Originally Posted by Feydakin

You mean the oil that is back down to $64/barrel??

As for the original question..

War:

McCain Elected: Some terrorist attack on US help territory or the US itself.. Continued involvement in the middle east and not a lot else will change..

Obama Elected.. Israel will make a pre-emptive strike on Iran between Nov. 4 and Jan 1 because they know that they will get little to no US support for at least 4 years.. If for some reason Israel choses to not attack, Jan. 2009 will see an invasion of Israel by Iran / Syria and a renewed string a bombings..

Economy:

McCain Elected.. Pretty much status quo.. We will see some new taxes but not enough to make people freak out..

Obama Elected.. Between Nov 4 and Jan 1 the stock market will all but crash as people collect whatever capital gains they can get before the rules change and we see people paying based on their ability and collecting based on their need.. Redistribution will effectively cripple small business and we will see a new tax called the "windfall" that will basically be a 100% tax on profits above a nebulous, undefined, amount for large business..

--
If it were up to me, we'd close all military bases in the middle east, and most of Europe.. Build new bases along the US/Mexico border and move those troops home and let them train (patrol) along the southern border..

Eliminate generational welfare by attaching mandatory birth control to all people welfare..

Bring back forced labor in prisons instead of weight rooms..

Improve penalties for creating schemes or implementing plans to commit fraud and embezzlement by requiring 100% payback of money taken (Enron) and imprisonment and future garneshing of wages until the debt is repaid..

Eliminate stock holder lawsuits against boards / companies for failing to "maximize" profit which is really the root cause for most corporate misdeeds anyway..

etc etc etc.. Boy did I run way off topic

I completely agree with what you say. I particularly enjoyed the part where you mentioned "Bring back forced labor in prisons instead of weight rooms." This issue has been overlooked for years. Feydakin for President, haha.

Originally Posted by Feydakin

You mean the oil that is back down to $64/barrel??

Keep in mind that Iran bases its government spending on $70/barrel, and Venezuela at $60. Russia was smart and put its windfall profits in a rainy day fund, so they're better cushioned, but using the strategic oil reserves (gasp!) strategically to hobble at least Iran is in our best interest. It's a trump card against their nuclear programs and financing of terrorists. Can't do either if you're broke.

Originally Posted by cbwm

Actually yes, I do want more. I'm hard pressed to put failure to tap the Strategic Oil Reserves as a major screw up or a contributing factor to this financial crisis. Again, I'll give you the deficit spending but what else do you got?

Increased military spending could have been cut drastically using the strategy mentioned above a lot earlier. That's right, the rabid return to deficit spending could have been offset while still attending to our national interests.

Are you aware that the US hasn't built a new oil refinery since 1976? That above all is a major strategic disadvantage, one that Bush could have made moves to correct with his ties to oil. Had he done so, I wouldn't have to hear the retarded, ill-researched McCain refrain, "Drill, baby, drill!" But smaller refineries were systematically driven out of business by the major oil companies, both damaging our national security and flying in the face of antitrust laws.

I'm sure you're also aware that when oil prices go way up so does the price of everything else. Failure to keep big oil from gouging the American public is partially responsible for the rash of defaulted mortgages.

Like Carter inherited a mess from Nixon and Ford(and yes, I do know that Ford created the strategic oil reserve) whoever wins will inherit a mess from Bush, and yes, Clinton too.

I don't think either of these two schmucks will pull us out of it; one's another Carter, the other's another Ford. But do tell what McCain will supposedly do to lead us to salvation. I don't buy it.

tim

Originally Posted by serandfae

@Learning Newbie-- Precisely what is it we are to glean from that little quote? I have to say, for once you have me confused.

That, perhaps, a promise to DON'T BLINK (even if it's coupled proudly with ignorance) isn't a universal qualification?

Originally Posted by Feydakin

Obama Elected.. Israel will make a pre-emptive strike on Iran between Nov. 4 and Jan 1 because they know that they will get little to no US support for at least 4 years.. If for some reason Israel choses to not attack, Jan. 2009 will see an invasion of Israel by Iran / Syria and a renewed string a bombings..

Can I borrow your crystal ball for just long enough to buy a lottery ticket?

@serandfae: If I understand you right, you are claiming Bush failed to properly police big oil by allowing consolidation in refining(failure to build new refineries, removal of some of the smaller ones) and (again) failing to tap the reserves. Taking failure to tap the reserves aside, I've read nothing regarding this failure to police the oil companies, though it sounds very plausible. I'd certainly have to know more of the details to really entertain the idea that, if true, it were directly due to the action or inaction of Pres Bush. As bourne out by the conviction of Sen. Stevens, Big Oil has their fingers into our government at a variety of levels, manipulating things to achieve their goals.

Assuming it is all true, and that it is all Bush's fault, I would still argue that the spike in oil prices was like a diareah frosting on a giant cake made of feces. We were already into full swing of the housing crash before oil prices spiked. Granted it made things worse, but the credit default swap market crash triggered by Fannie and Freddie are what have made this economic crisis so scary.

Regarding leading us to Salvation, I'll concur that neither "The Messiah" nor McCain have it in them. I can only take what each of them promise to do, couple it with their character, and take a guess at what is coming. I truly believe McCain wants to take a crack at corruption in Govt., which is a worthy cause no matter how you look at it. I truly believe Obama wants to re-institute post Depression socialism before we've even been officially announced to be in a recession. Its like using a defribulator on a patient complaining of chest pains. When half our country is unemployed, maybe it will make sense for the government to give people money for nothing. In the meantime, tax breaks for small and large businesses are the best way to keep our unemployment rates from reaching depression levels.

Originally Posted by cbwm

Assuming it is all true, and that it is all Bush's fault, I would still argue that the spike in oil prices was like a diareah frosting on a giant cake made of feces.

I didn't say it was all Bush's fault. The problem we're facing with Big Oil now has been festering since Nixon. The slap in the face is that with Bush's oil connections and Reagan's precedents that the actions we could have easily taken weren't. And neither of our darling candidates promising to fight corruption has sense enough to navigate out of a wet paper sack with a GPS, let alone take on Big Oil.

Originally Posted by cbwm

We were already into full swing of the housing crash before oil prices spiked. Granted it made things worse, but the credit default swap market crash triggered by Fannie and Freddie are what have made this economic crisis so scary.

I'll grant you that they were concurrent crises. Keep in mind that it was the bundling and reselling of bad debt that caused the first Depression, and borrowing more to offset it will not cut it. We're already feeling the pangs of those diminishing returns. I'll even grant you Clinton's culpability with the banks. What matters is what lessons we can learn from the idiocy of Slick Willie and Dubya to get out of the mess.

Originally Posted by cbwm

Regarding leading us to Salvation, I'll concur that neither "The Messiah" nor McCain have it in them. I can only take what each of them promise to do, couple it with their character, and take a guess at what is coming. I truly believe McCain wants to take a crack at corruption in Govt., which is a worthy cause no matter how you look at it. I truly believe Obama wants to re-institute post Depression socialism before we've even been officially announced to be in a recession. Its like using a defribulator on a patient complaining of chest pains.

Um, that's actually done quite frequently, but I get what you're saying. I don't doubt the enthusiasm of either candidate. But Obama wouldn't be able to instiute the kind of socialism you're talking about; the government can't afford it. The kind of depression we're headed for, even the government's going to fold.

Originally Posted by cbwm

When half our country is unemployed, maybe it will make sense for the government to give people money for nothing. In the meantime, tax breaks for small and large businesses are the best way to keep our unemployment rates from reaching depression levels.

They've already been given tax breaks. Reality is that even McCain won't be able to shelter them from an increase.

tim

Originally Posted by serandfae

They've already been given tax breaks. Reality is that even McCain won't be able to shelter them from an increase.

When you want to balance a budget, you have two options. 1) Cut spending
2) Earn more
Obama's plan earns more by taxing the rich but then spends the money by giving it to the poor. I his "bottom up" brand of economics works well if you run a grocery store, liquor store, a walmart, or some other business the bottom 40% frequent. That leaves the businesses supported by the middle 55% of taxpayers high and dry as they send their employees out the door.

Raising taxes on those businesses will cause belt tightening on belts that will already be very tight by election day. If the incoming president doesnt raise taxes on business in the first year in office, he may not balance the budget but at least he will have some taxes he can collect his second year in office. Between the two of them, McCain is the only one who is believable on cutting spending.

Originally Posted by The-Pixel

I completely agree with what you say. I particularly enjoyed the part where you mentioned "Bring back forced labor in prisons instead of weight rooms." This issue has been overlooked for years. Feydakin for President, haha.

No thanks.. Benevolent dictator for 6 months would be fine though..

Can I borrow your crystal ball for just long enough to buy a lottery ticket?

Sorry, it doesn't work so well with things designed to avoid working hard to better yourself and your country.. I tried..

I'm sure you're also aware that when oil prices go way up so does the price of everything else. Failure to keep big oil from gouging the American public is partially responsible for the rash of defaulted mortgages.

Hmmm, ~7% profit margin == gouging.. Got it.. Tapping the strategic oil reserve may have helped a bit, but not enough to stem the flow of money.. The "housing issue" is far more complex, and should result in people in prison rather than a bailout, than a few million barrels of oil..

more evidence that Obama will not be our next president, Gallup Polls has Obama ahead by only 2 points.

I expect riots.. Lots of riots and lawsuits after this election..

Welcome to the emerging third world..

Originally Posted by Feydakin

I expect riots.. Lots of riots and lawsuits after this election..

Welcome to the emerging third world..

True true. If Obama looses after showing a 10% lead in the polls, the riots that will ensue will make the Rodney king Cop aquitals look like childs play.

I think lawsuits in elections are with us to stay, especially when one of the candidates is an attorney. The Obama camp has already been threatening legal action to shut down 527s and anyone else who prints information about him he doesnt want disseminated. Between Acorn, partisan leadership preventing the voter registration investigations, and now allowing the homeless to vote(not requiring a proof of a valid in state address/residence), we will likely have lawsuits before the results are even determined. In Florida 2000, Gore set the precident that you might be able to win a close election by legally challenging the voting process and I can't see either party not going down that path in the future.

Originally Posted by cbwm

Between Acorn, partisan leadership preventing the voter registration investigations, and now allowing the homeless to vote(not requiring a proof of a valid in state address/residence), we will likely have lawsuits before the results are even determined.

Now your just not stating facts cbwm, the homeless are required to give a valid proof of address, like this one below...

101 Park Bench Way
Somewhere in New York, 1229838 er... how many numbers do you need here?

Originally Posted by Feydakin

Hmmm, ~7% profit margin == gouging.. Got it...

I don't know where you pulled that number from, but my bet is from a dark, foul-smelling orifice. Big Oil's windfall (read in extorted) profits even got Congress' attention. But let's assume your questionable number is accurate. Wal-Mart can afford to price gouge, run out small business and pay the fines with a profit margin two percentage points less. Big Oil ran out small refineries before their big profits came in. And there wasn't a shortage. It was the seventies all over again, just with fewer lines at the pump.

Originally Posted by Feydakin

Tapping the strategic oil reserve may have helped a bit, but not enough to stem the flow of money.

You obviously didn't follow the presidency of Ronald Reagan. Look into how he dealt with the oil companies, then get back to me when you're better informed.

Originally Posted by Feydakin

The "housing issue" is far more complex, and should result in people in prison rather than a bailout, than a few million barrels of oil..

To borrow a phrase from junior high, "Well, duh!" I said that the overinflated price of gas was part of the problem, not the sole contributor to it. But when banks push loans they know people can't afford, then the cost of everything goes up, what do you think is going to happen? Then that bad debt is bundled and resold, and the government runs up debt it can't afford. Surely you know what happens in one major part of the economy affects the whole economy? Do I really have to spell that out? Or should I just give a pat answer like, "Oh, it's just really complex?"

Originally Posted by cbwm

When you want to balance a budget, you have two options. 1) Cut spending
2) Earn more.

Again, well duh. Each candidate claims they want to at least reduce the deficit, if not balance the budget, by the end of his first term. Neither of their prospective plans will do that.

Originally Posted by cbwm

Between the two of them, McCain is the only one who is believable on cutting spending.

Based on what? With a projected budget deficit at 7% of GDP next year? Not even conservative budget analysts think he can balance the budget his first term; moreover, he'll be several hundred billion short. He'll have to raise taxes to make that happen. Dubya's the only one who didn't, and we've nearly doubled the national debt thanks to him.

tim

Originally Posted by serandfae

Based on what? With a projected budget deficit at 7% of GDP next year? Not even conservative budget analysts think he can balance the budget his first term; moreover, he'll be several hundred billion short. He'll have to raise taxes to make that happen. Dubya's the only one who didn't, and we've nearly doubled the national debt thanks to him.

Based on each one's previous track record, and the fairly predictable outcomes of what each of them have stated they plan to do.

