|
Post by Norm "racerhawk" Parker on May 3, 2008 6:19:37 GMT -6
[ I should clarify. 1. I wanted to make sure that the conservatives on the board aren't implying that when oil companies make world-record profits, that that's an automatic "yipee" for those who invest a little in them. I agree with the GENERAL comment made earlier that those who invest in profitable companies win, but to what extent...that's all. I'm not meaning to imply that there should be a 1:1 tradeoff. 2. Yes, I strongly believe that capitalism is still around, despite what some may be trying to bend here on this board. Isn't Exxon's worle-record profit a testament to that? 3. I strongly believe that there are long term, strategic reasons to look at decreasing our dependence on ARAB oil. That can mean a lot of things, but don't you have to agree that putting lots of money in Arab pockets is one facet of the larger geopolitical picture in the middle east? 4. You are entitled to your strong, incessant opinion that global warming is a myth. Everyone has an opinion. I'm going to go with the majority of scientists worldwide who seem to strongly "believe" that it does exist, and is beginning to affect our GLOBE, and will be dramatically affect us in the future. I want to be proactive, rather than reactive. Those that do nothing about our dependence on foreign oil (by making personal choices and policy choices), are not helping. I'm wondering why you feel so strongly that global warming is a myth? Isn't there a large, worldwide body of scientific writings on the subject? ARen't you in a very small minority? Enlighten me. Seriously. I'm not trying to smack-talk. I'm really trying to understand why you adamantly choose to not "believe" in something that has worldwide scientific acceptance (on the whole, not a few studies by others). If this turns into a typical personal rant by conservatives who resort to name calling, then I'm not interested in discussing. This board has way too much of that already. I really do want to hear why you believe this. Douchebaggery and hippie comments don't help me to understand why you cling to your assumptions. respectfully, Patrick 2. I meant if capitalism was around when the new energy source was devopled and being consumed by the public. 3. I absolutely agree that we need to get off foreign dependence for the majority(if not all) of our energy sources. That is exactly why we need to tap into our own oil deposits. Even if a viable, cost effective, clean burning energy souce was developed( or found) tommorrow, it wouldn't make much of a dent in our fossil fuel dependence in the short term. This country's energy infrastructure is based on fossil fuels. It would take decades, if not a lifetime, to integrate the new source into our lives. Thus, drilling is the smart thing to do for the short term while searching for the best long term alternative fuel option. 4. My strong, incessant(I love that word)opinion? I'll write up a nice reply in the newest global warming thread shortly. Thanks. I think that a lot of what you're saying makes sense. I just wanted to understand where you're coming from a little bit more. I agree with the domestic drilling, etc. The only thing that I would probably differ from you on is the need for very aggressive development of alternative sources, even though I agree it will take a long time to reap the benefits. That's why we need to be aggressive now. I think capitalism will survive it. Incessantly yours.
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on May 3, 2008 7:25:06 GMT -6
The only thing that I would probably differ from you on is the need for very aggressive development of alternative sources, even though I agree it will take a long time to reap the benefits. That's why we need to be aggressive now. I think capitalism will survive it. Too bad hippiehawk ain't reading my responses anymore. Regardless, these catch phrases like "we need to be aggressive now" trouble me. Who the hell is we? Is it just society, or is it society through huge mouthbreathing government action? If it's society, we are being aggressive. There is so much money chasing "green" tech it is ridiculous. Everyone wants to invest the environmental version of Microsoft or Intel. A few years ago, fuel cells were all the rage. See chart for PLUG (fuel cell bubble burst in '01). Now, solar is the rage. See chart for FSLR. Government tosses a bone toward this kind of research, in the form of limited direct subsidies and tax breaks and credits. That's enough. Profit motive has driven a huge amount of capital into green tech, and that capital is better run by the institutions that will economically profit from the commercialization of it than by some mouthbreather in the government who, like ghost, disclaims virtually all accountability to anyone else in society. At least the management of the green companies is responsible to shareholders. Once the federal government gets heavily involved in investing in something, the number of mouthbreathers it employs goes up, the program never goes away, and the long-tail pension liabilities soak the taxpayers for decades. A large portion of any investment by government will likely be funneled through businesses, who will then own patents on the great new technology. They will use the patents to exact monopoly profits from the technology, leaving Joe Six Pack to foot the bill for research and on the hook to pay the monopoly prices for products. Don't believe me? Think I'm some conservative kook? Look at the pharmaceutical industry. That's a great example of liberal fascism run amok, but fear not, big government McCain or Barry will fix it when they get to the Oval Office. What a fucking joke.
