McCain up in polls. 20% of White Woman voters shift.

This makes me sad that people actually want McCain and Palin in the oval office after these past 8 years.. either they have bad memories or they care more about religion in politics that I care to consider...
 
[quote name='DJSteel']This makes me sad that people actually want McCain and Palin in the oval office after these past 8 years.. either they have bad memories or they care more about religion in politics that I care to consider...[/quote]

It's the rise of the Evangelicals again. Wedge issues like abortion and gun control are more important than actually balancing the budget or having a plan in Iraq.
 
[quote name='DJSteel']This makes me sad that people actually want McCain and Palin in the oval office after these past 8 years.. either they have bad memories or they care more about religion in politics that I care to consider...[/QUOTE]

Except the viable "alternative choices" given are just as bad to many on other fronts, so who should people vote for? Or maybe they shouldn't?

Maybe you haven't been following things, but the only candidate(s) that offer any substantial change or solutions have no chance in hell of being elected.

[quote name='depascal22']It's the rise of the Evangelicals again. Wedge issues like abortion and gun control are more important than actually balancing the budget or having a plan in Iraq.[/QUOTE]

For millions of voters, neither side still offers acceptable solutions for the latter, so your "wedge" issues end up being the only real difference between parties..... once again.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Except the viable "alternative choices" given are just as bad to many on other fronts, so who should people vote for? Or maybe they shouldn't?

Maybe you haven't been following things, but the only candidate(s) that offer any substantial change or solutions have no chance in hell of being elected.



For millions of voters, neither side still offers acceptable solutions for the latter, so your "wedge" issues end up being the only real difference between parties..... once again.[/QUOTE]

My issue is taxes.. if McCain wins we get a bigger separation between the upper and lower class with the majority of the middle class being pushed toward the lower side...

At least Obama is trying to push a bigger percentage of those taxes towards the rich.. that is what I consider progress.. no way should I be spending more in taxes percentage wise than Warren Buffet..

My main concerns for this upcoming presidency are oil and taxes.. religion needs to stay in churches... keep it out of Politics...
 
If those are your big issues, then I guess your selection is clear. Obama is your inch of progress.

However, the charts and tables I've seen, don't show a big enough difference between McCain or Obama's tax plan in contrast to today to raise an eyebrow over.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']If those are your big issues, then I guess your selection is clear. Obama is your inch of progress.

However, the charts and tables I've seen, don't show a big enough difference between McCain or Obama's tax plan in contrast to today to raise an eyebrow over.[/QUOTE]

Ermmmmm again I generally ignore your posts but this is a fast response sooooo

Anaylsts and experts seem to say the average American will make about 3% more where as McCain you loose 2%. Thats a 5% difference...doesnt sound like much to you maybe. To someone like me and my fiancee thats about a $1,500 difference which is a nice little chunk of change. Thats not even to mention the fact that he says Oil is his other big thing and Obama will invest far more in green tech which yes is going to cause hell for our economy in the short time but over a long period will make a great difference in energy costs and the quality of life(and abilty to find jobs)for the average American.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']Ermmmmm again I generally ignore your posts but this is a fast response sooooo[/quote]
Wow, well thanks for gracing me with your prestigious presence.

Obama will invest far more in green tech .
Click to expand...
I'm not calling you a liar, but please provide proof of this. Have each of the candidates laid out plans (like taxes) for exactly how much they plan to invest in "green tech" so you can make that statement unequivocally? Or is that just your "gut feeling"? (Since it's common knowledge that Republicans hate the environment and want to see it rot, while Democrats would stop the rotation of the Earth to save a bird nest, right?)

[quote name='mykevermin']thrust, were you considering that McCain considers his health care subsidy as taxable income?[/QUOTE]
I was strictly talking about their plans for income tax reform (or little thereof).

I'm curious by what you are talking about, please explain.

As I've stated before, I may have to sell my house before I'm past capital gains, which under supposed plan of Obama to practically double capital gains tax, will fuck me harder than either candidate's income tax will effect me. (Note - I am more or less financially ignorant, and I admit I could be wrong about this, and would love to be shown I am)
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I was strictly talking about their plans for income tax reform (or little thereof).

I'm curious by what you are talking about, please explain.

