Is it me or does anyone else here think this Gas Holiday is a bad idea?

Ikohn4ever

Ikohn4ever

CAGiversary!
Feedback
5 (100%)
So far every economic report I have read said nothing but bad things would come of it and yet 2 out of the 3 candidates keep pushing this idea along like its the miracle cure to the gas problem. Seems real sort sited to me, what do you think
 
It just sounds like a way to appease the masses, briefly, to get a few votes. Ultimately, it won't do much of anything to the prices (probably just be enough to keep them where they're at now vs. the normal summer climb).

I've heard something about a "windfall" tax on the oil companies' huge profits. Don't know much more about it than that, but I could see something like that going either way.
 
The Paul Krugman types are absolutely right. Gas will be at $3.50-$4 before the "holiday" hits, and gas will stay $3.50-$4 when the tax holiday starts, and when the holiday ends.

It's a gift of +$0.18 per gallon to the oil industry, plus an additional burden to taxpayers, who will not only not see any real savings at the pump, but also have to shoulder the burden of accounting for the tax revenue lost because of the "holiday."

It's a shell game. It's an idiot's shell game, and anyone who thinks this is a good idea is, in fact, an idiot.
 
plus they say over 300,000 jobs will be lost from the lack of money for the roads/highways/bridges.


Ohh and apparently thats Elite thinking to Hillary
 
All this George Bush "magic wand" talk from his press conference the other morning makes me wonder if politicians are so stupid so as to think that simply *not paying for things* and continuing to overspend just don't matter to voters, or pragmatically?

By the way, this year's national deficit will be the largest ever by a large margin - and that's counting the first seven years of this administration, who broke the record of Reagan's 8 years of deficits in his first 5.
 
As much as I cringe when filling up the tank, this is not going to do anything to prices. Oil company profits are at record highs and we don't see prices decreasing. I've come to believe the cartel is going to charge what they want regardless of the taxes levied, sadly.
 
Since I watch Louisville TV stations, I get to see Hillary's campaign ads for Indiana.

It perfectly explains why I shouldn't vote for her.

The temporary gas tax repeal is one of her planks.

Ooh, Hillary, that's such an incredible idea! I'm glad McCain is too senile to notice you stole it from him.

Hillary Clinton - If it sounds good, I'm for it.
 
Wind, solar and water energy anyone?? There's plenty of it to be had, and plenty of powerful forces preventing it from being had.
 
Ultimately, it boils down to this:

5 years ago, gas was around $1.50 per gallon.

Do you REALLY think that saving $1.80 per filllup (if you have a small car like I do) or $3.60 per fillup (if you have a gas guzzler) over a few months, knowing you'll have to repay the costs at some point, makes up for how atrocious the price of oil and oil company profits are currently?

You and I are being bled dry, and the government is offering to relieve us of 18 cents a shitting gallon - which will drop the per gallon price from $3.69 to $3.51 for me.

Whoopdee-fuckin'-do. It cost over $42 to fill up my Honda Civic for the first time ever this week.
 
Yes it is a total sham designed to do nothing but make the people *think* they are getting a break and hopefully win over a few voters.
 
Taking money away from the DOTs for roads and bridge repairs is a fucking fantastic idea, I don't know what you're all thinking. Screw the roads, I wanna have an insignificant discount on filling up my (American) GMC Yukon XL. fucking commies. This is the freedom we have as Americans, dammit!
 
[quote name='pittpizza']Wind, solar and water energy anyone?? There's plenty of it to be had, and plenty of powerful forces preventing it from being had.[/quote]

I agree but it isn't that easy, with the possible exception of unreliable solar power, there's a price to pay for these technologies. Example: when you dam up a river, many plants and animals are going to die.

They also don't output enough energy to satiate a significant portion of our energy needs right now.

A better idea may be designing homes to be more self-sufficient - I saw a fascinating piece on a Cali govt building that automatically heats and cools itself using the morning sun/evening breeze depending on the time of year. However simpler ways to go green such as putting solar panels on your roof are likely the best first steps for most ppl into this exciting new world.
 
[quote name='Hex'] fucking commies. [/quote]

Way to go thrust and Bmull! Now you have everybody calling each other commies.

McCarthyism is sperading like wild fire! I better take my red tie off, before I get lynched.

fuckin witchhunters!
 
