept. refused to service them.
My totally separate question to you is..."If a house burns down and the family did not have homeowners insurance that covered fire should the government rebuild their home for them or are they just SOL:?"
How about a government backed loan to rebuild? A loan isn't charity.
Also, isn't it required that homeowners insurance be in place if you have a mortgage? I would think the bank would want to be covered since they technically own the home. So your scenario is kind of ridiculous.
Not only is it not ridiculous, it happens every day....people pay off their mortgage and cancel their homeowners insurance either because they can't afford it or they just don't want to spend the money.
So you agree that if you don't pay for insurance, you are not insured and should receive no benefit?
Not going to fall into your logic of absolutes. I don't believe in "fireman" insurance, and I believe in single-payer universal health care...so don't think since I believe in having to rebuild your home on your own if it burns, that I also believe you should be SOL if you get sick or injured and you don't have insurance, nor do I believe your house should burn if you haven't paid your "fireman" insurance.
Comments
Anyone who supports energy independence needs to support non-petroleum energy sources.
And even more importantly conservation.
Currently, the US and Canada are producing and exporting huge amounts of oil.
Because of high oil prices previously unattainable oil, trapped in shale or other rock formations or in deep water or arctic waters, is now being produced. The US is now exporting lots of oil.
When (if) oil drops back to/below $75.00 a barrel these oil fields will stop being profitable. Some of the oil being claimed now is only profitable at above $90 a barrel.
This does not, in any way, add to oil independence.
Almost none of the oil produced belongs to the American public.
It belongs to multinational oil companies and is sold on the same world market that OPEC oil is sold on.
A little off the subject, but an ironic aside...
While many environmentalist and nations have whined about climate change, few have done anything to prepare for climate change.
The giant oil companies (who publicly deny global warming) have followed the science closely and were prepared to move into the arctic and start exploiting previously unavailable resources. Unavailable because before climate change they were under arctic ice.
u 2 much bro
Don't flatter yourself, buddy. It's just that his inability to think critically reminded me of yours, nothing more. And I think you're sad enough to create an alias.
Romney didn't get a bump from the Republican Convention, but Obama did from the Democratic one. Then Romney fucks up with the 47% speech becoming public. Now the 1st debate has them right back to where they were before. This is not going to be a clear cut victory for Obama as some here were arguing. It's still up in the air.
Please, it know it is not Obama's fault the housing market collapsed in 2007. I am saying that lowering taxes increases growth. What is your opinion on that?
How do you Rombots feel about his VMI speech? Mitt said he would send ships to the gulf to intimidate Iran, put Putin on watch, give Syrian Rebels missiles, said we should still be in Iraq, increase military spending by a trilliion...big talk from a certified draft dodging pussy.
Remind me how these things will help us grow jobs and reduce our debt.
When Medicare was put in place the average life span of Americans was 69. So for an average of 4 years seniors were covered by a healthcare system they had paid into. Now, people are living much long. How does that help reduce our debt?
But I will answer your question.
First of all, you are acknowledging that Medicare works. If the point of health care is to prevent people from dying too soon, then it is working. Since this is the case, then an increased number of patients is occurring. This means more doctors, nurses, pharmacists, physical therapists, custodians, receptionists, dietary workers, home care workers, utilization review workers, maintenance workers, scrub manufacturers, medical supply companies, etc. will have work...more hiring. If more people are working, the more people paying taxes, the more taxes paid, the more revenue, more revenue=more debt being reduced.
Ok answered your question, now answer mine.
If you bring up the lie that Obama "cut" 700 billion from beneficiaries, then I can only assume the rest of your answer is bullshit also.
The military goes into places that aren't that good and makes them better for their own well being, as well as, for our security. Military and security jobs are directly created. The enhanced security indirectly enables further job creation.
Additionally, if it is successful the places becomes capable of greater contribution to the global economy (jobs are created there and here). That is good for them and good for the rest of the world.
Therefore, the money borrowed to e spend on military is repaid.
When a 68 year old goes to the hospital for the umpteenth time, yeah, people will have work to do. Then they will pay a tax on the income they make and the tax will be spent by the person they just worked on the next time they come through the door.
If military money spent is repaid, when should expect that Trillion from Iraq and Afghanistan to show up?
Also, if I am reading between the lines correctly, a budget solution you are proposing is to let the elderly die sooner in order to ease our financial burden.
I thought you would ask that. The only example I can think of at the moment of repayment from Afghanistan and Iraq is homeland security. Hopefully, those places are improved and will be able to give back in the future.
And no, I'm not even fully convinced that either path will lead to a "solution." In reference to Medicare, I think moving the age of 65 to say 68 would be a fine compromise.
There a fire dept in Iowa that charges $10 a month for fire fighting insurance. The is a house without insurance in a neighborhood that catches on fire. Both neighbors have insurance so they call the fire dept. and they arrive and start spraying down the sides of the houses with insurance so they don't catch on fire while the one without insurance burns.
What is your opinion on that?
They no doubt feel indebted and will be very grateful for all the United States has done for them once the smoke clears.
There is nothin in it for the children.
Yes, I will.
Except the children who live in the house that is burning down...and the children who are friends with the children that live in that house...and the neighborhood children are safer not having a burned down house to tempt them to play in the mess left behind...and the school children whose schools are paid for by propery taxes having less revenue to support their schools because we are letting houses burn down, thus less property taxes collected...
This is a ridiculous conversation but since it's already there....
So if the homeowners didn't have fire insurance on their home should the government rebuild it for them?.....think of the children.
He wasn't talilkng about that kind of insurance Rock.
Until the other members of the neighborhood see that they can not-pay up an will get away with irresponsibility (less insurance/fewer fire fighters/less children who live in fire fighters house, ect) and it happens again.
I know...but I am.
It's a moot point if don't let it burn down. Again it is in everybody's best interest that we don't let any house burn down. It is ridiculous that my point is in dispute.
I'm certain what Gatorteef is referring to (Lord help me for even trying to make sense of this dude) is a real life case in Tennessee where a family did not pay the mandatory fee for service from the local Fire Dept. and then when their house caught fire the Fire Dept. refused to service them.
My totally separate question to you is..."If a house burns down and the family did not have homeowners insurance that covered fire should the government rebuild their home for them or are they just SOL:?"
How about a government backed loan to rebuild? A loan isn't charity.
Also, isn't it required that homeowners insurance be in place if you have a mortgage? I would think the bank would want to be covered since they technically own the home. So your scenario is kind of ridiculous.
But in the rare scenario of a destitute family that was able to pay off their home but not pay for insurance, then sure, let them do it on their own.
Not only is it not ridiculous, it happens every day....people pay off their mortgage and cancel their homeowners insurance either because they can't afford it or they just don't want to spend the money.
So you agree that if you don't pay for insurance, you are not insured and should receive no benefit?
The Oklahoma Department of Emergency Management reported that FEMA/State damage assessment teams found:
??? 63 homes damaged, including 53 destroyed in Payne County. Fifty-nine homes were uninsured.
??? 38 homes damaged, including 33 destroyed in Oklahoma County. Thirty-one were uninsured.
??? 154 homes damaged, including 141 destroyed in Cleveland County. The number of uninsured homes was 127.
Not going to fall into your logic of absolutes. I don't believe in "fireman" insurance, and I believe in single-payer universal health care...so don't think since I believe in having to rebuild your home on your own if it burns, that I also believe you should be SOL if you get sick or injured and you don't have insurance, nor do I believe your house should burn if you haven't paid your "fireman" insurance.