As I've stated before, I may have to sell my house before I'm past capital gains, which under supposed plan of Obama to practically double capital gains tax, will fuck me harder than either candidate's income tax will effect me.[/QUOTE]

Mr. McCain's overall tax policy will also expand health-insurance coverage, and make health care more efficient. Most taxpayers will also pay less in tax. Here's how it will work. His plan includes a refundable tax credit of $2,500 for single individuals and $5,000 for couples
Click to expand...

So we know about his tax credit plan. Of course we do. So far, so good. Let's finish this sentence.

, if they receive a qualifying health-care policy from an employer (one that includes adequate coverage against large medical bills), or buy a qualifying policy on their own. The credit will replace the current tax rule, which excludes employer payments for health insurance from employees' taxable incomes.
Click to expand...

So we're replacing the plan that employer-subsidized health care is not taxable income for the employee.

Who wrote this? Olbermann? Kos? George Soros?

Oh, John McCain's own economic advisors snuck this into an article in which they semantically fellate his plan.

So, yeah, you can find evidence of it elsewhere, but I'd like to think McCain's economic advisors are reliable sources of his economic policies.

So, yeah, if you earn the same amount you are right now this time next year, you will have greater taxable income. Thanks to the low-tax Republicans.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Wow, well thanks for gracing me with your prestigious presence.


I'm not calling you a liar, but please provide proof of this. Have each of the candidates laid out plans (like taxes) for exactly how much they plan to invest in "green tech" so you can make that statement unequivocally? Or is that just your "gut feeling"? (Since it's common knowledge that Republicans hate the environment and want to see it rot, while Democrats would stop the rotation of the Earth to save a bird nest, right?)


I was strictly talking about their plans for income tax reform (or little thereof).

I'm curious by what you are talking about, please explain.

As I've stated before, I may have to sell my house before I'm past capital gains, which under supposed plan of Obama to practically double capital gains tax, will fuck me harder than either candidate's income tax will effect me. (Note - I am more or less financially ignorant, and I admit I could be wrong about this, and would love to be shown I am)[/QUOTE]

See this post shows why I ignore your post vs gracing them with my "prestigious presence". First and foremost you respond like a snide jackass. Second though despite claiming to be playing the devils advocate not only do you take a position to the right 90% of the time you refer to Dems in ways such as "stop the rotation of the Earth to save a bird nest, right?)" something you never do of Republicans. Ok now that iv wasted time pointing out your bias which is obvious to anyone but you lets deal with the post for one last try at getting an intelligent debate out of you.

You say that stupid line about Republicans hating the enviorment and Dems being the Captain Planets of the world......yet ignore the fact that its essentially true. Republicans have been the ones that not only have voted time and time again against any green intiative but also in favor of things like drilling. And while John McCain does mention green tech its 1 in every 300 times in comparison to how often he mentions drilling(which he screams more often then a director of porn). As per Global Warming and every other debate you can choose to ignore the facts but their pretty damn clear to the rest of us.

And you say Obama hasnt done anything specific for it but first off his voting record on the subject is great. Funny that you and others love to point out that he votes Democratic/Liberal 90% of the time but now want to act like he might not make a green intiative. Second off he talks about it all the time, how he wants to create more jobs through green tech and create a green movement. Third and final he actually did lay out some specific plans and if anything green tech was the bulk of the essay he wrote for Foreign Affairs(the source I get most of my opinions from because unlike most media its statistics and facts and nothing else). His essay was brilliant only being rivaled by John Edwards.

The only downside to Obama on green energy and the only thing he cant be trusted on that iv seen so far is that as per usual he is deep in the pocket of American Farmers. He says that corn based ethanol is the future and is a big propenet of it which disgusts me since its a horrible source of fuel. It makes so much more sense to allow import of more effeicent bio fuels from places such as Brazil that use Sugar Cane.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']As I've stated before, I may have to sell my house before I'm past capital gains, which under supposed plan of Obama to practically double capital gains tax, will fuck me harder than either candidate's income tax will effect me. (Note - I am more or less financially ignorant, and I admit I could be wrong about this, and would love to be shown I am)[/quote]

Obama's apparent plan is to raise capital gains from 15% to 20%. The rate could possibly go up to 28% from something else I read, why the raise isn't an exact number I don't know. The raise only applies to married couples making $250,000 and up or singles making $200,000 and up.