Your dire predictions would be accurate if you didn't take into account the effect of our candidates policies on GDP over the next four years. Even if Obama planned to take his tax increase and balance the budget with it, squeezing businesses right now will have a negative impact on employment and therefore the economy. Each successive year of his term in office, he'll have less money to pass around because businesses will make less and employ less and all the while the budget deficit and debt will be blossoming. Worse still, he hasn't promised fiscal responsibility with his tax raising scheme. Instead, he's promised to give that money to the poor. Its like setting your house on fire to keep warm during the winter.

McCains proposals don't squeeze businesses and should stimulate GDP, which increases tax revenues by default, not in terms of percentage of GDP, but in gross tax receipts. He also isn't promising government giveaways, but instead proposes a spending freeze in an effort to examine and cut all unnecessary spending.

Given each of their track records, I'd say they will both do EXACTLY what they have promised they will do. If McCains policies add to the deficit like you say, Obama's should bring a quick apocolyptic end to our great nation.

Originally Posted by cbwm

McCains proposals don't squeeze businesses and should stimulate GDP, which increases tax revenues by default, not in terms of percentage of GDP, but in gross tax receipts.

Sounds a lot like Reaganomics. It didn't work then, seeing as how the federal debt multiplied fourfold under his watch. And that was even with Reagan raising taxes. McCain's just as much of a liar here, in that he claims out one side of his mouth to cut corporate welfare, then on the other side we get this supply-side idiocy.

Originally Posted by cbwm

If McCains policies add to the deficit like you say, Obama's should bring a quick apocolyptic end to our great nation.

I'll be happy to reference the analysts I've read that say McCain would actually have us further in the hole, none of which are partisan. So far you haven't said anything about Obama that isn't partisan spin. I don't particularly like him either, but he wouldn't wreck the country. Really, I don't see either of them serving but one term and getting the blame for the country going under, which is out of either's control, given what the victor will inherit.

tim

Originally Posted by serandfae

Sounds a lot like Reaganomics.

For increasing tax receipts, supply side works. Reaganomics work. Your complaints with Reagan and a deficiet are more properly targeted at spending, which Reagan unquestionably did. Republican "Borrow and Spend" economics vs Democrat "Tax and Spend" economics. For a fast history lesson on which serves our country better, you could compare the Reagan administration to that of Jimmy Carter.

Originally Posted by serandfae

I'll be happy to reference the analysts I've read that say McCain would actually have us further in the hole, none of which are partisan. So far you haven't said anything about Obama that isn't partisan spin.

I've seen several non-partisan estimations of the impact each candidates tax policy would have on the deficit. If you read the same ones I have, they bear out that both McCain and Obama's tax policies will increase the deficit, but McCain's will increase the deficit by more. The curious thing I noticed about those reports is that they ran based on a fairly stagnant estimated GDP. Obviously GDP will have a major impact on the final numbers at the end of the day, and these candidate's tax policies will have a major effect on GDP.

I suppose you can refer to the idea of lowering business taxes equaling thriving and profitable businesses who employ more people as "partisan spin", but historically speaking I think you will find it is factual.

Perhaps a more generic way to think about is like this. We tend to gauge the health of our economy by whether the stock market goes up or down. Pretty much every company on the stock market that is profitable makes more than $250k/year. These companies executives report to their share holders (You and me directly, or indirectly through pension funds, 401ks etc) and are responsible for delivering a profit us. When times are tough and a profit is harder to turn, these companies "Downsize", running leaner and meaner to turn a profit for their shareholders. That means job loss. That means less people with money to consume with. Out of all that, in what sick fictitious world can one explain how raising taxes on our businesses is going to make the guage of our economy's health go higher?

For the record, I've thought that fuel was WAY underpriced for more than 10 years.. I also don't have a problem with profit.. Even this mythical thing called "windfall" profit.. If you hate big oil for making too much money, why not go after people like Google who don't even really have a tangible product yet make millions..

Are there things I'd like to change in the oil industry?? You bet.. But then I feel that way about just about everything.. Can't afford to drive your car?? Buy a scooter.. Me, I drive an F-350 Dually.. And I love it..

Oil company profits: A perspective
Earnings, Revenues, Profits (Billions) for selected companies
Source: Bloomberg News, reported in AAPG Explorer.


