What we really need to be focusing on is developing alternative energy. There's a finite supply of all nonrenewable resources, and one day they'll all be gone. We really don't need to be dependent on anyone's oil supply, including our own.
And it isn't just the Bushes that were/are incompetent. In my opinion, they all are, democrat or rebublican.
I agree that Democrats and Republicans alike are incompetent...but for the past 20 years Republican Presidents were sitting when our nation went through wars and recessions...it seems they can't see the forest for the trees when it comes to oil and the defecit. Republican control of Congress and the White House is what has gotten us into the present day mess as well.
...And if you ain't down with that, I got 2 words for ya....
Clinton would have had his share of recession were it not for the dot-com explosion of the 90s. And lest we forget, the senate majority was republican during a majority of his presidency. Just further evidence that a big majority, regardless of party, are self-serving and cater to the special interests.
Not been around as long as some BUT IMHO the county is better off with a split goverment becouse when the House Senit and Prez have all been the same party (be they Dems or Reps) things have not went all that smoothly
Its the fundemental principle of our country, checks and balances. When its one party, those checks and balances tend to lose most of their power.
I don't think anybody expects fuel not to suffer inflation. Its going to. Hostilities in the world, sure increase a bit. Natural disasters, if it affects the flow of oil, sure increase a bit, but did none of this things occur in the past? Have there not been natural disasters before? And shouldn't our world, in which things are quicker to transport and produce, help counter some of that?
And like Burrhead said on the gas, I understand if the price they have to pay for the next tanker is going up, that they have to have the money to pay for that, but if they have 200 gallons in their tank and it costs them $1 a gallon to get it, and they turn around and sell for $1.10 then when it goes up to 1.20 for them to get it, there is some money difference, but they will then turn around and sell that for 1.30.....however if the next tanker goes back down to costing them 1.00 a gallon do they lower that price then (since the coming one they have to pay for is cheaper) or do they wait till it gets there? We all know the answer to that, they'll bump it as quick as they can if prices may go up, but lower it as slow as they can.
And rumors or things happening doesn't mean that the gas costs them anymore. If a store buys 200 gallons today, and won't need to have another tanker for a week, but tomorrow there is a rumor that we might be in war in Iran tomorrow, the gas prices will soar right then and there, now by the time next week comes along and they have to order their fuel, the price is still the same for them, do they say oh we charged triple for a week because things 'might get bad', we need to really lower the prices? Absolutely not, because they know they can get by with it.
(And yes using small numbers, easier to explain with)
What we've got here is failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach, so you get what we had here last week which is the way he wants it. Well, he gets it.
Bottom line is that the only thing that will ever correct this gas price situation is cheaper alternatives . Conflicts between countries will always occur , politicians will always look to their own interests , governmental regulations put on refineries will up the cost more , the stock market will drive prices and lots will still gouge prices whenever the opportunity presents . It's the 1st Law of Economics , Supply and Demand . As long as we have to have it and continue to use it there will be no change .
On a side note , our states are getting a pretty good cut in most cases . Here are the surrounding state taxes on a gallon of gas
NC ( Where I live ) 30.15
Va 18.1
Ky 17.4
WV 27.0
Tn 21.4
SC 16 .0
Al 18.0
GA 7.5 + 3%
Life is a grindstone . Whether it grinds us down or polishes us up , depends on what we are made of .
There are alot of if's and but's...but the bottom line is financially our country was better when Clinton was president..Historically, wars have pulled countries out of recession...not even a war has helped bush's economics..folks say the economy is strong...maybe if ya make over 250 grand per year..and there has always been war and strife in the world..but we didn't always have to worry about gas going up 25 cents per gallon in a week because of rumors of it...but then again we haven't always had a greedy self serving oil man callin all the shots either..and to think folks say they elected him because of his morals...gimme a break
...And if you ain't down with that, I got 2 words for ya....
Morality is great, but I always have a hard time when someone tells you how moral they are. If someone is moral, their actions speak for them more than their words ever will.
We've seen examples, and heard examples of Bush being human. That's why I always have a hard time when someone tries to appeal to how moral or how high of character they are.
Bush is more than likely more moral than Clinton, but we've seen examples of him being human. Those are overlooked, because well we're all human. Clinton lied to Congress. Does anybody think that Bush didn't? I'm not debating the was it right or was it wrong, but he's a politician, dang near everyone of them lie. He's human, he's flawed and that I accept.
People can blame Clinton for not taking care of things, but it can be turned right around and blamed on Bush 1, or blamed on Carter or blamed on Reagan or blamed on Kennedy, or Nixon, etc etc. Any President gets some good and some bad from previous administrations. To say otherwise is crazy and close-minded.
I can readily admit that Clinton made mistakes. I can readily admit that he lied. I hope that anybody who supports Dubya can admit that he made mistakes and that he most likely lied. At the end of the day, Clintons lie to Congress hurt nobody. You can say him being distracted by that whole thing did, but the direct point is him lying about sexual relations didn't hurt a person. Can anybody say that about Bush and his lies? Justified, maybe, the greater good, that's all subject to debate, but what isn't subject to debate that his lies cost people theif life. Now did his lying help save others in the long run? That's an impossible question to answer. I would dare say that people, at the time Kennedy was in office, would swear that he cost the United States untold lifes lost, we were going to escalate the Cold War, etc etc. In the longrun, nope we didn't lose the Cold War. Trying to be sure what is going to happen is impossible. Maybe he saved us from having another terrorist attack in our countries, maybe he caused the next one to be on a larger scale. That is something none of us can say and be sure about.
What we've got here is failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach, so you get what we had here last week which is the way he wants it. Well, he gets it.
The difference between Bush and Clinton as far as morals goes is this:..Bush's campaign put his moral stances at the forefront of everything else...Clinton didn't...Clinton never claimed to have high morals...Bush did...and that lie got him elected both times..and now we are paying the price for it...So, in addition, I label him a hypocrite as well
...And if you ain't down with that, I got 2 words for ya....
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks