[mccookgazette.com] A Few Clouds ~ 31°F  
High: 48°F ~ Low: 24°F
Monday, Nov. 24, 2014

A Review of Past Predictions

Posted Sunday, February 12, 2012, at 3:11 PM

Over the last few months many predictions have been made by both myself and the other political blogger on this site. Since this is a lazy Sunday I thought I would review many of those predictions. I will start with mine which can be found at:

http://www.mccookgazette.com/blogs/1460/...

http://www.mccookgazette.com/blogs/1460/...

The second link will take you to my predictions that I made in April. I made the prediction then that Mike Huckabee would win the Republican nomination but would lose the general election to President Obama. Thanks to Huckabee choosing the money offered by Fox News and deciding not to enter the race at all that original prediction turned out to be drastically wrong.

After Iowans went to the polls in January I made another prediction which is the first link. Within days and weeks of the Iowa Caucus, Rick Perry and John Huntsmann had dropped out of the race. Michelle Bachmann who had won the Iowa Straw Poll dropped out within days of the Iowa Caucus. Despite the wins by Santorum last week in the Midwest, Romney still has the lead in the delegate count and at the end of the day the delegates is all that matters.

Some may focus on one sentence in the most recent blog where I said that, "Despite the closeness of the caucus last night I still believe as I have from the beginning that Romney is the front runner and will go on to win the nomination." and point out that in my April blog I had said that Romney would not win. That is true but I did believe him to be the frontrunner at the time and the only person I believed that could beat him never entered the race.

Rick Santorum recently stated that the Republican race was a two person race and I completely agree with him. The race is between him and Mitt Romney. Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul are nothing more than side shows at this point. Gingrich has only won one state and it is in the vicinity of his home state. Ron Paul has yet to win a state and in the age of delegates a bunch of close finishes and distant thirds does little to help his chances.

At this point the total delegate (those that have been assigned) stand at:

Romney - 84

Gingrich - 29

Santorum - 14

Paul - 11

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032553/ns/p...

The reason that Santorum's count is not higher is because Missouri would assign their delegates until March. It is a very confusing process that much I will say.

Let us take a look at Same Eldridge's predictions that he made in his blog:

http://www.mccookgazette.com/blogs/1461/...

His very first prediction about race becoming an issue but he was completely wrong about which side would bring it up. Within days of his prediction than Republican candidate Herman Cain played the race card.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/201...

See here is the kicker what Sam completely ignores in his bold prediction is that it has been the right side that has been so focused on race. On the left we typically call out racism when we see it (it is not very hard to see) but on the right and especially in Sam's case they blur that line and just charge Democrats with always pulling the race card while at the same time completely ignoring when their own people do the same thing.

Most of his other predictions are completely unveriafable and completely just made up. One point I would like to discuss before I move on is his baffling charge that only Republican women have been subjected. He somehow completely forgets to mention the times he has smeared and lied about what Secretary of State Clinton and Representative Pelosi have done in his own blog. Either he has a double standard where Republican women are always above reproach and he can say whatever he wants about Democratic women or he was hoping that no one would notice that he was talking out of both sides of his mouth on that issue.

My favorite is his prediction at number seven. When he posted this the economy was only starting to improve and job numbers were increasing so he covered himself and said that any numbers that were positive from that point out were nothing but lies. It must be nice to live in the land of make believe. Since his posting in September every month has seen an increase in job numbers and a decrease in the jobless number.

Number 10 is very interesting in that since his posting the very fraudulent "journalist" James O'Keefe videotaped himself attempting to fraudulently vote in the New Hampshire primary which is a federal crime and the Secretary of State of Indiana (a Republican) has been convicted of voter fraud. Then again this is the same man who had no issues with President Bush's win in 2000 but believes that Obama winning the 2008 election by almost 10 million votes was nothing but a scam and that Obama stole the election. He has no proof and has offered no proof but do not ask him for proof because he will simply call you some nice little names and just move on like the question was never asked.

Then there came his "the sky is falling" proclamations which he went ahead and told you that he was completely right on. The problem there is that America has not fallen into the depths. The economy is improving and people are starting to get jobs again. The only doomsdayers appear to be completely on the right who apparently believe that if all of us do not completely cow-tow to their demands we are considered the enemy. You do not believe me? Check out this line from Sam's own blog:

"but a growing number of Americans appear to love Socialism"

He can not fathom or wrap his brain around the idea that Americans not only like but accept what Obama wants to do so he just calls them Socialists and writes them off. Republicans are so vested in the failure of President Obama that they are willing to let the economy crash and burn. During the Super Bowl, Chrysler ran a non-political ad featuring Clint Eastwood. Republicans led by their leaders, Fox News, and the right-wing blogosphere went crazy with anger over the ad. Clint Eastwood is a life-long Republican. You can bet your bottom dollar that Sam will never watch a movie with Eastwood again.

Here is the thing. Republicans that are like Sam see any progress that happens under Obama as a bad thing and will not stop at any length to demonize anyone who dares show any support for anything Obama does.

The American people, seemingly, have already grown tired of it. People like Sam are not the majority no matter how much they mash their teeth, stomp their feet, and yell at you about how they are.

A recent poll conducted for World Net Daily (a conservative website) showed that 1 out of 5 Republicans were either voting for or considering voting for President Obama.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/02/10/...

That is not good for people like Sam, who for the last three years, have been trying to scare Republicans into submission and vote the way they want them to vote.

It is also funny as much as Sam wants to talk about Democrats constantly playing the race card every time he mentions Obama at some point he calls him a messiah. I am pretty sure there is something in the Bible about false prophets, Sam. But hey if you know the Bible as well as you know the Qur'an ... um nevermind.

By the way Sam I take your bet that not a single one of your predictions will come true. Unlike you I live in reality, I don't see scary figures at every corner I take. In fact, I'll up the ante. If every single one of your predictions come true I will buy you the 72 oz steak in Texas.

Many of you will see this as nothing more than a hit blog directed at Sam. Oddly the exact same people who will take umbrage to me taking Sam to task have never taken issue with Sam doing the same to me, so in the end what you think does not really matter, for the most part these people are nothing more than trolls and flamers.


Comments
Showing comments in chronological order
[Show most recent comments first]

*sigh* I knew it was too good to last. Michael, you were doing so well at just placing your own opinions without attacking. I especially like the last paragraph. If you think sam should be taken to task about the very things that you are doing.... what exactly does that say about you?

-- Posted by Sir Didymus on Sun, Feb 12, 2012, at 3:46 PM

The last paragraph really is a classic example of your hypocrisy Michael. But, I'm glad you're being open that you think people who disagree with you don't matter.

For my input I will just say: Flame away at Sam all you want, he deserves it as much as you. You are a perfect match.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Sun, Feb 12, 2012, at 4:50 PM

But don't worry too much about it Michael, because SWNebr admits that he is also a hypocrite...so his accusing you of hypocrisy is....oh, what's that word. ;)

-- Posted by Benevolus on Sun, Feb 12, 2012, at 5:09 PM

Mike - Just post a blog entitiled "I think I am right and I think Sam is wrong".

If we are going to stay on topic does that mean posting everything you have ever written that is wrong? That would take a few days......

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Sun, Feb 12, 2012, at 5:59 PM

Benevolus,

I think the word you are looking for is honest. I'm not surprised it doesn't occur to you.

You'd better be careful though or bigdawg will chastise you for being off topic.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Sun, Feb 12, 2012, at 6:00 PM

SWNebr,

No that isn't the word...though the one I am thinking of does start with 'h'.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Sun, Feb 12, 2012, at 6:17 PM

Benevolus,

As I said, I'm not surprised that you can't think honestly.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Sun, Feb 12, 2012, at 7:25 PM

SWNebr,

Hypodermic...no, that's way off.

Hypothalamus...that isn't it either.

Hippocratic...no that's not quite right.

Definitely starts with a syllable that sounds like 'hypo' though.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Sun, Feb 12, 2012, at 8:00 PM

*prefix not syllable

-- Posted by Benevolus on Sun, Feb 12, 2012, at 8:03 PM

Benevolus,

You seem to be stating that Michael is not being a hypocrite in doing similar things in his blog as Sam does in his. Am I understanding you right? If So, how do you stand it? I for one wouldn't care to defend Sam in his hypocritcal ramblings even though I would be closer to his stance than say...Michael's. I would think that one as "moderate centrist" as you would have a hard time sticking up for Michael's hypocritical tendancies. But, maybe you have a higher tolerance for self-disgust than I do. Or perhaps you have less integrity than a small Chevallier such as myself.

P.S.

By the way. If the word you were looking for is Hypocritical the Prefix (or first syllable for that matter) doesn't sound like 'hypo'. It sounds like the acronym for the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. If you were looking for a different word, please let me know. I am trying to figure out what 'hypo' word you would be thinking of.

-- Posted by Sir Didymus on Sun, Feb 12, 2012, at 8:58 PM

Sir Didymus,

I am not sure what sort of strange logic lead you to the conclusion that I was sticking up for Michael, but I would suggest to you that clearly you have missed something.

SWNebr though sure was hypocritical though, wasn't he (thanks by the way, that was the word I was looking for)?

An admitted hypocrite criticizing someone else for being a hypocrite...makes a lot of sense I guess. If it looks like a duck and all that.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Mon, Feb 13, 2012, at 12:02 AM

Benevolus,

Yep, we can smell our own kind. Don't you smell it?

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Mon, Feb 13, 2012, at 11:07 AM

SWNebr,

All I can smell is the 'you-know-what' you shovel around these discussions. I think your lack of genuine argument and engagement about a given topic, and your desire to troll around, trying to accuse people of character defects, masks the "smell" you refer to above.

How about some real arguments? The only thing I know about you is that you are a hypocrite and you don't know what being fair is...let's exchange some ideas, buddy.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Mon, Feb 13, 2012, at 3:06 PM

"The economy is improving and people are starting to get jobs again."

That would be very nice, Michael, if only it were true. The January stats from the BLS showed a decline in unemployment.

The same statistical report showed that 1.2 MILLION people left the work force, in ONE MONTH. That is the largest drop in the labor force IN HISTORY!

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/record-12-...

That is, they are no longer counted because (1) they are discouraged and did not actively seek work recently (2) their unemployment eligibility ran out after 99 weeks (3)they are working part-time when they want fulltime work or (4) they went on Social Security disability (which has trended up in a big way since the Great Correction began in 2008).

"So as the labor force increased from 153.9 million to 154.4 million, those not in the labor force surged from 86.7 million to 87.9 million!"

Could it be the numbers are being fudged to help Obama's reelection campaign? With the portion of the population working at lower levels not seen in 30 years, you need to consider.

John Williams Shadow Statistics also computes unemployment and inflation the way the government did years ago when it favored honesty instead of propoganda. They are also available at the site link above.

Our government has some very good reasons to fudge the numbers, especially on inflation. If they report inflation at less than its true value, they benefit; with lower annual Social Security raises, with smaller increases in income tax brackets (which Reagan got indexed for inflation), with lower Cost of Living Adjustments for a whole host of government benefits and salaries. The COLAs throughout the economy are less because of the reported CPI. Less benefits to pay; more taxes to collect, a Win-Win for the Feds.

Please note that the straining of the statistics has been going on for several decades. Under Republican administrations, under Democratic administrations. All the time. If you think putting a D or an R in office will help, go ahead with it. I have lost faith in both.

Rosey, rosey, rosey. Totus est puteus.

-- Posted by JohnGalt1968 on Mon, Feb 13, 2012, at 4:24 PM

Benevolus,

Perhaps I am missing something, but I believe a reasonable person could make the assumption that you are supporting Michael. Let me demonstrate my reasoning.

"Benevolus,

I think the word you are looking for is honest. I'm not surprised it doesn't occur to you.

You'd better be careful though or bigdawg will chastise you for being off topic."

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Sun, Feb 12, 2012, at 6:00 PM

To which you reply...

SWNebr,

"No that isn't the word...though the one I am thinking of does start with 'h'."

-- Posted by Benevolus on Sun, Feb 12, 2012, at 6:17 PM

See? It seems like you are stating that SWNebr Transplant is not being honest when he accuses Michael of being hypocritical. But, I must have been mistaken. Is it safe to assume that you do think Michael was being hypocritical in some of his statements?

Does a person that admits to being hypocritical at times not have the right to point out when someone else is being hypocritical? I would think that someone that can recognize his own hypocrisies would make a person pretty qualified to see it in others as well.

-- Posted by Sir Didymus on Mon, Feb 13, 2012, at 6:40 PM

Benevolus,

"How about some real arguments...let's exchange some ideas, buddy."

"masks the "smell" you refer to above"

So you agree that you would be able to smell your hypocrisy if my "you know what" wasn't overpowering it huh? At least its a start.

What real arguments and ideas were you thinking of? The real ideas you expressed in your first post, completely unrelated to the blog? The one that looks an awful lot like "trolling around"? Let me refresh your memory.

"But don't worry too much about it Michael, because SWNebr admits that he is also a hypocrite...so his accusing you of hypocrisy is....oh, what's that word. ;)"

-- Posted by Benevolus on Sun, Feb 12, 2012, at 5:09 PM

Glass houses and whatnot

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Mon, Feb 13, 2012, at 7:06 PM

The problem is almost every poster around here is never wrong. Trying to have a discussion espousing differing views around here is a little like dealing with Locutus. I blame it on the trolls and flamers like Michael said.

See Michael, I've agreed with you twice now on one blog, must be some kind of record huh?

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Mon, Feb 13, 2012, at 7:12 PM

The problem is almost every poster around here is never wrong. Thats because there are two driving forces that all humans have, avoiding pain and seeking pleasure. We avoid pain by never admiting we are wrong and seeking pleasure by showing just how right we think we are, and seeing our words written to prove it. Hows that for being a troll?

-- Posted by Keda46 on Mon, Feb 13, 2012, at 8:22 PM

Keda46,

GET THEE TO A BRIDGE!!!!

;)

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Mon, Feb 13, 2012, at 8:38 PM

Thats good! I like that, made be laugh. Just haven't figured out what scope to put on what rifle.

-- Posted by Keda46 on Mon, Feb 13, 2012, at 9:17 PM

Sir Didymus,

Pointing out the irony of SWNebr's castigation of Michael does not inhere support of Michael...not even implicitly. One must make a fairly large leap in logic to move from my comment about SWNebr's admonitions, to 'great post Michael, right on'. So, no, I do not see your point.

You ask if I think Michael was being hypocritical in some of his statements...which ones, specifically?

"Does a person that admits to being hypocritical at times not have the right to point out when someone else is being hypocritical?"

Sure they have that right. I also have the right to point out the absurdity of someone who claims to be a hypocrite (and claims that everyone else is just like him) trolling on blogs calling people hypocrites. It is an exercise that can only be described as laughable.

SWNebr,

"So you agree that you would be able to smell your hypocrisy if my "you know what" wasn't overpowering it huh?"

No, I don't agree at all, but I would be better positioned to get such a waft if you weren't so preoccupied with calling everyone not right-of-center a hypocrite. Any serious self-reflection gets lost in the odiferous din of your attempts to amuse yourself. You are not unlike the boy who cried wolf in your love affair with hypocrisy. Strange indeed.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Tue, Feb 14, 2012, at 9:04 AM

Benevolus,

I've admitted to hypocrisy at times does your logic mean I am center or left-of-center?

Funny you mention serious self-reflection. This seems like its heading back into the "everyone thinks himself fair" realm.

You've already agreed that even though I am flawed I can still point out other people's flaws so your "boy who cried wolf" theory is no good. I'm not pointing out hypocrisy that doesn't exist, maybe you don't know how that story goes.

It's too bad we aren't all as flawless as you after all you've never been a hypocrite, unless maybe someone wants to point out you criticizing people for "trolling" while trolling yourself.

Thank you for adding levity to my day.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Tue, Feb 14, 2012, at 7:34 PM

SWNebr,

"You've already agreed that even though I am flawed I can still point out other people's flaws so your "boy who cried wolf" theory is no good."