|
|
|
Post by socal on May 3, 2008 7:58:13 GMT -6
Once the federal government gets heavily involved in investing in something, the number of mouthbreathers it employs goes up, the program never goes away, and the long-tail pension liabilities soak the taxpayers for decades. A large portion of any investment by government will likely be funneled through businesses, who will then own patents on the great new technology. They will use the patents to exact monopoly profits from the technology, leaving Joe Six Pack to foot the bill for research and on the hook to pay the monopoly prices for products. Don't believe me? Think I'm some conservative kook? Look at the pharmaceutical industry. That's a great example of liberal fascism run amok, but fear not, big government McCain or Barry will fix it when they get to the Oval Office. What a fucking joke. McCain wouldn't fix jack shit. Let's look at an example of the Liberal vs. Conservative views on a federal government program & the related benefits... Oh, let's say our troops in Iraq & Afghanistan. There have been multiple bills created by "Liberals" that would do one or more of the following: - Increase the pay of the soldiers - Fund their long term care - Remake the GI bill to be equal to today's tuition costs, not those of decades ago. - Bring them home, (downsize them) so they wouldn't require many of the expensive benefits... And "Conservatives" vetoed or filibustered the legislation. On a related note, I came across this commentary today:
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on May 3, 2008 8:40:16 GMT -6
No one will fix jack shit.
I'm glad the Dems are so willing to spend a bunch of money that came from other people - why did the Republicans filibuster that bill? Because it had a forced abortion rider that Pelosi tagged onto the end.*
Look bud, you can sit there and talk shit about the GOP all day. I don't give a shit. I'm fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I despise the GOP, as it is fiscally liberal, socially conservative - horrible big government. But I despise the Dems even more because they are even more fiscally liberal on many issues (much more redistributionist) and only marginally less socially conservative than the GOP (anti-gay rights and advocates of race based preferences that are, IMO, unconsitutional). I just want smaller government, lower taxes, and a move for social programs like SS and Medicare to be safety nets like they were intended to be instead of out of control entitlement/redistribution programs.
Most of my friends are the same as me - they want smaller government, lower taxes, more freedom and don't really give a shit what other citizens are doing in their spare time provided it doesn't hurt anyone else. The two party platform is so fucking bad, I only vote on one issue - taxes. I would vote for Atilla the Hun if he promised me a tax cut or at least not a tax increase.
*The veracity of this statement is questionable.
|
|
|
Post by iammrhawkeyes on May 3, 2008 9:29:39 GMT -6
No one will fix jack shit. I'm glad the Dems are so willing to spend a bunch of money that came from other people - why did the Republicans filibuster that bill? Because it had a forced abortion rider that Pelosi tagged onto the end.* Look bud, you can sit there and talk shit about the GOP all day. I don't give a shit. I'm fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I despise the GOP, as it is fiscally liberal, socially conservative - horrible big government. But I despise the Dems even more because they are even more fiscally liberal on many issues (much more redistributionist) and only marginally less socially conservative than the GOP (anti-gay rights and advocates of race based preferences that are, IMO, unconsitutional). I just want smaller government, lower taxes, and a move for social programs like SS and Medicare to be safety nets like they were intended to be instead of out of control entitlement/redistribution programs. Most of my friends are the same as me - they want smaller government, lower taxes, more freedom and don't really give a shit what other citizens are doing in their spare time provided it doesn't hurt anyone else. The two party platform is so fucking bad, I only vote on one issue - taxes. I would vote for Atilla the Hun if he promised me a tax cut or at least not a tax increase.*The veracity of this statement is questionable. Excellent post, ralph. That about sums up my views as well.
