June 9, 2008 7:44 AM
Gassed at the pump: $4 a gallon - with no end in sight
Remember the good old days when gas was $3 a gallon?
American consumers are experiencing pump fatigue with no end in sight.
Todd Hartman reports:
"It's ridiculous," said Sam Sheehan, 28, filling up his Dodge Stratus for $4.09 a gallon at the Diamond Shamrock at South Colorado Boulevard and East Arkansas Avenue. "And I work for an oil company."Which one? "I'd rather not say."
And that wasn't even the most expensive site. Two other stations - a Conoco in Centennial and another on Pena Boulevard near Denver International Airport - were higher, at $4.16 and $4.24 per gallon, according to the Web site denvergasprices.com.
Shaklr Mohammad didn't speak English very well, but the size of his eyes did all the talking when a reporter pointed out the price on the sign overhead at the Diamond Shamrock on Colorado Boulevard.
"Whooooo," he said, while topping off his tank. Maybe it's time to start riding his bike or taking the bus, he offered.
Gas prices are the talk of every town and Denver's no different. At the People's Fair in Civic Center, one of the most popular displays saw people frenetically filling out an electronic entry form to win a Smart Car, the fuel-sipping teeny-mobile that can get around 60 mpg.
How high do you think prices will go? $5 a gallon? $6 a gallon? Have you changed your lifestyle because of the prices or do you just accept it? Are high prices a necessary spur for increased conservation and development of energy alternatives?
June 9, 2008
8:21 AM
More bad news ahead writes:
I am watching Today show right now
They have an analyst saying that gas has not caught up to the price of oil. Fridays 138.00/barrel means 5.50 a gallon gas price by Fall.
Like it or not America has to change. First chance I get Im moving closer to work, and dumping my pick up in a couple of years. Im voting for change too.
June 9, 2008
8:45 AM
Anonymous writes:
Voting for change? Like Obama can do anything about the price of gas, idiot.
June 9, 2008
9:04 AM
Uninformed Far Left Wingnut writes:
Well, I heard that it is all going into Bush/Cheney's pocket, becasue we didn't have high prices before, so it has to be true. Electing Obama will solve all of this, so all I have to do is wait, then my SUV will be affordable again. And don't tell me to "conserve"...I have to drive my kids everywhere. Let someone else sacrifice, my kids and I are entitled.
June 9, 2008
9:05 AM
SASQUATCH writes:
Q-WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?
http://bp1.blogger.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/SE0wQyJnr6I/AAAAAAAAEyM/qB1woRiwGvk/s1600-h/oilmap.jpg
A-IT HASN'T CHANGED IN DECADES.
June 9, 2008
9:08 AM
David Hakala writes:
I'm still working at home and spending about $60/month on gas for my Subaru Impreza.
June 9, 2008
9:39 AM
history buff writes:
I heard Prez George say that his administration is committed to a strong dollar. LOLOLOL. He deserves the title, Liar in Chief. Yes, a strong dollar will help battle high oil prices. No, tax cuts during a time of war, the first time the USA has ever done such a thing, will not bolster the dollar. Keep on shopping America. Oh, wait. We have a recession so we can't keep on shopping? Well, then vote for McCain. At least you know things will stay the same.
June 9, 2008
9:40 AM
Uninformed Far Right Wingnut writes:
Well look at the brightside.
We're breaking new records.
Record foreclosures, record gas prices, record deficits, record debt. Record food prices....
June 9, 2008
9:52 AM
SASQUATCH writes:
"NOT THE GUY I KNEW":
MARK STEYN:
"Nothing in Obama’s resume suggests he’s the man to remake America and heal the planet. Only this week, another of his pals bit the dust, convicted by a Chicago jury of 16 counts of this and that. “This isn’t the Tony Rezko I knew,” said the senator, in what’s becoming a standard formulation. Likewise, this wasn’t the Jeremiah Wright he knew. And these are guys he’s known for 20 years. Yet at the same time as he’s being stunned by the corruption and anti-Americanism of those closest to him, Obama’s convinced that just by jetting into Tehran and Pyongyang he can get to know America’s enemies and persuade them to hew to the straight and narrow. No doubt if it all goes belly up and Iran winds up nuking Tel Aviv, President Obama will put on his more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger face and announce solemnly that “this isn’t the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad I knew.”
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Never trust a vacant, shallow and empty suit for anything; including CHANGE.
June 9, 2008
10:08 AM
Anonymous writes:
The Democrats are trying to pass a new oil tax regardless of the high prices. They are defending it saying it won't take place until 2012.
If the Democrats would allow us to drill and refine, gas prices would go down immediately, even before a drill bit touched the ground. Just the notion that the U.S. is going to become more independent would send the price crashing down.
The weak dollar is not helping, that is for sure.
June 9, 2008
10:15 AM
jay writes:
1992
$19/barrel
$1.05/gallon
2000
$23/barrel
$1.42/gallon
today
$138.54/barrel
$3.92/gallon
June 9, 2008
10:35 AM
history buff writes:
If Prez George can get an OK to start drilling everywhere that is protected by federal law before he leaves office, damn, all those contracts for his contributors. Now, isn't the Iraq War an economic engine for all the GOPers feeding at the government trough?
Of course, the GOP is going to say any tax is bad, even if it bolsters the dollar, even if it repatriates petrol-dollars, even if it retains national wealth. It is definitely an issue that can be swift boated since over 90% of the American public couldn't pass Intro to Macro and Micro Economics.
If ANWAR were opened up right now, not only would the leasing be rife with scandal, a big chunk of the oil would go to China. Better policy is to build a pipeline across Canada, like the one proposed for natural gas. But, that would take diplomacy, a word not part of the Neo-Con vocabulary.
The GOP says Obama would talk to our enemies, which is bad. But Bush doesn't even talk to our friends, like Canada. Every once in awhile he lectures our friends, but the guy and his people are totally inept. Thank God we have only six more months left of abysmal failure.
June 9, 2008
10:42 AM
JW writes:
"The Democrats are trying to pass a new oil tax regardless of the high prices. They are defending it saying it won't take place until 2012.
If the Democrats would allow us to drill and refine, gas prices would go down immediately, even before a drill bit touched the ground. Just the notion that the U.S. is going to become more independent would send the price crashing down."
While I disagree with ANY Taxes on companies, this is just the RNC's talking points meant to lay blame on Democrats for the current cost of oil. Its ridiculous. Several factors are at work causing the price of oil to rise. Increased demand from China and India are major ones. The weakend dollar is a major contributor.
The fact that we arent drilling in ANWAR simply isnt that big a deal. Its like McSame's claim that he will lower spending to pay for increased tax cuts by stopping pork. At $18 billion a year, pork isnt a major contributor to spending. Cutting ALL of it wouldnt do a damn thing, even without cutting taxes further.
"The weak dollar is not helping, that is for sure."
As oil is traded in dollars, you have this correct. This, along with the increased world wide demand, are the primary reasons for the increase in oil cost. One of these two influences can be controled by government to some extent; The strength of the dollar. That being the case, it takes some really serious spin to call this problem the Democrats fault.
June 9, 2008
10:46 AM
Tbone writes:
I love this line:
"If the Democrats would allow us to drill and refine..." blah blah blah its all the dems fault blah blah blah....
Meanwhile, back in the real world:
Drilling permits issued in 2006 - 5904 (a record, double the 2004 number)
2007 - 6386 permits issued
2008 - on pace for 8000 permits.
Last I checked, dems controlled the CO legislature.
So can one of you righties explain to me how democrats are supposedly blocking drilling, when in reality the exact reverse is happening?
Oh yea - moot point. Neocons make up reality as they go, they're not members of the reality based community.
June 9, 2008
10:48 AM
Uninformed Far Left Wingnut writes:
All I know is that we are paying too much, and it is all Bush's fault. I have a right to cheap gas, as I need it "for my family"...After all, aren't "working families" entitled to a break? Surely we are!
June 9, 2008
10:59 AM
SASQUATCH writes:
BUT DIDN'T YOU JUST VOTE FOR HIGHER PRICES?
Since 1992, oil companies have drilled more than 2,100 wells in the Gulf at depths greater than 1,000 feet. Each can cost $100 million or more. Not all hit pay dirt. One that did was Jack No. 2, a joint venture by two oil companies. In deep water 270 miles southwest of New Orleans, Jack tapped a field with perhaps 15 billion barrels of oil.
The U.S. Minerals Management Service says that, all told, offshore areas that are off-limits to drilling contain upwards of 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.
In sum, the oil is there, and oil companies are willing to go after it if we let them. Just think of it: American oil creating American jobs while lowering gas prices! Deep wells such as Perdido and Jack No. 2 can help solve our energy and economic woes. But when it comes to energy, Democrats don't know Jack.
Stop complaining and just run a power line to one of Ritter's windmills.
June 9, 2008
11:01 AM
Dirty Sanchez writes:
Remember when it was fashionable to say: Let's bomb them back into the Stone Age? It must be nice to be able to "pull the plug" on modern society.
As for what I'm doing now? I bought a horse two years ago for riding and have recently bought a pony for driving. I grow my own forage and I'm having a bit of fun being away from "life in the big city".
June 9, 2008
11:05 AM
Anonymous writes:
all i know is gas prices were a lot cheaper before we had a democratic controlled congress.
is bush ratings still soaring compared theirs?
June 9, 2008
11:10 AM
jay writes:
hank i'm curious...do you know how far away from our shores international waters begin?
June 9, 2008
11:16 AM
history buff writes:
All I know, oil was cheaper before the Sopranos went off the air. Maybe if we had more episodes of the Sopranos I wouldn't think twice about my drive to LA next month. Love logic that twitters like a little bird in the ear. And gas was at $.79 / gal. when Nirvana was together. :)
June 9, 2008
11:48 AM
Tbone writes:
Jay-
Isn't it something like 3 miles?
I was wondering...if international waters start 3 miles offshore, why don't companies drill 3.1 miles offshore, where US regs don't apply?
June 9, 2008
12:09 PM
Dirty Sanchez writes:
I have a feeling that as soon as gasahol, wind and solar start to make a good showing the price of crude will drop. This will be the sign of market manipulation by speculators.
June 9, 2008
12:37 PM
Anonymous writes:
Dirty,
Just where do you think you are going to put up those wind mills and solar stands?
Not in any desert or off shore because the enviro wack jobs will claim scorpions and creatures living by the shore are being effected negatively by them.
Just like they did with the two forks damn because of some snail or something.
That damn would have supplied Colorado with water in case of a severe, multi year drought.
The wack jobs on the left are our worst enemy's.
June 9, 2008
1:05 PM
JW writes:
"The wack jobs on the left are our worst enemy's"
True, because youre a whack job on the right.
And both you as a whack job on the right and the whackjobs on the left are America's worst enemies.
Or, more simply put; Uneducated Americans are America's worst enemies.
June 9, 2008
1:09 PM
history buff writes:
Some people should listen to our state song. Part of it goes:
Now his life is full of wonder but his heart still knows some fear
Of a simple thing he cannot comprehend
Why they try to tear the mountains down to bring in a couple more
More people, more scars upon the land
This isn't Texas, Georgie.
June 9, 2008
1:29 PM
Anonymous writes:
"Uneducated Americans are America's worst enemies."
You got that right and if all these stupid people vote Obama into the oval we might as well say our good bye's now to freedom and hello to socialism and BIG Government.
Obama doesn't want change, he wants control and wants to tell everyone how to run their life just like every Liberal idiot wants to do. Just don't go applying it to them.
June 9, 2008
1:54 PM
Anonymous writes:
Are the leftwing nuts really this stupid? Politicians have no control over this, to even think they can do anything is idiotic. We are in this mess because of left wing policies, no drilling, no refining and speculators. Even at 4 bucks a gallon its still cheaper then what the rest of the planet is paying, I suppose thats Bush's fault as well?
June 9, 2008
2:00 PM
JW writes:
" You got that right and if all these stupid people vote Obama into the oval we might as well say our good bye's now to freedom and hello to socialism and BIG Government.
Obama doesn't want change, he wants control and wants to tell everyone how to run their life just like every Liberal idiot wants to do. Just don't go applying it to them."
Quick question; Did you graduate from High School?
If so, why didnt you go to college?
June 9, 2008
2:16 PM
Fox News worshipper writes:
Rising Gas prices, no end in sight
wow does that sound like the Iraq war.
No end in sight. What happened to all that free oil we were going to get from Iraq to pay for this?
June 9, 2008
2:38 PM
jay writes:
" if all these stupid people vote Obama into the oval we might as well say our good bye's now to freedom and hello to socialism and BIG Government."
I hear a lot of this same chicken little socialism boogeyman talk from the likes of Rush Limbaugh so I guess some of the footsoldiers are starting to repeat it. It really is just one big strawman argument. Democrats are socialists. Socialism is Communism. Communism is the devil...therefore...Democrats are the devil.
The ol' Ray Bolger from our friends on the far right once again.
"We are in this mess because of left wing policies, no drilling, no refining and speculators."
This right wing myth has also been debunked. There are several factors as to why gasoline did it's odd jump over the last 8 years...but drilling restrictions isn't a significant one when compared to the list.
If anonymous would really like some info as to why this is true I'd be happy to provide it, but won't waste my time trying to combat willful ignorance.
June 9, 2008
2:58 PM
A dumb hillbilly with weapons writes:
all i know is its always scare tactics on both sides and if they dont straighten there shit up fast us hillbillies are gonna have another tea party and its gonna start with the irs nobody wants to here the truth because its a me me world go hungry for a couple days 24 billion in 1 qrtr in profits sherlock holmes would call that a clue exactly what did our for fathers fight for
June 9, 2008
3:32 PM
Dirty Sanchez writes:
Mr. D. Hillbilly (w/ weapons)----
Yes, outta sight profits does go far beyond "a reasonable profit for the effort put forth". The IRS is just an arm of the Treasury which is just following what Congress tell 'em to do. You gotta' get the attention of the House and Senate. When those holy rollers have their attention focused by pissed-off voters then they have a tendency to do what is right. I know this seems strange looking at how they've been trained by corporate money interests. One has to remember that they see things in more jobs equal more taxes. It is always the question of what's in it for them. You are a warm body that works for them. There is not too much independence anymore.
Anonymous--
I've looked into wind and solar. The start-up costs are a bit too much for me. What I'd like to see is an emergency bill by the president that puts all the environmental stuff on hold or at least reduces it. What are the environmental wackos going to do? Not vote in Bush for a third term? As you've seen in the past a "stoke of the pen" cuts through a lot of BS.
And to all.......
It looks like many of us are waiting for some big governmental/corporate breakthrough to happen. The truth is that whomever gets the better idea they will charge a pretty penny. Back to greed and not the general welfare. Which is a great argument for some government regulation or control to be in place. Maybe a flat rate per house for that new Nuke plant? Electric everything.
June 9, 2008
3:38 PM
Dirty Sanchez writes:
Furthermore the Saudi's are calling for a conference. If all will remember oil didn't go nuts until it was recognized as a commodity and then the speculators went nuts rubbing their collective crystal balls which are nothing more than a guess with an eye toward greed. Always the almighty buck.
June 9, 2008
3:49 PM
gr8fuldude writes:
I am no fan of big oil, but in this case, I think the market will sort it out. Let people pay $5/gallon, and in time they will decide that driving to every place their kids want will just not be that important. Ride a bike to the library or community recreation center. Wlak somewhere to have a picnic. And learn to maintain your car, change the air filter regularly, and inflate your tires properly. And learn to accelerate and brake slowly, and drive the dang limit, you will not only keep your vehicle in better shape, but you will save gas.
