Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Colossus_500 on April 10, 2007, 01:13:48 PM
-
I can't remember if I posted this previously or not. If I did, my apologies...
OUTSIDE THE BOX
Year of the Donkey
Are the Democrats rising, or just listing to the left?
BY PETE DU PONT
We do not know who will be the next president, but for now we know the worm has turned: The Democratic Party is gaining and the Republican Party is losing control of the government.
In the Bush years, the Republican Congress has spent like liberals. Federal spending is now $23,000 per household, a $7,000 increase in the past five years. There has been an annual 7.7% increase in nondefense discretionary spending, and the number of earmarks is up 57%.
In the past two years there have been four Republican congressional scandals (DeLay, Cunningham, Ney and Foley), and only one Democratic one (William Jefferson). So by last fall the national approval rating of the Republican Congress had fallen to 30%, resulting in a loss of six Senate and 27 House seats on Election Day, costing Republicans control of both Houses of Congress.
President Bush isn't doing much better. His approval rating has hovered in the low 30s since the beginning of the year. Four years of strong economic growth and two good Supreme Court appointments have helped him, but they weren't enough to make up for the four-year Iraq war, the failure of Social Security reform, and the increase in federal spending by 49% since he took office. Now come the political problems of the Walter Reed Army Medical Center matter, the U.S. attorney firings, and Scooter Libby's conviction.
So for the moment the Democrats have a significant political advantage. Last week's Pew Research Center poll showed that 50% of the public identifies or leans Democratic, and only 35% Republican. In 2002 the parties were tied at 43%.
The current GOP vision seems unclear. Republicans are unsure of where they are going and what they wish to accomplish, so their 2008 presidential candidate is likely to set the course for the party. On the other hand, the Democratic Party's vision is firmly established: 1960s liberalism redux in the form of higher taxes, bigger government, greater regulation and immediate withdrawal of our troops from a military effort abroad.
Several issues illustrate the difference between the 1960s superliberals and their semiconservative Republican opponents:
• The war against terrorism. The 2008 election will be the first since 1972 that the central issue of the campaign will be America's participation in a war on foreign soil.
America's current focus is in Iraq, but its challenge is global--in Afghanistan, Syria, Pakistan and Iran, among others. A recent CNN poll showed that 21% of Americans want to withdraw from Iraq now, 37% within a year; and 39% want to remain as long as necessary.
All three Republicans believe the war in Iraq is important to defending America against Islamic terrorism around the globe. John McCain has a military background and makes the strongest arguments for fighting the war; Rudolph Giuliani was in charge of New York's dealing with the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center so he understands the challenge. Mitt Romney says success in Iraq "is in America's national security interest."
The three Democratic candidates are modern McGovernites. In 1972 Democratic nominee George McGovern was for complete withdrawal of all troops from Vietnam; today John Edwards and Sen. Barack Obama are for pulling our troops out of Iraq before Election Day, regardless of the consequences. Hillary Clinton's support of the war is fading. She initially refused to repudiate her pro-war vote, but later said that the number of American troops there should be capped--thus no current surge should be allowed--and now says that president Bush must "extricate our country" from Iraq before his presidency ends.
• Economic growth. The good news is the current strength of the U.S. economy. For the past four years--2003 through 2006--annual growth has averaged a strong 6%, with inflation at less than 2.9%, and seven million new jobs have been created. The Bush tax cuts are a principal reason for all this opportunity, and their future existence after their expiration in 2010 is the most important economic question for the 2008 election.
As mayor of New York, Mr. Giuliani cut some two dozen tax rates. He believes the Bush tax cuts should be made permanent instead of expiring in 2010. Mr. Romney agrees with that, and as governor he solved his state's financial problems by spending controls rather than tax increases. Mr. McCain is far less reliable; he opposed the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts and was against the repeal of the death tax. He did vote for the extension of the Bush tax cuts on dividends and capital gains, and now says he too wants to make them permanent.
On the Democratic side of the aisle, Mr. Edwards would eliminate all of the Bush tax cuts and raise taxes on oil companies. Mr. Obama voted against the 2006 dividend and capital gains tax cut extensions and against repealing the death tax. Mrs. Clinton supports higher taxes on oil companies and voted against the tax cuts too. It seems clear that if a Democrat becomes president, taxes will rise substantially.
As for government spending, control of it was once a Republican policy, but it no longer is. Both parties want to spend more, and after the next election they will, the Democrats probably slightly more than the Republicans.
• Free trade. The North American Free Trade Agreement shows how trade matters to our economy. It greatly expanded our trade with Mexico and Canada, more than doubling our exports and creating more than one million new American jobs.
But the Democratic Party is protectionist. Just a week after the last election, a majority of House Democrats voted against a Vietnam trade agreement. The new House has 16 more antitrade Democratic members than it used to, and five of the six new Democratic Senators are protectionists. Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama voted against the Central American Free Trade Agreement. Mr. Edwards says, "Congress should make it clear to the president that it will override any agreement that does not protect American jobs and American interests."