Just because you can, doesn't mean I think you should. Sorry, the theory stands. You have flooded the market (maybe these are terms you will understand better), and the value of your admonitions of hypocrisy are rapidly losing value.

"...unless maybe someone wants to point out you criticizing people for "trolling" while trolling yourself."

Thing is, I am not trolling. I actually take the time to argue the topic, do research, provide links to that research, etc. I haven't seen you do anything like that.

Hence, you are trolling.

You are of course welcome, though. Levity is good. You make me laugh. Laughter is good too.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Tue, Feb 14, 2012, at 7:44 PM

Sorry SWNebr, I missed this...

"I've admitted to hypocrisy at times does your logic mean I am center or left-of-center?"

No. Since I started posting on this board this fall, your modus operandi has been to call posters other than you, who are left-of-center, hypocrites...it is fairly obvious that you refer to yourself as a hypocrite for no other reason than to justify your constant desire to call anyone who is not situated right-of-center, a hypocrite.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Tue, Feb 14, 2012, at 7:50 PM

Benevolus,

Your logic is flawed and accusations overbroad. I too have posted on specific topics, researched and cited support.

It's not my fault your information is incomplete, maybe you should do a little more reasearch and not go about making less than fully informed accusations.

I pointed out you making a trolling comment, you say you are not a troll, but when you think I make a trolling comment I am a troll, seem's like that H word appearing again.

Have you ever seen $1,000,000? Just because you haven't seen something doesn't mean it doesn't exist, to quote Charlie Calvin.

Given your persistence with a faulty analogy, I don't think you do know the story of the boy who cried wolf.

But I forget, you are in that group of posters who is never wrong, so maybe I should apologize for my impertinence in questioning your verbal incontinence.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Tue, Feb 14, 2012, at 8:17 PM

SWNebr,

Saying my logic is flawed and demonstrating how are two very different things.

My information is not incomplete. I can rightly make the claim that the preponderance of your posts since this fall have been merely efforts at amusing yourself (by your own admittance) and have had on average had little to no substance. I define this as trolling.

The analogies above are flawless. You're entire schtick is based on calling certain people hypocrites. You find levity in this practice. The truth is a bummer.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Tue, Feb 14, 2012, at 8:45 PM

Benevolus Webster,

As I said, you are one of the posters who is never wrong. It's amazing that so many people who are never wrong can disagree so much. By persisting in your folly you just continue to to compound it.

I hope you use better research methods for your schooling than you do here. Is fact in your program only based on what your perception of what has occured since you began the study, or do you refer to information beyond the filter of your direct observations?

About your flawless analogies (hubris anyone?). What is the story of the boy who cried wolf? Did he cry wolf everytime he saw one, and he saw them so often that no one believed him? By analogy that is what you claim my noting Michael's hypocrisy would make that story.

Anyway, I'll let you have the last word, since you always seem to need it.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Tue, Feb 14, 2012, at 9:10 PM

Benevolus,

Thank you for the answer, but I am afraid I STILL believe you are something that begins with "D".

You know, as time goes by, your posts tend to disprove your 'moderate centrist' claim. So, if you want to call names and insult, that is fine, for it exposed you nicely. Please, twist more logic to attempt to prove me wrong. In struggling, you only bind yourself tighter.

-- Posted by Sir Didymus on Tue, Feb 14, 2012, at 9:16 PM

Just thought I'd stop by to read some reasonable, educated discussion. Oops...wrong website I guess.

"the idea that Americans not only like but accept what Obama wants to do so"

Obviously....'The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 28% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Thirty-nine percent (39%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -11'

Americans Just LOVE this guy!!! Especially the uber-rich that keep spoon feeding his re-election campaign millions of dollars. You're such a fool. Change the D beside his name to an R, and you would have such disdain for this guy. Funny thing is, it wouldn't actually change who he his, nor his political view$$$. For the first time in history somebody actually went to the trouble in counterfeiting 'change', and made himself a VERY, VERY wealthy man.

-- Posted by BisonAlum00 on Tue, Feb 14, 2012, at 10:40 PM

SWNebr/Didy

Last word = yawn...

Bison is right, the three of us have dominated this blog with utter nonsense.