June 9, 2008
3:50 PM
JW writes:
"Yes, outta sight profits does go far beyond "a reasonable profit for the effort put forth". "
Till you start looking at profit margin rather than just "profit". Then it looks alot like reasonable profit for the effort put forth, becuase oil companies last I checked were making a profit margin of about .08, or 8 cents of every dollar. That isnt high. They just have tons of volume.
June 9, 2008
3:58 PM
JW writes:
Just looked at Exxon Mobil's 10k report. They had a Net Profit Margin of .10, or 10 cents of every dollar in sales.
June 9, 2008
4:01 PM
Dirty Sanchez writes:
JW
Something isn't right. 8 cents profit per gallon? If that is the case then a year ago they were making 4 cents a gallon and before that.........
CEO making billions. Is that were the extra four cents is going?
June 9, 2008
4:12 PM
Tbone writes:
A 10% profit margin is luxurious in my business.
Just saying, is all.
June 9, 2008
4:40 PM
Big_D writes:
The way that 4 dollar gas could help us is if we keep pushing mileage standards up after the Saudis feel the heat. I have hated most of the oil producing countries in the Middle East since the 911 attack and we need to remember this is just another face of their ongoing war on US. War can be with dollars just as easy as guns and bombs.
June 9, 2008
5:38 PM
jay writes:
"oil didn't go nuts until it was recognized as a commodity and then the speculators went nuts rubbing their collective crystal balls which are nothing more than a guess with an eye toward greed"
that's an interesting theory....but let's take a look at the trend:
1992
$19/barrel
$1.05/gallon
2000
$23/barrel
$1.42/gallon
today
$138.54/barrel
$3.92/gallon
what happened in 2002-2003 to all these speculators? did they take some extra special classes that suddenly made them reaslize that oil is a commodity?
blaming the spectators is kind of like blaming the environmentalists...sure it can be put on the bulletin board (and much more so for speculation than any perceived drilling restrictions, considering tbone's post above), but it's not like china and india's growth suddenly went exponential in the last 4-5 years, so you can't blame it all on supply and demand...something else could be to blame...gee....let me think...what happened to the dollar and the stability in the middle east over the last 4-5 years...it's right on the tip of my tongue....
anywho...i've started to notice some new talking points coming from el rushbo and getting parrotted around the ol' republican watercoolers. something about big gov't being an unfortunate bedfellow if we move towards alternative energy. the basic theory is that somehow gov't is going to control more of our lives if we cut the oil embilical...death and doom if we go to anything but nuclear or "clean" coal and listen to the "environmental wackos"....be on the lookout...you never when it'll pop up, right ds?
June 9, 2008
6:01 PM
redwhiteandBLUE writes:
Today, I saw a 1995 4cy junker with a sign selling for $ 2,600, and a 2000 8 Cy. Pontiac with a sign selling for $600.00 or best offer.
June 9, 2008
6:29 PM
Dirty Sanchez writes:
Jay
I'm just asking for some input. If I had all the answers I sure wouldn't be playing on this blog. I'd be chasing women in far off locales and eating great food. Right now I go to Walmart.
I can see your headed toward the Bush/Cheney conspiracy. Not bad, but can it be proved and if it is true (even though I voted for him twice) I'd like to be the one that pulls the handle for the gallows trap door.
On the other hand it is fun to imagine that some terrorist (Bin Laden) started this swing in oil prices and has been lucky enough to gain leverage in futures prices. Now he just has to sit back and watch. Much like a day trader in a cave. He's had enough time for remodeling and security improvements. Maybe he's bleached his hair and went to the same doctor as Michael Jackson....looks much different now.
June 9, 2008
6:37 PM
ManginoTorreta writes:
I'm just as bothered by the high price of gas as anyone, but I think in the long run this might end up being a good thing for the country's energy policy. Consumers are going to start demanding more fuel-efficient cars and will make smarter choices about when and where they drive. A big reason for the increase in SUV sales over the last 10-15 years was the cheap price of fuel; now hybrids and smaller cars will become more common.
If this is something that's going to stick around for a while (and it looks like it will), the country is going to have to start re-evaluating the geographic and economic makeup of its urban areas. Most urban development over the last 60 years was based on the assumption that resources would be near infinite, and that even if people had to change jobs, they could still drive to their destination in a reasonable amount of time without it being too much of an economic burden. Those days are likely coming to an end, and cities are going to have to start considering a more dense and less auto-intensive urban model if they don't want to price their residents to areas where public or light transportation isn't an issue.
June 9, 2008
6:38 PM
ManginoTorreta writes:
I'm just as bothered by the high price of gas as anyone, but I think in the long run this might end up being a good thing for the country's energy policy. Consumers are going to start demanding more fuel-efficient cars and will make smarter choices about when and where they drive. A big reason for the increase in SUV sales over the last 10-15 years was the cheap price of fuel; now hybrids and smaller cars will become more common.
If this is something that's going to stick around for a while (and it looks like it will), the country is going to have to start re-evaluating the geographic and economic makeup of its urban areas. Most urban development over the last 60 years was based on the assumption that resources would be near infinite, and that even if people had to change jobs, they could still drive to their destination in a reasonable amount of time without it being too much of an economic burden. Those days are likely coming to an end, and cities are going to have to start considering a more dense and less auto-intensive urban model if they don't want to price their residents to areas where public or light transportation isn't an issue.
June 9, 2008
7:41 PM
history buff writes:
"what happened in 2002-2003 to all these speculators? did they take some extra special classes that suddenly made them reaslize that oil is a commodity?" -- Jay
You better believe that war causes speculation in scarce strategic resources. Unfortunately, the NeoConvicts don't believe strategic resources are the concern of government or national policy. They would (will / have) give(n) our wealth to China if (because) they thought it would pad their bank accounts. But, oil could get caught in the commodities binge.
Speculation has transitioned out of the housing bubble into commodities. It required a perfect storm, but the FED stopped fighting inflation and gave into the street and that prompted a lot of speculation in commodities because they provide the best hedge against inflation. But commodities could have their own bubble, or they may get manipulated in the way gold used to be manipulated when our currency was on the gold standard. In any event, there are cataclysmic possibilities in commodities, probably even more so than stocks and real estate because commodities are extremely volatile, and if the institutional investors staunch the free price flow among futures, LOOK OUT!!!
BTW, We do have precedent in our history during time of war preventing speculation in strategic resources. But that would require making war a national priority, and it would be contrary to the best interest of the GOP's most influential donors.
June 9, 2008
8:38 PM
More bad news writes:
Nbc news reporting that the rust belt hurt worse by hike in fuel prices. 4.00/gallon gas is 15% of their incomes. Most have to drive 35 miles to work
aren't those typically red states?
June 9, 2008
9:53 PM
Dirty Sanchez writes:
My neighbor has to fill his contract on corn this month. The contract was for corn at $5.75 a bushel. He missed this weeks price $6.70 a bushel. Sooner or probably sooner than we think this inflation is going to sink a lot of dreams.
June 9, 2008
10:35 PM
jay writes:
"I can see your headed toward the Bush/Cheney conspiracy"
not at all...unless you think that acknowledging failed policy is a "conspiracy".
June 10, 2008
7:51 AM
Jimbo writes:
This is great. Because there has been no political leadership to drive us off oil, the market will assist us. Since 1973 during the Saudi oil embargo we have talked about energy independence only to find ourselves more dependent on foriegn sources of oil. Those sources are Arabs, Venezuela, and Russia, none of whom we could call our friends. So by not forcing us to create an independent supply, like Brasil did, we are stuck funding both sides of the war on terrorism.
We should not use oil for cars because it is a national security risk. We can have alternitives that are avaiable TODAY. First thing is that all cars should shut off at IDLE, like golf carts. Lift off the brake and the engine satarts. That would save oil. Second, every car sold in the US should go 0- 15 mph on battery power. That will take a few years but fuel efficientcy is worst at those low speeds and electric power are best at those speeds.
WE NEED TO RUN AWAY FROM OIL> So if it takes these prices to do it, I am fine with that. Just lets get started.
June 10, 2008
7:51 AM
Jimbo writes:
This is great. Because there has been no political leadership to drive us off oil, the market will assist us. Since 1973 during the Saudi oil embargo we have talked about energy independence only to find ourselves more dependent on foriegn sources of oil. Those sources are Arabs, Venezuela, and Russia, none of whom we could call our friends. So by not forcing us to create an independent supply, like Brasil did, we are stuck funding both sides of the war on terrorism.
We should not use oil for cars because it is a national security risk. We can have alternitives that are avaiable TODAY. First thing is that all cars should shut off at IDLE, like golf carts. Lift off the brake and the engine satarts. That would save oil. Second, every car sold in the US should go 0- 15 mph on battery power. That will take a few years but fuel efficientcy is worst at those low speeds and electric power are best at those speeds.
WE NEED TO RUN AWAY FROM OIL> So if it takes these prices to do it, I am fine with that. Just lets get started.
June 10, 2008
8:09 AM
Shaggy writes:
I wonder what the price of oil is going to jump to when...not if...Israel attacks Iran and we back them?
June 10, 2008
8:15 AM
JW writes:
"Something isn't right. 8 cents profit per gallon? If that is the case then a year ago they were making 4 cents a gallon and before that........."
Per gallon? Where did I write that? I said for every dollar in SALES Exxon Mobil kept 10 cents in 2007. I didnt run the numbers on 2006, but they are probably similar.
"A 10% profit margin is luxurious in my business.
Just saying, is all."
Thats fine. There are many different scenarios. For instance, in the grocery industry the profit margin is about .02, or 2 cents out of every dollar in sales. They make their money on volume. In the pharma industry, the profit margin I've seen reported (if I have time I'll run some numbers to verify today) is in the 35% range, or 35 cents of every dollar.
Oil is just high profile. Its not price gouging though. Now, if pharma really is 35%, thats a level you can start talking abut price gouging.
BTW, Ive seen the numbers on compensation for the CEO of Exxon Mobil. For how well hes running that corporation, his compensation isnt insane. Its not billions a year.
The guy for country wide, citi, etc? Yea, tens of millions of dollars to run a company into the ground might be considered over paying.
"This is great. Because there has been no political leadership to drive us off oil, the market will assist us."
This I would agree with, though I think the failed economic policies of the Bush admin have...nudged...the market a bit as well. Oil is traded in dollars. If you drive up debt and put the dollar in the toilet...things that are traded in dollars cost more. But the main point is that the market will solve this, and with that I agree. Greenspan said the reason we went from coal to oil for our energy needs was cost. He also said that oil has been cheaper than supply and demand would dictate for years, and this jump in price is the market correction oil needed. Again, driving the dollar into the crapper made the correction worse...but it was coming.
Which is why uneducated Americans are America's worst nightmare. If youre driving an suv with that W04 sticker on the back, and bummed about the $$$ youre forking over on every fill up...I laugh at you at the gas pump. I knew it was coming. So should have you.
June 10, 2008
8:18 AM
SkiBum writes:
OK Mark, I'm confused here. The blog title is "Is $4 a gallon gas the best thing that ever happened to America?", and then I'm not seeing anything that asks or supports this question. Did I miss it?
June 10, 2008
8:27 AM
Shaggy writes:
JW,
What I find ironic is that Congress is bitching about the oil companies record profits at 8 cents a gallon yet they tack on another 15 cents but we don't hear any complaints about that from them.
It is all a monkey and pony show they are putting on to make us think they are doing everything possible to get the prices down.
Yet when the oil execs tell them the reason is high demand and lack of congress to do something like build refinery's and drill...course they will have none of that...can't be their fault.
June 10, 2008
8:47 AM
SASQUATCH writes:
Self-inflicted, artificially high energy prices produce no favorable outcomes. If $4 at the pump is so good, then $10 would be even better? And a good chunk of that gets recycled back to finance terrorism. Artificially high energy prices (caused by speculators, hedge funds an absence of drilling and new sources of demand) are both inflationary (that will cause higher interest rates) and a tax on consumer incomes, spending, economic growth and new jobs--all negative results.
So as long as America refuses to do for itself what it is asking others to do for it (pump), and as long as we continue to send the wrong messages to energy markets where prices are determined, we can expect more price pain. At some point, market forces will extract a change in our behavior and that will force us to do what we should have been willing to do decades ago--build a more energy efficient fleet of autos, expand all sources of energy while exploring, drilling and pumping more crude and natural gas right under our noses.
Unfortunately, Anmerica has chosen to go down the road "kicking and screaming," resisting and denying the supply side of the price equation along the way. There is a price to pay for doing nothing in the face of changing conditions and new circunstances--its only going to cost us that much more before we reach equlibrium and a comfortable solution.
June 10, 2008
8:51 AM
JW writes:
"What I find ironic is that Congress is bitching about the oil companies record profits at 8 cents a gallon yet they tack on another 15 cents but we don't hear any complaints about that from them."
For fucks sake. Its not 8 cents a GALLON. Its 10 cents (for exxon mobil) for every dollar in SALES.
That said, I disagree with ANY corporate taxes on principle. Corporations dont pay taxes. Its just another cost to them, like labor and PPE. Any taxes on corporations is just taxes on individuals, becaue WE pay them when we buy their products.
"It is all a monkey and pony show they are putting on to make us think they are doing everything possible to get the prices down."
I agree. Id point out that the same applies to Bush's economic policies, and those have contributed more to this problem by driving the strength of the dollar down.
"Yet when the oil execs tell them the reason is high demand and lack of congress to do something like build refinery's and drill...course they will have none of that...can't be their fault."
Build refineries and drill. Bah. Thats standard wingnuttery. There is no lack of supply. Oil is expensiive. Period. Build refineries and drill is just more bs that will perpetuate this problem. We need alternative sources of energy, period.
I love how you are so nuts about "kill all the terrorists!" but you want to fund them forever by remaining dependent on oil.
June 10, 2008
8:58 AM
ME writes:
Spoiled 'celebreties' and 'athletes' that are overpaid for the little that they do and the big gas guzzling vans and suvs that americans think they 'need'. The less talented are overpaid and the ones that actually make a difference are underpaid. The spoiled ones that think they 'need' the big vans and the suvs. I laugh when I see you at the gas pump and read and hear you complaining about the prices. It was gonna happen sooner or later.
June 10, 2008
8:59 AM
ME writes:
Spoiled 'celebreties' and 'athletes' that are overpaid for the little that they do and the big gas guzzling vans and suvs that americans think they 'need'. The less talented are overpaid and the ones that actually make a difference are underpaid. The spoiled ones that think they 'need' the big vans and the suvs. I laugh when I see you at the gas pump and read and hear you complaining about the prices. It was gonna happen sooner or later.
June 10, 2008
9:12 AM
Bassboat writes:
Higher gas prices? Let's think of the consequences.
Less driving means less spending elsewhere.
Consequence: retailers sell less.
Consequence: retailers buy less because of less demand.
Consequence: Manufacturers lay off workers creating less demand.
Consequence: Laid off workers don't shop at retailers.
Consequence: Retailers lay off their workers.
Consequence: Less shoppers.
Consequence: Retailers close their doors.
Conclusion: Our society depends on fuel for our economy. If we try to inflate our way out of this situation as we did in the 70's, we will be that much less competitive in the world markets. Guess what happens then? That's right, workers are laid off. More bad economic times.
Solution: A comprehensive energy policy like The Manhattan project in WWll. How do we do this? with your vote. Vote out of office for every politician that will not follow this idea out to a tee.
Bassboat
June 10, 2008
9:13 AM
Shaggy writes:
Ya just can't pass up an opportunity to bash Bush can ya?
Neither can Obama.
And you wonder why nothing gets resolved in the Democratic controlled Congress.
Lay the blame instead of solving problems, typical of your party.
Let me see if I understand you JW,
Are you saying that if the oil companies started using their profits for what they are intended for like build refineries, exploration and drilling that that it is all a bunch of right wing hog wash and would have no effect on the price of oil?
Yes I know we need to be weened off oil and should have doing that along time ago but congress has been sitting on their asses for so long and haven't done a damn thing, they would rather spend their time arguing about tapping terrorists phone lines than dealing with energy issues.
If congress would have approved the above three things 15 years ago like the oil companies suggested we would not be having this crisis.
I do agree the consumer will be picking up the tab for just about every kind of business you can think of.
I know I have added a gas surcharge in because my vendors have added one in for me. It all just trickles down to the consumer to absorb the hit.
June 10, 2008
9:28 AM
Shaggy writes:
The chief executive of OPEC just announced that speculators have driven up gas prices by over 70 bucks a barrel.
If they can get them under control, gas prices could go below 2.00 a gallon.
June 10, 2008
9:44 AM
low carb lou writes:
What happens when 2 Toyota Priuses crash?
A panda is born in a Whole Foods parking lot.
June 10, 2008
9:45 AM
Anonymous writes:
"nothing gets resolved in the Democratic controlled Congress"
I laugh every time I hear this talking point from Rush or one of his dittoheads.
They voted for guys that have obstructed initiatives and legislation with the support of the majority of americans...and then actually have the intellectual dishonesty necessary to complain that nothing is getting done.
Hypocrisy at its finest.
"congress has been sitting on their asses for so long and haven't done a damn thing"
shaggy, tbone posted a very good list of the increased number of drilling permits granted by congress...I suggest you take a look before putting your foot in your mouth again.
"If congress would have approved the above three things 15 years ago like the oil companies suggested we would not be having this crisis."
we've already debunked this rushian myth...must we do so again?
"they would rather spend their time arguing about tapping terrorists phone lines than dealing with energy issues"
save me jebus...we've also debunked this one so many times that i can only conclude that you ate your willful ignorance wheaties this morning.
might be a rough day for you.
June 10, 2008
10:00 AM
JW writes:
"Ya just can't pass up an opportunity to bash Bush can ya?"
Its not so much that. If I agree with you on anything, I have to remind you of the other side, the one you refuse to accept. Thats all.
"Neither can Obama."
Duh. Thats called campaigning. Hes running against McSame...bashing Bush is bashing McSame.
"Lay the blame instead of solving problems, typical of your party."
This is rank bullshit Shaggy, and you know it. Lay the blame? Solve problems? Tell me how your constant bitching about the character failings of Democrats "solves problems".
"Are you saying that if the oil companies started using their profits for what they are intended for like build refineries, exploration and drilling that that it is all a bunch of right wing hog wash and would have no effect on the price of oil?"
No. Im saying that the PREMISED that you just espoused is bullshit. Oil companies can use their profits for WHATEVE THEY WANT. Not what YOU THINK their profits are for (drilling, refining). Did you know that the main use of last years profits for the top 5 oil producers was BUYING BACK STOCK? The next biggest spend far more of their profits for exploration.
What is right wing hog wash is that this oil problem is the Democrats fault because they wont allow new refineries and more drilling. Again, that just puts off solving the problem...and funds terrorists becaue the world remains reliant on oil. The Government should leave big oil alone, and let them do what they do. Then, government should fund research in alternative energy. Oil companies will be forced to follow suit or be put out of business by new, alternative energy companies. Everyone wins.
"Yes I know we need to be weened off oil and should have doing that along time ago "
Then why are you saying its all the Dems fault because they wont let us keep doing the same stuff forever? Sounds like you know, but you dont understand how to do it.
"but congress has been sitting on their asses for so long and haven't done a damn thing, they would rather spend their time arguing about tapping terrorists phone lines than dealing with energy issues."
Actually, we as a country have been sitting on our asses on this one. Its not just congress. Nobody has done anything about it.
Uh, and that "arguing about taping terrorist phone lines" shit is a strawman. They are arguing about tapin AMERICAN's phone lines dumbshit.
"If congress would have approved the above three things 15 years ago like the oil companies suggested we would not be having this crisis."
GOOD JOB SOLDIER! Keep it up man! Push thoe Republican talking points you useless sack of stupid tool! Seriously, do you ever think for yourself? Or is it just that much easier to get your beliefs from whatever Republican mouthpiece youre currently watching?
"I do agree the consumer will be picking up the tab for just about every kind of business you can think of.
I know I have added a gas surcharge in because my vendors have added one in for me. It all just trickles down to the consumer to absorb the hit."
Youre smarter than I give you credit for....sometimes.
"The chief executive of OPEC just announced that speculators have driven up gas prices by over 70 bucks a barrel.
If they can get them under control, gas prices could go below 2.00 a gallon."
You do understand that this is how the free market works? All this talk of "Its the speculators fault!" is hysteria. This is the same thing that caused the internet bubble, and then the housing bubble. It will work out the same in the end as well, and we will always see a new "bubble".
June 10, 2008
10:04 AM
JW writes:
BTW Shaggy,
What did you think about the phase two report on the build up to the Iraq war. You know, the one that verifies the Bush admin intentionally fabricated the reasons for going to war by intentionally misusing what was known to be bad intel? You know, lying. I suppose you hate Bush as much as you hate Clinton now, right?
Na. You got some reason why he gets a pass. It just wasnt as important as lying about a bj, right? No biggie.
Didnt see it? Jeez. Wonder why not. Seems like a liberally biased media would have plastered that EVERYWHERE.
June 10, 2008
10:12 AM
SASQUATCH writes:
IS TODAY THE DAY THAT CONGRESS VOTES TO HIKE TAXES ON BIG OIL?
How many extra barrels of cude will that bring onto the market and how much lower can we expect prices to plunge?
Just wondering...what happened the last time we tried that same fix?
June 10, 2008
10:12 AM
JW writes:
Here is a good article on what the Dems and Republicans are proposing to do about the high price of gas.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,364846,00.html
First off, the Democrats...
This tax on anything above "reasonable profits" is fucking retarded. This kind of crap scares me for the same reason the Bush/Republican controled houses scared me....you get too many of one party in control and they turn into complete fuckups. If Obama and a huge Democratic majority come out of the elections this year, this is the kind of shit they might push. Its retarded, and it will hurt this country.
The one thing in their plan that has possible merrit is the idea of forcing speculators to put up more collateral. This might be a good plan. Dunno.
As for the Republicans...They got nothing either. "Drill more, pump more, refine more" doesnt solve this problem. It just puts off solving the problem.
I hope they filibuster the crap out of the Democrats idiotic taxing plans...but I hope SOMEBODY figures out we need to develop something else to provide our energy in the future. Oil sux.
June 10, 2008
10:29 AM
SASQUATCH writes:
Let me see if I understand this. Hike taxes on the companies that supply crude so that they have the incentive to explore, drill, pump and sell even more oil in order to become forced to pay more taxes. So Big Oil is not really in the oil business; they are really in the tax paying business?
The tax paying business...Wow, when can we expect to see an IPO in that new industry? Taxing our way to prosperity--why didn't we think of that earlier?
We did? When was that and what happened then?
June 10, 2008
10:30 AM
SASQUATCH writes:
Let me see if I understand this. Hike taxes on the companies that supply crude so that they have the incentive to explore, drill, pump and sell even more oil in order to become forced to pay more taxes. So Big Oil is not really in the oil business; they are really in the tax paying business?
The tax paying business...Wow, when can we expect to see an IPO in that new industry? Taxing our way to prosperity--why didn't we think of that earlier?
We did? When was that and what happened then?
June 10, 2008
10:34 AM
jay writes:
let me see if i understand this. we have to pay the oil companies to do their jobs? So Big Oil is not really in the oil business; they are really in the tax break business?
June 10, 2008
10:37 AM
SASQUATCH writes:
AMERICA WINS 51-43
Tax hikes viewd as unlikely to increase supplies and lower prices! Antidiscontra-supply side tax soundly defeated!
BEAVO!
June 10, 2008
10:44 AM
JW writes:
I wonder how long it will take for the American "Liberal Media" to start reporting on this;
"http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1024927/The-wife-John-McCain-callously-left-behind.html"
"And yet despite his popularity as a politician, there are those who won’t forget his treatment of his first wife.
Ted Sampley, who fought with US Special Forces in Vietnam and is now a leading campaigner for veterans’ rights, said: ‘I have been following John McCain’s career for nearly 20 years. I know him personally. There is something wrong with this guy and let me tell you what it is – deceit.
‘When he came home and saw that Carol was not the beauty he left behind, he started running around on her almost right away. Everybody around him knew it.
‘Eventually he met Cindy and she was young and beautiful and very wealthy. At that point McCain just dumped Carol for something he thought was better.
‘This is a guy who makes such a big deal about his character. He has no character. He is a fake. If there was any character in that first marriage, it all belonged to Carol.’
One old friend of the McCains said: ‘Carol always insists she is not bitter, but I think that’s a defence mechanism. She also feels deeply in his debt because in return for her agreement to a divorce, he promised to pay for her medical care for the rest of her life.’
Carol remained resolutely loyal as McCain’s political star rose. She says she agreed to talk to The Mail on Sunday only because she wanted to publicise her support for the man who abandoned her.
Indeed, the old Mercedes that she uses to run errands displays both a disabled badge and a sticker encouraging people to vote for her ex-husband. ‘He’s a good guy,’ she assured us. ‘We are still good friends. He is the best man for president.’
But Ross Perot, who paid her medical bills all those years ago, now believes that both Carol McCain and the American people have been taken in by a man who is unusually slick and cruel – even by the standards of modern politics.
‘McCain is the classic opportunist. He’s always reaching for attention and glory,’ he said.
‘After he came home, Carol walked with a limp. So he threw her over for a poster girl with big money from Arizona. And the rest is history.’"
June 10, 2008
10:44 AM
Friendship writes:
I hope gas hits $7. There are so many idiots who just don't get it. That might get their attention. The endless weekend trips, the ugly SUV, the long commutes, idling unnecessarily, etc.
I was riding my bike past a railroad crossing in which a long train was going by. All of the moron drivers sat there with the engines idling.
Let the prices go UP!
Cleaner air and less congested highways! Oh, and that bland suburban house and your P.O.S. SUV are plummeting in value!
June 10, 2008
10:47 AM
Friendship writes:
I hope gas hits $7. There are so many idiots who just don't get it. That might get their attention. The endless weekend trips, the ugly SUV, the long commutes, idling unnecessarily, etc.
I was riding my bike past a railroad crossing in which a long train was going by. All of the moron drivers sat there with the engines idling.
Let the prices go UP!
Cleaner air and less congested highways! Oh, and that bland suburban house and your P.O.S. SUV are plummeting in value!
June 10, 2008
10:51 AM
SASQUATCH writes:
"Let me see if i understand this. we have to pay the oil companies to do their jobs/"
You bet, exactly. Its called free market capitalism. You have to pay Big Oil just like you have to pay Big Pharma, Big Corn, Big Agra, Big Coal, Big Telecom, Big Steel, etc.
And since oil is Big Oil's job, then don't expect Big Oil to do Big Windmill's or Big Solar's job--unless, of course, you pay them.
Welcome to America----USA 51, WINDMILLS 43!
June 10, 2008
10:51 AM
Tbone writes:
JW-
So what you're saying is that the Exxon profit margin is 10%, correct?
For every dollar in sales, they make 10 cents. Since a gallon of gas is $4, then they make 40 cents on a gallon of gas?
Fourty cents profit per gallon? Seems to me they could cut about 25 cents off the price of gas and still make a healthy profit - while saving the taxpayers (and the economy) literally billions of dollars.
Also - your stance on businesses not paying taxes. Don't businesses use public resources? Don't businesses use roads? Shouldn't they have to pay their share to maintain the roads, or do you believe that only the 'mercun taxpayer should shoulder these costs?
Why should taxpayers shoulder costs due to businesses? Seems to me like they are profiting off the taxpayers' dime.
Thoughts?
June 10, 2008
10:52 AM
Shaggy writes:
What is really alarming is we idiots like the last two posters who have no fricking what they are talking about.
O.K. Kids listen up!!!!!!
Here is todays lesson so please pay attention!!
If we have a large supply(any product)that over exceeds the demand, prices fall.
If we have more demand than supply, prices rise.
If we drill and add to our oil supply thus exceeding our demand, prices will drop.
When we have speculators, also known as special interest groups and investors, saying the price is going way up, that is usually a sign the prices will go up whether it is merited or not.
This is not to say we should not ween ourselves off of oil, especially foreign oil, but until that actually happens we need to have a "nothing off limits" policy.
But we have a road block...it is called a Democratic controlled Congress, who happens to not get anything done and makes Bush's dismal ratings look like an honor student compared to theirs.
I'll be back later in the day if you have any questions about todays lesson.
Before I go, are you saying Bush fooled everyone into believing Saddam had WMD's fully knowing he didn't?
Was Tony Blair in on conspiracy theory too are did he get Bush jobbed?
You are right that I can't fricking stand Bush anymore when it comes to illegals and closing the border, not too happy with McCain either.
Obama wants to give them DL's.
They are all afraid to piss the Latino community off and are avoiding this issue like the plague.
That alone tells me that not of these people are willing to put their shot at the WH behind what is good for the Country.
I may end up not voting this year Nov.
But then again I do not want to live in Socialist America so I might have to vote.
Obama has promised to raise just about every single tax there is is including another gas tax and doubling capital gains tax.
It is all on his web site so don't strawman me.
I am surprised you had nothing to say about my post regarding prices when Israel attacks Iran.
To add to that, what is going to happen to gas prices if Obama wins and we surrender in Iraq and Iran moves into Iraq like they said they would be happy to fill the void?
June 10, 2008
10:58 AM
Tbone writes:
Shaggy-
A quick lesson for you.
The reason democrats aren't getting much done in congress is because REPUBLICANS ARE FILIBUSTERING EVERY BILL.
June 10, 2008
11:02 AM
Tbone writes:
Shaggy-
A quick lesson for you.
The reason democrats aren't getting much done in congress is because REPUBLICANS ARE FILIBUSTERING EVERY BILL.
I know its hard for you to take the republican cock out of your mouth, but for once, please face facts.
Whatever happened to the upperdown vote, shaggy? Oh yea - republics are a bunch of fucking hypocrites.
This session of congress has filibustered more bills than ANY IN HISTORY.
So if you're going to bitch about congress not getting anything done, at least have the fucking intellectual honesty to lay the blame where it belongs - the people who insist that 60 votes are needed to pass anything.
Facts suck, huh?
And your supply and demand rouse is total bullshit, too, Shaggy.
Has anyone noticed a shortage of gas lately? Any lines? Any stations out of gas? The fact is, US demand has DROPPED this year.
So if supply is adequate, and demand is down, why is the price rising, Mr. Freidman?
Can we regulate the speculators yet?
June 10, 2008
11:09 AM
jay writes:
"You bet, exactly. Its called free market capitalism."
why would we have to subsidize normal free market activities when the oil companies already make a very healthy profit, hank?
oh...and will someone please get shaggy an education.
it's not even fun shooting holes in his arguments anymore as he just keeps bringing the same old stale stuff. it's like playing the same course ane over again.
get some new, not debunked, material, shag. please. for all of our sakes.
June 10, 2008
11:09 AM
JW writes:
"So what you're saying is that the Exxon profit margin is 10%, correct?"
Correct.
"For every dollar in sales, they make 10 cents. Since a gallon of gas is $4, then they make 40 cents on a gallon of gas?"
Incorrect. Exxon sells gas to gas suppliers, who then sell it to gas stations. I don't know the markups, or the margin on actual gas sales (Ive heard gas stations make low margins, and with the model for retailers with heavy volume that could be correct). Anyway, Exxon's profit on that $4 gallon of gas is not .40 cents, though I can't tell you what it is.
"Fourty cents profit per gallon? Seems to me they could cut about 25 cents off the price of gas and still make a healthy profit - while saving the taxpayers (and the economy) literally billions of dollars."
Is that the business they are in? Why dont you cut a bit of your profit for whatever you do. If you own a business, surely you could cut your prices a bit to help out your customers. If you work for someone else, surely you could take a pay cut and help cut expenses for your employer.
Ridiculous.
"Also - your stance on businesses not paying taxes. Don't businesses use public resources? Don't businesses use roads? Shouldn't they have to pay their share to maintain the roads, or do you believe that only the 'mercun taxpayer should shoulder these costs?"
You don't get the concept Ive been stating. Businesses dont PAY ANY TAXES. They write a check, but its the same as the salary checks they write...just another cost. That cost gets passed on to the CONSUMER. So, if you buy a can of soup, the taxes that Campbell's pays one their profit for selling that can of soup is included in the price YOU PAY. Who paid Campbell's taxes on that can of soup? YOU DID.
"Why should taxpayers shoulder costs due to businesses?"
You do, regardless of whether you just pay the tax, or you pay the tax by buying the product. PERIOD.
"Seems to me like they are profiting off the taxpayers' dime.
Thoughts?"
After what I just wrote, do you still think that? You getting what Im saying?
"Before I go, are you saying Bush fooled everyone into believing Saddam had WMD's fully knowing he didn't?"
That is what phase two of the Senates inquiry into the events leading up to Iraq says.
Shaggy, what do you think about McSame now? Hes a womanizer. He cheated on his wife...then left her for a younger woman! Vietnam vets say hes a decietful opportunist! Guy is as bad as Bill! Or maybe WORSE! OMG!!!!! Character issues out the ass! You simply CANT vote for a guy like that....not without being a raving hypocrite anyway.
June 10, 2008
11:19 AM
SASQUATCH writes:
BIG OIL PAYS MORE TAXES THAN THE BOTTOM 75% OF ALL INCOME TAX PAYERS:
http://bp3.blogger.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/SDjh_su_lnI/AAAAAAAAEmk/IMbTsnTbXzQ/s1600-h/oiltax.bmp
Instead of raising Big Oil's taxes even more (51-43--Bravo), why not put a monster tax hike on the slackers who aren't paying their fair share (or pumping one single drop of crude) and make them subsidize windmills and solar? Besides, the non-producers are the ones doing all the screaming and complaining, so why not shut them up with a big tax hike?
WHAT'S FAIR IS FAIR...USA 51, WINDMILLS 43!
June 10, 2008
11:44 AM
SASQUATCH writes:
READY, FIRE...AIM!
http://bp3.blogger.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/SB21VNa4GUI/AAAAAAAAEZ0/ShZfqz2UE0U/s1600-h/pm.bmp
Half the people in the USA would have a 3-minute life expectancy or a much lower standard of living if we KOd or inhibited, with higher taxes, all the industries with higher profit margins than Big Oil. Meanwhile, what are you paying in taxes and how much crude did you produce recently? Are you part of that 75% crowd free-loading and not paying your fair share?
Hmmmmmmmmmmm?
June 10, 2008
12:21 PM
jay writes:
hank are you talking about the popular movement to end corporate welfare for big oil that already makes a healthy profit?
June 10, 2008
12:32 PM
am 760 writes:
JW, just curious where you heard that stuff about John Mccain and his ex wife. Rhandi Rhodes was talking about it yesterday on her show. Did you actually here it somewhere else or were you tuned in? The truth all day everyday am 760. Just curious what other liberal media source, lol, reported this.
June 10, 2008
12:40 PM
JW writes:
Got it on a British Paper's site.
Yes, we have such a huge liberal bias here in America that I didnt see any reporting of the phase 2 senate report on the build up to Iraq, OR John McSame's horrible treatment of his wife on ANY of the major outlets. Not even on "fair and ballanced" Fox.
I did see that Jennifer Flowers and that other whatsherface have made a website where you can get videos of them "telling all" about Bill Clinton. It was on that most liberally biased CNN. Thats news!
June 10, 2008
3:03 PM
am 760 writes:
Rhandi today, is talking about how our so called liberal media is not spending one minute today coverning the 5 hour proceedings going on right now about Bush and Iraq and impeachment. She is hoping Keith Olbermann will cover it tonight, as she said, he covers a lot of things I talk about. Yeah, that liberal media....lol
June 10, 2008
3:13 PM
JW writes:
There is a reason why people who watch the daily show are the most informed. Even a joke news show is more informative than real news.
Its pathetic, but true.
June 10, 2008
3:19 PM
Shaggy aka Obamas typical bitter white person writes:
"The reason democrats aren't getting much done in congress is because REPUBLICANS ARE FILIBUSTERING EVERY BILL."---Rump Roast
And why are these bills getting filibustered?
Everyone together now...
BECAUSE OF DEMOCRATIC EARMARKS....very good...I think I even heard jay speak up on that one...maybe not....probably not....still in his box.
Rump Roast, do you understand that you are not necessarily going to SEE a shortage of gas at the pump nor are you going to SEE a high a demand such as long lines?
Do you understand that we are now demanding around 35-40% more oil these days than we did in the 70's and China's demand must be 3 fold or more, not sure,and we are competing with them? I know they and India are responsible for the rise in price of concrete, and why is this you ask...because of that inconvenient fact again...SUPPLY AND DEMAND.
JW from my understanding Exxon Mobile profits were 10.4% in 2007 and they have one, if not the, highest profit margin.
Scroll down about half way down on the link provided.
Feds have a flat tax of 18.4% and states also have a tax 7.5 up to 38%. Mexifornia is a 45.5% tax.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_the_government_really_make_more_in.html
jay and rump roast, you both should read this too so I don't have to keep embarrassing you both day after day by bitch slapping you around.
btw,
Rump Roast, is it necessary for you to use such derogative remarks?
We all have out grown that already...I guess you are new to this site and haven't ventured out from your liberal hate filled shell.
A little name calling is fine but you are just plain vile and disgusting.
JW it sounds like another disgruntled person making accusations just like Bush's former Speaker.
I am sure AM will buy it though....he listens to Randi Roads. hahaha
Thought they fired her stupid ass already.
She is about as vile as rump roast.
Very typical of whacked out Liberals.
June 10, 2008
3:21 PM
Impeachment writes:
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/june092008/kucinich_6-9-08.php
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/article3786591.ece
US congressman moves to impeach Bush
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
"Former Democratic presidential contender, Dennis Kucinich, has called for the impeachment of George W Bush claiming that the president set out to deceive the nation, and violated his oath of office with the Iraq war.
The Ohio representative yesterday introduced 35 articles of impeachment against Bush on the floor of the US House of Representatives.
Kucinich unveiled a list of alleged illegal and improper acts by Bush, including war crimes"
June 10, 2008
3:29 PM
am 760 writes:
Hurray for those repubs, blocking debate on the energy crisis again today, with the same old 50 year old talking points. Shag, this is why nothing gets done in congress, because repubs block/filibuster anything that resembles progress for the american people. But you keep supporting the party that puts corporations before the people.
June 10, 2008
3:31 PM
Shaggy writes:
Did anyone tell Kucinich that in order to Impeach a President they first must prove that they broke the Law like Lie to a grand jury?
Congress gave Bush approval.
Saddam had WMD's and has used them against his own people.
June 10, 2008
3:31 PM
Tbone writes:
JW-
I've already stated that in my line of work, a 10% profit margin is a luxury almost unheard of.
We literally can't cut our prices anymore without the business taking a loss, literally, there really aren't any more profits to cut.
And, BTW, most of my income comes from taxpayers. We do a lot of work with municipalities.
So is that good enough, Mr. The Oil Companies Deserve All Our Money?
I've cut my profits - why don't they?
AFter all - if I make someone pay more for my service, the whole economy doesn't suffer. OTOH, if the oil companies make everyone pay more, the whole economy suffers.
Regarding the business tax issue....if we cut taxes on businesses, do you really think goods will get cheaper? No - that added savings will NOT be passed on to the consumer. Guaran-fucking-teed.
And what about businesses that don't produce tangible goods? Say a stock broker - he pays taxes on his business, right? But what does he produce? Nothing, really. So if we increase his taxes, sure, he could increase his fees. But then I would just go to a cheaper broker. Then the original broker would have to lower his fees to attract my business.
Its the invisible hand at work!!!!!
Also - dude - no need to get so offended when I ask you a question.
June 10, 2008
3:38 PM
JW writes:
"BECAUSE OF DEMOCRATIC EARMARKS....very good...I think I even heard jay speak up on that one...maybe not....probably not....still in his box."
LOL! Damn youre a chump Shaggy. You will just believe ANYTHING those idiots tell you.
1st, the Republican's had the record on pork in the past. So their saying they are filibustering to stop amounts of pork that are LESS than what they voted for in the past is kinda silly.
2nd, Pork is not that big a deal. I know, I know, its the rights new talking point so you believe it. But there was only 18 billion in pork last year (less than in 06 btw), and 18 billion is NOTHING.
Sorry man, that dont fly accept for you wingnuts who beilieve anything bad about Dems, and ignore all the bad about Repubs.
"Rump Roast, do you understand that you are not necessarily going to SEE a shortage of gas at the pump nor are you going to SEE a high a demand such as long lines?"
There has been plenty of industry experts saying there is no shortage of supply Shaggy. There is increased demand for oil from china and india, but so far world oil producers are able to meet that demand. The high cost of oil is due to increased demand, so they can charge more, but its also linked to the weakness of the dollar.
"JW from my understanding Exxon Mobile profits were 10.4% in 2007 and they have one, if not the, highest profit margin."
I ran the numbers myself and it was 10%, but I didnt look at the decimals further out, so 10.4% is fine with me. HIghest profit margin? Maybe in their industry. That would mean they run their company the best. But 10% or 10.4%, neither one is price gouging.
"JW it sounds like another disgruntled person making accusations just like Bush's former Speaker."
What does? The Senate's report? HEHE. If it says stuff you dont like, ignore it or say its not valid. Your new nickname is Ostrich.
Again, what about McSame and his cheating on his first wife, then divorcing her for someone he was cheating with that was 25 years younger and millions richer? Is that ok with you? Keep in mind, an answer of yes makes you a flaming hypocrite.
June 10, 2008
3:46 PM
JMH writes:
JW,
You didn't expect the "corporate media" to actually report on things like McCain's treatment of his wife, etc. did you? But thanks for pointing out some of the hard truths to the NeoCon hypocrites on this site.
Liberal bias my ass! The media in this country has been a GOP mouthpiece for more than 20 years. Trust me, if the things about McSame were true about Bill Clinton, it is all we would be hearing about 24 / 7.
As far as the price of gas, it is greed, plain and simple.
Anyone know anything about drug addiction? People who are addicted to a drug wont stop paying for it (or lying and stealing as well...kind of like taking over Iraq. The move was a mugging by an addict!) and quit just because the price went up! Well this country is addicted to a drug called oil. These companies know that they can charge what they want, because we will pay it. We are addicted! Also, the GOP is bought lock, stock and barrel (pun intended) by Big Oil, so don't expect an intervention any time soon. They want to pimp us out for more (ie. "pump more!"). We are addicted! It is quite amusing listening to the likes of shaggy and bigfoot whore themselves out for Big Oil as it abuses us all because of our addiction... talk about enabling!
Breaking addictions is a tough thing and there are no easy answers, and is almost always painful. But this problem is killing us and something new needs to be tried. First step, would be admitting it is bad for us and trying to cut it off (The GOP got in the way of that today with ANOTHER FILLERBUSTER). Second step is seeking help. This move should be stopping all corporate welfare to the dealers and using that money for alterantive energy! The final step is dealing with the pain and waiting out the shakes until the addiction is under some control and then never look back! This move will be tough for the economy for some time, but over the long run it has to happen... or else!
June 10, 2008
3:52 PM
Frank25 writes:
I was born in Ohio in 1929, left in 1950 for service and Ohio is still in doldrums because of nutcases like Dennis. Mayor of Cleveland, and city went into bankruptcy 2 years later. Like Obama, problem already existed, but he was not the answer. What does anyone know about him other than his "impeach Bush and Cheney"? And also in the 1940s and 50s, small gas wells, oil wells, and coal mines existed all over Ohio. No trace of those exist today, but only shallow assets were taken, since equipment then was not capable of deep mining. Coal, Gas, and Oil exists under 48 states at deep levels, but environmentalists, legislators, nutcases will not allow it to be used. But solar, wind, hydrogen, and other energies are 50 to 100 years away from efficient use. ANWR concists of 19 million acres with 17.5 million contained within Brooks Mountain Range and protected. 1.5 million acres of coastal plain is supposedly open to leasing and producing, but has been bottled up far too long. Located east of Prudhoe Bay, with Canadian border on east side, it is between 15 and 40 miles deep, and over 400 miles long. Canada is producing oil and gas on their side, Prudhoe Bay has produced for decades, co-existing with animals and birds during summer months. Check it out, and be sure to read the Issue on website. Google for: ANWR and find many sites with photos, papers. Only one Indian village on coastal plains, and they say "drill and produce". Research, then remember when you vote. Trans-Alaska pipeline is still usuable to Valdez, and for gods-sakes, build refineries in the U.S. They are also environmentally safe.
June 10, 2008
3:54 PM
Tbone writes:
Did anyone tell Shaggy that you do not need to be convicted of a crime to be impeached?
That impeachment is basically charging someone with a crime?
What crime was Clinton convicted of, shaggy?
None. But he was still impeached.
Jeezus, you'd think you actually knew what the fuck you were talking about, they way you spout off.
June 10, 2008
4:02 PM
JW writes:
So, did some fact checking...
Exxon Mobil-
Net Profit Margin is 10.4%
Tax rate is 42.3%
BP
NPM- 7.4%
Tax rate-33%
Chevron
NPM 8.7%
Tax rate 41.9%
Now, a few things. #1, none of those NPM figures show the oil companies shafting anyone. For those of you who think big oil is gouging us...sorry, just not the case.
Tax rate- I got these from their financial statements (specificallly, income statement). These are REPORTED taxes, not ACTUAL taxes. What they actually pay is not the same as what they report for their tax liability on financial statements, because they don't include things like scheduling writeoffs for equipment.
All that said, they arent gouging us, and Im pretty sure their taxes are sufficiently high (BP's the lowest, and they are British for fucks sake). Of course, as I said above, I dont agree with corporate taxes period...
June 10, 2008
4:06 PM
mytwosense writes:
Americans have long held to the belief that we are rugged individuals who work hard and pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps. I believe skyrocketing oil prices will prove which Americans just pay lip service to such ideals, and which Americans will rise to the occasion.
The former will make panicked calls for increased domestic drilling, while the latter will conserve with ingenuity and advocate for the advance of progressive green technologies.
June 10, 2008
4:18 PM
jay writes:
i truly think shaggy actually leaches intelligence from this blog. shaggy, we've already debunked all the myths you've propagated today.
like i said, can we see some new pitches? can you at least come up with some new talking points that we haven't already dismissed as bs?
if you're going to play the role of the token far right wing punching bag, at least learn to bob and weave a little more...learn some new punches.
like playing dodgeball with children.
June 10, 2008
4:19 PM
gr8fuldude writes:
I really liked some of these ideas, though they are probably not for everyone. I've noticed a big difference by just dropping my clutch on downhills and gliding my way up to red lights.
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/01/king_of_the_hypermilers.html
June 10, 2008
4:26 PM
Pat McCarthy writes:
I just took a walk in the LAX airport hotel area. I stopped on the sidewalk as several drivers exiting a parking garage did not realize that pedestrians have the right of way. A Corvette squeeled out zero to 6o to arrive at the red light, a Land Rover zoomed out to get behind the Corvette at the red light, a BENTLEY flew out of the garage and got in line at the red light, an Audi raced into the line, a LAX airport alternative fuel vehicle exploded out of the garage! They probably each used the amount of fuel they could have used for miles of transport. Forget it, people can afford it.
June 10, 2008
4:27 PM
Pat McCarthy writes:
I just took a walk in the LAX airport hotel area. I stopped on the sidewalk as several drivers exiting a parking garage did not realize that pedestrians have the right of way. A Corvette squeeled out zero to 6o to arrive at the red light, a Land Rover zoomed out to get behind the Corvette at the red light, a BENTLEY flew out of the garage and got in line at the red light, an Audi raced into the line, a LAX airport alternative fuel vehicle exploded out of the garage! They probably each used the amount of fuel they could have used for miles of transport. Forget it, people can afford it.
June 10, 2008
4:37 PM
am 760 writes:
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/06/10/9544
Good job Dennis!
http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/06/democrat-files.html
Seems most americans support impeachment!
June 10, 2008
4:54 PM
Shaggy writes:
Tbone,
Do you remember Clinton apologizing to the world that he lied about his romps?
You are right though, the impeachment process is to investigate to see if charges should be filed.
My bad. Clinton was out the door anyways.
JW, I agree that a weak dollar raises prices on ALL imports. Yesterday the dollar gained a little strength and the price of oil dropped a little by reflecting on that.
What sucks is that ships come to our ports full and leave empty.
I think if we started exporting again the dollar would gain strength.
We used to be the worlds biggest exporter and have become the biggest importer.
Tough to keep a strong economy when we buy buy buy and not sell sell sell.
Yes, big brother spending like Micheal Jackson in a toy store and borrowing money does not help matters.
jay quit yer pouting bud.
Honest man, I really don't take joy in slapping you around anymore than you like receiving it but sometimes it has to be done.
June 10, 2008
5:34 PM
JW writes:
"I think if we started exporting again the dollar would gain strength."
LOL, based on WHAT? You think we arent exporting what we can?
"We used to be the worlds biggest exporter and have become the biggest importer."
Of certain items. I believe this is called "durable goods". Not sure though.
What we export now is different.
"Yes, big brother spending like Micheal Jackson in a toy store and borrowing money does not help matters."
WOW! Is that FINALLY a crack at the Republicans who call themselves fiscal conservatives but are not at all? Good JOB!
Ive never been pissed at Republicans for being Republicans Shaggy. Ive been pissed at them for what you said right there, "spending like MJ in a toy store and borrowing money" to cover it.
Now, WTF are you doing stumping for McSame when he says he's going to continue doing all the same spending (minus the 18 billion in pork, Ill give you that) while increasing what we have to borrow to cover all that spending by cutting taxes MORE!
June 10, 2008
5:48 PM
JW writes:
Hey Shaggy, here is some fun for ya!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-R5Vh5tOWk
Stick it out through the Pat Robertson crap. If you can wait till the end, you will hear McSame telling you himself that he did what you kept accusing Hillary of...
LYING because of AMBITION. IN HIS OWN WORDS.
Hes more of an adulterer than Bill.
He lies worse than Bill.
And hes guilty of the same stuff you hate Hillary for, and he said so in his OWN words.
And youre gona vote for him.
Hypocrisy is the right word, but there should be something stronger, more distasteful.
June 10, 2008
6:12 PM
JW writes:
"I've already stated that in my line of work, a 10% profit margin is a luxury almost unheard of.
We literally can't cut our prices anymore without the business taking a loss, literally, there really aren't any more profits to cut.
And, BTW, most of my income comes from taxpayers. We do a lot of work with municipalities."
Eh. I don't see why you are doing government work and making nothing. Everyone deserves to make a profit. Damn sure Blackwater, KBR, and Haliburton are.
"So is that good enough, Mr. The Oil Companies Deserve All Our Money?"
They make 10 cents on the dollar man. Give me a break.
"I've cut my profits - why don't they?"
Because they are in business to make money? Hell, if you want to look at it the way you are proposing, why dont we just go to the barter system. Everyone can get what they need and there is no money to make a profit with.
Besides, if you cut your profits for any reason other than competition demanded that you do, it was foolish! Raise your prices!
"AFter all - if I make someone pay more for my service, the whole economy doesn't suffer. OTOH, if the oil companies make everyone pay more, the whole economy suffers."
Yea, but the underlying premise here is that they are making us pay too much. There is nothing wrong with a profit of 10 cents out of every dollar. Shit man, thats alot of work to do for a dime. Doesnt matter that they make a shit load of dimes.
Put another way, if they were a bunch of small companies making the same cash, no one would mention this crap. 10% profit margin isnt that much.
"Regarding the business tax issue....if we cut taxes on businesses, do you really think goods will get cheaper? No - that added savings will NOT be passed on to the consumer. Guaran-fucking-teed."
There is precedent. This is pretty much the way the free market works. You drop costs across an industry, ONE of the companies will use that reduction in costs to drop their prices in an effort to gain market share, and the others will follow suit in order to keep their market share.
"And what about businesses that don't produce tangible goods? Say a stock broker - he pays taxes on his business, right? But what does he produce?"
He sells stock man, and charges a fee for that service. SERVICE is what he produces.
"Nothing, really. So if we increase his taxes, sure, he could increase his fees. But then I would just go to a cheaper broker."
Accept that you increased taxes on ALL the brokers. There are no cheaper brokers. They ALL had to raise their prices.
"Then the original broker would have to lower his fees to attract my business."
Doh. You just dont get it.
"Its the invisible hand at work!!!!!"
OH FOR FUCKS SAKE! How the hell can you know what the invisible hand IS, but not understand what it MEANS?
"every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention." Adam Smith
IE: Why the hell would Exxon take a hit in their profits for the good of the society? Their efforts to MAKE profit are totally self interested, but, they happen to benefit society.
In the broker/taxes example you gave, again, why would your "cheaper broker" not raise his prices when you raised his taxes? He has to to keep making a profit! Which is his goal! Hes not taking the hit to his profit margin when you raised those taxes just so you can feel good!
"Also - dude - no need to get so offended when I ask you a question."
Im not offended. Ive got nothing against you. Im not pissed at you. I just dont pull any punches with my responses, and sometimes people get offended. Not my intent, with you at least.
June 10, 2008
7:23 PM
Shaggy writes:
JW,
Do we need to remind you that Hill and Bill are out, that is unless another Obama bomb shell surfaces, which is what they are banking on by not releasing her pledged delegates, in my humble of course.
No more need for you to fill up on Clinton cosmetics....at least not yet.
I am not a McCain pimp but I think he will do a much better job when, WHEN, Israel attacks Iran's Nuke facility's.
Anyhoo, I don't think the Voters are going to support Obamas many many tax increases at a time when many Americans are struggling to make ends meat.
Personally, I am greatfull that I can deduct my gas as an expense but it still costs me a profit no matter how you look at it.
I am also greatfull that my competitors have to do the same.
Now if we could get rid of the illegals that my competitors are using I will be much better off.
I already they know they can't beat my prices w/o using illegals!!!!!
2 simple Q's 4 U,
Who would be the best person for the job WHEN Israel attacks Iran and how high will the price of crude rise to?
I do not know this and am counting on your super duper far beyond any of our intelligence levels to comprehend this to give me an estimate.
June 10, 2008
7:32 PM
Shaggy writes:
And a person.
June 10, 2008
8:37 PM
Anonymous writes:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article2461421.ece
Shaggy
this scenario has already happened with Syria.
for once Bush did the wise thing and didn't do something stupid YET.
What can McCain do if this scenario happens and we're bogged down in Iraq?
Use military force again? More stoploss and 5th tour of duty? how is this going to serve US interests and make us safer?
McCain is already using bad judgement by staying in Iraq with no exit strategy and no definition of success in Iraq. This old man has no clue how to get us out of Iraq and no desire to either.
Tell us how regime change in Iran benefits us?
This is Iraq all over again. Some people never learn
June 11, 2008
8:03 AM
g.r.r writes:
Oddly enough, It is the best thing. The reason is that we have been being slowly bleeding financially because we were the frog in water. Now, this is hurting so much that we WILL switch to electric cars. This will solve a big part of our trade imbalance as well as our CO2 issue.
The really weird thing about this, is that pubs will give credit to either W or McCain for solving this, while Dems will credit Obama, if he wins. But the real group who solved this will be Elon Musk and OPEC.
June 11, 2008
8:04 AM
JW writes:
"I am not a McCain pimp but I think he will do a much better job when, WHEN, Israel attacks Iran's Nuke facility's."
LOL. How can you not see your double standard here? You blast the Clinton's for character issues all the time. You say they are liars, and they cant possibly be trusted to run the country.
Yet with a Republican who has the same issues, its "I think he will do a much better job when blah blah blah."
Did it ever occur to you that you are basing your vote (in the above scenario at least) on problems you THINK may exist in the future, at the expense we KNOW exist RIGHT NOW?
Its just another example of how your partisan hackery determines your vote, not using your brain.
"Who would be the best person for the job WHEN Israel attacks Iran and how high will the price of crude rise to?"
IF Isreael attacks Iran, the person with the best diplomatic skills will be the best president. It AINT McSame.
I have no idea how high crude will go. Best start investing in renewables. The fact that I know the limitations of my knowledge is exactly what makes me smarter than you, because it causes me to A) learn more in an effort to know more, and B) I dont just end up "believing" things unreasonably like you do. NO evidence for what you believe whatsoever doesnt stop you. You still BELIEVE! I dont have that problem.
June 11, 2008
8:08 AM
JW writes:
"McCain is already using bad judgement by staying in Iraq with no exit strategy and no definition of success in Iraq. This old man has no clue how to get us out of Iraq and no desire to either."
McSame voted against increasing the college grant for veterans so that their entire college tuition costs are covered. All of HIS college was covered, but he doesnt want the same for our brave boys and girls in uniform today. When asked why, he says "Because they wont re-up."
Scumbag doesnt even begin to cover this, both because our people sacraficing in Iraq and Afghanistan dont deserve that kind of treatment, AND because its utter bullshit. The report McSame quotes to back up his idiotic position says that re-enlisment would drop by 16%. It also says that new enlistment would go up 16%.
McSame is an asshole. Pure and simple.
June 11, 2008
8:23 AM
gr8fuldude writes:
GRR / McCarthy - Could not agree more. I 've always thought it is the height of narcissism to think and drive like you have to be the first person at the red light. I see that most days that I drive and it makes me glad to be able to take the bus the rest of the time.
I've believed too that OPEC is going to be its own worst enemy if we ever start feeling our nads and decide to play the same game with food. I find it ironic that chavez in Venezuela is griping about higher food costs due to US diverting corn to ethanol. Let the market sort this out, and hopefully we find our way like Brazil did.
June 11, 2008
8:33 AM
Tbone writes:
JW-
Holy contradictions batman!
In one paragraph, you say:
"There is precedent. This is pretty much the way the free market works. You drop costs across an industry, ONE of the companies will use that reduction in costs to drop their prices in an effort to gain market share, and the others will follow suit in order to keep their market share."
And in the next paragraph, you say:
"Accept that you increased taxes on ALL the brokers. There are no cheaper brokers. They ALL had to raise their prices."
Ummmm, JW - there's nothing that says someone HAS to raise prices.
So which is it?
For claiming to have such a great grasp of the "free market", you sure don't seem to be getting my point.
Let me guess - you're one of the guys that said everything was going to get more expensive if we raised the minimum wage, right?
June 11, 2008
8:35 AM
Shaggy aka Obamas typical bitter white person writes:
I really feel for JW...You are in such a deep denial you don't realize that the Clintons are out of the race...for now anyways.
McCain doesn't come close to living the vile life the Clintons have...I'm sorry...The reason I will vote McCain isn't that I agree with him 100%, it is because I know who the hell he is and all I know of Obama is scary as hell.
He is very Liberal and I think his wife is a hateful women who thinks she is owed something.
I think Obama shares the views of his racist preacher and he definitely hangs with disgusting people.
Not to mention he wants to have a massive tax increase imposed on all of us.
I am not hypocrite and quit strawmanning me!!!
June 11, 2008
8:50 AM
Hairy Buttocks writes:
Talk about being party partisan JW you take the cake.
I will bet you have voted party lines ever since you old enough to vote.
I will also bet you have wet dreams just thinking about the Clintons.
By the way, they were horrible during their tenure.
Why do you think Bush was elected in the first place?
Same reason why Obama will probably be elected.
June 11, 2008
8:54 AM
JW writes:
"Holy contradictions batman!
In one paragraph, you say:
"There is precedent. This is pretty much the way the free market works. You drop costs across an industry, ONE of the companies will use that reduction in costs to drop their prices in an effort to gain market share, and the others will follow suit in order to keep their market share."
And in the next paragraph, you say:
"Accept that you increased taxes on ALL the brokers. There are no cheaper brokers. They ALL had to raise their prices."
Ummmm, JW - there's nothing that says someone HAS to raise prices."
Where is the contradiction? If you drop taxes, everyone drops prices.
If you raise taxes, everyone raises their prices.
And no, there is nothing that says you "have" to raise prices. But if you increase the tax burden, it cuts into the profit margin for all the companies that get their taxes raised. If all these brokers you are talking about have found a competitive ballance in their price structure, and you go raising all of their taxes, chances are good they all raise their prices.
But, Ill conceede the point that its not a sure thing. Some might take a hit to their profit margin. Of course, your "belief" that there WOULD be some that didnt raise their taxes is an assumption as well.
Now, lets talk about YOU. What happens if your taxes got raised? You "Cant" cut your profits anymore without taking losses. Guess you would raise your prices?
"For claiming to have such a great grasp of the "free market", you sure don't seem to be getting my point."
Mostly because your point is based on a fundamental lack of understanding. Thats not an insult. I used the exact same stance less than 5 years ago while arguing with my dad. I couldnt understand why he didnt get it. Now I know, I was the one that didnt get it.
"Let me guess - you're one of the guys that said everything was going to get more expensive if we raised the minimum wage, right?"
No. Some things will though. Those things would be the products produced in industries that use alot of minimum wage workers. Most industries dont. Shit, even wal-mart pays most of its people more than minimum wage. Not alot more, but some. A minimum wage hike just doesnt actually affect many jobs.
June 11, 2008
8:58 AM
JW writes:
"Not to mention he wants to have a massive tax increase imposed on all of us."
What you are is a jackass Shaggy. You keep repeating this bs as if it will make it true.
CNN has a breakdown of how Obama and McSame's tax plans will affect people's tax burden by different income levels.
Everyone gets a tax break in McSame's plan, but the biggest breaks by far are at the upper income levels, who already got that when Bush took office.
For Obama's plan, everyone above $161k a year gets a tax increase. Everyone below that gets a tax break.
"McCain doesn't come close to living the vile life the Clintons have...I'm sorry...The reason I will vote McCain isn't that I agree with him 100%, it is because I know who the hell he is and all I know of Obama is scary as hell."
The reason you will vote McSame is because youre stupid enough to believe "any Republican will do".
June 11, 2008
9:07 AM
JW writes:
McSame Obama
Income Avg. tax bill change
Over $2.9M -$269,364 +$701,885
$603K and up -$45,361 +$115,974
$227K-$603K -$7,871 +$12
$161K-$227K -$4,380 -$2,789
$112K-$161K -$2,614 -$2,204
$66K-$112K -$1,009 -$1,290
$38K-$66K -$319 -$1,042
$19K-$38K -$113 -$892
Under $19K -$19 -$567
OHHH! If you make $227k-$603k your taxes would go up by $12! Obama is such a commie!
June 11, 2008
9:16 AM
JW writes:
"I will bet you have voted party lines ever since you old enough to vote."
lets make it $2000. I need a new tv. No, lets go $4k, I need a new tv and a new desktop computer. Wait, I need to replace the roof on my house too...can you do $15k?
"By the way, they were horrible during their tenure."
Hehe. If you say so.
June 11, 2008
9:45 AM
jay writes:
how dare you use so much logic and facts against right wing myths, jw.
it's almost as if you've got some sort of edge...
very interesting info regarding the candidates' respective tax plans.
shaggy....remember...policy instead of politics. reality instead of rhetoric.
let's hope you either get it or stay home on election day.
by the way....you keep complaining about taxes but voted TWICE for an administration that has preemptively raised taxes.
hypocrisy at its finest.
June 11, 2008
9:52 AM
Shaggy writes:
JW,
Is it Obamas plan to give us a tax break right after he institutes the highest tax increase ever in History or before he does it?
Maybe he can give away MORE of our tax dollars to the racist Micheal Pfleger like he already has.
Obama wants to put another tax on SS.
Another tax on gas.
A windfall tax on Oil companies.
DOUBLE the capital gains tax.
ect ect ect.
And you wonder why I won't vote for him.
June 11, 2008
9:58 AM
jay writes:
"And you wonder why I won't vote for him."
considering your hypocritical stance on taxes...we can only surmise that you won't vote for him based on your blind far right wing partisan hack allegiences.
no?
June 11, 2008
10:07 AM
gr8fuldude writes:
Shaggy - Can you please name a specific example of how Obama plans to give tax money to Phleger or that he has in the past (aside from the tax exempt status that churches and other nonprofits enjoy as 501c-3 organizations)
Also, would you not agree that the black community faces significant issues today? I think as heinous as some of the comments made by activists such as Wright and Pfleger sound in 30-second soundbites, they are trying to reach their target audiences in the black community. The same community who routinely refers to its males as "pimps" and their women as "hos"...I think their words sound strong, but I think some tough love is needed when trying to reach an audience who has for the most part become desensitized to harsh language.
Would you not agree?
June 11, 2008
10:41 AM
Shaggy aka Obamas typical bitter white person writes:
Dude,
"One of those long-time supporters was Rev. Michael Pfleger, the politically active leader of St. Sabina Church. He gave Obama's campaign $1,500 between 1995 and 2001, including $200 in April 2001, about three months after Obama announced $225,000 in grants to St. Sabina programs."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/chi-0705030035may03,0,7803217.story
Did you know he also earmarked 300 grand to the Hospital his wife worked at?
You can go find that one...it's true.
I think anyone who hates another race like Obamas long time and close friends do should go to hell.
They preach hatred of whitey and America.
Anyone who attends these hate filled racist Churches are the ones who want keep the race baiting going, they have no intention of trying to make progress, they love being bigots and hateful.
If Obama isn't a racist why did he attend these sermons for 20 years.
These people are not just casual acquaintances of Obamas, these were close personal and long time friends of Obamas.
June 11, 2008
10:44 AM
JW writes:
"Is it Obamas plan to give us a tax break right after he institutes the highest tax increase ever in History or before he does it?"
Got a question for ya Shaggy, How do you think Obama's tax hike results in teh highest tax increase ever?
Using what criteria is the tax hike "the highest increase ever in history"?
You know, we have the biggest deficite in history if you go by agregate dollars owed.
But in terms of the biggest percentage of our GDP, its not. In those terms, we had a bigger deficit right after ww2.
This setting off any bells there Shaggy? Or are you missing the point?
And spin it how you like, you were wrong when you said "Not to mention he wants to have a massive tax increase imposed on all of us." Not a little bit wrong. Not wrong if you look at it a certain way. Not kinda wrong.
Just totally, completely, and obviously wrong.
Again.
June 11, 2008
10:46 AM
Shaggy aka Obamas typical bitter white person writes:
"Another supporter, Henry English, made two donations to Obama totaling $900 in 2001 after Obama helped send a $50,000 grant to a non-profit group that English ran, the Black United Fund of Illinois. "
Same link.
The more and more one looks at Obama, he is exactly opposite of who he wants to be perceived as.
He is not a uniter...He is a divider...He is committed to black community...is it only me who sees this?
Look at the Church he belonged to for 20 years and still would be if Wright didn't throw him under the bus and he still didn't want to denounce the church.
This church has a non negotiable commitment to Africa.
June 11, 2008
11:09 AM
Shaggy aka Obamas typical bitter white person writes:
"Personal ties to Obama also were evident in some pork dispensed by his political allies. The Chicago-based Muntu Dance Theatre received a $4.5 million grant to help pay for a $10 million cultural center.
Obama's mentor in Springfield, state Sen. Emil Jones (D-Chicago), sponsored the grant. And at the time $2.25 million of the grant was disbursed, Obama's wife, Michelle, sat on the non-profit dance group's board."
Same link as above.
Yes JW, Obamas plans would be the largest tax increase ever imposed on the American people.
Socialized health care will make sure of it.
June 11, 2008
11:16 AM
Tree writes:
Guys,
When your trying to rationalize with Shaggy, you have to remember, he buys this shit. This is all they have. Surprise our Fox guv't didn't put our country on Yellow alert!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cit-XeYs9dw&feature=related
June 11, 2008
11:43 AM
gr8fuldude writes:
Shaggy -
Don't you think that grants are determined by more than just one individual? I doubt that as a Senator (or earlier in any previously held office), he was singularly responsible for handouts. Grants are usually awarded by committees, boards, etc.
Also, being a local interest, would you not agree that ANY public official has a duty to represent the interests of those organizations that are in his or her constituency? (including churches, hospitals, etc)
All things considered, it is also small change compared to what has gone on in Iraq, etc.
All things considered would you not say that his constituency in Chicago and the surrounding areas are largely Black (and hence are served well by a Black oriented church)...In retrospect, an argument can be made that as a Senator, he served his region well, no?
June 11, 2008
11:47 AM
jay writes:
i never thought we'd see shag get any more desperate, but there's little doubt that he's hit rock bottom.
at least it's entertaining to watch.
June 11, 2008
12:21 PM
Tree writes:
Entertainment it is.
jay- I've noticed since we've gone to this new posting system where a valid email address is required (but it still takes all day to post) the every day jays-an-idiot poster and the fake jay poster tool have vanished. Funny how that works.
Shagbastard- (get in my belly) don't go running off, we have the need for entertainment, can't just rely on Fixed Noise.
June 11, 2008
12:47 PM
Shaggy aka Obamas typical bitter white person writes:
Dude, you asked for a link showing Obama giving tax dollars to the racist Rev. Michael Pfleger and I provided, unlike some people posting here that just run around commenting on comments and trying to belittle people with out adding anything to the topic.
June 11, 2008
12:47 PM
jay writes:
that's a good point, but i still have to reenter my info every single time i post...and yes...it does take all day.
you have to wonder why the other blogs at the rmn have such a clean, quick system while rtl is the red headed step child.
mark, are you pissing off the wrong people in charge over there or what?
June 11, 2008
12:51 PM
Shaggy aka Obamas typical bitter white person writes:
Bottom line is if McCain becomes our next President it won't be because he won it...it will be because the Democrats and Obama royally screwed it up..
I just heard Obama is smoking heavily again..fell off the wagon his unproud wife put him on.
June 11, 2008
12:53 PM
jay's an idiot and so is Tree writes:
Looks like Tree and jay are whining again.
June 11, 2008
12:58 PM
Shaggy aka Obamas typical bitter white person writes:
hey jay, how could you of all people vote for a smoker?
Aren't they less of a huiman to you?
OMG Obama is going to give everyone cancer..run run run
June 11, 2008
1:08 PM
jay writes:
shaggy, repeat after me:
I will choose my presidential candidate based upon the quality of his policy stances, not on rush limbaugh's latest conpsiracy theories.
once you understand that concept....why don't you tell us which of bush's accomplishments warrant a vote for a continuation of his policies under mccain.
if you're still in the dark about mcsame's policies (as you have appeared to be to date)...please see his website:
http://www.johnmccain.com
June 11, 2008
1:48 PM
Shaggy aka Obamas typical bitter white person writes:
jay repeat after me:
I will not vote for someone who's policies will make the people endure the largest amount of tax increases in the history of America. especially when most Americans are already struggling.
There was did that feel better?
June 11, 2008
1:56 PM
Tbone writes:
JW-
Gotcha, thanks for the discussion.
Shaggy -
You keep saying you know where mcsame stands on issues, you know "who he is".
How can that be, if the guy changes his stance every week?
Are you talking about the pre-2007 McCain, or the post-2007 mcsame?
Cause I used to like the pre-2007 McCain - the one that didnt like the bush tax cuts, and the fanatical religious right leaders.
However, I really don't care for the post-2007 mcsame - the one who suddenly likes the bush tax cuts, and now suddenly LOVES the fanatical religious right.
June 11, 2008
2:20 PM
jay writes:
still running from that little exercise to do away with your willful ignorance problem, shaggy?
you are a coward.
"I will not vote for someone who's policies will make the people endure the largest amount of tax increases in the history of America. especially when most Americans are already struggling."
then why did you vote for bush twice?
sounds like...hypocrisy at its finest...
June 11, 2008
2:25 PM
Shaggy aka Obamas typical bitter white person writes:
Tbone, McCain has been around for ever.
Whether or not you like him or not at least you know what your getting.
The only things we know about Obama is he is very far left and is very good friends with some of the worst scums in America.
There are issues that I totally disagree with McCain on but damn near everyone of Obamas ideas I disagree with.
Have you heard Obama try to speak when it is not scripted for him?
Sounds like a complete idiot.
McCain has always been non partisan and to say different is BS.
Why is it O.K. for Obama and Hillary to change their minds but not Obama?
You know Hillary and Obama flip flop much more than McCain has.
June 11, 2008
2:31 PM
JW writes:
"I will not vote for someone who's policies will make the people endure the largest amount of tax increases in the history of America. especially when most Americans are already struggling."
This is why I call you a fucking jackass Shaggy. Ive shown you that the only people who's taxes go up under Obama are those making over 161k a year. They arent "struggling". And hell, they only go up by $12 a year for those making up to 600k!
Youre an utter idiot.
June 11, 2008
2:40 PM
Shaggy aka Obamas typical bitter white person writes:
Are you telling me that Obama does not want to double the taxes on capital gains JW?
He wanst to have another gas tax.
He wants another tax on SS.
He wants to put a windfall tax on the oil companies.
Course this got voted down because it is utterly stupid.
You may need to review Obamas plans before you go around with your name calling.
Makes you sound desperate, naive and immature.
June 11, 2008
3:01 PM
JW writes:
"Are you telling me that Obama does not want to double the taxes on capital gains JW?"
If you werent a complete idiot I wouldnt have to answer this. But, since you are...
No, I didnt say that.
"He wanst to have another gas tax."
Im not sure I agree with this one.
"He wants another tax on SS."
Not sure I agree with this one either, but the alternative is to lower SS benefits. Simple.
"He wants to put a windfall tax on the oil companies."
This is simply retarded. Ive already said why I disagree with this.
"You may need to review Obamas plans before you go around with your name calling."
Why? Youre an idiot. You cant even figure out what I wrote. Its in plain english, but I still have to explain it to you.
"Makes you sound desperate, naive and immature."
Whatever jackass. Id rather "Sound" desperate naive and immature in the mind of a total moron than actually BE a total moron.
YOU jackasses caused the necessity of these tax hikes, dipshit, when you voted in Bush TWICE and gave him a rubber stamp senate and congress who let him jack up spending while cutting taxes. The fact that your such a fucking sissy you wont admit it, and such a fucking idiot you wont recognize the need to correct YOUR mistakes...well, that makes you a fucking moron. Youre like a child; you wanted your cake, you wanted your sucker, you wanted your ice cream. And now that your a fat fucking slob, youre pissed that the doctor said you have to eat salads and take insulin.
You may be fucking retarded, but I dont want to live in a recession for 10 years because of it...thanks.
June 11, 2008
3:10 PM
jay writes:
why even bother with shag anymore. the guy sits around and continue typing the same right wing myths we've debunked many times over. you can remedy ignorance but willful ignorance is incurable.
June 11, 2008
3:42 PM
Shaggy writes:
Wow nice language JW,
If you weren't so stupid you would know that Obama has plans to double the tax on capital gains.
He has said he will put another tax on SS, it doesn't matter if you agree or not, that is what he said dweeb.
Pay attention, you always say people should know who they are voting for and it looks like you don't have a clue what Obama has in store.
He just got done voting for a windfall tax on the oil companies that failed yesterday for christ sakes.
Why do you keep bringing up Bush?
He is not running for a third term.
jay quit yer pouting.
June 11, 2008
4:01 PM
JW writes:
"If you weren't so stupid you would know that Obama has plans to double the tax on capital gains."
I said I wasnt sure if I agreed with it or not, as in Im not sure its a good idea, dolt. I know he wants to raise it to 28%.
"He has said he will put another tax on SS, it doesn't matter if you agree or not, that is what he said dweeb."
Again, I know this, idiot. But this statement of yours is quite telling. It DOES matter if you agree with it or not, jackass. You think all taxes are bad, because youre stupid as stupid gets. Regarding SS, Im not sure if its good or not because I recognize that without a raise in SS witholdings, we wont be able to pay the same level of benefits. While in the future, I think people had better get used to the idea of SS being basically not there, the current crop of retirees may be reliant on it.
"Pay attention, you always say people should know who they are voting for and it looks like you don't have a clue what Obama has in store."
It does look that way, if youre a fucking idiot who cant understand plain english unless its explained to you.
"Why do you keep bringing up Bush?
He is not running for a third term."
Hes not, but McSame is.
June 11, 2008
4:09 PM
Tbone writes:
shaggy-
Show me a postion obama has flipped on, and I'll show you 2 mccain has flipped on.
Do you even know what the capital gains tax rate is, shaggy?
Fifteen fucking percent. And that's on money that wasn't even really earned, as far as I'm concerned.
However, money that I earn is taxed at 27%.
So he wants to increase the capital gains tax to 30%
SO what? This won't affect me. Not currently, anyways.
So why should unearned money be taxed at a lower rate than earned?
Is it because the rich make much more money off capital gains tax than the proles? Nah, couldn't be.
June 11, 2008
4:19 PM
Tbone writes:
Just for your edification, shaggy, here is a partial list of mcsame's flip flops. The dude's got more than a beach in august.
* McCain pledged in February 2008 that he would not, under any circumstances, raise taxes. Specifically, McCain was asked if he is a “‘read my lips’ candidate, no new taxes, no matter what?” referring to George H.W. Bush’s 1988 pledge. “No new taxes,” McCain responded. Two weeks later, McCain said, “I’m not making a ‘read my lips’ statement, in that I will not raise taxes.”
* McCain claims to have considered and not considered joining John Kerry’s Democratic ticket in 2004.
* In 1998, he championed raising cigarette taxes to fund programs to cut underage smoking, insisting that it would prevent illnesses and provide resources for public health programs. Now, McCain opposes a $0.61-per-pack tax increase, won’t commit to supporting a regulation bill he’s co-sponsoring, and has hired Philip Morris’ former lobbyist as his senior campaign adviser.
* McCain’s first mortgage plan was premised on the notion that homeowners facing foreclosure shouldn’t be “rewarded” for acting “irresponsibly.” His second mortgage plan took largely the opposite position.
* McCain vowed, if elected, to balance the federal budget by the end of his first term. Soon after, he decided he would no longer even try to reach that goal.
* McCain’s campaign unveiled a Social Security policy that the senator would implement if elected, which did not include a Bush-like privatization scheme. In March 2008, McCain denounced his own campaign’s policy.
* In February 2008, McCain reversed course on prohibiting waterboarding.
* In November 2007, McCain reversed his previous position on a long-term presence for U.S. troops in Iraq, arguing that the “nature of the society in Iraq” and the “religious aspects” of the country make it inevitable that the United States “eventually withdraws.” Two months later, McCain reversed back, saying he’s prepared to leave U.S. troops in Iraq for 100 years.