On the Republican side Mr. McCain has voted for all the recent free trade agreements, and Mr. Romney says protectionism would make America "a second-tier economy" with a "second-class standard of living."
• Energy. President Bush wants to end America's addiction to and dependence on foreign oil, a good idea that can be accomplished in many ways: build more nuclear power plants; begin drilling offshore on the Outer Continental Shelf and Alaska, where there is enough oil to replace all foreign oil imports for 25 years and enough natural gas to supply America's needs for 19 years.
But Democrats are opposed to all of these opportunities; 155 of 195 House Democrats voted last June to block OCS drilling. Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama are against any Alaskan ANWR drilling, and she is opposed to the construction of new nuclear power plants and any offshore drilling. Mr. Obama opposes lifting the 54-cent-a-gallon tariff on imported ethanol from Brazil--which would reduce our dependency of foreign oil--and is opposed to Gulf of Mexico oil drilling because it focuses on increasing supply rather than reducing demand. Mr. Edwards does not want to do anything that would "weaken the OCS moratorium on new drilling off our coasts."
On the Republican side, Mr. McCain voted against ANWR, but he and Mr. Romney support offshore drilling and all three candidates are for building more nuclear power plants.
• Global warming. Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth" has moved global warming to the top of the political agenda, and all the candidates with the exception of Mr. Romney seem to have signed on to federal regulation of factory emissions. Mrs. Clinton is a global warming regulation advocate, and although the global climate warmed just one degree in the last century, Mr. Edwards says that "global warming is an emergency" and "a crisis today" that will no doubt require new taxes to do something about it.
Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama have sponsored a bill that would over time reduce emissions to one-third of 2000 levels, which unless other nations do the same would have a devastating impact on America's jobs and economy. Mr. Giuliani believes that the debate on global warming is "almost unnecessary" since "the overwhelming number of scientists" believe there is a significant human cause."
Only Mr. Romney sees the challenge: "Kyoto-style sweeping mandates, imposed unilaterally in the United States, would kill jobs, depress growth and shift manufacturing to the dirtiest developing nations." And "Republicans should never abandon pro-growth conservative principles in an effort to embrace the ideas of Al Gore. Instead of sweeping mandates, we must use America's power of innovation to develop alternative sources of energy and new technologies that use energy more efficiently."
There are many more clues to the Democratic Party's revitalized '60s liberalism. Mrs. Clinton has told us that "we are going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good," which means bigger government and fewer individual choices. She has also pledged to do in her administration what she tried to do in her husband's: "When I am president, we will have universal health care coverage in our country."
The Democratic Party does have some advantage at the moment, but if their modern McGovernism extends beyond the war to the '60s liberalism of higher taxes and bigger government and greater regulation, the president taking office in January of 2009 may just turn out to be a Republican.
Mr. du Pont, a former governor of Delaware, is chairman of the Dallas-based National Center for Policy Analysis. His column appears once a month.
-
• Economic growth. The good news is the current strength of the U.S. economy. For the past four years--2003 through 2006--annual growth has averaged a strong 6%, with inflation at less than 2.9%, and seven million new jobs have been created. The Bush tax cuts are a principal reason for all this opportunity, and their future existence after their expiration in 2010 is the most important economic question for the 2008 election.
As mayor of New York, Mr. Giuliani cut some two dozen tax rates. He believes the Bush tax cuts should be made permanent instead of expiring in 2010. Mr. Romney agrees with that, and as governor he solved his state's financial problems by spending controls rather than tax increases. Mr. McCain is far less reliable; he opposed the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts and was against the repeal of the death tax. He did vote for the extension of the Bush tax cuts on dividends and capital gains, and now says he too wants to make them permanent.
On the Democratic side of the aisle, Mr. Edwards would eliminate all of the Bush tax cuts and raise taxes on oil companies. Mr. Obama voted against the 2006 dividend and capital gains tax cut extensions and against repealing the death tax. Mrs. Clinton supports higher taxes on oil companies and voted against the tax cuts too. It seems clear that if a Democrat becomes president, taxes will rise substantially.
As for government spending, control of it was once a Republican policy, but it no longer is. Both parties want to spend more, and after the next election they will, the Democrats probably slightly more than the Republicans.
One of the primary distinctions between the parties. Pretty clear Edwards, Clinton, and Obama will increase our taxes.
-
One of the primary distinctions between the parties. Pretty clear Edwards, Clinton, and Obama will increase our taxes.
with 400 billion in debt, who ever is in office will probably have to increase taxes
-
with 400 billion in debt, who ever is in office will probably have to increase taxes
I don't think the Democrats (Edwards, Hillary, Obama) want to raise taxes to eliminate debt. Seems to me they are more interested in the redistribution of wealth, which is something liberals are often trying to do.
-
I don't think the Democrats (Edwards, Hillary, Obama) want to raise taxes to eliminate debt. Seems to me they are more interested in the redistribution of wealth, which is something liberals are often trying to do.
ok, so you're suggesting that Edwards, Hilary et al. DO want to raise taxes BUT NOT to pay down the massive debt that Bush has accumulated for us and our descendents to pay back but rather to redistribute wealth?
