B. Hussein recieved most BP cash in last 20 years

[Banned]

This is really bad! Obama used donated money for a campaign?!?! God what a crook, he should of used it for the strip clubs like the true Americans would so desire their donations to go to.

Oh yeah BP donated money to the company i work for some years back, guess i should turn in my two week notice then.


grow up.

So you never ever criticized Bush and Cheney's Haliburton connection at all over their 8 year reign?

Nope i never did. I criticized him for being a president to start two unnecessary wars, and throwing us trillions of dollars in debt. I also am criticized the media and those who are retarded enough to believe that Obama has spent more then the cost of two wars. Another thing, its okay to send kids to die, but its not okay for all children to be offered health insurance, where do i sign up for this. Maybe its my generation and my independent thought, as i watch kids i graduated with going off to war to piss off terrorists, and potential terrorist and call it home security. That is the dumbest foreign policy i have ever heard of. Very smart, lets piss people who will kill them selves to take out a few families who haven't done anything to anyone, and while all this is going on we Americans are bitching about a few dollars taken from our wallets. Cant imagine why other countries hate us.
This is what i'm against! I am against STUPIDITY!

Also i'm not a liberal, I just don't agree with war and i am a humanitarian.

I know independent thought is a hard concept for you. But try.

Please take your own advice! Also maybe pick up a guitar or another instrument and find a new hobby then sit on here and pick apart something that you either read on the internet or another form of controlled media

If you have read any of my posts, you would know that I am a huge Ron Paul supporter. He wants to pull ALL American servicemen from all of the 130 countries that we have military bases. Pull them all home. Middle East, S. Korea, Germany and wherever they are, bring them home. That would stop starting wars and save us over $1 TRILLION dollars.

When we bring all the military home, and cut the size of government, we will be able to keep most of the money that WE earn, not give it to this wasteful government. Then we can afford our health care, not need a cradle to grave nanny socialist government to trickle our money back to us as they see fit.

Not an original thought but different from the Republican and Democrat dogma, which is to keep things the way they are.

[Hawk]

Joe, I don't know why you don't understand that if each and every American has more spending money, prices will go up.

If everyone is richer, every company can charge more. It seems common sence to me.

You will end up with the same amount of spending power in you pocket as before and less government services. Why would you want an extra $3000 in your pocket if inflation took up the formerly extra $3000?

You might make some good points about some government services that could be cut, but if the sole purpose is to provide you with more material wealth, inflation will kiss it good bye for you.

Supply and demand has it's counter part. It's called charge whatever the market will bear. Can you name any companies (services or goods) that wouldn't charge higher prices if they could ? Competition can be good if it is true, but if one company raises it's prices, so does the other. I see it all of the time.

[bassist_25]

Supply and demand has it's counter part. It's called charge whatever the market will bear.

It's not a counter-part; it's the ultimate function of supply and demand: price equilibrium.

Competition can be good if it is true, but if one company raises it's prices, so does the other. I see it all of the time.

That depends on what market a business is in and how that business competes. In a pure-competition market where products are not differentiated, one company raising its price is effectively slitting its own throat. In an oligopoly, products can have varying prices, because companies can choose to compete and deliver value to customers on a range of factors, including price.

With that said, the economic libertarians and anarcho-capitalists, who believe that all of the world's woes can be solved by markets, are just as utopian and shortsighted as the communists who think a state-controlled, planned economy is the ultimate good. Sometimes, social utility just can't be delivered in a for-profit paradigm.

If you have read any of my posts, you would know that I am a huge Ron Paul supporter. He wants to pull ALL American servicemen from all of the 130 countries that we have military bases. Pull them all home. Middle East, S. Korea, Germany and wherever they are, bring them home. That would stop starting wars and save us over $1 TRILLION dollars.

Do you ever find it ironic that you pejoratively refer to Obama as "The Messiah," yet you yourself deify Ron Paul in a similar way?

[Hawk]

I've seen it many times, personally. One business will "shop" another business and say, "Wow, they're getting that much for that? We've got to raise our price too". It's common practice.

I was talking to one drum manufacturer , for instance, who loves it that another manufacturer charges a high price because it legitimises their own high price.

[bassist_25]

I'm not saying it doesn't happen; I was just giving the basic theoretical overview. Drum equipment is an oligopolistic market. Manufacturers can compete on factors other than price, so price matching doesn't really matter so as long as the second company doesn't concede marketshare by raising its price to match the other company.

In fact, there could be a strategic benefit in price matching. Whether correct or incorrect, many people believe that you "get what you pay for." Some people may believe that by paying less for a piece of music equipment, they may be getting an inferior product. That hypothesis would make an interesting study if there isn't already empirical research on it.

[Merge]

Call me stupid, it wouldn't be the first time, but I'm having trouble understand inflation. Could one of you please explain it to me??

