In article ,
says...

On 2/24/2011 11:04 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 16:43:19 -0500,
wrote:

On 2/24/2011 4:22 PM, True North wrote:

$1.17 per liter today...expect it to be around $1.20 or 1.21
tomorrow.
A liter is what? About a quart? You're close to the predicted $5 a
gallon already.
1 gallon [US, liquid] = 3.785 411 784 liter
That would be 4.58 per gal. Looks like canada will win the race to $5.

Drilling in all of Alaska, off the coast of Calif., the Gulf of Mexico
and the Eastern Seaboard will solve the price problem.

On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 10:30:00 -0500, BAR wrote:

Drilling in all of Alaska, off the coast of Calif., the Gulf of Mexico
and the Eastern Seaboard will solve the price problem.

At best you might be able to kick the can down the road another 10
years or so. Long term we need policies that encourage the switch to
other forms of energy.

On 2/26/11 12:33 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 10:30:00 -0500, wrote:

Drilling in all of Alaska, off the coast of Calif., the Gulf of Mexico
and the Eastern Seaboard will solve the price problem.

At best you might be able to kick the can down the road another 10
years or so. Long term we need policies that encourage the switch to
other forms of energy.



Perhaps Bertie-Birther will be willing to kick in another $2 a gallon
for a special fund to pay for the clean-ups required if we adopt his
policy of "Drilling in all of Alaska, off the coast of Calif., the Gulf
of Mexico and the Eastern Seaboard..."

Of course, the clean-ups many times do not really clean up the messes.

But, Bertie-Birther doesn't give a crap about that. He doesn't live in
Alaska, off the coast of California, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Eastern
Seaboard."

And he doesn't have a boat.

On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 10:30:00 -0500, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On 2/24/2011 11:04 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 16:43:19 -0500,
wrote:

On 2/24/2011 4:22 PM, True North wrote:

$1.17 per liter today...expect it to be around $1.20 or 1.21
tomorrow.
A liter is what? About a quart? You're close to the predicted $5 a
gallon already.
1 gallon [US, liquid] = 3.785 411 784 liter
That would be 4.58 per gal. Looks like canada will win the race to $5.

Drilling in all of Alaska, off the coast of Calif., the Gulf of Mexico
and the Eastern Seaboard will solve the price problem.

No, actually it wouldn't. Oil prices are driven by many more things
that availability, we have a small percentage available, esp. in the
short term, and the environmental disaster would be beyond belief. Of
course, BP, Shell, Chevron, Exxon-Mobile would disagree. And you trust
them over someone who's job it is to protect the environment, right?

On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 02:44:36 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 12:13:53 -0800, wrote:

On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 21:54:58 -0500, wrote:


The problem with defense cuts is most if that budget is a jobs
program, building hardware we don't need and the Pentagon doesn't
want.

I would bring the troops home tho. Why prop up the economy of other
countries when we have as much trouble as we have.
We do have the precedent of having the military working on
infrastructure here with the Army Corps of Engineers. Maybe we should
declare war on bad bridges and roads here with a CCC type service.
The unions would never tolerate it.

So, it should all be done without union workers? Doesn't sound like
much of a jobs effort to me.

I was thinking more about what you can do with a half million military
people if we stop the wars and pull back all the people we have
scattered around the world in places where we won the war a half
century ago.

So, you want to use the military to do the same jobs as regular
citizens for 1/10th the pay? I'm sure that would do a lot for the
economy.

"1/10th"?
Why do you think military people are so poorly paid?

Your typical GI is making over $20k by the end of his first hitch and
if he really moves up through the ranks it could be $27k or more.
They also have most of their living expenses paid by Uncle Sam.

It may not be as much as an attorney makes but once you factor in room
and board, it is certainly competitive with a basic construction
worker who may only be making $14 an hour ... when he can find work.

$27K... wow, that's over the poverty line for sure. And, they get to
get shot at from time to time. So, you'd prefer to throw the basic
construction worker out of a job to save some money? Even that doesn't
compute.

