Yeah, "billions" was an exaggeration. These deepwater wells are expensive, but not that expensive. Petrobras spent $250 million on one recently. Meanwhile, Transocean (RIG) recently signed a 5 year deal on a new drillship for $1.18 Billion. No comment on how many holes will be drilled. The drillship cost them about $750 million to build. So yeah, you got me. But while you "got me" on how much to drill a well, you missed the larger issues. All that shit about "unscrupulous wealth" earned by the evil oil companies, "gouging" taking place at the gas stations. That "windfall profit tax" so that you could "spread the wealth around". Maybe you understand the oil business, but it wasn't clear from your post. What was clear was that you knew these guys were unscrupulous, and you were all for "taking" their dough from them. In terms of what's wrong with this board? Well hey, let's just say you missed that one by a mile too. Take your head out of your ass son. OldTrader
What if theoretically the following experiment could be done to determine which system is better at bringing prosperity, Capitalism or Marxism: Take a hypothetical nation with a political void needing to be filled. This nation has a large population, but the standard of living is unacceptably low. The nation needs significant infrastructure improvements and a jump start to its economy. The problems are pretty much spread out evenly across the nation; no one sector is doing much better than any other. Basically the entire place needs to be rebuilt from scratch. Now, split the country in two. In sector A, implement American style capitalism. Let corporations form, and conduct business with the absolute minimum of government interference. Free trade and private ownership of property is strongly encouraged by the government. It's every man for himself, and if you can't keep up with the rat race, you just may find yourself living in a cardboard box, as the government won't even guarantee your basic human needs. In sector B, implement the Marxist Red wet dream. Have the government impose strict egalitarian policies. Never allow the greedy capitalists to make fortunes off the sweat of the little people. In sector B, no one would ever become homeless or hungry because the government guarantees acceptable and equal living conditions for all it's citizens. Even free health care and secure employment are guaranteed. Sector B citizens are fortunate not to have to worry about much of anything, as the government will always be there to provide for them. Fast forward 40 years. Which sector has a higher standard of living? Where has prosperity bloomed? Which citizens are envious of those in the other sector? .. .. .. Now, what if I told you that this 'hypothetical' experiment isn't merely theory after all. What if I told you that all of the above has actually happened?... <img src=http://www.stolaf.edu/depts/cis/wp/sederbek/Pictures/maps/east-west-Germany-small.jpg> Still not convinced? Ok, let's just run our 'hypothetical' little experiment once again: <img src=http://www.askasia.org/images/teachers/media/65.gif>
You don't like this then (Palin supported the windfall profits tax): Windfall tax lets Alaska rake in billions from Big Oil "Over the opposition of oil companies, Republican Gov. Sarah Palin and Alaska's Legislature last year approved a major increase in taxes on the oil industry â a step that has generated stunning new wealth for the state as oil prices soared." http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008103325_alaskatax07.html
<img src=http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/attachment.php?s=&postid=2151215> That 'experiment' has been tried as well. Just check the Glorious Nation of Zimbabwe to see the results.
Yeah, I don't like it when Palin does it either. I only like Palin when I compare her to Biden or Obama. OldTrader
There is really something wrong with people like you. SO social security "might" fail SOMEDAY?! But meanwhile the are elderly persons and others in this USA that aregood solid citizens that would not have survived with it ! Guys like you are way over the edge in your lack of compassion for others. If I knew you in person, other than your Vietnam service which I highly respect, I would likely have nothing to do with you if you espoused these narrow-minded views; and trust me I am not a liberal despite my support this time for Obama. But as I have grown older I have gained more compassion for others who did not have the breaks you and I apparently had! Does that mean I want to give freebies or handouts to lazy losrs who take no responsbility to improve thier own frcking life?! NO. But sometimes good solid poorer people need help. AND sometimes even rich greedy self-centered incompetent losers need help, like lately. At these times the government is best suited to step in!
I didn't say it "might" fail. I said it will fail eventually. Don't shoot the messenger...I don't see any way for it to succeed. I don't see how that is lacking in compassion...I'm just calling it the way I see it. It's a lousy program. I've seen studies where it would have been a better program had the money been invested in T-Bills and bonds over the years. The problem I have with people like you is that whenever you find that situation that you feel requires "something", you want the power to "require me" to do it too. Nothing stops you from extending compassion, or indeed, money to those folks you find needy and deserving. But what you want is power over everyone else so that you can demand they do what you want them to do too. Guess what? You got it with social security. And again, the bottom line is that this program IS going to fail without significant changes that the politicians seem unwilling to make. OldTrader
That's more of a reflection of the news you're reading. GIGO, if you know the phrase. It's not going to fail. According to most projections, worst case is that benefits would have to be cut to 78% in 2050. And if you know of any projection that's accurate to 2050, I'd like to know what it is.
Nicely put. Reminded me of a favorite ET quote (I can't remember who wrote it) "It is not altruism to give someone else's money." The left's agenda is simply the pursuit of power under the guise of altruism, whether they realize it or not.
The left has an agenda, but they don't know what it is. Yeah, THAT makes sense! *rolls eyes* Where do you people come up with this shit?