[Banned]

Do you ever find it ironic that you pejoratively refer to Obama as "The Messiah," yet you yourself deify Ron Paul in a similar way?

I am against B. Hussein policies. I am a proponent of Ron Paul's policies. I just mention his name because it is easier than trying to explain all of his political principles and Austrian libertarian economics.

I will deify free markets, a non imperialist foreign policy, greatly reduced government and personal liberty every day, whether it is Ron Paul leading this movement or anyone else.

The reason I use the Messiah reference is that so many gullible sheeple in this country believed the bull crap that this politician was somehow different. The real reason he won is that he was not Bush. Any democrat could have won, even John Edwards!

Bill, I will trade for more of my own money for less government services EVERY DAY!!!!!

That is nirvana to a libertarian.

[lonewolf]

Call me stupid, it wouldn't be the first time, but I'm having trouble understand inflation. Could one of you please explain it to me??

Inflation is simply the rate at which the price of goods & services rise. It can also be expressed as the rate at which the value of currency drops. There are many causes of inflation, including increased product demand, decreased product supply and printing too much money.

As Bassist25 pointed out, with 99% of goods & services, prices are dictated by supply and demand. When supply and demand offset one another, the resulting price is called price equilibrium, or what Hawk calls "the price that the market will bear". When prices are set too high, demand drops and conversely, when prices are set too low, demand rises (see Behringer).

When the supply of a product drops or the demand for a product increases, it tends to put upward pressure on the price of that product....and vice versa.

I am not aware of any empirical correlation between people having more money and increased demand for products. I'd expect there is a macro effect, but it is not quantifiable. This would be more influenced by an increase in overall money supply, not who or what is spending it.

Inflation generally goes in the same direction as demand and the opposite direction of supply.

[bassist_25]

When prices are set too high, demand drops and conversely, when prices are set too low, demand rises (see Behringer).

And this is a principle called demand elasticity. Some products are more elastic than others. We saw this a few summers ago when gas rose to $4.00 a gallon. People were willing to pay $3.00 a gallon, but they curbed their consumption when it hit the $4.00 mark. Of course, there were other variables at play that affected people's consumption of gas, but that's the basic view of it.

I am against B. Hussein policies. I am a proponent of Ron Paul's policies. I just mention his name because it is easier than trying to explain all of his political principles and Austrian libertarian economics.

I will deify free markets, a non imperialist foreign policy, greatly reduced government and personal liberty every day, whether it is Ron Paul leading this movement or anyone else.

The reason I use the Messiah reference is that so many gullible sheeple in this country believed the bull crap that this politician was somehow different. The real reason he won is that he was not Bush. Any democrat could have won, even John Edwards!

But you're still putting your faith in a person or ideaology that you believe is going to create a paradigm change and be a social, economic, and political panacea. Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't see much difference in that than the people who voted for Obama on the promise of hope and change. How do you know that Ron Paul is going to be any different? It's easy to put forth ideas in an election; it's another thing to implement those changes when you have a contentious Congress (and the Republicans aren't big Ron Paul supporters). That's not a slam against Ron Paul...or any politician for that matter. It's just reality. I don't purport to be an expert on policy analysis, but I do know that reductionist arguments for or against any policy change are generally short-sighted. Most political systems are much too complex to be reduced to just having high utility or low utility. I don't know if you've seriously contemplated Ron Paul's posited policies, but you've delineated them in slogan and soundbite form.

Again, I don't see much difference; you're just on the flip side of the ideaological coin as Obama supporters.

[Banned]

B How do you know that Ron Paul is going to be any different?

That is an easy one. His voting record.


He has never voted for a tax increase, ever. He voted "no" more than any other congressman in history. He votes against increasing the size and power of government. Why, he judges each vote on the Constitution, and most bills that Congress votes on are un-Constitutional. Like every bill B. Hussein has signed.

If you looked at BP Oil Barack's voting record, as both a state senator and US senator, he never missed a chance to vote for tax increases, greater spending and any time to increase the size and power of government.

Paul, as someone who in the past who claimed they were libertarian, you should know all of this.

[bassist_25]

That's kinda my point, though. He's voting in Congress, but his role is going to be different in an executive position. If he can't rally Congress, it's going to be difficult for him to push his agenda through. Therefore, not much could change if he can't get Congress on his side for a lot of his primary goals.

As far as being a libertarian - I'm more of a John Rawls styled social libertarian. I'm actually pretty much in the center on fiscal issues and have rejected a lot of the Nozickian and Randian principles as being either unrealistic or repugnant to my personal ethics.

Damn it, I got myself into a political discussion on RP.

[Banned]

That's kinda my point, though. He's voting in Congress, but his role is going to be different in an executive position.

