KRC Posted April 29, 2005 Posted April 29, 2005 I did not know that, but I am relieved to learn that I'm still accurate! 323559[/snapback] I just wanted to make sure you gave proper credit to the appropriate fuctionally illiterate stooge. It was back when Bush actually thought that the Democrats had a desire to work with him. We went to Kennedy and told him to write an education bill (since education was a major topic for Kennedy). Bush told him that if Kennedy would create the legislation and get it through congress, Bush would sign it. Kennedy wrote it and got it through congress, and Bush signed it.
Campy Posted April 29, 2005 Posted April 29, 2005 I'm with AD on this. Education should be regulated at the state level with each locality allowed some flexibility within the state's requirements. The feds have no business mandating educational requirements IMO.
KRC Posted April 29, 2005 Posted April 29, 2005 I'm with AD on this. Education should be regulated at the state level with each locality allowed some flexibility within the state's requirements. The feds have no business mandating educational requirements IMO. 323584[/snapback] I also agree, but I would take it one step further and put it on the local level. Let the parents have a greater say in their school district.
PastaJoe Posted April 29, 2005 Posted April 29, 2005 I guess you are one of those folks with no 401K or investments and believe that Social Security will take care of you in the future? Would you like some ketchup with those fries? 323484[/snapback] I'll take less growth in my 401K if it means lower energy costs now. Otherwise job growth will slow down and more people will be unable to afford to invest in 401Ks, as energy costs increase the cost of all goods. But feel free to keep defending the poor struggling oil companies against the evil American consumers.
VABills Posted April 29, 2005 Posted April 29, 2005 I also agree, but I would take it one step further and put it on the local level. Let the parents have a greater say in their school district. 323590[/snapback] Doesn't work. They just ask for more and more money, and you get a lot of nepatism (sp???) within the school system. Trust me, we live it here everyday. When our local budget for the school is 70% of the county taxes, and everything is getting cut, the school system as demanded a 25-30% raise in budget for 3 straight years and received it while test scores have plummeted.
Campy Posted April 29, 2005 Posted April 29, 2005 I also agree, but I would take it one step further and put it on the local level. Let the parents have a greater say in their school district. 323590[/snapback] That's what I meant but I chose my words poorly. I'm all for opt-in/opt-out programs at the state level like the NYS Regents, but I'm not comfortable with wide reaching mandates. In talking to several friends of mine who are high school teachers in Virginia, it's actually sad to hear them talk about the mandatory SOLs. They have all said in so many words that they no longer are allowed to teach, but to just have the students memorize. E.G.: I'd like to teach history, but instead of having my pupils understand how the East India Company's monopoly and the Townsend Act directly led to the Boston Tea Party, I'll have to drill into their head the useless factoid that it occured on December 16, 1773. I think the concept is more important than the factoid, but the factoid is what's on the SOL. To me, that's just stoopid.
IDBillzFan Posted April 29, 2005 Posted April 29, 2005 How about using the bully pulpit to talk about the excessive profits the energy companies are making that are hurting the average American, and asking them to share a bit of the sacrifice for the good of the economy. 323253[/snapback] I'm always amazed at how so many people feel the best way to fix a problem is to go to the people who are making the most money and tell them to stop doing what they're doing because it's not fair they're making so much money off the public. Things don't happen to us...we let things happen to us.
Alaska Darin Posted April 29, 2005 Posted April 29, 2005 I'll take less growth in my 401K if it means lower energy costs now. Otherwise job growth will slow down and more people will be unable to afford to invest in 401Ks, as energy costs increase the cost of all goods. But feel free to keep defending the poor struggling oil companies against the evil American consumers. 323602[/snapback] Time for someone to go take a class in market economics. Make sure to pay attention during the "Supply and Demand" chapter.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted April 29, 2005 Posted April 29, 2005 Time for someone to go take a class in market economics. Make sure to pay attention during the "Supply and Demand" chapter. 323632[/snapback] Crap Throwing Monkey's class in Market Economics Maybe the carrot analogy is too tough for some people...
VABills Posted April 29, 2005 Posted April 29, 2005 Time for someone to go take a class in market economics. Make sure to pay attention during the "Supply and Demand" chapter. 323632[/snapback] Thanks for the sensible reply to him. I was still banging my head on the wall at the ignorance of the post.
Campy Posted April 29, 2005 Posted April 29, 2005 I'm always amazed at how so many people feel the best way to fix a problem is to go to the people who are making the most money and tell them to stop doing what they're doing because it's not fair they're making so much money off the public. Things don't happen to us...we let things happen to us. 323627[/snapback] Just thinking out loud... We have tree companies and contractors who inflate their pricing before and after hurricanes because the market will bear it. I'm not saying that I totally disagree with you (because I don't), however, there is a mighty fine line between things like collusion and price-gauging and free market and laissez-faire capitalism.
Alaska Darin Posted April 29, 2005 Posted April 29, 2005 Crap Throwing Monkey's class in Market Economics Maybe the carrot analogy is too tough for some people... 323636[/snapback] That's probably even too simplistic. The reality of the hatred for big oil goes back to the Rockefeller monopoly. Most people don't even know why they hate them, other than "it's what we've always done." Oil is one of the most perilous businesses to be in. It's very expensive, filled with risk (both on safety and political fronts), and historically has a very low return on dollars invested. Think Bill Gates is worried about workman's comp or getting permits to design software on an offshore rig? How about transporting his licenses across delicate eco-systems? If people really want to be pissed about something, look closely at the banking industry. They're the ones screwing you royally. Oil isn't without it's faults (what big industry is wartless?) but compared to banks, they're choirboys.