If you're selling your house then there wouldn't be any change to the current exemption of the first $500,000 for couples and $250,000 for singles.

I don't think McCain plans to change anything in that department.
 
And you say Obama hasnt done anything specific for it
Click to expand...
I did? Where?
but first off his voting record on the subject is great. Funny that you and others love to point out that he votes Democratic/Liberal 90% of the time but now want to act like he might not make a green intiative.
Click to expand...
No I didn't. He very well might have a green plan, that's why I asked for you to show me one and how it's better than McCain's.
Second off he talks about it all the time, how he wants to create more jobs through green tech and create a green movement. Third and final he actually did lay out some specific plans and if anything green tech was the bulk of the essay he wrote for Foreign Affairs(the source I get most of my opinions from because unlike most media its statistics and facts and nothing else). His essay was brilliant only being rivaled by John Edwards.
Click to expand...
Hm. Ok. I'll go ahead and take that as "No" answer to my question. There apparently is no detailed plan for the "Green movement" on either side. Gut feelings FTW.

And I love how you continue to propagate the myth that we can't make oil cheaper and work on energy independence and go green at the same time. One can't happen without the other. :roll:

The only downside to Obama on green energy and the only thing he cant be trusted on that iv seen so far is that as per usual he is deep in the pocket of American Farmers. He says that corn based ethanol is the future and is a big propenet of it which disgusts me since its a horrible source of fuel. It makes so much more sense to allow import of more effeicent bio fuels from places such as Brazil that use Sugar Cane.
Click to expand...
I don't know anything about Obama and corn, so I take your word for it. I agree with you corn based fuels as an answer are bad ideas.


[quote name='SpazX']Obama's apparent plan is to raise capital gains from 15% to 20%. The rate could possibly go up to 28% from something else I read, why the raise isn't an exact number I don't know. The raise only applies to married couples making $250,000 and up or singles making $200,000 and up.

If you're selling your house then there wouldn't be any change to the current exemption of the first $500,000 for couples and $250,000 for singles.

I don't think McCain plans to change anything in that department.[/QUOTE]
Ah I see. Thanks for the clarification. It seems my initial feelings were correct then, that neither candidate is going to change my wallet much.
 
I think we should drill but we should also use ethanol and anything else we can before we attain energy independence.

On the flip side of the green oil drilling is that conservatives constantly pretend like there will be zero environmental impact. You think that you can take all that men and equipment into pristine wild life and there will zero enviromental impact?
 
As Tom Friedman noted, chanting "Drill, Baby, Drill" at a time like this is akin to insisting upon investing in IBM Selectrics on the eve of the PC Revolution.
 
[quote name='depascal22']
On the flip side of the green oil drilling is that conservatives constantly pretend like there will be zero environmental impact. You think that you can take all that men and equipment into pristine wild life and there will zero enviromental impact?[/QUOTE]

there a difference between minimal impact and environmental disaster.
 
The whole drill, baby, drill thing is actually something people want (or wanted) as of 2 months ago. Since that chant started, oil has now dropped to below $100 because the international market doesn't want us drilling for oil since it hurts their business. The issue of drilling for oil makes the Republicans look good for the time being.

Also, Obama has a new ad out about McCain being computer illiterate. My question to it is how does being computer literate qualify you to be President since you can't write emails or make a blog as President? It's a pretty pointless ad.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']As Tom Friedman noted, chanting "Drill, Baby, Drill" at a time like this is akin to insisting upon investing in IBM Selectrics on the eve of the PC Revolution.[/QUOTE]

Except that the only one doing the investing and taking the financial risk are the greedy evil rich oil company's everyone already wants to lynch anyway. So if your analogy is correct, and it's a bad investment that will lead to financial ruin, why not let them get what they deserve?

Unless the "risk" alluded to in the analogy was purely an environmental one, then that's a whole different discussion.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']

Also, Obama has a new ad out about McCain being computer illiterate. My question to it is how does being computer literate qualify you to be President since you can't write emails or make a blog as President? It's a pretty pointless ad.[/QUOTE]

the real qualification is whether or not he thinks dinosaurs were around 4000 years ago.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']The whole drill, baby, drill thing is actually something people want (or wanted) as of 2 months ago. Since that chant started, oil has now dropped to below $100 because the international market doesn't want us drilling for oil since it hurts their business. The issue of drilling for oil makes the Republicans look good for the time being.