The role would be different but the man's principles would not change. He would still judge his actions by the Constitution. He would probably set the record for vetoing bills sent to him by Congress. That would cause gridlock and that would be the best thing right now. Wouldn't it be refreshing to have a president that actually upholds the Constitution that he is sworn to uphold?

Liberal executive and liberal legislature that exists now and in the recent past (last administration) equal disaster for this country.

Gridlock beats $14 Billion projected debt any day.

BTW, if you took an online libertarian test, ( http://www.bcaplan.com/cgi-bin/purity.cgi ) I think you would not score well as a libertarian, IMHO.

[lonewolf]

Joe, I don't know why you don't understand that if each and every American has more spending money, prices will go up.

If everyone is richer, every company can charge more. It seems common sence to me.

You will end up with the same amount of spending power in you pocket as before and less government services. Why would you want an extra $3000 in your pocket if inflation took up the formerly extra $3000?

Inflation is measured on a macro scale and that includes the result of spending from all sources, whether its personal, business or government. The rate of inflation from the "spending" or "demand" component is determined by spending efficiency, or getting the biggest bang for the buck. The higher the efficiency, the lower the inflation rate and vice versa. Let's imagine if individuals would spend money like the government...

Is an individual inclined to pay the cashier an additional 10% corruption kickback charge for a given item? What about an additional 20-30% to pay people to collect, cash and disburse their paycheck?

Do you think that individuals would make item requirements so steep that it is necessary to custom order those items at a cost of many times a stock item that would fill the need? Would they stock up on items that they will probably never use and then sell them in new condition for pennies on the dollar? Would they spend an additional 10% and wait 3 months to find the "best deal."

Would you do these things? Or would you handle your own money and look for the best value on an item that you need and go purchase it?

Of the three primary spenders listed above, who do you believe has the greater spending efficiency resulting in lower inflation?

More importantly, which would contribute the most to economic growth?

[bassist_25]

BTW, if you took an online libertarian test, ( http://www.bcaplan.com/cgi-bin/purity.cgi ) I think you would not score well as a libertarian, IMHO.

I scored a 38. The construct and discriminant validity of the metric is flawed, because, while the questions are operationalized as either representing social and fiscal libertarianism, the ultimate score does not make a distinction between these two schools of libertarian thought. More so, the scoring is flawed as well and is weighted heavily towards making someone who's fiscally libertarian appear more libertarian than he or she really is. For example, a 3 point question asks if you would reduce taxes by 50% or more while a 5 point question asks if you would totally abolish taxes. A person who believes that taxes should be abolished is probably going to agree that taxes should be reduced by 50% or more. Ultimately, a factor analysis would have to be computed to determine if those two questions are in fact measuring the same thing, but a safe guess is that they probably are at least somewhat correlated.

I always score "Libertarian" on the Nolan Chart, which is thought to have some issues with validity and making people appear to be more libertarian than what they really are.

But I digress; my point is that there are multiple schools of libertarian thought, even including socialist libertarianism which posits that all land should be held in common ownership, so saying "this person is more or less libertarian" is like saying Coltrane is more or less jazz than Dave Brubeck. They both play jazz, but they're two different forms of jazz.

[lonewolf]

BTW, if you took an online libertarian test, ( http://www.bcaplan.com/cgi-bin/purity.cgi ) I think you would not score well as a libertarian, IMHO.

The construct and discriminant validity of the metric is flawed, because, while the questions are operationalized as either representing social and fiscal libertarianism, the ultimate score does not make a distinction between these two schools of libertarian thought. More so, the scoring is flawed as well and is weighted heavily towards making someone who's fiscally libertarian appear more libertarian than he or she really is.

Any test or survey that does not contain absolute answers (i.e. 2+2=4) is flawed. As subtle as it might be, there is always some measure of bias in the construct and weighting of the metrics...whether intended or not. All that can be done is to minimize that bias, but it is never eliminated.

[bassist_25]

Any test or survey that does not contain absolute answers (i.e. 2+2=4) is flawed. As subtle as it might be, there is always some measure of bias in the construct and weighting of the metrics...whether intended or not. All that can be done is to minimize that bias, but it is never eliminated.

And I don't discount that. My point, though, was the flaw of the metric in its scoring was overt and could easily be remedied. Before the metric could be further validated, there would need to be a factor analysis computed to determine which items are operationally similar and, in essence, are measuring the same construct.

[Banned]

Just as I thought. 38 makes you slightly libertarian which was my opinion of your politics based on your many posts here. You seem to jump to defend supporters of this current administration way too often.

BP Oil Barry does not have a libertarian cell in his body.

[bassist_25]

You seem to jump to defend supporters of this current administration way too often.

Huh?

I usually point out the huge biases that people have in political threads, and that includes the almost obsession people have with hating Obama. I remember explictly stating multiple times that I'm ambivalent about this administration.