Alaska Darin Posted April 29, 2005 Posted April 29, 2005 Just thinking out loud... We have tree companies and contractors who inflate their pricing before and after hurricanes because the market will bear it. I'm not saying that I totally disagree with you (because I don't), however, there is a mighty fine line between things like collusion and price-gauging and free market and laissez-faire capitalism. 323642[/snapback] While I agree to a point, the reality is the enviroterrorist NIMBY's and the bureaucrats in Washington have screwed us by not allowing more refineries to be built. In fact, Washington could probably drop oil prices nearly in half by forcing the oil companies to stop refining virtually useless mid-grade gasoline, instead using that capacity to make regular octane for the masses. But that makes too much sense and wouldn't give the ill-informed a bully pulpit.
Campy Posted April 29, 2005 Posted April 29, 2005 While I agree to a point, the reality is the enviroterrorist NIMBY's and the bureaucrats in Washington have screwed us by not allowing more refineries to be built. In fact, Washington could probably drop oil prices nearly in half by forcing the oil companies to stop refining virtually useless mid-grade gasoline, instead using that capacity to make regular octane for the masses. But that makes too much sense and wouldn't give the ill-informed a bully pulpit. 323652[/snapback] It would also have an adverse impact on the balance sheets of the oil industry, who as we all know, has greased many-a-pocket in DC.
Alaska Darin Posted April 29, 2005 Posted April 29, 2005 It would also have an adverse impact on the balance sheets of the oil industry, who as we all know, has greased many-a-pocket in DC. 323657[/snapback] Sure - but what industry hasn't? Washington is "For Sale" and virtually no one up there is immune to it.
Campy Posted April 29, 2005 Posted April 29, 2005 Sure - but what industry hasn't? Washington is "For Sale" and virtually no one up there is immune to it. 323661[/snapback] No argument there. More thinking out loud... Someone posted above about the animosity toward "big oil." I think there are two reasons. First, as mentioned above, the "Rockefellar effect" plays a part in that. When many of us (not you or I per se, but us meaning Americans) where relagated to breadlines and pan handling during the Depression, I imagine that there was a lot of jealousy and resentment that the moguls of the day were able to get by relatively unscathed due to their vast amount of wealth. Secondly, I think people don't like big oil because we all know that we don't have any viable alternatives. They own us, we have no choice but to pay what they charge. We can't run to Target because the cashier at WalMart pi$$ed us off- and not having that option to take our business elsewhere makes us feel helpless - which is something I don't think we like.
IDBillzFan Posted April 29, 2005 Posted April 29, 2005 Just thinking out loud... We have tree companies and contractors who inflate their pricing before and after hurricanes because the market will bear it. I'm not saying that I totally disagree with you (because I don't), however, there is a mighty fine line between things like collusion and price-gauging and free market and laissez-faire capitalism. 323642[/snapback] I agree with you. No question. My only argument is simply there has to be a better way to address situations like this rather than saying "Hey, you guys doing all the business and making all the money! Stop doing that because it's bad for the rest of us." We have people we've elected who are in positions to do something better, and more responsible, than that. We should begin holding them accountable as well.
Alaska Darin Posted April 29, 2005 Posted April 29, 2005 We have people we've elected who are in positions to do something better, and more responsible, than that. We should begin holding them accountable as well. 323684[/snapback] Which would be ALOT easier if the choices weren't limited to TWO virtual mirror images.
VABills Posted April 29, 2005 Posted April 29, 2005 No argument there. More thinking out loud... Someone posted above about the animosity toward "big oil." I think there are two reasons. First, as mentioned above, the "Rockefellar effect" plays a part in that. When many of us (not you or I per se, but us meaning Americans) where relagated to breadlines and pan handling during the Depression, I imagine that there was a lot of jealousy and resentment that the moguls of the day were able to get by relatively unscathed due to their vast amount of wealth. Secondly, I think people don't like big oil because we all know that we don't have any viable alternatives. They own us, we have no choice but to pay what they charge. We can't run to Target because the cashier at WalMart pi$$ed us off- and not having that option to take our business elsewhere makes us feel helpless - which is something I don't think we like. 323674[/snapback] But not all oil companies are the same company. Like your walmart target scenerio, go to exxon, wawa, BP, etc... The problem isn't the company it is the soure of the oil right now. They have scaled back production at the same time the demand especially rom places like China has gone up.
Campy Posted April 29, 2005 Posted April 29, 2005 But not all oil companies are the same company. Like your walmart target scenerio, go to exxon, wawa, BP, etc... The problem isn't the company it is the soure of the oil right now. They have scaled back production at the same time the demand especially rom places like China has gone up. 323689[/snapback] Demand's up in India too from what I read. I understand there are different petro companies, but I think most people don't know or care who the fuel provider is, all they know is that it all costs 2.34 per gallon at all of the stations in their town. Hell, I'm like that. I use 2 different stations (depending if I'm getting gas on the way "out" or on the way home), and I really don't care who dumps the gas into their tanks - gas is gas is gas. But I do care how much it costs to dump it into my tank, and there's no difference there between the stations.
Recommended Posts