A Welfare State

[utrunner07]

Obama proposes $1,000 hand out to all becuase gas costs more....

HEY OBAMA HOW ABOUT YOU CALL FOR DRILLING INSTEAD OF TRYING TO MAKE PEOPLE MORE DEPENDENT ON THE GOVERNMENT....YOU COMMIE!!!

This man is disgusting...liar, economic idiot, and mass manipulator....

Basically what we have here is Obama saying "If you vote for me I will give you $1,000 dollars!!!"...

Pathetic...willing to ruin the country just see he can be President...

Ok...done ranting...for now ;)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080801/ap_on_el_pr/obama_55

[utrunner07]

By MIKE GLOVER, Associated Press Writer Fri Aug 1, 11:01 AM ET

ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Friday called for a $1,000 "emergency" rebate to consumers to offset soaring energy costs amid fresh signs of a struggling economy with the nation's unemployment rate climbing to a four-year high.
ADVERTISEMENT

Obama told a town-hall meeting the rebate would be financed with a windfall profits tax on the oil industry.

"This rebate will be enough to offset the increased cost of gas for a working family over the next four months," Obama said in the crucial swing state of Florida.

Obama had earlier said the rebates should be part of a larger tax relief package. But now he says the slumping economy demands they be put in place immediately.

Obama's remarks coincide with news that the unemployment rate climbed to a four-year high of 5.7 percent in July as employers cut 51,000 jobs, dashing the hopes of an influx of young people looking for summer work. Payroll cuts weren't as deep as the 72,000 predicted by economists, however. And, job losses for both May and June were smaller than previously reported.

July's reductions marked the seventh straight month where employers eliminated jobs. The economy has lost a total of 463,00 jobs so far this year.

"We can either choose a new direction for our economy, or we can keep doing what we've been doing," Obama said.

During his speech, Obama was interrupted by three men who stood up with a banner asking, "What about the black community, Obama?" Many in the crowd began chanting, "Yes, we can," the Obama campaign mantra to counter the criticism.

Obama told the three that they would have a chance to ask questions after he had his opportunity to speak. A town-hall organizer later took the banner from the three.

During the question-and-answer period, Obama called on one of the men who held the banner, who chastised the candidate for not speaking out more about predatory lending and its impact on the black community, Hurricane Katrina's destruction and the fatal shooting of an unarmed man on his wedding day in New York.

Obama defended his record, saying he had spoken out on all those issues. "I may not have spoken out the way you want me to speak out," he said. And as the crowd stood and applauded, Obama stressed the need to be respectful, saying, "the only way to solve the problems in this country is if we all come together — black and white ..."

[BrAinPaiNt]

I don't get it.

I didn't get it with W sending out checks and I don't get it with Obama wanting to send out checks.

I understand one got it from one place in order to stimulate the economy. I understand the other wants to get it from another place to help with gas and bills.

Either way I just don't get either doing it really doing much other than government spending more money.

However with all of that said...If they send it, I will spend it because this po hillbilly has bills to pay.:laugh2:

[utrunner07]

"the rebate would be financed with a windfall profits tax on the oil industry."

This is the definition of socialism/communism....everyone understands this right?

He is forcing the oil cooperations (which is the people to begin with) to redistribute their wealth!!!! How can anyone even think to vote for this man to be President of the United States of America?????????????

It boggles my mind.....he is an outright socialist!

[ninja]

As long as they don't raise taxes or just print more money, the more money in the taxpayer hands and less in the government's hands is a good thing.

But, I'm sure Obama has many things up his sleeve. Obama is a lying idiot. I don't trust him at all.

[utrunner07]

As long as they don't raise taxes or just print more money, the more money in the taxpayer hands and less in the government's hands is a good thing.

But, I'm sure Obama has many things up his sleeve. Obama is a lying idiot. I don't trust him at all.

Ok, well you make too much money and your neighbor can't pay his cell phone bill which he has to have so he can communicate. So the government is just going to take 10% of your pay check and give it to your neighbor so he can pay his cell phone bill....its the exact same thing.

Just because the government does not take ownership of the money, does not make it ok.

[junk]

"the rebate would be financed with a windfall profits tax on the oil industry."

This is the definition of socialism/communism....everyone understands this right?

He is forcing the oil cooperations (which is the people to begin with) to redistribute their wealth!!!! How can anyone even think to vote for this man to be President of the United States of America?????????????

It boggles my mind.....he is an outright socialist!

Good question. You could say the same about McCain though. Pretty dreary outlook for us as a country though.

However, this country was dumb enough to elect W. twice, so who knows what goes through the mind of the voting public.

[utrunner07]

Good question. You could say the same about McCain though. Pretty dreary outlook for us as a country though.

However, this country was dumb enough to elect W. twice, so who knows what goes through the mind of the voting public.

Look, I don't care especially for McCain, as he is just the lesser of two evils...and there is plenty that you can say about him that is true...but in no way could you say he is a socialist....

American's should be outraged at this proposal by Obama...but most are blinded by their hatred for big oil (misplaced to begin with) or are too dumb to understand what is going on (not talking about anyone on here, more the idiots that will vote for Obama just becuase he will give them $1,000, well, I don't think thats anyone on here :)).

[zrinkill]

Difference is that Bush was giving us our money back ...... Obama wants oil companies to pay this Bill.

[utrunner07]

Difference is that Bush was giving us our money back ...... Obama wants oil companies to pay this Bill.

Hmmm...good point and good way of putting it...

