|
|
Post by saunterelle on Jun 10, 2008 14:22:29 GMT -5
" Now, just who does he think is going to be hit hardest by the increase in taxes on big-oil profits? I thought this guy was supposed to be smart. Does he really think they are not going to pass the tax along? Does he really think that taxing successful business into non-existence is the way to go? Whose profits will he tax next. Besides, profit is what you have left after paying taxes, is he proposing to tax money already taxed? I think so." LOL. You're not in favor of restoring the taxes (which Bush cut) on Oil companies' WINDFALL profits? ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hdX1csHuXbUFJ6REp97MjBsJouHAD916S43O1 |
|
|
|
Post by mrroqout on Jun 10, 2008 14:28:09 GMT -5
Zbigniew Brzezinski - Do you know who this man is, and what he does?
If so do you HONESTLY believe B. Hussein Obama has even ONE Original idea in his pea brain?
|
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Jun 10, 2008 14:43:19 GMT -5
Way to avoid the question mrroqout
|
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Jun 10, 2008 14:48:47 GMT -5
" Now, just who does he think is going to be hit hardest by the increase in taxes on big-oil profits? I thought this guy was supposed to be smart. Does he really think they are not going to pass the tax along? Does he really think that taxing successful business into non-existence is the way to go? Whose profits will he tax next. Besides, profit is what you have left after paying taxes, is he proposing to tax money already taxed? I think so." LOL. You're not in favor of restoring the taxes (which Bush cut) on Oil companies' WINDFALL profits? ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hdX1csHuXbUFJ6REp97MjBsJouHAD916S43O1 Okay, as a good democrat, you should know what JFK's policies were, and what level his tax plans were set at. He believed in cutting taxes, and his record is still public in that arena. So why do the neosocialists want to increase taxes, unless they are not really JFK Democrats. Neo-cons, such as myself, are truly JFK Democrats. If you hold JFK up as high as you do in esteem, why do you go against his way of thinking? Neo-cons don't. |
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Jun 10, 2008 14:59:53 GMT -5
Let's talk economy then. The sub-prime lending is what brought on most of this crisis. And who was responsible for that. Well, one of the people directly responsible is Penny Prizker, one of the architects of the Subprime Lending Scheme and Senator Obama’s Finance Chair on his Presidential campaign. Gee, I wonder what they have in store for the sheeple now?
And, if she came up with such piss poor plan that cost so many people their homes, while enriching herself and her banking buddies, why would Obama trust her? After all, Penny Pritzker is a member of one of the richest banking families in the United States. She, along with Ernst and Young, helped concoct the mortgage manipulation that has resulted in the real estate collapse in the U.S.
Senator Obama’s plan does not call for a moratorium on foreclosures nor does it call for interest rates to be frozen to assist homeowners in catching up with payments.
Additionally, Senator Obama has a long list of Sub Prime donors to the tune of $1.18 Million Dollars: $266,907 from Lehman, $5395 from GMAC, $150,850 from Credit Suisse First Boston, $11,250 from Countrywide, $9052 from Washington Mutual, $161,850 from Citigroup, $4600 from CBASS, $170,050 from Morgan Stanley, $1150 from Centex, and last but certainly not least, $351,900 from Goldman Sachs.
Yep, he has the best plan alright, but it is not for curing the mortgage crisis, it is for padding his pockets with rich donor's cash.
|
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Jun 10, 2008 15:39:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Jun 10, 2008 15:52:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by mrroqout on Jun 10, 2008 15:54:01 GMT -5
Funny, was the question posed to me or to Bolverk, you know the person you were quoting....
My answer to the question you posed: First of all you cannot TAX a companies PROFITS. So I think you may have missed some BASIC economics classes somwhere along the way. And furthermore I am not sure I even EXACTLY understand what happened. And I sincerely doubt you do either..other than your sound byte of "in favor of restoring the taxes (which Bush cut) on Oil companies' WINDFALL profits".
He didn't CUT taxing profits first of all..he cut the amount of TAX these companies pay in taxes BEFORE profit. But it all boils down to supply and demand, and more countries in the world are demanding MORE oil. We used to be one of the few countries with a HIGH demand..now more are coming into the 21st century and realizing their NEED for oil.