How will this redistribution happen?
Will they just start handing out bundles of cash like we did in Iraq?
do tell
-
ok, so you're suggesting that Edwards, Hilary et al. DO want to raise taxes BUT NOT to pay down the massive debt that Bush has accumulated for us and our ancestors to pay back but rather to redistribute wealth?
How will this redistribution happen?
Will they just start handing out bundles of cash like we did in Iraq?
do tell
From the article: "Mr. Edwards would eliminate all of the Bush tax cuts and raise taxes on oil companies." In other words, take from the people who pay the most taxes, give to people who pay much less in taxes. That = redistribution.
"Mr. Obama voted against the 2006 dividend and capital gains tax cut extensions and against repealing the death tax." Why oppose these unless you want to take from successful people to finance a pork barrel federal government?
"Mrs. Clinton supports higher taxes on oil companies and voted against the tax cuts too." Obviously sticking to the liberal Robin Hood approach.
I favor across the board tax cuts. Liberals like Edwards et al. want to punish success and have people who have the misfortunate of high incomes continue to carry the tax burden in this country while getting zero relief. That = redistribution.
-
The Donkey being Rosie O'Fat.
-
ok, so you're suggesting that Edwards, Hilary et al. DO want to raise taxes BUT NOT to pay down the massive debt that Bush has accumulated for us and our ancestors to pay back but rather to redistribute wealth?
How will this redistribution happen?
Will they just start handing out bundles of cash like we did in Iraq?
do tell
Didn't you know that Liberals want to create a country were everyone is cashing a welfare check.
I find it shocking that anyone is actually questioning the idea that taxes will be raised. Exactly how do these people expect to pay down this MASSIVE debt our esteemed President has amassed? Perhaps a bake sale would do the trick.
-
I don't think the Democrats (Edwards, Hillary, Obama) want to raise taxes to eliminate debt. Seems to me they are more interested in the redistribution of wealth, which is something liberals are often trying to do.
I don't see that at all. What would be the point of doing that? How would they gain? Who would they redistribute it to? How can they do that with 400+ billion hanging over their heads?
Are you sure you are not making a stereotypical assumption of democratic intentions?
Is there anything you've read recently that indicates their intentions as you've suggested?
-
From the article: "Mr. Edwards would eliminate all of the Bush tax cuts and raise taxes on oil companie." In other words, take from the people who pay the most taxes, give to people who pay much less in taxes. That = redistribution.
"Mr. Obama voted against the 2006 dividend and capital gains tax cut extensions and against repealing the death tax." Why oppose these unless you want to take from successful people to finance a pork barrel federal government?
"Mrs. Clinton supports higher taxes on oil companies and voted against the tax cuts too." Obviously sticking to the liberal Robin Hood approach.
I favor across the board tax cuts. Liberals like Edwards et al. want to punish success and have people who have the misfortunate of high incomes continue to carry the tax burden in this country while getting zero relief. That = redistribution.
Raising taxes on oil companies is probably something that needs to be done considering they are plain raping it in the profit department.
BB, who is profiting from oil? Do you think perhaps you could call the whole industry monopolized?
A select few are profiting from it. Unfairly as a quasi-monopoly.
We are paying nearly $4 a gallon in some areas. Everything is increasing in cost. My commercial fishing guy has raised his prices nearly double in the last 2 years because of gas prices.
-
I don't see that at all. What would be the point of doing that? How would they gain? Who would they redistribute it to? How can they do that with 400+ billion hanging over their heads?
Are you sure you are not making a stereotypical assumption of democratic intentions?
Is there anything you've read recently that indicates their intentions as you've suggested?
Yes I am making a stereotypical assumption about liberals. I have no reason to believe otherwise. You're assuming Edwards wants to roll back the Bush tax cuts (i.e., raise taxes) solely as a means to balance the budget. I haven't heard him say this. Have you?
I think they talk about "no tax cuts for the wealthy" in an attempt to pander to what they believe is the "middle class." They should be trying to reduce everyone's taxes, including those who pay most of the taxes in this country.
-
Raising taxes on oil companies is probably something that needs to be done considering they are plain raping it in the profit department.
BB, who is profiting from oil? Do you think perhaps you could call the whole industry monopolized?
A select few are profiting from it. Unfairly as a quasi-monopoly.
We are paying nearly $4 a gallon in some areas. Everything is increasing in cost. My commercial fishing guy has raised his prices nearly double in the last 2 years because of gas prices.
You asking me to defend oil companies? :-X They are a hair away from tobacco companies in my book. >:(
But who is profiting from oil? Shareholders. A handful of officers. Maybe some directors.
-
Yes I am making a stereotypical assumption about liberals. I have no reason to believe otherwise. You're assuming Edwards wants to roll back the Bush tax cuts (i.e., raise taxes) solely as a means to balance the budget. I haven't heard him say this. Have you?