* McCain used to champion the Law of the Sea convention, even volunteering to testify on the treaty’s behalf before a Senate committee. Now he opposes it.
* McCain was a co-sponsor of the DREAM Act, which would grant legal status to illegal immigrants’ kids who graduate from high school. Now he’s against it.
* On immigration policy in general, McCain announced in February 2008 that he would vote against his own legislation.
* In 2006, McCain sponsored legislation to require grassroots lobbying coalitions to reveal their financial donors. In 2007, after receiving “feedback” on the proposal, McCain told far-right activist groups that he opposes his own measure.
* McCain said before the war in Iraq, “We will win this conflict. We will win it easily.” Four years later, McCain said he knew all along that the war in Iraq war was “probably going to be long and hard and tough.”
* McCain said he was the “greatest critic” of Rumsfeld’s failed Iraq policy. In December 2003, McCain praised the same strategy as “a mission accomplished.” In March 2004, he said, “I’m confident we’re on the right course.” In December 2005, he said, “Overall, I think a year from now, we will have made a fair amount of progress if we stay the course.”
* McCain went from saying he would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade to saying the exact opposite.
* McCain went from saying gay marriage should be allowed, to saying gay marriage shouldn’t be allowed.
* McCain criticized TV preacher Jerry Falwell as “an agent of intolerance” in 2002, but then decided to cozy up to the man who said Americans “deserved” the 9/11 attacks.
* McCain used to oppose Bush’s tax cuts for the very wealthy, but he reversed course in February.
* On a related note, he said 2005 that he opposed the tax cuts because they were “too tilted to the wealthy.” By 2007, he denied ever having said this, and insisted he opposed the cuts because of increased government spending.
* In 2000, McCain accused Texas businessmen Sam and Charles Wyly of being corrupt, spending “dirty money” to help finance Bush’s presidential campaign. McCain not only filed a complaint against the Wylys for allegedly violating campaign finance law, he also lashed out at them publicly. In April, McCain reached out to the Wylys for support.
* McCain supported a major campaign-finance reform measure that bore his name. In June 2007, he abandoned his own legislation.
* McCain opposed a holiday to honor Martin Luther King, Jr., before he supported it.
* McCain was against presidential candidates campaigning at Bob Jones University before he was for it.
* McCain was anti-ethanol. Now he’s pro-ethanol.
* McCain was both for and against state promotion of the Confederate flag.
* McCain decided in 2000 that he didn’t want anything to do with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, believing he “would taint the image of the ‘Straight Talk Express.’” Kissinger is now the Honorary Co-Chair for his presidential campaign in New York.
The guy is now voting against his own legislation? Wow. What a straight talker!!!!
And for the record, I'm not against flip flops - but, the republican party wanted to make them the centerpiece of their campaign against john kerry, so I'm just playing by the rules the republicant's set up in 2004.
Level playing field, and all.
June 11, 2008
4:26 PM
jay writes:
shaggy, everything you've said here has been proven horribly wrong or irrelevant.
do you have anything of substance to add from the conservative side of the political spectrum or are you just content to be the class dunce?
June 11, 2008
4:32 PM
Not Tbone, seriously writes:
Wow, look at that list!
I can tell exactly where mccain stands on every issue!
I'm voting for him now!
I'm definately not voting for Barack Hussein Obama because he's blac.....errrr.....I mean, you don't know where he stands on the issues!
June 11, 2008
5:39 PM
Phantom writes:
Though McCain isn't perfect, he's still the lesser of two evils.
June 11, 2008
7:25 PM
jay writes:
why is that phantom?
what bush accomplishments warrant a continuation of his policies under mccain?
June 12, 2008
8:44 AM
Phantom writes:
Jay, (respectfully stated)
Social programs run by government don't age well. Less is better. In the private sector, if something isn't aging well, they close the doors. In the government sector (i.e. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid), they continue the program as if a major revamp is unneccessary (at the expense of future generations). Government officials elected to office do not want to touch these hotbutton programs for fear that they won't get re-elected. Obama's speeches sound great, his programs sound great, but unfortunately his programs along with the Democrat parties agenda (which do not forget about his party), is to add more of these programs. Yes, McCain likes pork... and should be tasored for this.
Republican's aren't perfect. McCain isn't perfect. Obama isn't perfect. Democrats are not perfect. But in this case... McCain is the lesser of two evils.
This has nothing to do with Bush... so, I'm disregarding your inclusion of Bush to the conversation. They may share some ideals, they are both in the same party, but they are not one in the same.
June 12, 2008
9:34 AM
JW writes:
Phantom,
Actually, Bush is kind of relevant for the following reasons....
Q. What is Bush's policy on Iraq? What is McCain's policy on Iraq?
A. Stay the course.
Q. What is Bush's policy on Iran? What is McCains policy on Iran?
A. Don't talk to them, threaten them, and sanction them.
Q. What is Bush's policy on taxes? What is McCain's policy on taxes?
A. Cut taxes. No new taxes. Keep the current tax levels.
Q. What is Bush's policy on spending? What is McCain's policy on spending?
A. Ramp up spending to the highest levels ever, and keep it there.
Q. What is Bush's policy on Healthcare? What is McCain's policy on Healthcare?
A. Let the market take care of it.
Notice how the answer to the question "What is Bush's policy on _______?" and the answer to "What is McCain's policy on _______?" are EXACTLY THE SAME?
I find it disturbing that the partisan rhetoric about Democrats being the "expand big government party" you promote with your belief that it is Obama ALONE who wants to add spending through new government programs is still believed. After the Bush administration, and the expansion of both government and spending on levels previously unheard of...I think that belief should have died. With McCain campaigning on a platform of "continue everything Bush started" it seems there is REAL WORLD reasons for believing it is McCain, rather than Obama, who is more likely to expand government programs and spending. That he would expand programs which are not the same as Obama does not mean he will expand LESS than Obama.
June 12, 2008
10:20 AM
jay writes:
phantom refused to answer the question because, "This has nothing to do with Bush... so, I'm disregarding your inclusion of Bush to the conversation."
wrong.
mccain's major policy stances are not strategically different than bush's.
thus...a vote for mccain is a vote for a third bush term.
so...you say that mccain is going to get your vote.
again i ask...what bush accomplishments warrant a continuation of his policies under mccain?
phantom...a piece of advice...you should probably come up with an answer to this question as it will be the major one before the electorate come november.
June 12, 2008
10:21 AM
Phantom writes:
JW,
Thanks for spelling it out. I agree with Bush and I agree with McCain on all but one point you spelled out in your last post.
"Ramp up spending to the highest levels ever, and keep it there." this statement is obviously incorrect.. we've had much higher spending levels in the past.
McCain is the lesser of two evils.
June 12, 2008
10:33 AM
Tbone writes:
Actually, phantom, spending currently is at its highest in history.
CAn you back up the claim that we've had "much higher spending levels in the past"?
The size and scope of federal gov't has ballooned at a rate unforseen under the bush "administration". In other words, it is growing faster than at any previous time in the history of our country.
In fact, more gov't jobs have been created in the last 8 years than private sector jobs.
You seem to genuinely be concerned with higher gov't spending and the size of govt. McSame will continue the bush policies of expanding size and scope of gov't.
So why would you vote for him?
You seem more like a Bob Barr kinda guy to me.
June 12, 2008
10:43 AM
JW writes:
""Ramp up spending to the highest levels ever, and keep it there." this statement is obviously incorrect.. we've had much higher spending levels in the past. "
Obviously incorrect based on what? Data? Or your belief that Republicans spend less than Democrats?
Because the DATA says otherwise.
June 12, 2008
10:48 AM
JW writes:
"McCain is the lesser of two evils."
BTW, Im confused why you keep saying this. If you agree with Bush and McSame, what is "evil" about them? McCain isnt the lesser of two evils for you, because you agree with the man.
Nitpicking, but its this kind of reliance on "catch phrases" that perpetuates people just "believing" the things they say, rather than checking to see if they are correct by looking at the relevant data.
June 12, 2008
11:12 AM
Phantom writes:
Jay (respectfully answering your question) "again i ask...what bush accomplishments warrant a continuation of his policies under mccain?"
-tax cuts
-held off some of the enviro crazyness that needs to be further researched.
-low unemployment. even 5.5% isn't that bad
-Not a whole lot else... I can't say I'm proud of Bush's accomplishments
Bush was far from perfect in his 8 years. Though he's still better than Gore would have been. I did vote Kerry in the last election. I will vote McCain in the next election as he is a stronger candidate than Obama.
reasons to vote for McCain
-keep tax cuts
-national security stronger than Obama's
-health care (market solution vs. Government)
-stronger w/ Iran
-energy (less intrusive than Obama)
-finish what we started with Iraq (for right or wrong, we should allow our troops to be successful... I'd be okay with another 4 years of Republican leadership)
reasons not to vote for Obama
-taxes, mine would go up
-national security (flimsier than McCain)
-health care, not interested in fixing this via government programs... we've seen how these age.
-Iran, too inexperienced with global issues... see Jimmy Carter history.
-energy, cap and trade is not the answer (I'm hoping McCain changes his stance, I know Obama won't)
-Iraq, we're not ready to pull out of Iraq... see Vietnam history. We were close to defeating them and should have finished what we started.
June 12, 2008
11:45 AM
Phantom writes:
Folks, ultimately party trumps person. I don't stand behind the beliefs and values of the Dems.
T-Bone, you're right Bob Barr or Ron Paul would be closer to ideal. Unfortunately, a vote for either of those two candidates wouldn't matter as neither of them can win.
You're all entitled to your opinions.
Evils of Bush:
Bush obviously cannot control spending. McCain... yet to be seen if he could control his spending. Ideally, we'd cut pork out of the federal budget... but what are the odds of that? I'm not fond that we found our way to the Iraq war, but I believe we should simply finish what we started there now that we are there.
There is no doubt Bush has trouble with his spending. This is above all else my largest hangup with Bush.
Those that vote for Obama are voting for more love from the government. The governments role is not to provide love to the people. I'm all for less government involvement. The government should stay out of social programs such as medicare, medicaid, social security, future healthcare programs, etc. Government simply isn't good at providing large scale programs in an effective, efficient manner.
My values follow McCain...
June 12, 2008
12:19 PM
JW writes:
"reasons not to vote for Obama
-taxes, mine would go up"
Really? You make over $237,000 a year? Damn. Did you see the table I put out yesterday? You know, the one with the McCain vs Obama tax plans by income level?
If you make between $237,000-and $600,000 your taxes will go up $12 dollars under Obama's plan. Over that amount, the tax increases get significant.
If you dont make more than that, you actually get a BIGGER tax cut under Obama.
See what I mean about "I believe" vs "I checked the data so I KNOW".
"Folks, ultimately party trumps person. I don't stand behind the beliefs and values of the Dems."
Ugh. You didnt notice when the Dems became the party of fiscal conservatism then.
No disrespect, but people like you are fools. Do you hire people that way? Or do you look at the idividuals skills? Why the hell would you vote to fill the most difficult position on earth a different way?
June 12, 2008
12:25 PM
JW writes:
"Ideally, we'd cut pork out of the federal budget... but what are the odds of that? "
Here is another "I believe" rather than "Know" statement.
How much "pork" spending was there last year big guy?
You dont know. You heard McSame say "Ill cut pork and save us money!" and that was enough for you!
Answer;$18 billion TOTAL. You think thats a significant cut in terms of government spending?
"Those that vote for Obama are voting for more love from the government."
Stop, just stop. Youre really going to piss me off with this bullshit. You are a "any Republican will do" kind of guy. Fine. But dont LIE about Obama ok? Dont bs us as if we dont actually KNOW the difference between the two. We dont just "Believe" here. We arent "party trumps person" here. We have looked at the policies, we have run the numbers...we KNOW that McSame represents higher levels of spending than Obama does. Yes, Obama will spend more on social programs, but the AGREGATE numbers are lower for Obama...including the debt. No more lying, no, not even if you dont "Know" youre lying because you CHOSE to remain ignorant.
June 12, 2008
12:45 PM
jay writes:
at least phantom is pretty up front that he/she can't make the case to vote for republicans based on policy stances...but will rather make that decision based upon emotions...rather than facts.
however frustrating it may be to learn this about someone who is actually going to vote this fall...at least you're more honest than some of the other right wing posters here.
June 12, 2008
1:07 PM
Phantom writes:
JW,
Yes, I saw your table. Why is it better to keep pushing the taxation to the highest earners in America? If they are paying the majority of the tax burden... what happens when they leave? It's risky to continue pushing the tax burden upward. Morally, it's not right... increasing the number of net tax recievers, while decreasing the number of contributors is a losing formula in the long run. Why should this tax burden be placed on so few?
Pork is just pork... annoying. Both parties get in trouble over this stuff. They can't help but kick money back to their buds.
Why are you so tight with Obama? I understand he's the cool candidate... the popular one... the one that stands for "hope" and "change." Specifically, what top 3 issues is it that you like about Obama that makes him so special?
June 12, 2008
1:14 PM
Phantom writes:
Jay,
Please answer my question that I posed to JW.
Specifically, what top 3 issues is it that you like about Obama that makes him so special?
June 12, 2008
1:28 PM
jay writes:
i'm not different than the majority of americans in that i don't want bush's policies continued under mccain, phantom.
obama is not my ideal candidate, but I prefer his stances on iraq, healthcare and the economy over bush/mccain's. i agree with the majority of americans that we need to redeploy our troops in iraq to better combat those in the middle east who actually pose a threat to the US and who actually had something to do with 9/11. I agree with the majority of americans that we need to move towards a universal heathcare system; adopting some of the best practices of our global peers who are doing healthcare better and cheaper than we are. I agree with the majority of americans that we need to discontinue the fiscal policies that have given us record debt and record poverty. speaking of...you did know that the republicans actively shifted a portion of the tax burden from the upper to the middle class right?
it's not hard to determine that the last 8 years of policies have been bad for the country....why would you want to continue failed policies?
June 12, 2008
1:36 PM
JW writes:
Phantom,
So, do you make more than $600k a year, or were you lying about having your taxes raised by Obama?
"Yes, I saw your table. Why is it better to keep pushing the taxation to the highest earners in America? If they are paying the majority of the tax burden... what happens when they leave? It's risky to continue pushing the tax burden upward. Morally, it's not right... increasing the number of net tax recievers, while decreasing the number of contributors is a losing formula in the long run. Why should this tax burden be placed on so few?"
Rhetoric. Sometimes it is a problem to push it that way, sometimes it is not. Obama's tax increase on the rich will get us back to Clinton/Bush1 levels. As we see from history, those levels do not trigger a "mass exodus" of the rich, they did not hurt the economy, they are not socialism.
What I find extremely confusing is that "any Republican will do" people like yourself can understand that taxing the rich in an attempt to redistribute wealth to the poor can lead to a problem. What I do not understand is that you have no ability to understand the opposite; that pushing money up by giving the rich disproportionate tax breaks equally bad.
"Pork is just pork... annoying. Both parties get in trouble over this stuff. They can't help but kick money back to their buds. "
Here is another "I believe" statement. Give me the top three "pork" grants from last year that were wasteful. Give me the top three from the year before that, and the year before that.
You cant. You dont know whether that pork was "wasteful" or not. You heard McCain say it, and other Republicans in the past, and you "believe" it.
Pork, like every other type of government spending, can be good or bad. Some projects are good. As McSame had to admit, the economic aid we give Israel is pork. Good? Or bad? He said he would continue it. He stood in front of a ferry in a small town in the south and proclaimed it "good" because it keept the town going economically. Ironic, since that ferry was the product of "pork" spending.