I will no longer engage in the pettiness that I have above. If you wish to persist amusing yourself, I will not indulge you.

With regard to debating an individual poster's hypocrisy/fairness/etc (including my own), to quote Michael: "I'm done."

-- Posted by Benevolus on Wed, Feb 15, 2012, at 5:58 PM

I am sure there's greater comfort for you on Huffington Post site, where birds of your feather live.

-- Posted by JohnGalt1968 on Thu, Feb 16, 2012, at 10:32 AM

I must say Mike, that I am dissappointed with this article. You have dipped down to Sam's level. Please revert back to the ways of simple analysis that you displayed in the last few of your posts.

-- Posted by carlsonl on Thu, Feb 16, 2012, at 1:20 PM

.....cricket.....

This guy (^ up there) is disappointed with your "article." I can't say that I am. Spewing lies and promoting acts of TREASON is what you have become associated with. Good thing nobody ever reads this garbage...you wouldn't want to answer to us.

-- Posted by BisonAlum00 on Sat, Feb 18, 2012, at 12:28 AM

Market ran to obvious support of 1089. Looking for the S&P to rally to 1250 in early November.

Oil prices appear to have entered a new range basis West Texas. With the movement of oil from Cushing to South Louisiana the new range for West Texas Intermediate is between $80-120. That movement is for the Brent pricing that everyone else is getting except for Cushing (Canadian Tar Sands Crude is causing a glut at this one hub).

Sam how is Truck traffic these days? Staying busy or slowing? Have you been tempted to move to oil country?

Wallis

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Mon, Oct 10, 2011, at 6:25 AM

S&P indeed found a bottom and we are now at 1350. Oil also found a bottom slightly below $80 and we are now at $105.

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Sun, Feb 19, 2012, at 8:06 PM

"Spewing lies and promoting acts of TREASON is what you have become associated with."

Sam? Is that you?

-- Posted by bberry on Mon, Feb 20, 2012, at 7:50 AM

bberry,

That would presuppose that Sam graduated from high school. ;)

Although for what it's worth, I don't think Michael promotes acts of treason or TREASON for that matter.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Mon, Feb 20, 2012, at 8:38 AM

SWNebr,

You're right, but I was giving the benefit of a doubt.

I'm not sure where Bison got the treason part from?

-- Posted by bberry on Mon, Feb 20, 2012, at 2:56 PM

Every time I see a news spot on TV about the increase in gas prices, I think about the CPI. The government tells us there's no inflation, but I see it everywhere.

Tell me if you see prices declining somewhere. Beef--alltime high. Gasoline--alltime high for this time of year. Food prices--alltime high (be sure to check the quantities, they are keeping some prices stable by using smaller containers. maybe the government guys haven't noticed that).

I will admit home prices have fallen, and they will continue to do so for years to come, with the huge oversupply in the market. Another fine government-created mess with subprime loans and NINJA (no income, no job, no assets, NO PROBLEM) loans. Houses got built, loans got made, people got houses, people are bankrupt, and the unpaid debts got passed on to the taxpayers--not the banks that made the loan--they got bailed out.

I also wonder why we don't hear so much about the price of diesel. It's higher than gasoline, and the trucks only get about 7 mpg (YMMV). That works out to over $.62 per mile driven. Yikes! How about those trucks hauling all the hay to Texas, hundreds of miles. 1,000 miles down and back = $620 just for fuel. Has anyone seen a loaded hay truck headed North?

Our government keeps on with the bailouts, and quatitative easing so price increases are no surprise. I just wish they would quit lying about the CPI, but I know they can't stop--either printing or lying. The same people regularly have a big show about raising the borrowing limit on the gov't credit card, too. Everyone knows they're gonna raise it, but we appreciate the pretense that they wish it wasn't so.

Inflation is the tax you pay for letting your government spend more than they take in. It shows up as price increases (really a disguised decline in the value of the currency).

Not that you or I ever get to vote on the matter.

I have personally met Sam, and he is a fine person. I can give him an unqualified endorsement for he still believes in personal responsibility and limited government. I realize he has probably caused some heart attacks and strokes among the liberal socialists around here--it's really hard work defending the indefensible, and that can lead to serious health problems.