[AbeBeta]

Difference is that Bush was giving us our money back ...... Obama wants oil companies to pay this Bill.

with their windfall... pretty much the same thing

[AbeBeta]

Hmmm...good point and good way of putting it...

not if you drive a car it isn't

[utrunner07]

not if you drive a car it isn't


Ok abersonc...you make too much money...way more than you really need (how do I know, I just do) while there is a man across town that makes less money and can't pay his electricity bill (sad day)...so since you make too much money I am going to take 15% of your pay check and just give it to him so he can sit in air conditioning...

what, you don't like that? you are going to refuse? ok you are going to jail....and if you refuse I am just going to send in some military support to escort you there. then I will take all of your money and give it away as I see fit, becuase I do know best.


don't be tricked just because you wan't the $1,000, this is one of the most dangerous ideas that has ever come out of an American politician's mouth.

[AbeBeta]

Ok abersonc...you make too much money...way more than you really need (how do I know, I just do) while there is a man across town that makes less money and can't pay his electricity bill (sad day)...so since you make too much money I am going to take 15% of your pay check and just give it to him so he can sit in air conditioning...

what, you don't like that? you are going to refuse? ok you are going to jail....and if you refuse I am just going to send in some military support to escort you there. then I will take all of your money and give it away as I see fit, becuase I do know best.


don't be tricked just because you wan't the $1,000, this is one of the most dangerous ideas that has ever come out of an American politician's mouth.

What in the hell are you talking about? I really want you to have that $1,000 for rehab b/c you are clearly on crack.

Nearly everyone pays taxes -- we pay taxes in exchange for various services provided by the gov't - that was our money coming back to us.

Nearly everyone pays for petroleum products -- we again give our money over, in this case to pay for gas, etc. same deal with our money coming back to us.

In both cases, money we spent coming back to us.

And the only thing I am "ticked" about is the moronic spin folks lay on this vs. the equally idiotic tax rebates.

[BrAinPaiNt]

What in the hell are you talking about? I really want you to have that $1,000 for rehab b/c you are clearly on crack.

Nearly everyone pays taxes -- we pay taxes in exchange for various services provided by the gov't - that was our money coming back to us.

Nearly everyone pays for petroleum products -- we again give our money over, in this case to pay for gas, etc. same deal with our money coming back to us.

In both cases, money we spent coming back to us.

And the only thing I am "ticked" about is the moronic spin folks lay on this vs. the equally idiotic tax rebates.

It's kind of funny.

Because I made that post of not getting either of them sending out checks (bush or obama).

To which the poster you quoted initially agreed with.

Only to see another persons post and realize that his take was better I guess so he deleted his agreeing with me post.:laugh2:

[AbeBeta]

It's kind of funny.

Because I made that post of not getting either of them sending out checks (bush or obama).

To which the poster you quoted initially agreed with.

Only to see another persons post and realize that his take was better I guess so he deleted his agreeing with me post.:laugh2:

Nice. Very nice.

[utrunner07]

What in the hell are you talking about.

Nearly everyone pays taxes -- we pay taxes in exchange for various services provided by the gov't - that was our money coming back to us.

Nearly everyone pays for petroleum products -- we again give our money over, in this case to pay for gas, etc. same deal with our money coming back to us.

In both cases, money we spent coming back to us.

And the only thing I am "ticked" about is the moronic spin folks lay on this vs. the equally idiotic tax rebates.

I have no idea what you are even talking about. This has nothing to do with taxes or paying for petroleum products, AT ALL.

I have seen your posts in the past, I know you are smart enough to understand this....

When the government decides that the oil companies are making too much money (an erroneous decision to begin with) and decides to redistribute that wealth, that is communism.

If Obama wants to cut Oil Co. Tax rebates fine, (again it is the wrong decision and just playing to the average citizen's stupidity) but this is taking their profit away....not that hard to understand.

[utrunner07]

It's kind of funny.

Because I made that post of not getting either of them sending out checks (bush or obama).

To which the poster you quoted initially agreed with.

Only to see another persons post and realize that his take was better I guess so he deleted his agreeing with me post.:laugh2:


I do agree with you to an extent, but by just saying I agree I don't think that come off so I deleted it.

I am not sure the Bush tax rebates were a good idea, like you said....that is what I agreed with.

BUT, there is a MASSIVE difference between what Bush did and what Obama is proposing and the latter half of your statement did not say that so when I re-read your post I deleted the "agree..." becuase I was not sure what you were saying.

[ninja]

If Obama thinks he is going to take Big Oil's profits and give it to the American people, he is certifiably nuts. Welcome to long lines and shortages and higher gas prices.

[AbeBeta]

I have no idea what you are even talking about. This has nothing to do with taxes or paying for petroleum products, AT ALL.

I have seen your posts in the past, I know you are smart enough to understand this....

When the government decides that the oil companies are making too much money (an erroneous decision to begin with) and decides to redistribute that wealth, that is communism.

If Obama wants to cut Oil Co. Tax rebates fine, (again it is the wrong decision and just playing to the average citizen's stupidity) but this is taking their profit away....not that hard to understand.

Oil companies taxed on their profits. Who exactly is it that they are profiting off?

You can call that communism if you want. But why wouldn't you apply the same lens to a tax rebate of $600 -- someone who earns 200K a year pays far more in taxes than someone who earns 20k a year. Yet both of those people get a flat rate of $600 back. That is clearly a redistribution of wealth there too comrade.

[AbeBeta]

BUT, there is a MASSIVE difference between what Bush did and what Obama is proposing and the latter half of your statement did not say that so when I re-read your post I deleted the "agree..." becuase I was not sure what you were saying.

The massive difference being that this originated with a candidate who you don't like

[Doomsday101]

The big problem I have with it is Obama will stick it to the oil companies and the prices will reflex it as we are forced to pay the cost of their tax increase.

Both parties need to sit down and come up with a plan that will allow for off coast drilling bans to be lifted and incentives for business in developing alternative energy.

If not for all the hollering going on about the gas price the dems would be talking more about the carbon tax. The only reason they stopped talking about that is they want to get re-elected however I am concerned that should the Dems be in full control the carbon tax will soon follow.

[bbgun]

The only D I ever got was in Economics, so I will recuse myself from this thread.

[BrAinPaiNt]

I do agree with you to an extent, but by just saying I agree I don't think that come off so I deleted it.

I am not sure the Bush tax rebates were a good idea, like you said....that is what I agreed with.

BUT, there is a MASSIVE difference between what Bush did and what Obama is proposing and the latter half of your statement did not say that so when I re-read your post I deleted the "agree..." becuase I was not sure what you were saying.

I am saying I don't get either of their reasons for it. In other words I did not agree with either of their reasons for it.

However I will take it if they give me the check and I will spend it.:D

[AbeBeta]

The only D I ever got was in Economics, so I will recuse myself from this thread.

so that was your best course?

[utrunner07]

Oil companies taxed on their profits. Who exactly is it that they are profiting off?

You can call that communism if you want. But why wouldn't you apply the same lens to a tax rebate of $600 -- someone who earns 200K a year pays far more in taxes than someone who earns 20k a year. Yet both of those people get a flat rate of $600 back. That is clearly a redistribution of wealth there too comrade.

I see your point...I don't agree but I understand where you are coming from...

But my point in starting this thread was not to compare Obama and Bush...Bush, IMO, HAS mad mistakes, nothing we can do about that seeing as how he will not be running...so I don't really want to argue about his mistakes here

This is potentially a huge mistake if Obama were to actually enforce this policy, and we can do something to keep him from doing that.

[utrunner07]

I am saying I don't get either of their reasons for it. In other words I did not agree with either of their reasons for it.

However I will take it if they give me the check and I will spend it.:D

Ok, yes I agree...when Bush announced the rebates I thought it was a bad idea and would eventually lead to an even bigger problem....maybe it will maybe it wont...

I don't necessarily think its the same thing, and would have an easier time justify what Bush did...but maybe that is becuase I like him more than Obama...or maybe that is becuase Obama is a socialist and would be better off running for President in Russia or China :)

[BrAinPaiNt]

I see your point...not sure if I completely agree but I understand where you are coming from...

But my point in starting this thread was not to compare Obama and Bush...Bush, IMO, HAS mad mistakes, nothing we can do about that seeing as how he will not be running...so I don't really want to argue about his mistakes here

This is potentially a huge mistake if Obama were to actually enforce this policy, and we can do something to keep him from doing that.

Dude you shouldn't get worked up about it.

It will not happen.

Some deal will be worked out with big oil and the politicians and all will wind up being happy.

Big Oil has too much power and the greedy politicians know where to get the money from.

Just like not long ago McCain was against off shore drilling. Then he changed his mind. People said he changed his mind because he was flowing with the american people screaming for lower gas prices. However he also got around 3/4 of a million smackeroos donated to him from someone in oil...when they had previously only given him a fraction of that amount.
Conspiracy theory or not, it should be enough to make you go hmmm.

And as I mentioned above...Don't think Obama is above that. If he wins, you can bet there will be a change in what he is saying because I bet he winds up with a nice little deal worked out between himself and the oil lobbyists.

Then again...I am really jaded, but I would not be shocked if what I say would really happen.

Greed gets em every time.

[burmafrd]

Drilling for more oil is the right thing to do. The right thing gets done so little anymore that I am not complaining about how it comes about.

[theogt]

with their windfall... pretty much the same thingFunny. In a single quarter, Exxon spends about $97 billion. After tax, they take home $10 billion profit.

And that's a windfall?

But hey, I'm all for making it less profitable for drilling oil. That'll surely reduce gas prices.

[AbeBeta]

Funny. In a single quarter, Exxon spends about $97 billion. After tax, they take home $10 billion profit.

And that's a windfall?

But hey, I'm all for making it less profitable for drilling oil. That'll surely reduce gas prices.

OMG what will they do if the profit dips under 10 million a quarter, after taxes no less!!!!!!!

That's up what? 15% from last year. So let's not cry for Exxon.

[ZeroClub]

Good question. You could say the same about McCain though. Pretty dreary outlook for us as a country though.

However, this country was dumb enough to elect W. twice, so who knows what goes through the mind of the voting public.

This thought runs through my mind often.

[theogt]

OMG what will they do if the profit dips under 10 million a quarter, after taxes no less!!!!!!!

That's up what? 15% from last year. So let's not cry for Exxon.Let's not cry for them. But let's not be silly and call things what they're not -- a windfall.

[utrunner07]

OMG what will they do if the profit dips under 10 million a quarter, after taxes no less!!!!!!!

That's up what? 15% from last year. So let's not cry for Exxon.


If Exxon had made a 35% profit this year it is still not right for the government to come in and take it away....

[Maikeru-sama]

so that was your best course?

Ouch!

[Jordan55]

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IMAGES/cartoons/toon080408.gif

[ThaBigP]

with their windfall... pretty much the same thing

Nope, not the same thing. You do realize, don't you, that those "windfall" profits you and the media keep droning on about are taxable income? An article that headlines "Big oil companies rake in record windfall profits" could just as easily read "Government enjoys record tax receipts from oil company profits". It just depends on which way you want to point in the debate. So, now that the government has already collected it's share of tax from the oil company income, they then are to direct them to siphon more money off to send out to consumers in the form of $1000 payments? All of the costs of doing business, including taxes and any government-mandated spending, is conisdered in the price of the product. Take these "windfall" profits, for example... How much could the oil companies reduce their retail price to eliminate those profits and run their companies on a "break even" revenue stream? That figure is a little over 10 cents per gallon. How in the heck can you bring in billions of dollars in profit off a profit margin so low? Easy - you sell a shizznit ton of the stuff. It's called math. 10 cents adds up quick when you multiply it by a numbers so large as billions. So, if we were to eliminate the "windfall profits" from these oil companies you'd see a benefit at the pump of a little over 10 cents. The government, by the way, takes more for each gallon when you consider federal, state, and local taxes. But we never hear of government's "windfall profits". Only private business, who must CONVINCE customers to send them money by purchasing their product, are routinely villified by pop culture. The government, in contrast, merely passes a law and uses threat of force if you DO NOT hand over the money they demand. Think of all the tricks folks are doing to save on gas, like the Barak Obama Conprehensive Energy Independence Plan of inflating your tires and changing spark plugs - if the oil companies were government, doing so would be illegal. After all, try filing a tax return and sending along a little note explaining that, in these hard times, you've decided to cut back on the amount of money you're sending the IRS.

[ThaBigP]

Let me also add that yes, in lieu of simply having a lower taxrate, rebate checks are silly. After all, they cost money to print and administer the process, which just leeches money from the amount that never should/would have been taken in the first place.

[yeahyeah]

Difference is that Bush was giving us our money back ...... Obama wants oil companies to pay this Bill.

Bush was not giving us our money back...He got the money from sale of Treasury Bills. Just like every government does when it wants to create quick liquidity. It gets cash from the sale of promisory notes.
The funniest thing is this. He sold about 150 Billion dollars of T-Bills to who?
The Chinese....whose products we turn around and buy at your local Big Box mart. The Chinese currently own about 1.4 Trillion dollars worth of U.S. debt.

[burmafrd]

Interestingly enough that makes the Chinese a big investor in us and therefore have to consider any moves against us as not exactly in their best financial interest.

[Jordan55]

Good question. You could say the same about McCain though. Pretty dreary outlook for us as a country though.

However, this country was dumb enough to elect W. twice, so who knows what goes through the mind of the voting public.

You mean there were alternatives, someone worth voting for on the Democratic side, Gore or Kerry, Please!!!!!
Your joking Right!!!!
Pardon the pun, I meant the jokes have really been on the Left.:lmao:

[sacase]

The Democrats need to stop calling themselves democrats, they need to call themselves socialists, which is what they really are.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KN6s1KVFBNg

Maxine Waters on oil. I guarentee if Obama gets elected this will be happening.

[utrunner07]

The Democrats need to stop calling themselves democrats, they need to call themselves socialists, which is what they really are.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KN6s1KVFBNg

Maxine Waters on oil. I guarentee if Obama gets elected this will be happening.

What an idiot...it is truly sad that people like that get elected to the UNITED STATES CONGRESS! What a disgrace. I hope that Shell CEO just tore her a new one....no way does she belong in congress...

[yeahyeah]

Interestingly enough that makes the Chinese a big investor in us and therefore have to consider any moves against us as not exactly in their best financial interest.

Moves against us? We make our own moves against us with reference to China..its called a 500+ Billion dollar trade deficit and "most favored nation" trading status.
We cut our own throats..and you can get the knife at Wal-Mart for a new low low price.

[zrinkill]

Bush was not giving us our money back...He got the money from sale of Treasury Bills. Just like every government does when it wants to create quick liquidity. It gets cash from the sale of promisory notes.
The funniest thing is this. He sold about 150 Billion dollars of T-Bills to who?
The Chinese....whose products we turn around and buy at your local Big Box mart. The Chinese currently own about 1.4 Trillion dollars worth of U.S. debt.

Listen yeayea

If I loan you 10 dollars ..... and you spend that 10 dollars ..... you go and sell your pet dog for 20 dollars ..... when you give me that 10 dollars back its still my 10 dollars.

even if its not the original 10 dollars I gave to you.

[yeahyeah]

Listen yeayea

1) If I loan you 10 dollars ..... 2) and you spend that 10 dollars ..... 3) you go and sell your pet dog for 20 dollars ..... 4) when you give me that 10 dollars back its still my 10 dollars.

even if its not the original 10 dollars I gave to you.

1) China Purchases T-Bills

2) Durable good bought from Chinese manufacturers

3) What dog are we selling? China produces all of the "dogs" T.V., DVD, Computers, home appliances. Unless by dog you are referring to the 18 year old kid who just got hired at Best Buy for 6 bucks an hour.
4) We borrow 10 and give you back 30


You see, you cannot stimulate what you no longer have. A manufacturing base. We are a service based economy. The only thing we do is stimulate a service industry which will continue to grow regardless because there are no other avenues for the blue collar worker.
Instead of reforming unfair trade policies which help the American worker or holding China's feet to the fire on unfair trade practices (government subsidies to the manufacturing sector)
We simply create more debt which WILL have to be payed at a later time.
However that would require REAL leadership, guts, foresight and planning.
NONE of which Curious George has displayed during his tenure. This is a joke the same as Obama's plan is a JOKE. It doesnt touch the heart of the matter.
Just morphine for the cancer.

[DFWJC]

Difference is that Bush was giving us our money back ...... Obama wants oil companies to pay this Bill.

Gigantic difference...to the core fundamental difference there.

[AbeBeta]

Nope, not the same thing. You do realize, don't you, that those "windfall" profits you and the media keep droning on about are taxable income? An article that headlines "Big oil companies rake in record windfall profits" could just as easily read "Government enjoys record tax receipts from oil company profits". It just depends on which way you want to point in the debate. So, now that the government has already collected it's share of tax from the oil company income, they then are to direct them to siphon more money off to send out to consumers in the form of $1000 payments? All of the costs of doing business, including taxes and any government-mandated spending, is conisdered in the price of the product. Take these "windfall" profits, for example... How much could the oil companies reduce their retail price to eliminate those profits and run their companies on a "break even" revenue stream? That figure is a little over 10 cents per gallon. How in the heck can you bring in billions of dollars in profit off a profit margin so low? Easy - you sell a shizznit ton of the stuff. It's called math. 10 cents adds up quick when you multiply it by a numbers so large as billions. So, if we were to eliminate the "windfall profits" from these oil companies you'd see a benefit at the pump of a little over 10 cents. The government, by the way, takes more for each gallon when you consider federal, state, and local taxes. But we never hear of government's "windfall profits". Only private business, who must CONVINCE customers to send them money by purchasing their product, are routinely villified by pop culture. The government, in contrast, merely passes a law and uses threat of force if you DO NOT hand over the money they demand. Think of all the tricks folks are doing to save on gas, like the Barak Obama Conprehensive Energy Independence Plan of inflating your tires and changing spark plugs - if the oil companies were government, doing so would be illegal. After all, try filing a tax return and sending along a little note explaining that, in these hard times, you've decided to cut back on the amount of money you're sending the IRS.

Why do oil companies sell so much damn gas? Because the U.S. has supported efforts that lead to more consumption in a number of manners -- most prominently by being so far behind in fuel economy standards. The U.S. government has created a situation very favorable to oil companies. Even our new fuel economy goals (35 mpg in 2020) are very far behind other nations. The government has created, for whatever reason, a situation wherein more gas gets sold. Asking for some of those profits back is simple give and take.

But hey, you should put your money where your mouth is and refuse that rebate come 2009.

[ThaBigP]

Why do oil companies sell so much damn gas? Because the U.S. has supported efforts that lead to more consumption in a number of manners -- most prominently by being so far behind in fuel economy standards. The U.S. government has created a situation very favorable to oil companies. Even our new fuel economy goals (35 mpg in 2020) are very far behind other nations. The government has created, for whatever reason, a situation wherein more gas gets sold. Asking for some of those profits back is simple give and take.

But hey, you should put your money where your mouth is and refuse that rebate come 2009.

They sell so much gas because the human race demands so much gas. You're talking about a world-wide customer base that is on the order of billions. No institution or industry capable of supplying such a large amount of product to such a large number of customers with the product they want could be anything but as gargantuan. It all boils down to energy, and everybody wants it and is willing to pay to have somebody provide it. Even if you outlaw petrolium products tomorrow, whatever entity comes to replace it (solar, nuclear,you name it) will have to be...drumroll please....just as large, just as gargantuan. And they will rake in just as much profit. And the government would get just as gargantuan a cut. And we would all gargantuanly benefit as a result of the energy product and the economy it helps to run. Just like we do with oil. After all, they would inherit that billions-strong customer base. In the end, it's not the profits that concern you. It's that an OIL company is experiencing it.

[theogt]

Why do oil companies sell so much damn gas? Because the U.S. has supported efforts that lead to more consumption in a number of manners -- most prominently by being so far behind in fuel economy standards. The U.S. government has created a situation very favorable to oil companies. Even our new fuel economy goals (35 mpg in 2020) are very far behind other nations. The government has created, for whatever reason, a situation wherein more gas gets sold. Asking for some of those profits back is simple give and take.Yeah, damn the government for allowing the marketplace to set fuel standards and consumption.

By the way, when oil companies profit more, they do get taxed more under the current system. So, yeah, it's just a simple give and take as it is. No need to change.

But hey, you should put your money where your mouth is and refuse that rebate come 2009.Why exactly do you think it's rational to buy American to help the US economy, but you don't think it's rational to refuse such a tax rebate?

[AbeBeta]

They sell so much gas because the human race demands so much gas.

REALLY? Humans in other countries get by with far more fuel efficient vehicles. If you don't think that lax fuel efficiency standards in the US drive greater consumption then you simply refuse to see a big part of the problem

[AbeBeta]

Yeah, damn the government for allowing the marketplace to set fuel standards and consumption.

By the way, when oil companies profit more, they do get taxed more under the current system. So, yeah, it's just a simple give and take as it is. No need to change.

Why exactly do you think it's rational to buy American to help the US economy, but you don't think it's rational to refuse such a tax rebate?

Again, you can't post your economic free market theory but again your theory breaks down when confronted with a system in which the fundamental resource is limited and not renewable.

It is just this simple -- we have million of Americans suffering economically because of high gas prices on the one hand and oil companies posting record profits. You can leave that alone and call it a "market adjustment" but that is nothing more than fancy talk to say "some people are going to have to starve and go bankrupt." Frankly, big oil is going to jump all over this proposal because it will buy them many more years of continued favorable treatment in the future.

[theogt]

Again, you can't post your economic free market theory but again your theory breaks down when confronted with a system in which the fundamental resource is limited and not renewable.

It is just this simple -- we have million of Americans suffering economically because of high gas prices on the one hand and oil companies posting record profits. You can leave that alone and call it a "market adjustment" but that is nothing more than fancy talk to say "some people are going to have to starve and go bankrupt." Frankly, big oil is going to jump all over this proposal because it will buy them many more years of continued favorable treatment in the future.Yes, heaven forbid people actually have to live with the consequences of their poor decisions, even if it's just a short-term consequence.

Perhaps we can just nationalize the oil companies and the auto companies. That'll surely protect everyone from their own decisions. But let's not stop there. Let's get the pharmaceuticals and the banks and the manufacturing companies too.

We can fix it all. Why didn't anyone else think of this before?

[Vintage]

Again, you can't post your economic free market theory but again your theory breaks down when confronted with a system in which the fundamental resource is limited and not renewable.

It is just this simple -- we have million of Americans suffering economically because of high gas prices on the one hand and oil companies posting record profits. You can leave that alone and call it a "market adjustment" but that is nothing more than fancy talk to say "some people are going to have to starve and go bankrupt." Frankly, big oil is going to jump all over this proposal because it will buy them many more years of continued favorable treatment in the future.


If Exxon Mobile is posting 10% profit margins, methinks the problem lies somewhere else.

[AbeBeta]

Yes, heaven forbid people actually have to live with the consequences of their poor decisions, even if it's just a short-term consequence.

Yes, it was a terrible decision for the people most impacted by market adjustments to be born into poverty. Stupid idiots.

You fail to recognize (or simply don't care) that your precious "market adjustments" have more serious impacts for those at the bottom of the heap. You and Muffy may have to fly coach on vacation but others may have to skip dinner so that their children can eat.

[Cajuncowboy]

I don't get it.

I didn't get it with W sending out checks and I don't get it with Obama wanting to send out checks.

I understand one got it from one place in order to stimulate the economy. I understand the other wants to get it from another place to help with gas and bills.

Either way I just don't get either doing it really doing much other than government spending more money.

However with all of that said...If they send it, I will spend it because this po hillbilly has bills to pay.:laugh2:

Not hard to get Brain.

One did it because it was in the best interest of the country and the other one is trying to buy votes.

What's not to get?

He sees his numbers falling badly and has to do something so the old fall back, let's give money away.

[theogt]

Yes, it was a terrible decision for the people most impacted by market adjustments to be born into poverty. Stupid idiots.

You fail to recognize (or simply don't care) that your precious "market adjustments" have more serious impacts for those at the bottom of the heap. You and Muffy may have to fly coach on vacation but others may have to skip dinner so that their children can eat.:laugh2:

This isn't the 30s anymore. I think you have a very warped sense of what being poor is actually like. People don't actually starve in the United States.

And, please, don't even begin to think you have a better concept of what living below the poverty line is like than me.

[Vintage]

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjE3NTA4Yjc0NjQxMDA4ZjhlZjczMWM0YWNlM2JhOTg=


The following are facts about persons defined as “poor” by the Census Bureau, taken from a variety of government reports:

46 percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

80 percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

Only six percent of poor households are overcrowded; two thirds have more than two rooms per person.

The typical poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

Nearly three quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.

97 percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

78 percent have a VCR or DVD player.

62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

89 percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.



I know, I know.....they are probably subject to the horrors of standard television (as opposed to HDTV).

We'll just have to fix that with more gov't redistribution.

[Cajuncowboy]

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjE3NTA4Yjc0NjQxMDA4ZjhlZjczMWM0YWNlM2JhOTg=




Hmmm.... though, I guess you could argue its unfair the poor don't get HDTV like many Americans.

We'll just have to fix that with more gov't redistribution.

If Obama gets wind of this it'll be "HD in every house" instead of "A chicken in every pot."

[Vintage]

Seems to me... if you have the money to buy a TV, you have the money to buy food.

And if you don't.....and you choose the TV over food, you deserve to starve.

[theogt]

If Obama gets wind of this it'll be "HD in every house" instead of "A chicken in every pot."I can see it now -- a Sony "windfall" tax rebate!

[Vintage]

I can see it now -- a Sony "windfall" tax rebate!


Hey! Back off.

I already started a Nike windfall tax rebate thread.

[Cajuncowboy]

Seems to me... if you have the money to buy a TV, you have the money to buy food.

And if you don't.....and you choose the TV over food, you deserve to starve.

Ain't that the gospel truth. :bow:

[Cajuncowboy]

I can see it now -- a Sony "windfall" tax rebate!

I think people are finally seeing through this guy. Just look at the polls. While they are marginal at best as far as accuracy at this time of the year, they do show a bad sign of things to come for Obama. This could be one of the worst slaughters on election day we've see. And McCain ain't that great. That's the only thing keeping Obama in this thing.

[PosterChild]

Yes, it was a terrible decision for the people most impacted by market adjustments to be born into poverty. Stupid idiots.

You fail to recognize (or simply don't care) that your precious "market adjustments" have more serious impacts for those at the bottom of the heap. You and Muffy may have to fly coach on vacation but others may have to skip dinner so that their children can eat.

This Muffy...didn't she dance at the Ofarrell Theater in San Fran back in the early aughts? Blonde number, bout 5ft nothing, nice smile and come-hither eyes?

[AbeBeta]

:laugh2:

This isn't the 30s anymore. I think you have a very warped sense of what being poor is actually like. People don't actually starve in the United States.

And, please, don't even begin to think you have a better concept of what living below the poverty line is like than me.