I think they talk about "no tax cuts for the wealthy" in an attempt to pander to what they believe is the "middle class." They should be trying to reduce everyone's taxes, including those who pay most of the taxes in this country.
How in the world can they reduce taxes BB? We are on our way to a half trillion in debt! What choice do we have? Borrow more from the World bank?
People that make more can afford more taxes. I'm one of them. Not the ones trying to live on less than 30k per year in a house hold. It's one of the reasons i freaking hate BUSH for his tragic foreign policy blunder.
-
You asking me to defend oil companies? :-X They are a hair away from tobacco companies in my book. >:(
But who is profiting from oil? Shareholders. A handful of officers. Maybe some directors.
That's what i'm saying bro, these guys and companies need to be taxed. Unfortunately, even then we the end users will pay for it anyway.
-
How in the world can they reduce taxes BB? We are on our way to a half trillion in debt! What choice do we have? Borrow more from the World bank?
People that make more can afford more taxes. I'm one of them. Not the ones trying to live on less than 30k per year in a house hold. It's one of the reasons i freaking hate BUSH for his tragic foreign policy blunder.
People who live on less than 30k per year in a household pay little, if any, taxes. They probably qualify for the Earned Income Tax Credit.
But how can you reduce taxes (or least not raise them) and balance the budget? Ask Governor Linda Lingle:
As governor her greatest accomplishments are creating a record surplus of $730 million. Before that, the budget was in a $250 million budget deficit. She is also is credited for developing a strong economy, leaving Hawaii with a very low unemployment rate. She is also popular for signing in the Three Strikes Law Bill and Sex Offender Registry Website. In education, she has attempted to divide the State Board of Education into seven local school boards, but has failed. One of her biggest controversial issues is the practice of sending prisoners to the mainland, as opposed to building a new prison in Hawaii.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linda_Lingle
Don't tell me it can't be done.
-
That's what i'm saying bro, these guys and companies need to be taxed. Unfortunately, even then we the end users will pay for it anyway.
Ozmo we talked about this before. I don't believe "big corporations" pay much in taxes. And if we try and balance the budget and run the country on the backs of these companies they will pass the costs along to the consumers (us).
But you just said that. :)
-
People who live on less than 30k per year in a household pay little, if any, taxes. They probably qualify for the Earned Income Tax Credit.
But how can you reduce taxes (or least not raise them) and balance the budget? Ask Governor Linda Lingle:
As governor her greatest accomplishments are creating a record surplus of $730 million. Before that, the budget was in a $250 million budget deficit. She is also is credited for developing a strong economy, leaving Hawaii with a very low unemployment rate. She is also popular for signing in the Three Strikes Law Bill and Sex Offender Registry Website. In education, she has attempted to divide the State Board of Education into seven local school boards, but has failed. One of her biggest controversial issues is the practice of sending prisoners to the mainland, as opposed to building a new prison in Hawaii.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linda_Lingle
Don't tell me it can't be done.
I would never say it couldn't be done. in fact, i've said many times in here that i believe we can have better health care for people who can't afford it, better education, family services etc... with out raising taxes by overhauling our entire system.
The problem is we are talking about the federal government which is a tad bit different than Hawaii.
\
It's not that it can't be.....It's that our government will lever allow it! >:(
-
I would never say it couldn't be done. in fact, i've said many times in here that i believe we can have better health care for people who can't afford it, better education, family services etc... with out raising taxes by overhauling our entire system.
The problem is we are talking about the federal government which is a tad bit different than Hawaii.
\
It's not that it can't be.....It's that our government will lever allow it! >:(
I agree. Unfortunately. It can be done, but I don't think our legislators across the board have the courage to do it.
I bet Governor Lingle could.
-
I agree. Unfortunately. It can be done, but I don't think our legislators across the board have the courage to do it.
I bet Governor Lingle could.
What Linge did is very significant.
Linge for president!
-
What Linge did is very significant.
Linge for president!
Second! :) And she did it with a veto-proof liberal Democrat majority in the state house and senate.
-
From the article: "Mr. Edwards would eliminate all of the Bush tax cuts and raise taxes on oil companies." In other words, take from the people who pay the most taxes, give to people who pay much less in taxes. That = redistribution.
"Mr. Obama voted against the 2006 dividend and capital gains tax cut extensions and against repealing the death tax." Why oppose these unless you want to take from successful people to finance a pork barrel federal government?
"Mrs. Clinton supports higher taxes on oil companies and voted against the tax cuts too." Obviously sticking to the liberal Robin Hood approach.
I favor across the board tax cuts. Liberals like Edwards et al. want to punish success and have people who have the misfortunate of high incomes continue to carry the tax burden in this country while getting zero relief. That = redistribution.
ok very quickly
do you own or work for an oil company?
Why do I give a shit if oil companies pay more taxes?
have you seen the profits that they've been making recently and also noticed the price of gas?
oil is a finite commodity and we (our country and the world) should spend our $'s finding alternatives and this has NOTHING to do with global warming/climate change etc... it's just reality
leave dividend/capital gains and mortgage interest alone
-
ok very quickly
do you own or work for an oil company?