It's just stupid.

Instead of giving us "cheaper" gas for a day how about we tax the oil fuckers and then give their money to the people.

I still don't understand why we can't have a small windmill on a car. You start moving at 75 that creates a lot of wind that could move the car.
 
Myke summed up my feeling. 18 cents off? Who gives a flying fuck? Maybe if this happened back in the 50's or 40's. Seriously it's a fucking joke. Knock off at LEAST $1.69 and maybe we can talk.
Thank you Oil Companies for trying to bankrupt people before they can become financially free by self sustainability.
 
Here in California, our total tax on gasoline is 62.8 cents per gallon (18.4 federal + 44.4 state). Since gas is about $4.00/gallon here, 18.4 cents won't really help too much, but it's a start.

Plus, it's not like the gov't does anything useful for us with that money anyway. We still have to pass our own bond measures every couple of years to fund freeway repairs and improvements. Plus privately built toll roads are popping up. Now, the feds are obsessed with congestion pricing, so they're going to give LA money to convert carpool lanes into toll lanes... great, so now we'll get to pay $10 to travel 10 miles... but, yeah that's a much better idea that adding more lanes to the old sections of our freeways where we only have 3 or 4 lanes each way... :roll:
 
I think the best idea would be to add a $1 per gallon tax on all gasoline and diesel per year starting now.

Use the money to subsidize solar and wind like they do in Germany.

Everybody would walk, bike or drive an electric car within 5 years.

If you want help kicking an addiction, make the drug's cost higher instead of lower.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']Way to go thrust and Bmull! Now you have everybody calling each other commies.

McCarthyism is sperading like wild fire! I better take my red tie off, before I get lynched.

fuckin witchhunters![/QUOTE]

Well, if the red shoe fits...
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Well, if the red shoe fits...[/quote]

Oh, come on. Let's ignore pittpizza for the moment. What is your opinion of the gas holiday?

Do you support it?

Do you think the money lost should be raised from another source?

Do you think the money lost that usually goes to repair roads shouldn't be spent?

Please elaborate beyond yes or no answers.
 
A gas tax holiday is just another example of a politician whoring for votes. Taxes are based on principles and should be used and played with flippantly. Jesus, we fought a war over self-rule and taxation without representation. So-called representatives dangling carrots from hooks should be the basis for another revolution. Besides, the pittance this temporary repeal would save the average consumer is an insult more than a relief.

Basically, if the gas tax is wrong, then eliminate it. There are systemic reasons why the price of oil is so high to begin with and this is the problem that needs to be addressed, not the tail end add-on at the pump. Taxing windfall profits isn't the answer either. Companies don't pay taxes, consumers pay the tax. If Hillary succeeds in taxing the shit out of oil companies, it will only make the price of gas climb higher, faster, and sooner. In fact, just the speculation and popularity of prohibitive taxation of oil profits is helping to inflate it's cost as well.

Start drilling in the Aleutians and off the Florida cost tomorrow and we'll have oil for the next 100 years. It'll be cheaper and we can tell all the OPEC nations to fuck off.
 
Start drilling in the Aleutians and off the Florida cost tomorrow and we'll have oil for the next 100 years.
Click to expand...

That is nowhere near true, unless of course consumption is cut back to a fraction of what it is now. Even then...
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Start drilling in the Aleutians and off the Florida cost tomorrow and we'll have oil for the next 100 years. It'll be cheaper and we can tell all the OPEC nations to fuck off.[/QUOTE]

Oh, man, another entire 100 years of American-style gluttony based on the ideal of limitless consumption.

I'd sure hate to be alive 101 years later, though.

You say "100 years" as if that's this massively long period of time in the history of mankind to burn through the remainder of the world's oil supply. Boy, what high standards you have.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Oh, man, another entire 100 years of American-style gluttony based on the ideal of limitless consumption.

I'd sure hate to be alive 101 years later, though.

You say "100 years" as if that's this massively long period of time in the history of mankind to burn through the remainder of the world's oil supply. Boy, what high standards you have.[/QUOTE]


We don't all hate America, Myke. Oil consumption is a reality, and so is importing it from canada and saudi arabia. Wishing we had a super free energy source instead of oil isn't going to make it poof into existence.