Furthermore how much do you HONESTLY BELIEVE this Hussein guy could get done in 1460 days in office?
Around the same as he has so far in congress, your DREAMING big to think he can DO anything in that time frame. And dreaming even HUGER to think he could get re-elected...So this will if Hussein wins TRULY be J.Carters second term..yipeeeee!
|
|
|
|
Post by jgaffney on Jun 10, 2008 17:41:33 GMT -5
Saunterelle sez....Just to show that the Dems are also not afraid of the deficit, they are lining up behind another "stimulus" package. This is from Yahoo News: Never let it be said that the Dems shied away from a spending opportunity, even if it is all deficit spending. BTW, Saunterelle, maybe you can answer this question: If injecting money into the economy is such a good thing, then why are permanent tax cuts such a bad thing? If the tax cuts in the first stimulus package are such a good thing, why not make them permanent?
|
|
|
|
Post by jgaffney on Jun 10, 2008 18:00:43 GMT -5
Saunterelle sez...
OK, class, for those of you who slept through History class, let's review this issue.
Back when oil was $20 - $30 a barrel, the Congress saw it as a Good Thing to increase domestic production in the Gulf of Mexico. This area has proven oil reserves, and it wouldn't run into the buzzsaw of opposition like drilling off the coast of California would. In order to incentivize the oil companies to drill more wells, Congress passed a targeted tax break for oil produced in the Gulf. The oil companies responded by drilling more wells and increasing domestic production. So, in that sense, the targeted tax break worked.
Now that production has increased in the Gulf, and world oil prices are above $120 a barrel, Congress is suddenly discovering some unintended consequences of their action. So, rather than step up and take the blame for it, they have branded the oil companies as obscene profiteers and have threatened to pass a windfall profits tax on the revenue the oil companies are netting. Rather than coming up with a formula that will keep the expansion of domestic production going, they want to brand the oil companies as the cause of $4 a gallon gas.
Earth to Saunterelle: the oil companies are not just sitting on piles of cash, like a perverse cartoon of King Midas. As publicly held corporations, they have a responsiblity to their shareholders - and anyone with a retirement fund of some sort is probably a shareholder - to reinvest the money to generate even more profits. They are plowing the money back into more wells in the Gulf, more exploration in the little bit of area the environmentalists will let them drill on, and resusitating existing wells to try to get more oil out of them. All this adds up to increased production, which was the goal of the targeted tax break in the first place.
In my other posts, I explain that a search for alternative energy supplies is a good thing, but bringing them to market is a completely different thing. Going after the oil companies with both boots is not the right move right now.
|
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Jun 11, 2008 12:44:11 GMT -5
June 11, 2008 - 9:02 AM Eastern Time
“Centrist” Democratic Congressman won’t Endorse Obama bc of “Liberal”Record
by Fin Gomez
Fox News has confirmed that Congressman Dan Boren, the only Democrat in the Oklahoma delegation , said yesterday in an interview, that he will not endorse Senator Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee for president because he is” the most liberal senator in the U.S. Senate”. Boren, running for re-election, said that he had to reflect the views of the 2nd district of Oklahoma, a mostly rural area.The majority of his constituents voted for Senator Clinton during that state’s presidential primary.
” We’re much more conservative,” Boren said to the Associated Press, “No one means more to me that the people who elected me. I have to listen to them.”
Boren also criticized Obama for having a record” that does no reflect working in a bipartisan fashion.”However, Boren did state that he would vote for Obama as the nominee for the Democratic party at their convention in August.
The Obama campaign did not waste time in countering Boren.
“Unfortunately, Congressman Boren has his facts wrong. Barack Obama has a long history of working across the aisle to get things done and make a difference for working people,” Jen Psaki, an Obama campaign spokeswoman said in a statement.”He worked with Republicans in the Illinois Senate to provide health care for 150,000 children and parents who didn’t have it, and in the U.S. Senate he’s worked with some of the most conservative members —including Congressman Boren’s Republican colleague from Oklahoma, Tom Coburn — to restore accountability and openness to our government and crack down on the special interests.”
|
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Jun 12, 2008 13:00:59 GMT -5
|
|