Why do I give a shit if oil companies pay more taxes?
have you seen the profits that they've been making recently and also noticed the price of gas?
oil is a finite commodity and we (our country and the world) should spend our $'s finding alternatives and this has NOTHING to do with global warming/climate change etc... it's just reality
leave dividend/capital gains and mortgage interest alone
What does me owning or working for an oil company have to do with the price of tea in China?
I'm not sure Congress can pass a bill that requires only a select number of specific companies to pay more in federal taxes, but it certainly sounds wrong. And even though I hate the oil industry, that is classic redistribution: take from profitable companies, give to those with less money. I'd much rather investigate price fixing, anti-trust violations, etc. re oil companies.
-
What does me owning or working for an oil company have to do with the price of tea in China?
I'm not sure Congress can pass a bill that requires only a select number of specific companies to pay more in federal taxes, but it certainly sounds wrong. And even though I hate the oil industry, that is classic redistribution: take from profitable companies, give to those with less money. I'd much rather investigate price fixing, anti-trust violations, etc. re oil companies.
how about they just repeal the tax credits that the oil execs said (not under oath so I say 50/50 they we're lying) they didn't need
again
please elaborate on your theory of "take from profitable companies, give to those with less money"
seriously, just flesh this out a bit so that I can understand it and I might agree
I'm guessing the "taking from the rich part" is by some mechanism (taxes, repeal of tax credits, etc..)
If not then tell me the taking part
then/or tell me the giving part
thanks ;D
-
how about they just repeal the tax credits that the oil execs said (not under oath so I say 50/50 they we're lying) they didn't need
again
please elaborate on your theory of "take from profitable companies, give to those with less money"
seriously, just flesh this out a bit so that I can understand it and I might agree
I'm guessing the "taking from the rich part" is by some mechanism (taxes, repeal of tax credits, etc..)
If not then tell me the taking part
then/or tell me the giving part
thanks ;D
The article says "Mr. Edwards would eliminate all of the Bush tax cuts and raise taxes on oil companies" and "Mrs. Clinton supports higher taxes on oil companies and voted against the tax cuts too." Pretty obvious that the revenue generated from raising taxes on oil companies will be used to fund something else, probably the infamous "tax cuts for the middle class."
And of course the "taking" is taxes. A repeal of tax cuts results in higher taxes. Increasing taxes on oil companies is "taking."
What's obvious (to me anyway) is any revenue received from taxing those with high incomes and/or the "big corporation" boogie man will not be used to provide relief to those same people/entities.
In any event, I doubt the government can raise taxes that solely target specific companies (but that won’t stop the Robin Hood talk).
-
The article says "Mr. Edwards would eliminate all of the Bush tax cuts and raise taxes on oil companies" and "Mrs. Clinton supports higher taxes on oil companies and voted against the tax cuts too." Pretty obvious that the revenue generated from raising taxes on oil companies will be used to fund something else, probably the infamous "tax cuts for the middle class."
And of course the "taking" is taxes. A repeal of tax cuts results in higher taxes. Increasing taxes on oil companies is "taking."
What's obvious (to me anyway) is any revenue received from taxing those with high incomes and/or the "big corporation" boogie man will not be used to provide relief to those same people/entities.
In any event, I doubt the government can raise taxes that solely target specific companies (but that won’t stop the Robin Hood talk).
again
why do I care if oil companies pay more taxes??
why do you care?
I also said (wrote) above to leave dividend/cap gains/mortgage interest alone.
I think we should also find a mechanism to encourage savings. Maybe make interest income on CD, savings, etc... tax free or taxed at a very low rate. I think that could have a stablizing effect on the economy (another one of my brilliant/worthless theories)
anyway good luck selling your argument against the "infamous tax cut's to the middle class"
-
again
why do I care if oil companies pay more taxes??
why do you care?
I also said (wrote) above to leave dividend/cap gains/mortgage interest alone.
I think we should also find a mechanism to encourage savings. Maybe make interest income on CD, savings, etc... tax free or taxed at a very low rate. I think that could have a stablizing effect on the economy (another one of my brillian/worthless theories)
anyway good luck selling your argument against the "infamous tax cut's to the middle class"
Why are you asking me why you care if oil companies pay more taxes? Only you know the answer to that question.
I'll say, again, that I favor tax cuts across the board. That would includes every person and entity that pays taxes. The government needs to run on less of my money. On less of everyone's money.
I agree they shouldn't touch capital gains taxes, unless they're going to reduce them. I also agree they should leave the mortgage interest deduction alone. They better.
I'm not "selling" any argument. I'm not even making an argument. I'm expressing my opinion. I'm an anti-tax militant. Graduate of the Robert Novak school of tax reform.
-
Dude - YOU are the one making the point about raising taxes on oil companies
I am responding to your questions
Why do you CONSTANTLY deflect the question ("tea in china" .."why should I know what you want" etc..)
