How are we going to pay for all this shit?

Sounds like you're confused.

One might argue it does the opposite Plus we can still get it here by rail. Which will please Warren Buffet

And drilling is now being guided by sound lending principles....have you looked at the monetary loss wall street recieved with that drill baby drill mantra? That was not sustainable. Originally Posted by WTF

All due respect, (and I don't know how much respect you think I might afford to you) but what would be the counter argument? You leave yourself open to "the opposite". Just asking for someone who might understand your point. I sure, as Hell, wouldn't. Just sayin'. I take you as a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. Do I offend you? Mr. LIBERTARIAN.

My problem with setting tax rates at revenue maximizing levels is that it treats taxpayers like cattle or slaves. They're here to be milked for the benefit of the government. The government is more important than the people. That's just not right. And considering how wasteful the federal government is, it's just stupid to design tax policy around that. Originally Posted by Tiny

I hardly ever disagree with my manners Tiny but I have to disagree strongly, like in A Few Good Men, we definitely should be seeking the sweet spot to maximize revenue. It is the most efficient course of action.

Of course the size of government should not expand beyond that efficiency.

My opinion of course.

All due respect, (and I don't know how much respect you think I might afford to you) but what would be the counter argument? You leave yourself open to "the opposite". Just asking for someone who might understand your point. I sure, as Hell, wouldn't. Just sayin'. I take you as a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. Do I offend you? Mr. LIBERTARIAN. Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Respect on a Whore board? Simple answer...I seek none.

My point was really a counterpoint to Tiny's comment about our trade deficit. Importing Canadian oil does not help that deficit....it in fact grows it.

He could argue that better from them than the Saudi's but he can't argue it effects the trade deficit any differently than any other oil importation.

That is why I said the opposite could be argued.

Sounds like you're confused.

There is a huge difference from what a candidate promised and reality.

Trump promised to pay off our debt!

Biden promises to be carbon neutral
Don't make investment choices on idiotic pie in the sky promises.

The reality is importing Canadian oil does not help our trade balance. One might argue it does the opposite Plus we can still get it here by rail. Which will please Warren Buffet

And drilling is now being guided by sound lending principles....have you looked at the monetary loss wall street recieved with that drill baby drill mantra? That was not sustainable.

But yes...I agree. Salty does not know shit about the history or economics of the oil industry Originally Posted by WTF

Obama pledged to cut the debt in half by the end of his first term. how'd that work out?


2008 $10,025 68% Bank bailout & QE
2009 $11,910 82% Bailout cost $250B ARRA added $242B
2010 $13,562 90% ARRA added $400B, payroll tax holiday ended, Obama Tax cuts, ACA, Simpson-Bowles
2011 $14,790 95% Debt crisis, recession and tax cuts reduced revenue
2012 $16,066 99% Fiscal cliff
2013 $16,738 99% Sequester, government shutdown
2014 $17,824 101% QE ended, debt ceiling crisis
2015 $18,151 100% Oil prices fell
2016 $19,573 105% Brexit


now before you jabber about Reagan again, let's take a look shall we?


1980 $908 32% Volcker raised fed rate to 20%
1981 $998 31% Reagan tax cut
1982 $1,142 34% Reagan increased spending
1983 $1,377 37% Jobless rate 10.8%
1984 $1,572 38% Increased defense spending
1985 $1,823 41%
1986 $2,125 46% Reagan lowered taxes
1987 $2,350 48% Market crash
1988 $2,602 50% Fed raised rates


in raw numbers Reagan tripled the debt, Obama "only" doubled it. got that, professor?

now look at the GDP percentages. which president really jacked it up? remember professor you blabbered about the ratio in earlier posts so you can't back off now, Yosemite Sam.


Obama. under Reagan it increased 18% capping at 50%. under Obama it increased 37% capping out at 105%.


Lusty is right. Obama is the debt whore prez. and why do you dislike Ronnie so much? did he once fornicate with a close familial relation of yours?


BAHHAAHHAAAA

]Respect on a Whore board? Simple answer...I seek none.[/COLOR]

My point was really a counterpoint to Tiny's comment about our trade deficit. Importing Canadian oil does not help that deficit....it in fact grows it.

He could argue that better from them than the Saudi's but he can't argue it effects the trade deficit any differently than any other oil importation.

That is why I said the opposite could be argued. Originally Posted by WTF;1062676661[COLOR="SandyBrown"

First, on the hightlighted, I damn sure agree with you on that. I ask nobody to take me seriously.

Second, I now understand Canada would benefit from us importing oil as oppose to use exporting oil. Net loss. I understand losing money. When a hooker tricks us. I feel it.

I'm beginning to understand.

... So lemme understand this... WTF is of the belief that
Drilling over Alaska-way for oil IS WORSE and MORE COSTLY
for America then bringing it in from Russia and the Middle East??

Is THAT it??

#### Salty

I hardly ever disagree with my manners Tiny but I have to disagree strongly, like in A Few Good Men, we definitely should be seeking the sweet spot to maximize revenue. It is the most efficient course of action.

Of course the size of government should not expand beyond that efficiency.

My opinion of course. Originally Posted by WTF

I'm gonna disrespect you and ask for a video clip or a description of the scene in A Few Good Men for some context.

