Dangerousdave_2

What's this thing with Fox News, anyway? Weren't they all exposed as Rupert Murdoch toadies several years ago? The only person I know who watches them is 78 years old.

Dangerousdave_2

Without sounding too squidish, I do like V-4s, you Bush apologizin grey pony tailed weasel.

Dangerousdave_2

I think the two to three trillion is the total amount we have overspent. Bush, until recently, had not vetoed a single spending bill, so we are spending 20 or 30 per cent MORE than we were during the Clinton years, and have lowered taxes. I am undoubtedly taking an over simplified view of things, but till somebody shows me how you can keep doing that indefinitely, I'm gonna keep saying it's a disasterous idea. I may be totally off base, but that's what I think those figures are about.

Dangerousdave_2

350 billion bucks would be enough to get a start on changing our refineries in the ways that would be necessary. Right now, after everthing gets sorted into it's natural component at the pipestill (sort of the sorting area for the hundreds of things in crude oil) the heavy stuff has to have some serious mojo done to break it down into gasoline-like products. For a while, I worked at a unit that took Butane and Iso Butane and COMBINED them back together to make Octane, which is the ideal gasoline type product. Other than the Pipestill, most everything in a refinery is just a giant chemistry set, geared to turn stuff too light or too heavy to be gasoline into something that's about the right weight. To change all that stuff over to maximize diesel production would probably cost a lot more the 350 mil.

Dangerousdave_2

That's Billion, of course. And at the same time this is happening, we all have to start buying diesel cars, no? What do you think would happen the first time gas prices dropped for a while, due to the competition from a cheaper fuel? Big ass V-8/diesel, big ass V-8/diesel....?

Dangerousdave_2

Apolitical? BWAHAHAAHA!!!!

ksquid

Wrong Why do you think they call it the Columbian cartel

ksquid

My DD 214 says USAF

sanfrdnsun

I hate the higher spending more the the next person, and i'm all for spending cuts... but instead of comparing the lower tax rate, you have to look at the tax revenues. lower taxes doesnt mean lower tax revenues. without getting to technical, the Laffer curve shows that theres an optimal tax point to obtain the highest revenue. so even with lower taxes its possible to raise tax revenue, thus increasing spending. then theres also that debt thing this country oh so loves...

seruzawa

Oh man, have you ever stepped in it. There's no more sure way to bring out the lafty wackos here than mention the Laffer Curve. They especially hate it because it works.

__________________
"Make no mistake, Communism lost a big argument - one we know today as the 20th century."