If you can't have a dialogue where you support your statements then there's no fucking reason to talk to you
-
Dude - YOU are the one making raising the point about raising taxes on oil companies
I am responding to your questions
Why do you CONSTANTLY deflect the question ("tea in china" .."why should I know what you want" etc..)
If you can't have a dialogue where you support your statements then there's no fucking reason to talk to you
Well quit talking to me then. ::) I didn't make the point about raising taxes on oil companies. The article did, which claims Edwards and Hillary want to raise taxes on oil companies.
You asked a bizarre question: "do you own or work for an oil company?" My response:
"What does me owning or working for an oil company have to do with the price of tea in China?"
Legitimate question (mine). :)
-
Well quit talking to me then. ::) I didn't make the point about raising taxes on oil companies. The article did, which claims Edwards and Hillary want to raise taxes on oil companies.
You asked a bizarre question: "do you own or work for an oil company?" My response:
"What does me owning or working for an oil company have to does with the price of tea in China?"
Legitimate question (mine). :)
I asked you if you worked for an oil company
That's a Yes or No Question
Did you answer the question?
btw - my question was a bit more nuanced and I know you know that, as do most everyone reading this (massive audience of less than 10 I'm sure)
-
I asked you if you worked for an oil company
That's a Yes or No Question
Did you answer the question?
btw - my question was a bit more nuanced and I know you know that, as do most everyone reading this (massive audience of less than 10 I'm sure)
Actually, you asked me if I owned or worked for an oil company. And I answered your question with a question:
"What does me owning or working for an oil company have to does with the price of tea in China?"
-
Actually, you asked me if I owned or worked for an oil company. And I answered your question with a question:
"What does me owning or working for an oil company have to does with the price of tea in China?"
your "answer"/"non-answer" has absolutely nothing to do with my question or my larger point (which is obvious to you and everyone else). This is your standard MO - avoid the question (and the topic) by deflection.
you started this by claiming (or referencing an article that claims - I know you're big on semantics) that the Dems would raise taxes on oil companies and I asked you ( in various ways) why you or I should care if oil companies pay higher taxes? They control a finite resources which we (as a species) must wean ourselves off. The oil companies are also making WORLD RECORD profits at the expense of the common good. So I ask you again, what's wrong with oil companies paying higher taxes??? Let's tax the shit out of them and put that revenue towards the development of alternative resources, mass transportation, rebuilding our education system (to support the ongoing need for smart people to work on these problems, etc.....)
You also wrote:
Pretty obvious that the revenue generated from raising taxes on oil companies will be used to fund something else, probably the infamous "tax cuts for the middle class."
And of course the "taking" is taxes. A repeal of tax cuts results in higher taxes. Increasing taxes on oil companies is "taking."
What's obvious (to me anyway) is any revenue received from taxing those with high incomes and/or the "big corporation" boogie man will not be used to provide relief to those same people/entities.
I have no problem with the middle class paying less taxes. There's something called discretionary income and the lower/middle class have less and less of it and a large part of the reason is the cost of enery (gas, heating oil, etc...) I'm not going to lose any sleep at night if the oil companies have to cut their profits by a few billion dollars. They still have billions left over. Also, cutting taxes on the middle/lower classes would be a good thing because people in that bracket tend to (by necessity) spend that money which is good for our economy but it would also be good for them to be able to save some money.
Your statement "revenue received by taxing those with high income...will not be used to provide relief to the same people/entities" is baffling. Of course the additional revenue would not go back to those entities. What would be the point of that??
We (the US government) creates the rules for corporations to exist. The only purpose of any corporation is to make a profit (usually by any means possible) and there are times when that has to be tempered with the common good. Again - they control a finite resource on which our entire economic engine is run. I see no problem with strong regulation of this industry and YES higher taxes for them too.
-
your "answer"/"non-answer" has absolutely nothing to do with my question or my larger point (which is obvious to you and everyone else). This is your standard MO - avoid the question (and the topic) by deflection.
you started this by claiming (or referencing an article that claims - I know you're big on semantics) that the Dems would raise taxes on oil companies and I asked you ( in various ways) why you or I should care if oil companies pay higher taxes? They control a finite resources which we (as a species) must wean ourselves off. The oil companies are also making WORLD RECORD profits at the expense of the common good. So I ask you again, what's wrong with oil companies paying higher taxes??? Let's tax the shit out of them and put that revenue towards the development of alternative resources, mass transportation, rebuilding our education system (to support the ongoing need for smart people to work on these problems, etc.....)
You also wrote:
I have no problem with the middle class paying less taxes. There's something called discretionary income and the lower/middle class have less and less of it and a large part of the reason is the cost of enery (gas, heating oil, etc...) I'm not going to lose any sleep at night if the oil companies have to cut their profits by a few billion dollars. They still have billions left over. Also, cutting taxes on the middle/lower classes would be a good thing because people in that bracket tend to (by necessity) spend that money which is good for our economy but it would also be good for them to be able to save some money.
Your statement "revenue received by taxing those with high income...will not be used to provide relief to the same people/entities" is baffling. Of course the additional revenue would not go back to those entities. What would be the point of that??