You are correct -- people aren't starving -- just ironically becoming obese and diabetic because of poor nutrition that comes from not having enough to spend on food.

Oh boy! Can we play I grew up poorer than you now? We can do that for a few hours then sit down to a nice single malt.

[Vintage]

Every action taken has a consequence. The reason people make good decisions (among many) is fear of the consequences of making bad decisions.

If the gov't removes the consequences in making bad decisions, then there is nothing to fear.

Its far more fun to buy TVs than food. And if the gov't is going to further subsidize me for this; why not buy a TV? I'll still get my food, too.

__________________

I am not trying to argue that the poor do this. Rather, its just a basic model. (and can be used to in recent mortgage bailout! Remove the consequences of bad action by bailing them out, and they aren't held accountable for their poor actions)

Rather, the point is, more policy action isn't always better policy action.

For every action taken, there is some unintended consequence. So why allow the gov't to interfere more (and thus cause more problems)?

Are there times when the gov't does need to interfere? Sure.

But not everytime something goes wrong....is gov't needed.

[ThaBigP]

REALLY? Humans in other countries get by with far more fuel efficient vehicles. If you don't think that lax fuel efficiency standards in the US drive greater consumption then you simply refuse to see a big part of the problem

They still use gasoline and diesel. But more to the point, you're deliberately narrowly focusing the debate on gasoline only. It's about energy, not any specific means of delivering that energy. And right now, the only source of so much energy that is economically feasable on such a large a scale is petroleum with some help from wind, nuclear, and solar in various places where those means are feasable. And let's also look back at your notion of developing nations being happy with lack of energy - your assertion is false. They all want to emerge as developed nations. Look at India, Pakistan, China, among many, many developing economies. They all demand energy. And somebody has to supply it. Again, even if you outlawed petroeum products world-wide tomorrow, somebody has to pick up the slack with an alternative means of energy delivery, and that industry would be just as large, if not larger (a windmill farm, for example, takes up MUCH more real estate than a comparable-wattage gas or coal-fired generator).

[AbeBeta]

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjE3NTA4Yjc0NjQxMDA4ZjhlZjczMWM0YWNlM2JhOTg=

97 percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

78 percent have a VCR or DVD player.

62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

89 percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.


I know, I know.....they are probably subject to the horrors of standard television (as opposed to HDTV).

We'll just have to fix that with more gov't redistribution.

That may seem like a ton of TVs, DVDs, etc. But you also have to recognize that there are so many TVs etc. floating around that you'd have to be living without electricity to not be able to stumble on one.

This says nothing about actual purchases of the items - in some parts of the country many apartments, even in crap areas come with basic cable and dishwashers. I can't recall that I ever have purchased a television or a stereo. I have good stuff but it was all hand me down from folks who upgraded. You can be pretty sure that many poor folks with TVs and DVDs got them that way.

Does that mean that people don't spend on stupid crap? Absolutely not. But to think that 97% of poor folks bought their TVs is silly as well.

[AbeBeta]

They all want to emerge as developed nations. Look at India, Pakistan, China, among many, many developing economies.

China? You are going to bring up China.

They currently require automobiles to get 43 MPG. China is kicking our *** on fuel economy standards.

A developing nation has a fuel economy standard that presently exceeds our 35 MPG target for 2020.

Yet they continue to develop at a tremendous pace. Funny that.

[ThaBigP]

Again, you can't post your economic free market theory but again your theory breaks down when confronted with a system in which the fundamental resource is limited and not renewable.

It is just this simple -- we have million of Americans suffering economically because of high gas prices on the one hand and oil companies posting record profits. You can leave that alone and call it a "market adjustment" but that is nothing more than fancy talk to say "some people are going to have to starve and go bankrupt." Frankly, big oil is going to jump all over this proposal because it will buy them many more years of continued favorable treatment in the future.

Again, I'll restate it for those who may not understand, there IS NO SUCH THING AS RENEWABLE ENERGY. Look up "law of conservation of energy" in any physics book or on the web to see that BigP isn't just full of hot air. It's a marketing tagline, and nothing more. The best we can ever hope for is to find sources of energy that will outlast us. Even the sun has a finite amount of energy, and when the hydrogen runs out, we'd better be able to run for other planets. Because at that time, the sun will begin fusing helium, which will result in a violent expansion of the sun that will consume even the earth until the sun settles back down.

And "some people will have to starve or go bankrupt" precicely because many people like you insist we artificially limit our supply of energy because you've manage to turn it into some type of hobgoblin that must be vanquished. The only true solution that you seek is to return to a level of technological advancement comparable to the early 19th centry, sans electricity or any feasable means of producing and distributing energy. Since you tout the profits as in-and-of themselves somehow wicked, no world-wide energy production and distribution indistry could meet your arbitrary standard of "good" and "decent".

[theogt]

You are correct -- people aren't starving -- just ironically becoming obese and diabetic because of poor nutrition that comes from not having enough to spend on food.

Oh boy! Can we play I grew up poorer than you now? We can do that for a few hours then sit down to a nice single malt.I'll drink to you conceding the point, sure.

[AbeBeta]

Again, I'll restate it for those who may not understand, there IS NO SUCH THING AS RENEWABLE ENERGY. Look up "law of conservation of energy" in any physics book or on the web to see that BigP isn't just full of hot air. It's a marketing tagline, and nothing more.

You are technically correct. Of course a resource like solar stops being renewable when the sun burns out. At which point the discussion is pretty much irrelevant... like your post.

[Vintage]

China? You are going to bring up China.

They currently require automobiles to get 43 MPG. China is kicking our *** on fuel economy standards.