-- Posted by JohnGalt1968 on Mon, Feb 20, 2012, at 3:30 PM

I filled my truck up today in Fremont, Ca. $3.99 and that was unleaded and at a cheaper Velero gas station. Chevron and shell is well over $4.00 now. Just jumped up within the last few weeks. Came home and got on my motorcycle, looks like I'll ride it for awhile. What is gas prices there?

-- Posted by Keda46 on Wed, Feb 22, 2012, at 1:23 AM

Had to fill my bike up today, premum at $4.449. For 4.714gallons it was $20.97 at union 76. I guess I can't bitch though, at least I have the weather on my side and was riding with t-shirt and no jacket

-- Posted by Keda46 on Wed, Feb 22, 2012, at 5:12 PM

Keda46,

In Lincoln it's about 3.50 for regular, so I'd guess about 3.65 in McCook.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Wed, Feb 22, 2012, at 6:59 PM

I have spent the last 9 months trying to figure out the next 20 year cycle in energy (I will be 65 in 20 years). I have come to the conclusion that with resource plays in the United States that it is possible that the US can be energy independent in 8 years if the United States Government will keep regulations status quo. How can we obtain the energy independence? By producing more oil and gas. No Solar, No wave, No Nuke - Just oil and gas.

Sometimes simple is the answer.

Wallis

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Thu, Feb 23, 2012, at 6:10 AM

JohnGalt1968

Good job of diluting the facts on who receives Federal Government Funds. Let's take a look from a little different perspective; we don't even need to bring political affiliation into the discussion.

During the 25 year time period 1981-2005, there were only three years 1981, 1982, and 1996 where Nebraska paid more in Federal Taxes than they received in Federal Spending. On average, Nebraska received $1.09 for every $1.00 paid in taxes.

Nebraska is not the only state receiving more than they paid in -- in 2005 there were only 18 states that actually had less than 100% return of their Federal tax dollars.

The drain on Federal funds has been going on for a long time John.

Page 27 of the following link gives the Nebraska historical data on Federal spending received.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/sh...

The following link provides Federal Spending per dollar of Federal Taxes for all states FY2005.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/sh...

-- Posted by Geezer on Thu, Feb 23, 2012, at 7:58 AM

Geezer, you did a great job of presenting what must be uncomfortable facts for those in Nebraska who think they are self-sufficient. Looks like 32 states get more from the Feds than they pay in.

That's the trouble with any democracy. Everybody wants a free lunch at the expense of everybody else, via the government. Pretty soon the free lunch costs so much the country goes broke. That will be playing out, first in Greece, Ireland, Spain, Italy and Portugal. Then Japan, and finally the good old USA.

It's just a matter of 5 or 6 years. Strap yourself in.

-- Posted by JohnGalt1968 on Thu, Feb 23, 2012, at 8:58 PM

Meanwhile...

Sweden, Switzerland, Germany, Norway, Finland, etc., are all doing fine.

These pains are attributable to demographic shifting, not so much government "free lunch". Greece, Italy (and Spain to some extent) have large numbers greying populations and a disproportionately small numbers of working age people to support retirees and children (i.e., dependent populations). As the baby boomers retire, the US will experience the same tension.

The trouble with many European countries is that the retirement age is set relatively young, which means that coverage begins earlier. The trouble becomes balancing the moral obligation to care for those who have contributed to a nation's economy for the better portion of their lives, and ensuring that our nation remains economically solvent. We can do both I suspect.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Thu, Feb 23, 2012, at 10:14 PM


Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.

Username:

Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.


And Now for Something Completely Different
Michael Hendricks
Recent posts
Archives
Blog RSS feed [Feed icon]
Comments RSS feed [Feed icon]
Login
Hot topics
The More Things Change The More They Stay The Same
(6 ~ 8:37 PM, Sep 5)

Goodnight Sweet Prince
(3 ~ 11:45 AM, Aug 15)

Elections Matter
(14 ~ 2:15 AM, Aug 9)

Hodgepodgeiness
(262 ~ 6:55 AM, Jan 8)

It Begins ... Again
(24 ~ 11:41 PM, Oct 27)