We (the US government) creates the rules for corporations to exist. The only purpose of any corporation is to make a profit (usually by any means possible) and there are times when that has to be tempered with the common good. Again - they control a finite resource on which our entire economic engine is run. I see no problem with strong regulation of this industry and YES higher taxes for them too.
Dude you are all over the place. It's actually your question about me owning or working for an oil company that has nothing to do with anything. Don't get frustrated when I don't answer a question that doesn't make any sense.
I've said, repeatedly, that I favor tax cuts across the board. So of course I don't think we should be raising taxes on anyone, which includes "oil companies" (as much as I hate them). That's the answer to your question about why "I" care about whether taxes are raised. Whether "you" care is your problem.
You asked me to explain how taxing oil companies would amount to redistribution of wealth. Answer: "What's obvious (to me anyway) is any revenue received from taxing those with high incomes and/or the "big corporation" boogie man will not be used to provide relief to those same people/entities." In other words, they will tax a big oil company and/or a high income earner and spend the revenue received from these companies/individuals elsewhere. You don't have to agree with my opinion (and I don't care if you do), but if you cannot understand that point, then I don't know what to say.
I also said I question whether the feds can pass laws that only raise taxes on specific entities. Perhaps they can (e.g., tobacco taxes), but those higher taxes will only be passed along to us.
-
Dude you are all over the place. It's actually your question about me owning or working for an oil company that has nothing to do with anything.
I guess my confusion was about your grave concern that the "Dems" wanted to raise taxes on oil companies and I thought maybe you worked for one, owned a bunch of stock etc...I've said, repeatedly, that I favor tax cuts across the board. So of course I don't think we should be raising taxes on anyone, which includes "oil companies" (as much as I hate them).
I guess that's where we obviously differ. I don't favor tax cuts across the board. I actually draw some distinction between a family with 3 kids and a household income of 60k facing the growing costs of energy, healthcare, etc... vs. say an OIL COMPANY with the highest profits of any company in the history of mankind. I even see an obvious distinction between OIL vs. virtually any other industry. Oil is the commodity that drives our entire world economy so it's a bit different than pretty much any other industry.
Your mantra of "tax cuts across the board" is simple minded (IMO)
In other words, they will tax a big oil company and/or a high income earner and spend the revenue received from these companies/individuals elsewhere.
yes, that's the whole point. First there is a difference between an oil company and a "high income earner". I'm sure you aware of that.
Oil companies control a finite asset which as it becomes more scarce (combined with growing demand due to industrialization and population growth) will only get more expensive. We, as a society, should take some of their EXTREME profit and use it to develop alternatives (for example - we raise their taxes and use the increase in revenue to offer tax credits or various other methods to incentivize investments in the development of alternative energy). Guess what - Those very same oil companies can use these incentives (which were paid for by them) to help develop these absolutely necessary alternatives.
These problems are complicated and require a bit more nuance than just "lower taxes across the board for everyone"
-
I guess my confusion was about your grave concern that the "Dems" wanted to raise taxes on oil companies and I thought maybe you worked for one, owned a bunch of stock etc...
I guess that's where we obviously differ. I don't favor tax cuts across the board. I actually draw some distinction between a family with 3 kids and a household income of 60k facing the growing costs of energy, healthcare, etc... vs. say an OIL COMPANY with the highest profits of any company in the history of mankind. I even see an obvious distinction between OIL vs. virtually any other industry. Oil is the commodity that drives our entire world economy so it's a bit different than pretty much any other industry.
Your mantra of "tax cuts across the board" is simple minded (IMO)
yes, that's the whole point. First there is a difference between an oil company and a "high income earner". I'm sure you aware of that.
Oil companies control a finite asset which as it becomes more scarce (combined with growing demand due to industrialization and population growth) will only get more expensive. We, as a society, should take some of their EXTREME profit and use it to develop alternatives (for example - we raise their taxes and use the increase in revenue to offer tax credits or various other methods to incentivize investments in the development of alternative energy). Guess what - Those very same oil companies can use these incentives (which were paid for by them) to help develop these absolutely necessary alternatives.
These problems are complicated and require a bit more nuance than just "lower taxes across the board for everyone"
1. I never expressed "grave concern" over Edwards and Hillary purportedly wanting to raise taxes on oil companies.
2. Yes my "mantra" of tax cuts across the board is simple, simple mindeded, etc. That's the way taxes should be: simple and low. I'm not sure how to implement the policy, but people like Steve Forbes have advocated a "flat tax." That's simple too. But it's about a mindset that too many in government don't have: how do we avoid taking more of the people's money.
3. I don't believe in class warfare (no you didn't say you advocated class warfare). When it comes to taxes, I don't make any distinction between the classes, income, etc. Everyone is entitled to relief IMO. The proverbial "middle class family" is often used to justify class warfare/redistribution, but I don't buy it. The government shouldn't have the right to reach deeper into someone's pocket solely because the person or business has been successful.