Look at it this way myke, if it makes you feel any better: If we could keep all that money in the country instead of sending it to other countries for oil, just think of how many poor people we could 'help' with all the tax money that stays in the country and in our own economy. We could spend all kinds of money on the disadvantaged and downtrodden and redistribute all kinds of new wealth. But I guess you'd rather continue high trade deficits, deficit spending, hyper inflation, and confiscatory taxes on the rich instead. All the while we'll still be burning foreign oil.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']We don't all hate America, Myke.[/quote]

Just you, eh?

Oil consumption is a reality, and so is importing it from canada and saudi arabia. Wishing we had a super free energy source instead of oil isn't going to make it poof into existence.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the breaking news.

My point was in the fact that our consumptive behavior, collectively, is so grossly absurd that we're *excited* to think (possibly, of course, as nobody knows if we have 10 weeks or 100 years of oil in the Artic reserves) that we can keep driving for a whole century! Like, that's one and one-third lifetimes!

One of the cover stories in this month's Harper's is entitled "Faustian Economics" and I highly recommend you read it. I'm certain you'll disagree with the premise (that it is enslaving and exponentially damaging to believe in the concept if individually limitless consumption - and yet worse to think that we're obligated to consume as much as we can get our greasy hands on), but it certainly puts into perspective just how significantly our social lives have changed to think in exceedingly short term (100 years of oil!) benefits, to the substantial detriment of long-term benefits (yet we have children who are going to live in an energy-deprived world in which they will be required to pay the debts for our largesse).

Look at it this way myke, if it makes you feel any better: If we could keep all that money in the country instead of sending it to other countries for oil, just think of how many poor people we could 'help' with all the tax money that stays in the country and in our own economy. We could spend all kinds of money on the disadvantaged and downtrodden and redistribute all kinds of new wealth. But I guess you'd rather continue high trade deficits, deficit spending, hyper inflation, and confiscatory taxes on the rich instead. All the while we'll still be burning foreign oil.
Click to expand...

:lol: Yeah, because our trade deficit and negative government spending is all about oil, and not manufacturing, outsourcing, and a half-trillion dollar war. Gotcha. Okay, pal.
 
[quote name='mykevermin'](yet we have children who are going to live in an energy-deprived world in which they will be required to pay the debts for our largesse).
[/quote]

At some point, won't it be cheaper to not pay the debts?

If (insert country name) has X amount of funds in our bonds and it only cost Y amount of dollars to destroy (insert country name), won't some idiot just declare their bonds null and void due to (insert fake reason) when X is greater than Y?

Then, (insert country name) can either go to war with us and lose or (insert country name) eats the debt.
 
B we need to prepare REAL solutions. This especially includes self-sustainability. I'm so sick of these environmentalists who are complete marketing idiots and don't know how to sell it. Sell it sexy and sell it smart.
There are groups in our population who associate environmentalism with "Dirty, hippie crap." to quote South Park. You need to start propogating Organic clothing into high fashion(Saks Fifth Avenue) to fashion that is cheaper(The Gap and Old Navy). Most of the Organic clothing I see is ok but it's nothing terribly fashionable and usually has a statement on it.
Next up let's get to cost savings. I NEVER see these people make a big enough deal of how much you can SAVE being self-sustainable and to a lesser extent, getting power from renewable energy like Wind Turbines and Water Turbines. Then you hit them with the higher cost but make it CLEAR to them first how much money they save.
I mean these tankless water heaters cost more but I can only imagine how much real cost savings there are considering your gas or electricity isn't being spent all the time keeping the water in that tank hot.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']

My point was in the fact that our consumptive behavior, collectively, is so grossly absurd that we're *excited* to think (possibly, of course, as nobody knows if we have 10 weeks or 100 years of oil in the Artic reserves) that we can keep driving for a whole century! Like, that's one and one-third lifetimes![/quote]

So your guilt-laden conscience thinks we should start starving more innocent children by allowing the price of food to skyrocket. Increased gas costs to run the machinery that grows and harvests food, carries it to market, lights and heats the retail outlets, and fuels your car to get there is the cause of this inflated cost that is going to make food cost prohibitive. Even in every food charity program ever, the food is trivial, it's the cost of distribution that's the problem. Distribution costs money because it takes energy.