"Why are you so tight with Obama? I understand he's the cool candidate... the popular one... the one that stands for "hope" and "change." Specifically, what top 3 issues is it that you like about Obama that makes him so special?"
I was actually a Hillary supporter, as I considered her the better candidate.
Top 3;
Economic. Im not satisfied with his tax plan, as it will result in more debt (though less than McSame's). Its better than McSame's though. The fact is many of our current problems can be laid at the feet of our debt, and the resulting weakness of the dollar. This needs to be addressed, something McSame has flatly REFUSED to deal with.
Iraq; It costs too much. I dont like the idea of pulling out, but it costs too much. Perhaps the Iraqis are ready to take over, and we can get by with keeping advisors there. It appears that may be the case. While I dont have a problem with the fact that we went in (my reasons for supporting the war had nothing to do with the bs reasons given by the Bush admin, so the fact that they have now been confirmed as lies does not change my opinion). My reasons for wanting to get out now stem from spending, pure and simple. I find it horrifically tragic that the golden opportunity we had with Iraq was mishandled so badly by a few overly confident ideologs, but that is what happened, and Im tired of paying for it, or not paying for it and puting it on the credit card as it stands now.
Energy; This needs to be dealt with. This is the biggest national security risk we face today. If we lack energy, we are well and truely fucked. We need to develop our own source of renewable energy, PERIOD. You may dislike the government pushing this sector. You may feel that it would be better served by letting the free market deal with it. I believe we are seeing that now, and I am with you in my conficence regarding the free market. However, this issue is so pivotal that like defense, I dont believe we can leave it to the free market, and I believe that this is spending that will pay off BIG in the near future. This issue is too complicated to be a "Know" and does require some "Belief".
And Ill give you a fourth;
Healthcare. If you want to know WHY, go check out the frontline "sick around the world". There are several methods for dealing with the cost of healthcare that do not require any "Socialism" whatsoever. The free market, in this instance, has failed due to over regulation by the government and idiotic administration. Unfortunatley, its going to require government fixing its problems that contribute to healthcare issues first. "Do nothing" as Bush has done for the last 8 years, and McSame will continue doing is not an option.
I will say that this particular issue is one that McSame MIGHT be ok on. The main problem I have is that his statements regarding healthcare, while speaking to the issues I just laid out, sound like campaign fodder and little more, just like Bush's "Tort Reform".
Still, it is the other three that really have me voting Obama. Hes not perfect, I would have prefered Hillary. Perhaps she will be the vp.
And dont go off on Hillary character issues. They all have them. I dont want to have to point out Reagans national tv lying in response to some idiotic diatribe about Clinton's.
June 12, 2008
4:24 PM
Phantom writes:
Jay, Thank you for your respectful, non-scarcastic response (without puting me down). This divisive talk frustrates me and doesn't help either of our causes. Ultimately, I want to understand where you and JW are coming from. I respect your positions. You seem like good people wanting the best for our country... like you, I want the same. Unfortunately, these two candidates represent 100's or 1000's of opinions and values that directly conflict with each other. Surely, we both have beliefs on either candidates side. So, to me, it's a matter of sorting out the big issues.
Both McCain and Obama are neither my ideal candidate. So, defending every position either of them take is not realistic. I appreciate your interaction on these matters as I feel it's beneficial specifically for myself as well as anyone else that reads this post.
I personally don't believe universal healthcare is the answer as it seems we will get a reduced level of service from healthcare. Healthcare annoys me because there are so many people that don't take care of themselves, get all fat, sick and diseased then burden the "system" to fix them without repaying because they believe it should be free... or whatever reason... maybe they can't pay. Yes, it's horribly broken. Agreed.
I do worry that Obama's "hope" and "change" will not neccessariliy be for the better when it comes to Bush's 8 years and the thought of another 4 with McCain.
JW, Thanks for calming it a bit. You're doing everyone who reads this post a huge service by avoiding the putdowns. If I'm out of line, I'm fine with you pointing it out, but insulting me for my point of view isn't helping.
My wife and I are above the 237k spot... those around me are loving their rebates, but yet I didn't get one. Wah right? Not a huge deal, but whatever, annoying... sure, Bush had some hand in that too. My wife and I have done what I feel to be a good bit of schooling (she has a doctorate, I have a masters) to make a decent life for ourselves. It frustrates me that so many don't contribute to the system. Wah right? So, your position that Democrats are the new fiscal conservatives is interesting, though, I believe Bush is a terrible representative for the Republican party. To further Obama's point, he should talk about his parties fiscal conservativism being superior to McCain's. This would get my attention and the attention of many others... not that Obama should have too much trouble winning this election.
"Rhetoric. Sometimes it is a problem to push it that way, sometimes it is not. Obama's tax increase on the rich will get us back to Clinton/Bush1 levels. As we see from history, those levels do not trigger a "mass exodus" of the rich, they did not hurt the economy, they are not socialism."
Exactly the kind of information that is helping your point. I have some homework to do. You're driving me to figure this out for myself and I appreciate your honest views and feedback. Yes, socialism is a concern of mine, remember... I fall closer to Libertarian lines, so I don't feel there is a great match for me when I have to choose between McCain and Obama.
I do think we need to be careful pushing taxes upward to the uber-wealthy. I would LOVE a consumption based tax. It would simplify so much of the bs that continues to convolute our current taxation system. --different topic
Pork. You're right. I'm not well versed in pork. I don't like government meddling. Top 3 pork spending projects. Don't care. Don't redistribute our countries wealth based upon political favors. Have a "natural disaster" fund for stuff if we must... But come one people, move out of the 9th Ward in New Orleans. Someone needs to stand up and condemn that portion of the city.
Tax breaks for the rich. I don't like consistently scooting the taxes further upward. This goes back to my belief that a consumption based tax would be better. Those that are extravagant would be taxed. Those that are careful with their resources would be rewarded. Same amount of tax revenue, just angled a little bit different that would hit those that are especially flashy. If anything, this would be a great social engineering project.
In all reality JW/Jay, I just started paying attention in January of 2008. I find politics more interesting than I did in the past. You're helping me form my political views by fielding my questions and poking holes in my arguments. I'm doing my best to poke holes in yours. You understanding me, and me understanding you is a good thing. This polarizing, divisive politics between the D's and the R's is very frustrating for all involved. Each side needs to take a deep breath...
Holy smokes your take on Iraq is quite similar to mine. Democrats need to be very clear that they are not abandoning Iraq and that all we have worked for so hard will be lost. Let's not waste the money that was already spent just to make a point that Bush is an idiot. If we have to spend another 10-15% of the total cost, fine. But let's not drag this out forever. I get the impression that Obama will pull out too fast, that's why I'm more on the McCain side. Unfortunately, I haven't found a balanced medium that truly lays out all of these items, so we're left with opinions from the past, pulling tiny morsels of information about each candidate from here and there.
All in all, I can see we're on a similar page.
-government spending needs to be kept in check. I like you, hate debt. Our government is too wasteful with our tax money. Less government would be my answer, Bush has failed here.
-health care, something needs to be done (but keep spending in check, my hate for large government is very skeptical of this)
-energy, you're absolutely right JW, we lose our energy, we're in a world of hurt. Though pursuing renewable energies too aggressively will hurt our economy. But yes, we need to pursue renewable and/or cleaner methods of energy. I don't buy into the CO2 is causing all our problems with our environment (i.e. global warming), I will agree that pollution is a problem and we should be conscious about being cleaner.
You're right, we're all human including Obama, Hilary and McCain. Each of us are simply trying to get through life the best that we know how.
It's the far left dems that I have the hardest time with. Their theatrics annoy me... so I find myself coming back to thoughts about hope and change for the Republican party. Is Obama the answer? You both gave me some stuff to look further into. Thank you.
June 12, 2008
5:06 PM
JW writes:
" personally don't believe universal healthcare is the answer as it seems we will get a reduced level of service from healthcare. Healthcare annoys me because there are so many people that don't take care of themselves, get all fat, sick and diseased then burden the "system" to fix them without repaying because they believe it should be free... or whatever reason... maybe they can't pay. Yes, it's horribly broken. Agreed."
Universal healthcare is a funny thing. If you look at the data, some of the things that get said about it tend to fall apart. That said, you dont have to worry about it anytime soon in this country. Hillary's first try was a resounding failure. Why? Because, people didnt support it when it was called "Hillary Care". Funny though, when you just laid out the policies, and said "do you want us to do this?" without calling it Hillary care...People SUPPORTED it in the upper 60% range. Point? Anyone who tries for anything even resembling "universal healthcare" will just get subverted by talking heads. Even if people wanted it, the misinformation would be so thick it would never happen. This is why Hillary's proposals this time around were nowhere near universal healthcare...and neither are Obama's.
"I do worry that Obama's "hope" and "change" will not neccessariliy be for the better when it comes to Bush's 8 years and the thought of another 4 with McCain."
I wonder if this is just fear of change. Its natural, its why many things that are obviously not as good as they could be stay the same...including tax systems...
Like you, Im in favor of a consumption based tax system, specifically the fair tax. Im in favor of it for a host of reasons. Here are a few; our current system costs a third of the revenue it generates just to file. Bring in 9 billion in taxes? I just cost people 3 billion to file them. Corporate taxes are the greatest sham ever devised to tax a nation. Corporations dont pay taxes. They just put them into cost of the product.
"So, your position that Democrats are the new fiscal conservatives is interesting, though, I believe Bush is a terrible representative for the Republican party. To further Obama's point, he should talk about his parties fiscal conservativism being superior to McCain's. This would get my attention and the attention of many others... not that Obama should have too much trouble winning this election."
Greenspan calls Clinton the "Best Republican President I ever served under." These include Reagan, Bush 1, Bush 2, Ford, and Nixon. This is because Clinton was a fiscal conservative for real, and a social liberal. As a libertarian Republican, it was right up Greenspan's alley. Im a fiscal conservative, social liberal, so I loved the guy. Ballanced budget, paying down debt. Tax break when he could. SMART tax breaks like the continuing education one.
Obama is perhaps a bit less conservative, but compared to Bush, hes a fiscal conservative, period. Yea, Bush understood the keep taxes low thing, he just didnt have a clue about keeping spending low. The strength of the dollar? Yea, thats the result. It gona hurt, but we have to raise taxes to pay down some debt. If you dont want to have to do that, dont elect people that run up debt because you get a few years of tax breaks. And that is coming from someone who is in an EMBA program right now, and will graduate in August of 09. I'll vote for Obama anyway, because unless I snag a job for over 600k, the difference between him and McSame in terms of the taxes I will pay is nada, or in my favor to have Obama.
"Tax breaks for the rich. I don't like consistently scooting the taxes further upward."
But again, scooting them down is no better. Think about this; the argument against taxing the rich is that they invest, they create wealth. And its true. But...if you skew the tax system to allow too much concentration of wealth at the top...who's gona consume? Balance baby. Its all about balance.
"I get the impression that Obama will pull out too fast, that's why I'm more on the McCain side."
I dont think hes up for unilateral complete pull out. Hes going to leave at minimum 60k over there, for specific terrorist attacks, and consultation. It will cost way less, but I agree we cant just cut and run.
"Though pursuing renewable energies too aggressively will hurt our economy."
This is the typical gripe about government funding of renewable research. Think about this...why is it we can spend 3/4ths of a TRILLION dollars on war, but if we fund renewable research at $100 billion people will freak out? What do you think we would be looking at if we had spent all that 3/4ths of a trillion on renewables? We might be having the same problems with our fiscal position as we currently are...but instead of a quagmire that will continue to bleed us...we would have product to sell the world! And yes, I think if we spent 3/4ths of a trillion we would have developed something.
Now, do I think that Obama will just spend like a drunken sailor on renewable development? No. It will be fiscally sound. Hes not going to destroy our economy in the hunt for the golden goose like GW has.
"It's the far left dems that I have the hardest time with. "
Im the opposite. Far left Dems dont know what they are talking about on economic matters, but at least socially they dont want to regulate my behavior as much as the constitution will allow. I dont think the founders put the constitution together as a "hey, regulate EVERYTHING but these few things" kind of document. But that is precisely what social conservatives want. They, to me, are worse than the far left because while they understand economic decisions have to be made with as little restriction as possible, for some reason they think in the social realm, everyone should be forced to behave in ways social conservatives find acceptable. That's not my definition of freedom baby!
Anyway, I like talking to people on the right like you. I dont need you to just agree with me on everything. Good discussion is fine.
People like the wingnut extraordinares Shaggy and Hogar? They arent up for debate. They just want to pound social conservatism and Republican politicians REGARDLESS of ANYTHING.
June 12, 2008
5:59 PM
Phantom writes:
That was refreshing! Thank you JW.
"But again, scooting them down is no better. Think about this; the argument against taxing the rich is that they invest, they create wealth. And its true. But...if you skew the tax system to allow too much concentration of wealth at the top...who's gona consume? Balance baby. Its all about balance."
Another interesting point I hadn't really considered... Who is going to consume when the wealthy have all (or most of) the money? Huh... Going back to the myth that wealthy people blow money like crazy, you seem to be on to something. The true wealthy don't spend all that much money. That means there would be a HELL of a consumption tax on goods and services.
"Like you, Im in favor of a consumption based tax system, specifically the fair tax. Im in favor of it for a host of reasons. Here are a few; our current system costs a third of the revenue it generates just to file. Bring in 9 billion in taxes? I just cost people 3 billion to file them. Corporate taxes are the greatest sham ever devised to tax a nation. Corporations dont pay taxes. They just put them into cost of the product."
The cost of doing taxes is incredible, which is why I'd like something simpler as well. I'm not sure you can get around the Corporations building their taxes into the cost of the product. Like this whole oil companies are making too much money, we should assess them a windfall tax. That's the stupidest thing I've heard as it will roll right back to the consumer. But this was a Democrat idea! A windfall tax for the oil companies?... -1 point Democrats.
"I dont think hes up for unilateral complete pull out. Hes going to leave at minimum 60k over there, for specific terrorist attacks, and consultation. It will cost way less, but I agree we cant just cut and run. "
I sure hope that's the case as the odds are good that Obama will be the guy in the big chair. The divisive slander from both sides makes me think that the Dems would pull out to prove some sort of point... I'm repeating myself though.
"This is the typical gripe about government funding of renewable research. Think about this...why is it we can spend 3/4ths of a TRILLION dollars on war, but if we fund renewable research at $100 billion people will freak out? What do you think we would be looking at if we had spent all that 3/4ths of a trillion on renewables? We might be having the same problems with our fiscal position as we currently are...but instead of a quagmire that will continue to bleed us...we would have product to sell the world! And yes, I think if we spent 3/4ths of a trillion we would have developed something. "
Do you think cap and trade is a boondogle? One that would bring considerable taxation to our nation and extreme power hungry corruption by government?
I don't like the argument that we need to burn less oil because of the environment. Yes oil spills are bad, yes pollution is bad, but guess what... China and India are going to be burning every drop of oil we don't buy. I'm all for finding some sort of alternate source of fuel, but I don't want to tax our way there. Sure... we need to invest in alternatives, agreed.
I was brought up a social issues conservative, but have adopted a more liberal tolerance for social issues. Abortion... doesn't matter, I'm married now. But guess what, when I was single, abortion was a nice option theoretically. I think the legalization of drugs would be a good thing because it would take power away from the drug lords. Alcohol for those under 21 would be fine. We'd have a rough decade or so while every kid went out and got hammered a good amount and acted dumb, but the rest of the world has proven that it doesn't need to be such a big deal. Religion? Whatever... just don't go killing folks or spouting threats.
I guess I understand the far right as I was raised closer to them... I don't understand the far left as like you said they don't understand economic matters (I find this highly annoying). Church folk piss me off many times because they don't understand economic matters either. God isn't neccessarily going to fix your cancer of the wallet.
All good JW...