Company Net Profit Revenue Profit Margin
Citigroup (banking) $7.1 $21.5 33%
Microsoft $3.1 $9.7 32%
Coca-Cola $1.3 $6.0 21%
Procter & Gamble $2.0 $14.8 14%
General Electric $4.7 $41.6 11%
ExxonMobil $9.9 $92.6 11%
ConocoPhillips $3.8 $48.7 8%
IBM $1.5 $21.5 7%
Chevron $3.6 $51.1 7%
Wal-Mart $2.8 $76.8 4%


Oil industry average profit margin is about 8.2%; for all US industry, the average is about 6.8%.
Profits in the oil industry were easily outpaced by those of the Pharmaceuticals, Banks, Household Products, Software, Telecommunications, Semiconductors, Consumer Services, and Food, Beverage and Tobacco sectors.

So Microsoft, Coca-Cola etc are all evil for making those evil "windfall" profits.. Don't you just love capitalism with limits on profit??

Originally Posted by cbwm

For increasing tax receipts, supply side works. Reaganomics work. Your complaints with Reagan and a deficiet are more properly targeted at spending, which Reagan unquestionably did. Republican "Borrow and Spend" economics vs Democrat "Tax and Spend" economics. For a fast history lesson on which serves our country better, you could compare the Reagan administration to that of Jimmy Carter.

If supply-side economics are good for increasing tax receipts, why in the twelve years of Reagan and Bush Sr. did tax receipts not go up? Hmmm...maybe they didn't have enough time? Deficits are a function of overspending and insufficient tax income. So they failed to bring up tax receipts and ran up incredible debt that's about to crush us. That's a phenomenal success story. Borrow and spend ONLY works short-term.

Originally Posted by cbwm

I've seen several non-partisan estimations of the impact each candidates tax policy would have on the deficit. If you read the same ones I have, they bear out that both McCain and Obama's tax policies will increase the deficit, but McCain's will increase the deficit by more. The curious thing I noticed about those reports is that they ran based on a fairly stagnant estimated GDP. Obviously GDP will have a major impact on the final numbers at the end of the day, and these candidate's tax policies will have a major effect on GDP.

At least on this note we agree.

Originally Posted by cbwm

I suppose you can refer to the idea of lowering business taxes equaling thriving and profitable businesses who employ more people as "partisan spin", but historically speaking I think you will find it is factual.?

No, I said your insistence that Obama will bring about the Apocalypse unqualified partisan spin, which it is.

Originally Posted by cbwm

We tend to gauge the health of our economy by whether the stock market goes up or down. Out of all that, in what sick fictitious world can one explain how raising taxes on our businesses is going to make the guage of our economy's health go higher?

There's another measure of how healthy the economy is: The income gap, which has more than doubled since 1980. In other words, a healthy economy has a sizeable middle class, and ours is rapidly shrinking.

Originally Posted by cbwm

Out of all that, in what sick fictitious world can one explain how raising taxes on our businesses is going to make the guage of our economy's health go higher?

They've been cut for large business for nearly thirty years, and by the gauge I'm using it hasn't helped. Nothing trickled down. You can't deny that there are people in the top 10% with less of a tax burden than you or me. Sure, you can quote a dollar figure and say this person paid more (see how to lie with statistics) but as a percentage of income the tale is told. That's one reason several fairly moderate minds have proposed a true flat tax with no deductions, opposed mostly by conservatives closely tied to big business because maybe they'd actually have to pay their fair share of the burden. Waaah. I oppose corporate welfare just as vehemently as I oppose the abuse of welfare itself.

tim

Originally Posted by Feydakin

For the record, I've thought that fuel was WAY underpriced for more than 10 years.. I also don't have a problem with profit.. Even this mythical thing called "windfall" profit.. If you hate big oil for making too much money, why not go after people like Google who don't even really have a tangible product yet make millions....So Microsoft, Coca-Cola etc are all evil for making those evil "windfall" profits.. Don't you just love capitalism with limits on profit??

Big Oil has historically had antitrust legislation in place against it, and was one of the primary reasons for said legislation being in place. Its ability to drive out smaller refineries is a national security risk. Its ability to complete ly control supply, and thus prices, poses a bigger one. I, like millions, got hit on a personal level. I had to tap my savings and money market accounts to pay for gas to get to and from work, and I don't drive a "dually". Sure, you don't give a flyin' flip about that, but you're paying a lot of disrespect to those who've had to tighten their belt over this. You're pretty much saying it didn't happen, and I can assure you that it did.