I've pointed out the problems with the metric. I've pointed out the different ideologies that fall under the umbrella term "libertarian," which makes reductionist conclusions with regard to the philosophy pointless. But it really doesn't matter to me if I don't have enough street cred with libertarians; I moved away from that label quite a while ago. I just do my thing and try to be practical with what I think works.

[songsmith]

If it is fair to link W and Cheney to Haliburton, it is equally fair to link B. Hussein to BP Oil and their slick.

johnny, I know independent thought is a hard concept for you. But try.

That was almost coherent. Now let's examine it:
Bush didn't just take election money from Big Oil, he was an active part of it, as the part owner of a Texas oil company.
Dick Cheney wasn't just linked to Halliburton, he was an executive in the company.
The Bush admin engineered a 20 billion dollar per year tax cut for the American oil industry, which still exists. Did BP give Obama 20 billion dollars? A year?
P.S.-- BP does own the oil that's spilling into the Gulf, but they don't operate the rig, they sub it out. To whom?
Halliburton.

Today, media is reporting that there are 200,000 gallons leaking per day from the well... for the first few days, BP acknowledged only 1000 gallons per day, at a time when the slick was 20 by 40 miles in size. But hey, big business would never lie to us, and if they do, it's simply the free market, anything goes, right?
And I know you won't be criticizing the Obama admin's response to the disaster, because it's not government's role to interfere in business matters, and this disaster was caused by a business. --->JMS

[lonewolf]

Today, media is reporting that there are 200,000 gallons leaking per day from the well... for the first few days, BP acknowledged only 1000 gallons per day, at a time when the slick was 20 by 40 miles in size. But hey, big business would never lie to us, and if they do, it's simply the free market, anything goes, right?

Actually, BP estimated 1000 BARRELS of oil per day or 42,000 gallons per day. That's still a pretty low estimate, but not 200:1.

[Banned]

If it is fair to link W and Cheney to Haliburton, it is equally fair to link B. Hussein to BP Oil and their slick.

johnny, I know independent thought is a hard concept for you. But try.

That was almost coherent. Now let's examine it:
Bush didn't just take election money from Big Oil, he was an active part of it, as the part owner of a Texas oil company.
Dick Cheney wasn't just linked to Halliburton, he was an executive in the company.
The Bush admin engineered a 20 billion dollar per year tax cut for the American oil industry, which still exists. Did BP give Obama 20 billion dollars? A year?
P.S.-- BP does own the oil that's spilling into the Gulf, but they don't operate the rig, they sub it out. To whom?
Halliburton.

Today, media is reporting that there are 200,000 gallons leaking per day from the well... for the first few days, BP acknowledged only 1000 gallons per day, at a time when the slick was 20 by 40 miles in size. But hey, big business would never lie to us, and if they do, it's simply the free market, anything goes, right?
And I know you won't be criticizing the Obama admin's response to the disaster, because it's not government's role to interfere in business matters, and this disaster was caused by a business. --->JMS

In your examination you totally ignored the largest recipient of BP Oil money for the last 20 years. BP Barry only came onto the national scene 3 years ago and yet he is the leading money getter from BP for the last 20 years!!?! How did that happen? Why did yout fail to mention any of that?

My beef is with the liberal media, who jumped all over W for a hurricane. The liberal socialist idiots in New Orleans had a four day notice to get the hell out, but the media ignored that and just jumped on W. It is not the White House's job to evacuate brainless democrats when a category 4 or 5 hurricane in heading right at them.

The white house should not have any role in this clean up either. They waited way longer than 5 days, but nothing from Chris Matthews about this delay? They have to protect BP Barry.

Good for the goose, good for the gander, except if you are MSNBC or CNN.

[Merge]

Thanks for answering my question, Lonewolf.

[Hawk]

In 2010 71% of big oil moiney went to Repiblicnas.

John McCain recieved $2.4 Million from big oil.
Obama recieved under $900 Thousand.

[f.sciarrillo]

In 2010 71% of big oil moiney went to Repiblicnas.

John McCain recieved $2.4 Billion from big oil.
Obama recieved under $900 Thousand.

CBS even said that Obama received more money from big oil than any other politician.

After watching MSNBC and CNN on this matter. I find myself thinking that Obama could be a little bit of a mistake for this whole ordeal. Mostly for the fact that he was too laxed on them - and taking his time to respond (I already said my case on that part, and I am sticking to it till I see otherwise). There should have been some measures put into place and he didn't do it. Mind you that I am not saying that it is all Barries fault, I am simply stating the obvious. And it is something that Bush should have done as well.

[hannible]

My friend was there in Iraq when the wells were put out ! Our service men kept all those well experts safe . They had the balls not Halburtin!