I guess after we starve the population until it's under control, there won;t be enough consumers to fuel this endless cycle of consumerism that's destroying the planet (we think). After all, population reduction is really the goal here, isn't it?
You know full well that energy demands will continue to skyrocket no matter how much we 'conserve' for the simple fact that the population is constantly growing with no limit.


Yeah, because our trade deficit and negative government spending is all about oil, and not manufacturing, outsourcing, and a half-trillion dollar war. Gotcha. Okay, pal.
Click to expand...

Stop changing the subject. Outsourcing occurs because of prohibitive costs. The cycle begins with the cost of energy. The half-a-trillion dollar war I'll concede. Meanwhile, almost every dollar we spend for oil goes to canada and saudi arabia. Wouldn't you rather have it spent employing american workers and have those american workers paying taxes? It doesn't make sense to just throw all that money outside of our borders. But I guess the same people who are profiting from this are the ones who have us in that half-a-trillion dollar war. ;)
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']At some point, won't it be cheaper to not pay the debts?

If (insert country name) has X amount of funds in our bonds and it only cost Y amount of dollars to destroy (insert country name), won't some idiot just declare their bonds null and void due to (insert fake reason) when X is greater than Y?

Then, (insert country name) can either go to war with us and lose or (insert country name) eats the debt.[/QUOTE]

I have heard this bandied about seriously whether you mean it or not... Basically if this was done practically every single country and international organization would either cease or do as little as business with us as possible, hilarity would ensue the dollar would become worthless and so on so forth.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']So your guilt-laden conscience thinks we should start starving more innocent children by allowing the price of food to skyrocket. Increased gas costs to run the machinery that grows and harvests food, carries it to market, lights and heats the retail outlets, and fuels your car to get there is the cause of this inflated cost that is going to make food cost prohibitive. Even in every food charity program ever, the food is trivial, it's the cost of distribution that's the problem. Distribution costs money because it takes energy.[/quote]

Who says they're innocent? Why aren't they working harder? fuck 'em if they can't get a real job, am I right?
 
[quote name='Msut77']I have heard this bandied about seriously whether you mean it or not... Basically if this was done practically every single country and international organization would either cease or do as little as business with us as possible, hilarity would ensue the dollar would become worthless and so on so forth.[/QUOTE]

Our dollar is already starting to become worthless. It's at parity with the Canadian dollar for crying out loud! This is all part of fulfilling the NONSENSE that is the SPP(Security and Properity Partnership). What good is having a common currency with an even worse shithole economy like Mexico.
 
[quote name='Sarang01']Our dollar is already starting to become worthless. It's at parity with the Canadian dollar for crying out loud! This is all part of fulfilling the NONSENSE that is the SPP(Security and Properity Partnership). What good is having a common currency with an even worse shithole economy like Mexico.[/QUOTE]

The Loony is worth more than the Dollar now, has been for a while. Last I checked we are at par with the Australian dollar. The Dollar is still strong enough to go have a fun time in any number of places such as the Dominican Republic, Jamaica or Thailand, just do not go to the UK or any country that uses the Euro.

Things are not that bad right now, but if things keep going the way they are who knows?
 
[quote name='Msut77']The Loony is worth more than the Dollar now, has been for a while. Last I checked we are at par with the Australian dollar. The Dollar is still strong enough to go have a fun time in any number of places such as the Dominican Republic, Jamaica or Thailand, just do not go to the UK or any country that uses the Euro.

Things are not that bad right now, but if things keep going the way they are who knows?[/quote]

That's why the federal reserve is evil and we need to be on some variation of the gold standard. Instead, we work for paper money that is subject to fluctuations at the whims of the jackasses who are in control.
 
The gas tax is a terrible idea. I don't know who's worse: the candidates who suggested it or the morons who agree with it.

Where will the tax shortfalls come from? The federal highway trust is already approaching insolvency. The US will just have to borrow more money and further devalue the dollar.

As the days go on I'm considering digging a damn survival bunker or moving to a country that isn't on the road to ruin.
 
instead why not reward people that take public transportation? It could be a way for people to drive less
 
Can someone answer me this. As the cost of a barrel cost the cost we pay at the pumps increase.. how is the oil company's make so much more money now? are they padding the actual cost they pay for oil and just saying " to increase their profit? Just drives me crazy as the cost of oil increases so does their profit. Meanwhile on the news they talk to store owners complaining about the cost of increases on their products and they are reluctant to raise prices.
 