On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 08:08:50 -0500, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 12:13:53 -0800, wrote:

On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 21:54:58 -0500, wrote:


The problem with defense cuts is most if that budget is a jobs
program, building hardware we don't need and the Pentagon doesn't
want.

I would bring the troops home tho. Why prop up the economy of other
countries when we have as much trouble as we have.
We do have the precedent of having the military working on
infrastructure here with the Army Corps of Engineers. Maybe we should
declare war on bad bridges and roads here with a CCC type service.
The unions would never tolerate it.

So, it should all be done without union workers? Doesn't sound like
much of a jobs effort to me.

I was thinking more about what you can do with a half million military
people if we stop the wars and pull back all the people we have
scattered around the world in places where we won the war a half
century ago.

So, you want to use the military to do the same jobs as regular
citizens for 1/10th the pay? I'm sure that would do a lot for the
economy.

"1/10th"?
Why do you think military people are so poorly paid?

Your typical GI is making over $20k by the end of his first hitch and
if he really moves up through the ranks it could be $27k or more.
They also have most of their living expenses paid by Uncle Sam.

It may not be as much as an attorney makes but once you factor in room
and board, it is certainly competitive with a basic construction
worker who may only be making $14 an hour ... when he can find work.

You forgot about the free medical, dental, vision, life insurance. Basic
legal services are free too.



Yes, and the death benefits, the grieving family...

Of course, the clean-ups many times do not really clean up the messes.

But, Bertie-Birther doesn't give a crap about that. He doesn't live in
Alaska, off the coast of California, the Gulf of Mexico, and the
Eastern Seaboard."

And he doesn't have a boat.
And you are truyng to make a case for sticking your head up your arse.

"BAR" wrote in message . ..


Besides eye glasses I didn't need medical care until I got married and
started having children. I did break my thumb when I was 27 which
required out patient surgery but that was only a couple of grand.

***********************

I thought you were crying about breaking your back when you froze up &
forgot to open your parachute??

On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 02:50:30 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 12:15:47 -0800, wrote:

On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 22:52:36 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 11:50:21 -0800, wrote:

On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 19:50:53 -0500, wrote:


yeah that's pretty much the case with the rich. they're paying the
lowest tax burden in 50 years.

The top 5% still pay 57% of the taxes but I would have them pay more
if they would. The problem is they also do most of the contributing to
candidates so they talk louder. If they raised the top rate, it would
be offset by more write offs rich people can take. We have a lot of
social engineering in the tax code.

So, you don't believe the tax code can be straightened out? You seem
to love absolutes.... well, if we do this, then they'll just get
around it... as though nobody else thinks this stuff through.

I guess I am just a slave to history. I have seen the tax code
"reformed" about 12 times in my life and every one ended up making it
better for the really rich.

Wow... so you're all in favor of union busting, even though unions
brought us decent working conditions, etc., but you're unwilling to at
least attempt meaningful tax reform. You're fine with throwing 1000s
out of work, and certainly you're not in favor of taxing the rich just
a few % more, but oh no, tax reform is pipe dream.

This is not the mine workers trying to get respirators down in the
mine. We are talking about government workers who make a very good
salary and have benefits unlike almost anyone out in the real world.

It is a fairly recent idea that government workers could organize in
the first place and I never actually saw the compelling need, except
to make union leaders rich and blackmail the tax payer.

As for tax reform. I would love to see it but I doubt I ever will.
That is just reality, not some dream about what politicians might do
in a perfect world.

Actually, it is about mine workers also. Unions have little or nothing
to do with the fiscal mess, but it sure is easy to condemn them.
Forget the outrageous corporate salaries... those don't count.

You have no solutions... you just want to pound your fist and claim
it's the working people who are terrible.

$27K... wow, that's over the poverty line for sure. And, they get to
get shot at from time to time. So, you'd prefer to throw the basic
construction worker out of a job to save some money? Even that doesn't
compute.
Actually it does.compute.