|
|
|
Post by lpcalihawk on May 3, 2008 9:47:59 GMT -6
No one will fix jack shit. I'm glad the Dems are so willing to spend a bunch of money that came from other people - why did the Republicans filibuster that bill? Because it had a forced abortion rider that Pelosi tagged onto the end.* Look bud, you can sit there and talk shit about the GOP all day. I don't give a shit. I'm fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I despise the GOP, as it is fiscally liberal, socially conservative - horrible big government. But I despise the Dems even more because they are even more fiscally liberal on many issues (much more redistributionist) and only marginally less socially conservative than the GOP (anti-gay rights and advocates of race based preferences that are, IMO, unconsitutional). I just want smaller government, lower taxes, and a move for social programs like SS and Medicare to be safety nets like they were intended to be instead of out of control entitlement/redistribution programs. Most of my friends are the same as me - they want smaller government, lower taxes, more freedom and don't really give a shit what other citizens are doing in their spare time provided it doesn't hurt anyone else. The two party platform is so fucking bad, I only vote on one issue - taxes. I would vote for Atilla the Hun if he promised me a tax cut or at least not a tax increase. I concur with the majority of your post. *The veracity of this statement is questionable.
|
|
|
Post by socal on May 3, 2008 10:14:11 GMT -6
No one will fix jack shit. I'm glad the Dems are so willing to spend a bunch of money that came from other people - why did the Republicans filibuster that bill? Because it had a forced abortion rider that Pelosi tagged onto the end.* Look bud, you can sit there and talk shit about the GOP all day. I don't give a shit. I'm fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I despise the GOP, as it is fiscally liberal, socially conservative - horrible big government. But I despise the Dems even more because they are even more fiscally liberal on many issues (much more redistributionist) and only marginally less socially conservative than the GOP (anti-gay rights and advocates of race based preferences that are, IMO, unconsitutional). I just want smaller government, lower taxes, and a move for social programs like SS and Medicare to be safety nets like they were intended to be instead of out of control entitlement/redistribution programs. Most of my friends are the same as me - they want smaller government, lower taxes, more freedom and don't really give a shit what other citizens are doing in their spare time provided it doesn't hurt anyone else. The two party platform is so fucking bad, I only vote on one issue - taxes. I would vote for Atilla the Hun if he promised me a tax cut or at least not a tax increase. *The veracity of this statement is questionable. Looking at McCain's tax proposals: taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/blog/_archives/2008/4/17/3644448.htmlIf you believe they're remotely feasible, please take a picture of the fairies currently residing in medicine cabinet... as you could make a killing - selling it to others with your beliefs. Regarding your "*", your caveat was correct.
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on May 3, 2008 11:00:40 GMT -6
Tax "analysis" from the leftist blogs nearly without fail does not account for any multiplier effect. It nearly always assumes steady GDP and then multiplies tax rates times economic activity, without accounting for increased economic activity that the tax cut causes. When W cut taxes early in his administration, tax receipts went down in the short run as the economy recovered from the 9/11 and unwinding of the internet bubble recession. Tax receipts then went up as GDP grew and investors unlocked long term capital gains and we saw one of the biggest M&A booms in history.
Entitlement programs are 62% of the federal budget. Call me crazy, but I don't think there is a birthright of American citizens to retire when they hit 62 because someone else will foot the bill for their rent and healthcare. But, old people vote, so we'll just have to grin and bear it. Slight tweaks to the entitlement programs and the mammoth federal budget (over 20% of GDP) goes down tremendously, however, the likelihood of these morans who have saved nothing because they know SS will take care of them ever allowing that to happen is nil.
With respect to your anti-tax cut position, if I directly owned enough shares in XOM to submit a proposal pursuant to Rule 14a-8, I would submit a proposal to move the corporation's domicile to another jurisdiction and change the Exxon Corp. that operates in the US into a pass-through entity. Some large corporations have done that and I would bet that many others are considering it. The multinational corporation has very little loyalty in terms of nationality. We can either court them and bolster our tax base through corporate income tax receipts, or we can talk about "windfall proft" taxes and watch them all move their domicile to the Caymans. I, for one, would rather make damn sure that XOM and its tens of billions in corporate taxes stays domiciled in the US. It would only take a few pieces of paper for them to "move" and fortunately for now, many corporations are staying loyal to their American roots, but if the government creates too many economic disincentives to remaining domiciled in the US, we'll hear a giant sucking sound of tax dollars flowing out of the Treasury.
|
|
|
Post by BlckKnghtHwk on May 3, 2008 12:12:23 GMT -6
Can I just say that this has been one of the most informative and well thought out discussions I have ever read on a message board. Carry on...
|
|