[quote name='BigT']That's why the federal reserve is evil and we need to be on some variation of the gold standard. Instead, we work for paper money that is subject to fluctuations at the whims of the jackasses who are in control.[/QUOTE]

Going back to the gold standard will solve the gas crisis, it would make the dollar so worthless we could burn them for fuel instead of gasoline.

I will never understand the fixation cons have on the return to the gold standard.
 
[quote name='62t']instead why not reward people that take public transportation? It could be a way for people to drive less[/QUOTE]

People who take public transportation are already being rewarded because they're using an already subsidized system. That $2 subway ride really costs $4.50. The taxpayers have been picking up the slack.
 
To answer the questions about public transportation, people don't use it because it sucks in many cities. Here in LA, mostly illegal aliens and the very poor use public transportation. Plus it's inconvenient. Often, people would have to walk about 20-30 minutes to the nearest bus stop, then wait for the late bus, and then slowly move to their destination. through traffic.. We also have a few light rail and subway lines... but they were planned out by idiots and generally go to and from inconvenient locations. (e.g., some retard thought it would be a good idea to have the green line stop a couple of miles short of our airport, making it useless...)

[quote name='Msut77']Going back to the gold standard will solve the gas crisis, it would make the dollar so worthless we could burn them for fuel instead of gasoline.

I will never understand the fixation cons have on the return to the gold standard.[/quote]

The current system gives the federal reserve too much control and discourages saving. Yet for some reason, it seems like you trust our government so much that you would prefer its fiat currency over something that has more secure value.

Alan Greenspan has some good quotes on this issue:
http://www.itulip.com/greenspangold.htm

[quote name='Greenspan']
When banks loan money to finance productive and profitable endeavors, the loans are paid off rapidly and bank credit continues to be generally available. But when the business ventures financed by bank credit are less profitable and slow to pay off, bankers soon find that their loans outstanding are excessive relative to their gold reserves, and they begin to curtail new lending, usually by charging higher interest rates. This tends to restrict the financing of new ventures and requires the existing borrowers to improve their profitability before they can obtain credit for further expansion. Thus, under the gold standard, a free banking system stands as the protector of an economy's stability and balanced growth.

(...)

In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold. If everyone decided, for example, to convert all his bank deposits to silver or copper or any other good, and thereafter declined to accept checks as payment for goods, bank deposits would lose their purchasing power and government-created bank credit would be worthless as a claim on goods. The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves.
[/quote]

Plot the price of gas versus the price of gold over time. Create a similar graph that depicts the price of gas versus our current paper money and compare the results. The price of gas has been pretty stable relative to the price of gold, but has skyrocketed relative to our paper money.

Many of the evils in our current society can be traced to usury. The federal reserve enables banks to have access to cheap paper money, which they can then lend to the populace at a profit. It's a huge scam... credit cards, student loans, mortgages... because there is no limit on how much money can be created and because loans allow people to spend more than their salaries... we are put into a modern day slavery of debt and inflation... what do you think caused our housing bubble? In the newspaper, I recently read the sob story of someone who makes $20,000 per year, but bought a $600,000 home with no money down a few years ago... now she can't make her payments... :whistle2:# no shit! This type of retarded lending first led to home prices skyrocketing and now it has led to our credit crisis because people are walking away from their mortgages and banks are losing about $200,000 to $250,000 per house... if they can sell it...
 
:lol: I like the fact that your first point about how lousy public transportation is centers around the idea that categories of 'undesirable' people you don't like use it.

wow.

I'll concede to a point (about efficiency, as I'm not particularly interested in whom I'm sitting next to, as long as they aren't shitting their pants); Cincinnati's bus system isn't great, nor is it bad. In Minneapolis, however, it's fuckin' military-style perfect. Great routes, on a ridiculously precise schedule, and cheap.
 
[quote name='BigT']The current system gives the federal reserve too much control and discourages saving. Yet for some reason, it seems like you trust our government so much that you would prefer its fiat currency over something that has more secure value.[/quote]

The support for the return to the gold standard comes exclusively from mindless dolts, spare me your "guberment lover" fucktardedness.