Y'know, there was a guy here who went back to his gas station to raise his prices the second he heard about the 9/11 attacks. His wife had to run the place for about a month because he got the crap beat out of him for it. Think of that as a metaphor for how I feel about Big Oil. I have no qualms with a company making a profit. But there are ways in the corporate world to do that, and ways not to. I can count on one hand the number of companies mentioned in that report who haven't been under government scrutiny for shady practices.

tim

Originally Posted by serandfae

If supply-side economics are good for increasing tax receipts, why in the twelve years of Reagan and Bush Sr. did tax receipts not go up? Hmmm...maybe they didn't have enough time?

Do you have any statistics to back up this claim. The chart showing the Bush (W) Tax cuts effect on tax receipts has been posted on this forum many times. Reagan inherited double digit inflation, unemployment, mortgage interest, a gas crisis, and an Iranian hostage crisis from our last socialist president (Carter), and managed to turn it all around while kicking the U.S.S.R's *** at the same time via Borrow and Spend. I'll give you its not sustainable and we are definitely at a juncture where we need to stop borrowing, but on a philosophical basis, both of these debt laiden theories have been put to the test. I would be very suprised if you find statistics to back your claim that Reagan didn't increase tax receipts. He just spent like a mad man.

Originally Posted by serandfae

No, I said your insistence that Obama will bring about the Apocalypse unqualified partisan spin, which it is.

True. I put the smile face to let you know I was just yanking your leg. To be honest, I don't believe in the Apocalypse. I do, however, believe in the existance of bad ideas and Obama is full of them. That is, of course, my opinion.

Originally Posted by serandfae

There's another measure of how healthy the economy is: The income gap, which has more than doubled since 1980. In other words, a healthy economy has a sizeable middle class, and ours is rapidly shrinking.

Even if this were true, Socialism wouldnt be the solution. The truth of what you say here is not so much that the middle class is shrinking, but more that we have created a super wealthy class in America. Its one of the reasons Warren Buffet stands behind the death tax. Again, Obama has presented no solutions here.

Originally Posted by serandfae

They've been cut for large business for nearly thirty years, and by the gauge I'm using it hasn't helped. Nothing trickled down. You can't deny that there are people in the top 10% with less of a tax burden than you or me.

Ariana Huffington, owner of the very left wing Huffington Post, case and point. When she ran against Arnold Shwarzenneger (Spelling?), they ran out her tax returns and found out she made $1.5 million dollars the previous tax year and only paid $500 with the help of some extremely qualified accountants. The 2004 election, Kerry vs Bush, Bush paid 28% in his sizeable income, Kerry 15% on his even more sizeable income. Its interesting how the people telling you Republicans tax polices are bad are the same people who abuse the system the worst. Like you, I would be in favor of a flat income tax or purely use based tax system. I'm not sure how we get there from here. In any event, I was referring to Business taxes and you are dead wrong on your business tax assessment. Our country has the second highest business tax rate ON THE PLANET. Companies use every write off and loophole they can and still pay 30% at the end of the day. You still haven't explained how increasing business taxes will help our GDP, our Stock Market, or your gauge of the income gap between upper and middle class. They should be working to lower those taxes and reduce loopholes.

Originally Posted by serandfae

I oppose corporate welfare just as vehemently as I oppose the abuse of welfare itself.

On this we definitely agree, but lets be clear. Business tax cuts are not corporate welfare. I think you will agree that most small businesses (50 employees and under) A: do not have access to the same type of accounting resources and loopholes that big business do, B: make over 250k per year, and C: employ more people than the entire Fortune 500. Raising taxes on these companies is going to help our economy how? Do you think giving this money away to people who don't pay taxes is going to help our economy? or Balance the Budget?

Originally Posted by serandfae

Sure, you don't give a flyin' flip about that, but you're paying a lot of disrespect to those who've had to tighten their belt over this. You're pretty much saying it didn't happen, and I can assure you that it did.

I would care if I hadn't started out poor.. And I had to "walk" to work for a year.. And when I did buy a car and couldn't afford gas, I road my bike.. I grew up eating white box generic Mac and Cheese and all the other things we get when we are poor.. No savings to draw from.. No PS3 in the living room (Atri 2600 in my day).. No going out with friends.. I worked.. I still work.. And work damned hard..

So no, I really don't give a "flip" about things being tight.. Been there.. Done that.. Still have the pictures and the scars to prove it..