Also, Obama has a new ad out about McCain being computer illiterate. My question to it is how does being computer literate qualify you to be President since you can't write emails or make a blog as President? It's a pretty pointless ad.[/QUOTE]

It's to paint McCain as a senile old man...

I'm pretty tired of you pretending to be nonpartisan...
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Except that the only one doing the investing and taking the financial risk are the greedy evil rich oil company's everyone already wants to lynch anyway. So if your analogy is correct, and it's a bad investment that will lead to financial ruin, why not let them get what they deserve?

Unless the "risk" alluded to in the analogy was purely an environmental one, then that's a whole different discussion.[/QUOTE]

Well, the environmental risk certainly is there, but let's not act as if avoiding increases in fuel efficiency standards, avoiding R&D in green/renewable sources of energy, and other "let's just keep going until we're out of gas" standards don't economically harm us simply because we aren't directly invested in oil. That's absurd.

See, for those on the right, it's about not looking forward, it's not about caring whether or not we harm the planet, it's not about looking into renewable resources, and how cheap they may be.

For those on the right, it's about getting your fix and getting it cheap. "Drill baby drill" is a maxim offered by those with no foresight, an uncontrollable instant gratification fix, and someone only concerned with energy on one end: economics (avoiding, of course, the obvious "WE'RE BEING fuckING GOUGED BY BIG OIL FOR MEGAPROFITS!!!" explanation).

The "drill baby drill" position is intellectually, environmentally, temporally, and economically short sighted. On all accounts.

It's a junkie looking for a fix instead of a rehab clinic.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']The whole drill, baby, drill thing is actually something people want (or wanted) as of 2 months ago. Since that chant started, oil has now dropped to below $100 because the international market doesn't want us drilling for oil since it hurts their business. The issue of drilling for oil makes the Republicans look good for the time being.

Also, Obama has a new ad out about McCain being computer illiterate. My question to it is how does being computer literate qualify you to be President since you can't write emails or make a blog as President? It's a pretty pointless ad.[/QUOTE]

That's one thing I like about McCain: he won't be able to "accidentally" delete the emails like Bush et al. did (by some strange coincidence, all of 'em about Libby, Plame, and Wilson).

Vote for the luddite!
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Well, the environmental risk certainly is there, but let's not act as if avoiding increases in fuel efficiency standards, avoiding R&D in green/renewable sources of energy, and other "let's just keep going until we're out of gas" standards don't economically harm us simply because we aren't directly invested in oil. That's absurd.

See, for those on the right, it's about not looking forward, it's not about caring whether or not we harm the planet, it's not about looking into renewable resources, and how cheap they may be.

For those on the right, it's about getting your fix and getting it cheap. "Drill baby drill" is a maxim offered by those with no foresight, an uncontrollable instant gratification fix, and someone only concerned with energy on one end: economics (avoiding, of course, the obvious "WE'RE BEING fuckING GOUGED BY BIG OIL FOR MEGAPROFITS!!!" explanation).

The "drill baby drill" position is intellectually, environmentally, temporally, and economically short sighted. On all accounts.

It's a junkie looking for a fix instead of a rehab clinic.[/QUOTE]

A lot of rehab clinics use controlled substances to "Ween" the addict off because cold turkey can be catastrophic (depending on the substance).

I really thought you were above the extreme views here myke. I don't know of anyone that is saying that if we do drill here, it automatically has to mean all green legislation on anyone's wishlist couldn't also be done. I seriously don't get why it has to be one or the other. Why is this issue all about one or the other?

Why are you, and everyone else on the left so utterly convinced that if we do absolutely anything to relieve short term pressure at the gas pump or foreign oil dependency, it automatically equates to tossing all alternative R&D, green legislation, and raising fuel effeciency all out the window?

Absurd? What's absurd is believing that we absolutely must keep our sources of current energy foreign, prices high, and wallet pain excruciating in order for any other steps towards the solutions to work.

I mean really, for a guy that has often lectured me on inability to see the middle ground on many issues.....

Nobody has yet to offer a logical explanation for why both can't be done. If there was ever a problem that needed a hybrid solution between the parties, it's this.
 