A developing nation has a fuel economy standard that presently exceeds our 35 MPG target for 2020.

Yet they continue to develop at a tremendous pace. Funny that.

They also have requirements regarding internet access.

Basically summarized; when the gov't controls all the power, it can accomplish a great many things.

[ThaBigP]

China? You are going to bring up China.

They currently require automobiles to get 43 MPG. China is kicking our *** on fuel economy standards.

A developing nation has a fuel economy standard that presently exceeds our 35 MPG target for 2020.

Yet they continue to develop at a tremendous pace. Funny that.

Again, you have a mental lock preventing you from seeing energy production and distribution as a whole. You only want to focus on a part - gasoline. And, might I add, that China has been subsidising fuel costs for its citizens for some time. Subsidies that were meant to spur their economy by artificially deflating energy costs (not just gasoline). They're learning the street-wise truth however, that the socialistic shell-game of moving costs around in an attempt to hide them in the general taxation hasn't worked. They've begun rolling back those subsidies.

And on a side note, the hottest market for SUVs and trucks is......bada bing....China.

So would be the fate of Obama's plan to take $1000 checks from the oil industry and hand them to consumers. It's just moving costs around rather than doing what needs to be done - increase supply by lifting arbitrary limits on our ability to produce energy.

And it would seem your first idea of a solution always seems to revolve around controlling individual lives. Controlling the kind of cars people can make, can buy, can drive, etc. Might I remind you, that absent government intervention in this matter, fuel efficient cars are selling like hotcakes, and SUVs are sitting on lots with "For Sale" signs with ever-decreasing asking prices being marked out in favor of a lower one. People are smart enough to figure things like this out themselves. They don't need government, or somebody like you, using the point of a gun to tell them to do it. And yes, I said "point of a gun" because any time you propose a law to put forth some policy, you are litteraly talking about using the power of law enforcement to enforce that policy. Under penalty of loss of property, liberty, or worse. Again, if you don't believe me, try not paying your taxes next year. Make sure you inform the government you have no intention of paying taxes. I'll bet if you insist on your line of reasoning you'll see the point of guns soon enough. And if you resist arrest, guess what may happen?

[AbeBeta]

I'll drink to you conceding the point, sure.

And I'll pour some out for my dead homie, Milton Friedman. And some more out for his don't mean nothing when the rubber hits the road theories.

[AbeBeta]

I hope that dunce hat fits nicely. Again, you have a mental lock preventing you from seeing energy production and distribution as a whole.

And you have a mental lock preventing you from recognition that we are talking about gasoline in this thread.

[ThaBigP]

And you have a mental lock preventing you from recognition that we are talking about gasoline in this thread.

Yep. Like a stubborn diabetic suffering from diabetes-induced skin ulsers. The doc tells him it's the diabetes. The patient insists "no, we're not here to talk about my diabetes, only these ulcers on my feet and hands". If you don't want to aknowledge the source of the problem, you'll forever be chasing symptoms around.

[braw]

Yep. Like a stubborn diabetic suffering from diabetes-induced skin ulsers. The doc tells him it's the diabetes. The patient insists "no, we're not here to talk about my diabetes, only these ulcers on my feet and hands". If you don't want to aknowledge the source of the problem, you'll forever be chasing symptoms around.

You make alot of sense in your explanations. But the guys around here just always narrow the arguement to 2 sides just like a football game. This whole thread was meant about( capitalism and communism) then some started about (Dems vs Rep). But the real problem has much more layers and sides to it. Thanks for your explanations it was very informative.

Wait til the govt lets them drill in the US and Exxon now owns the oil( instead of buying from Canada and Mexico) and gets to sell to China and India. You thought they had profits now and all made possible by manipulation of oil prices.

[AbeBeta]

Yep. Like a stubborn diabetic suffering from diabetes-induced skin ulsers. The doc tells him it's the diabetes. The patient insists "no, we're not here to talk about my diabetes, only these ulcers on my feet and hands". If you don't want to aknowledge the source of the problem, you'll forever be chasing symptoms around.

And you fail to "aknowledge" that there are many sources of this problem. And the one source we are discussing at present is relevant to gasoline and what can be done in the US to address both the sources of the problems and the symptom. A symptom right now is that people are getting hammered at the pump and suffering because of it. If we ignore that then those ulcers on our feet and hands will fester and cause an acute problem that may be more threatening than the chronic issues themselves.

[Vintage]

And you fail to "aknowledge" that there are many sources of this problem. And the one source we are discussing at present is relevant to gasoline and what can be done in the US to address both the sources of the problems and the symptom. A symptom right now is that people are getting hammered at the pump and suffering because of it. If we ignore that then those ulcers on our feet and hands will fester and cause an acute problem that may be more threatening than the chronic issues themselves.


I went to take a piss awhile ago.

On my way to the pisser, I saw Obama on TV. He was talking about windfall profit taxing, again.

It seemed appropriate the last thing I saw before pulling it out to pee was Obama talking about windfall taxing....

[theogt]

And I'll pour some out for my dead homie, Milton Friedman. And some more out for his don't mean nothing when the rubber hits the road theories.We all know how the opposite theories worked out, don't we?

Sorry, but socialism lost.

[AbeBeta]

We all know how the opposite theories worked out, don't we?

Sorry, but socialism lost.

Going a little black and white on us today Theo?

[theogt]

Going a little black and white on us today Theo?You pulled out the Milton Friedman card.

[AbeBeta]

You pulled out the Milton Friedman card.

it went well with "dead homie"