... So lemme understand this... WTF is of the belief that
Drilling over Alaska-way for oil IS WORSE and MORE COSTLY
for America then bringing it in from Russia and the Middle East??

Is THAT it??

#### Salty Originally Posted by Salty Again

that appears to be the nutty professor's claim.



BAHHAHHAAAAA

... So lemme understand this... WTF is of the belief that
Drilling over Alaska-way for oil IS WORSE and MORE COSTLY
for America then bringing it in from Russia and the Middle East??

Is THAT it??

#### Salty Originally Posted by Salty Again

Sounds Australian? Or an obsequious interjection?


Don't try too hard to sound Australian. Just be yourself and we will decipher for ourselves.

Obama pledged to cut the debt in half by the end of his first term. how'd that work out?


2008 $10,025 68% Bank bailout & QE
2009 $11,910 82% Bailout cost $250B ARRA added $242B
2010 $13,562 90% ARRA added $400B, payroll tax holiday ended, Obama Tax cuts, ACA, Simpson-Bowles
2011 $14,790 95% Debt crisis, recession and tax cuts reduced revenue
2012 $16,066 99% Fiscal cliff
2013 $16,738 99% Sequester, government shutdown
2014 $17,824 101% QE ended, debt ceiling crisis
2015 $18,151 100% Oil prices fell
2016 $19,573 105% Brexit


now before you jabber about Reagan again, let's take a look shall we?


1980 $908 32% Volcker raised fed rate to 20%
1981 $998 31% Reagan tax cut
1982 $1,142 34% Reagan increased spending
1983 $1,377 37% Jobless rate 10.8%
1984 $1,572 38% Increased defense spending
1985 $1,823 41%
1986 $2,125 46% Reagan lowered taxes
1987 $2,350 48% Market crash
1988 $2,602 50% Fed raised rates


in raw numbers Reagan tripled the debt, Obama "only" doubled it. got that, professor?

now look at the GDP percentages. which president really jacked it up? remember professor you blabbered about the ratio in earlier posts so you can't back off now, Yosemite Sam.


Obama. under Reagan it increased 18% capping at 50%. under Obama it increased 37% capping out at 105%.


Lusty is right. Obama is the debt whore prez. and why do you dislike Ronnie so much? did he once fornicate with a close familial relation of yours?


BAHHAAHHAAAA Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

I said Reagan STARTED IT.

I did not say he was the only one.

Are you really this dense?

Btw, thank you for pointing out who STARTED IT.

It had been going south since WWII. Even the person you despise Jimmy Carter did not do what Reagan did.

Waco is that dense.

I'm gonna disrespect you and ask for a video clip or a description of the scene in A Few Good Men for some context. Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

https://youtu.be/bOnRHAyXqYY

I said Reagan STARTED IT.

I did not say he was the only one.

Are you reall this dense?

Btw, thank you for pointing out who DTARTED IT.

It had been going south since WWII. Even the person you despise Jimmy Carter did not do what Reagan did. Originally Posted by WTF

going south? you sure? certainly not the debt itself, yeah? the debt stood at $827 32% in 1979 the year prior to Reagan's presidency. so certainty the debt itself wasn't "going south" was it? so what was going south? the percent to GDP? OPPS that wasn't going south either, u idiot


taking the number for the 20 years prior to Reagan show me where the percent was "going south"? if was in fact mostly constant in the mid 30's for the two decades prior.



1960 $286 54% Recession
1961 $289 52% Bay of Pigs
1962 $298 50% JFK budgets & Cuban missile crisis
1963 $306 48% U.S. aids Vietnam, JFK killed
1964 $312 46% LBJ's budgets & war on poverty
1965 $317 43% U.S. entered Vietnam War
1966 $320 40% 1967 $326 40%
1968 $348 39%
1969 $354 36% Nixon took office
1970 $371 35% Recession
1971 $398 35% Wage-price controls
1972 $427 34% Stagflation
1973 $458 33% Nixon ended gold standard & OPEC oil embargo
1974 $475 31% Watergate & budget process created
1975 $533 32% Vietnam War ended
1976 $620 33% Stagflation
1977 $699 34% Stagflation
1978 $772 33% Carter budgets & recession
1979 $82732%


so nutty professor ... WHAT WAS GOING SOUTH EXACTLY???


BAHHHHAAAAAAAAA

... So lemme understand this... WTF is of the belief that
Drilling over Alaska-way for oil IS WORSE and MORE COSTLY
for America then bringing it in from Russia and the Middle East??

Is THAT it??

#### Salty Originally Posted by Salty Again

I did not say it was worse....and it may or may not be more costly. That depends on the market

I did not say it was worse....and it may or may not be more costly. That depends on the market Originally Posted by WTF

no it doesn't. it depends on if Putin and the Arabs sell us oil at all. we are both old enough to remember the Arab oil embargo yeah? and what would be the market price if they did that again?


being dependent on foreign oil is just that nutty professor. not only is it a total fuck up to even allow it, if we ramp up production to net exporter status ... what does that do to yer market price, genius???


both Russia and OPEC have only one major source of revenue .. oil. cut that out from under them and their economies flounder.


butt .. you knew that, right, professor?


BAHHAHHAAAA