I love the gall of cons, they fucked everything and left the dollar a shadow of itself due to a combination of their policies and incompetence and then have the balls to say "hurf derf if only we were on the gold standard".

As for "discouraging saving" you think that a bunch of morons hoarding gold inside their lovesocks is good for encouraging investment?

Alan Greenspan has some good quotes on this issue
Click to expand...

First off fuck Alan Greenspan, You want to know who is responsible for the housing fiasco? Alan fucking Greenspan thats who.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']:lol: I like the fact that your first point about how lousy public transportation is centers around the idea that categories of 'undesirable' people you don't like use it.

wow.[/QUOTE]

Whoa there Jackson - I think you're inserting too much here. BigT's post was more of a statement of observation than a racial bias of people he doesn't like. That's a little quick on the race card draw, even for you.
 
Now you're just being obtuse. You clearly implied he doesn't like public transportation because he doesn't like the 'undesirables'. We all know what you meant, and you do to. Please don't play dumb, it's beneath you.
 
There are plenty of categories of "undesirables" that aren't linked to ascribed traits. BigT, in fact, mentions two of them: illegal aliens and the poor. Now you can certainly make the claim that in general in this country, but particularly in the southwest US, "illegal alien" is a proxy for "anyone Latino," and I'd agree.

Nevertheless, any attempt to paint this as a race card play on my part is folly. I simply found it amusing that the first point BigT brought up in an attempt to discredit public transportation is to define who uses it (and, by making this definition, who is not using it). It's a pretty clear (anecdotal) indicator of modern American stratification: buses are for *these* lesser categories of people, and *not* for practicing Physicians.

I was kinda hoping that we'd strictly have to deal with the inefficiency of buses - which is reasonable in some cases. So cut the shit in trying to attack me simply because I'm the one making certain points. We can agree or disagree on the *practical* merits of various public transportation systems, but you calling me out because I find pitiful someone's point about *who* rides the bus as a means by why to judge it as inappropriate or undesirable to take is just you being a prat for the sake of being a prat - and not having anything, really, to say.
 
[quote name='Msut77']The support for the return to the gold standard comes exclusively from mindless dolts, spare me your "guberment lover" fucktardedness.

I love the gall of cons, they fucked everything and left the dollar a shadow of itself due to a combination of their policies and incompetence and then have the balls to say "hurf derf if only we were on the gold standard".

As for "discouraging saving" you think that a bunch of morons hoarding gold inside their lovesocks is good for encouraging investment?



First off fuck Alan Greenspan, You want to know who is responsible for the housing fiasco? Alan fucking Greenspan thats who.[/quote]

So to summarize your argument, the gold standard is bad because it is an idea of "mindless dolts" and "cons." I never thought of it that way, but now you've changed my mind with your persuasive and incisive statements... :applause:

First of all, how many people in the government today, either democrat or republican, support a return to the gold standard? I'd bet you could count them on one hand. Do you really think a "conservative" like Bush would like a gold standard? With that in place, he would have a much harder time financing his war and providing cushy contracts for his buddies. It would also be harder for democrats to realize their dream of a welfare state... so both sides hate the gold standard because it would limit their deficit spending.

I agree with your observation that Greenspan as the fed chairman was responsible for the housing bubble. His writings that I previously cited were from the 1960's... since then, he's become a sell out to a central bank and its fiat currency... see http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul236.html

This just goes to show you that a person who initially has good intentions may become corrupted with too much power... if we were on the gold standard, Alan Greenspan would have never had the power to create the housing bubble and credit crisis while attempting to keep the economy on life support for Bush's war.
 
[quote name='BigT']So to summarize your argument, the gold standard is bad because it is an idea of "mindless dolts" and "cons." I never thought of it that way, but now you've changed my mind with your persuasive and incisive statements...[/QUOTE]

No articles from 1896 about how great the gold standard is? I am terribly disappointed.

Do you understand that Conservatives completely and utterly screwing things up is not an argument for a return to the gold standard (or bartering for that matter) but one for proving how intellectually bankrupt Conservatives are?
 
Generalize more? As if returning to the gold standard is some mainstay of American conservatism?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top