4. I said the following is redistribution of wealth: "In other words, they will tax a big oil company and/or a high income earner and spend the revenue received from these companies/individuals elsewhere." You agreed: "yes, that's the whole point."
5. I don't like the idea of targeting specific companies as a means to give that money to someone else. (I'm repeating myself. :-\)
6. You raise good points about the oil industry. Still, I wouldn't use taxes to attack that industry. I think we have laws on the books to deal the antitrust, price fixing, etc. I'd be all for attacking them in that way for gouging consumers.
-
That's what i'm saying bro, these guys and companies need to be taxed. Unfortunately, even then we the end users will pay for it anyway.
If the gas is highly taxed, people will look for alternatives.
The tax needs to be increased over a period of say 2-3 years.
Also, some of the money from the gas taxes should be directed at improving public transportation greatly.
Raising the tax on gas would make ethanol and other alternative fuels, a reality. Hybrid cars could shortly become a reality as well, if the gas is made expensive, and the alternatives ARE MADE CHEAP.
-Hedge
-
1. I never expressed "grave concern" over Edwards and Hillary purportedly wanting to raise taxes on oil companies.
My perception since most of your argument seemed to about raising taxes on oil companies
2. Yes my "mantra" of tax cuts across the board is simple, simple mindeded, etc. That's the way taxes should be: simple and low. I'm not sure how to implement the policy, but people like Steve Forbes have advocated a "flat tax." That's simple too. But it's about a mindset that too many in government don't have: how do we avoid taking more of the people's money.
The problem is that the world is NOT simple and most of the tax laws and loopholes benefit the rich and the corporations who would be the first to bitch when all their loopholes went away.
3. I don't believe in class warfare (no you didn't say you advocated class warfare). When it comes to taxes, I don't make any distinction between the classes, income, etc. Everyone is entitled to relief IMO. The proverbial "middle class family" is often used to justify class warfare/redistribution, but I don't buy it. The government shouldn't have the right to reach deeper into someone's pocket solely because the person or business has been successful.
A progressive tax sysytem is not class warfare and there is nothing proverbial about the middle class. The middle class actually exists and makes up the largest % of our population. The fact that you make no distinctions between income classes is part of the problem. Let me give you an example outside the world of taxes. Being a christian, I assume that you wouldn't want people to starve to death in a country with so much abundance as ours. People at lower incomes can get food stamps. If we're going to make no distinction between income then shouldn't we give foodstamps to everyone. I make a lot of money but if I had food stamps I could save even more money. It's not fair that I don't get food stamps. Aren't we all equal? Why should I be penalized because I make more money?
4. I said the following is redistribution of wealth "In other words, they will tax a big oil company and/or a high income earner and spend the revenue received from these companies/individuals elsewhere." You agreed: "yes, that's the whole point."
When I asked you how this redisdribution of wealth would work you mostly mentioned oil so my response was mostly about oil companies. Again, I make a distinction between a human being or a human family vs. a corporation and also a distinction between oil/energy vs. other industries (for example dairy products)
5. I don't like the idea of targeting specific companies as a means to give that money to someone else. (I'm repeating myself. :-\)
I'm sure you realized that the government "targets" all kinds of in all kinds of industries for special benefits (essentially taking from the commons and giving to the few), especially oil (and energy in general). Every year around this time my CPA tries to convince me to invest in limited partnerships for oil and gas exploration. The selling point being the special tax implications of these things. The government also subsidizes agriculture and uses special tax credits and sometimes tariffs (taking this time instead of giving) in a bunch of different industries. Let's not forget that the government grants exploration leases on government owned land for pennies on the dollar. This is land that is part of the commons and owned by you and I. Sweetheart deals for oil and gas companies so that they can extract a natural resource which then can then sell on the market to the highest bidder. Again, your beliefs are simplistic but unfortunately the world is complicated (no offense intended - you said this yourself in #2 above)
6. You raise good points about the oil industry. Still, I wouldn't use taxes to attack that industry. I think we have laws on the books to deal the antitrust, price fixing, etc. I'd be all for attacking them in that way for gouging consumers.
Nice sentiment but unfortunately a large portion of this natural resource is in fact controlled by a monopoly over which we have no control. Other portions of it are owned by nation states and are not subject to our laws.
If you believe that consumers are actually being gouged and you're fond of simplistic answers to complicated problems then why not just hit them with a windfall profit tax (not my preference but it is simple) or any of the other things I've mentioned.
-
I didn't say I don't make distinctions between people when it comes to income in general. Here is what I said: "When it comes to taxes, I don't make any distinction between the classes, income, etc. Everyone is entitled to relief IMO."
-
If the gas is highly taxed, people will look for alternatives.
The tax needs to be increased over a period of say 2-3 years.
Also, some of the money from the gas taxes should be directed at improving public transportation greatly.
Raising the tax on gas would make ethanol and other alternative fuels, a reality. Hybrid cars could shortly become a reality as well, if the gas is made expensive, and the alternatives ARE MADE CHEAP.
-Hedge
Cool. I like it. Makes sense. Hope it happens.