See, I'm not against "oil." But the idea that we need to sacrifice more land and tax breaks to reduce prices is absurd.

Do you really think we'll ever see $3/gallon gas again? No matter how much supply there is?

How naive can you be? Between OPEC and big oil knowing they have us by the balls, coupled with the lack of balls on Democrats to take the oil industry to task for price gouging us, and the absolute idiocy of Republicans to even admit that we're being gouged to begin with, I don't believe that the "drill baby drill" folks are even sincere in what they're saying. They only care about the price of oil if it doesn't interfere with the record profits of big oil.

I got suckered in a monte carlo game once in my life, hombre. Not again.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']The whole drill, baby, drill thing is actually something people want (or wanted) as of 2 months ago. Since that chant started, oil has now dropped to below $100 because the international market doesn't want us drilling for oil since it hurts their business. The issue of drilling for oil makes the Republicans look good for the time being.[/quote]

How is Hurricane Ike and the increase of gas prices of $0.25 (the smallest increase I've seen with my own eyes)-$1.50 (rumored price increase stated on live morning radio) making the Republicans look?

Oil prices are the lowest they been in 5 months (about 2/3s of its peak price) and gas prices are ... the same.

The market needs choice.

We need cars running on natural gas, liquefied coal, hydrogen, sugar cane based ethanol and electric.

Then, there won't be as many people spazzing out over a 10-20% increase in the price of a fuel.

...

For Everybody's Information ...

Oil prices are down because demand is down. The SUV market is dead. On the other extreme, scooter makers can't keep up with demand.

People are going on "staycations" instead of vacations.

Some people have given up long ass commutes for something much shorter (such as myself and my wife).

It isn't the possible threat of an act of Congress possibly being passed that will possibly alter supply marginally in 5-10 years.

EDIT: It is the widespread change in peoples' driving behaviors.

...

Welcome back, dmaul.
 
At the time of the post, I had not been out today. Since then, I have, and here, it's gone up 90 cents since yesterday. But they could still continue to argue that offshore drilling outside of the Gulf Coast is what they need.
 
I think you mis characterize the "drill baby drill" crowd as simply worried about prices at the pumps. It's much much bigger than that. You should know this. It's a recognition that our DEPENDENCY on foreign oil sources is the foundation for the entire house of cards of problems that we have.

It literally is the root of so many of our domestic and foreign issues that both parties continue to only offer bandaid solutions for. That's the problem. If you truly do believe Republicans only care about big oil maintaining profits, why not endorse action to directly cut those profits? Why not slowly raise tariffs on imported oil and create a situation where they have to find it in our own land? Would all the jobs it would create, economy it would boost, and less wars be such a bad idea? Why is the only solution the Democrats can offer be a mix of status-quo, finger crossing, spend and hope?

I think it's very shortsighted to look at the oil company's and say "target acquired". That's like picking your fight with the fingers and failing to notice the body. The oil company's are the least of our worries when you look at the big picture. Gouging? How about the Federal government gouging? How about the Federal Reserve gouging? Neither party will even demand an audit. So many industries gouge us on things we have to have, I'm immediately suspicious of anyone jumping up and down pointing at the oil company's as the problem as either short-sighted or easily duped.

If oil and opec does have us by the balls, it's because our politicians happily unziped our shorts and gently sat them in their palms. But is the solution really to spend time, money, and pain to try and grow a new set of balls?

We created the situation with oil. We forced them to look elsewhere to get oil. We created a situation where more than half of our oil cost is transportation. We created a situation where we traded trees for war. We created a system that gave all the people that hate us most the greatest wealth in the world. So why is trying to remedy that foolish? Why is keeping it like it is, while waiting for something better, a good idea?
 
I heard of the great gas panic of this weekend too, as I was checking my tire pressure (out of habit, not because Obama said so ;)).

Man, I picked a shitty-ass weekend to drive to Detroit and back.

Heh. Just as you speak of dependency. I seem to recall the majority of talking heads on the right having a laff-a-palooza at Obama's expense because he suggested maintaining your tire pressure. So much for a concern of dependency if we're laughing at the prospect of using less oil, no?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I heard of the great gas panic of this weekend too, as I was checking my tire pressure (out of habit, not because Obama said so ;)).

Man, I picked a shitty-ass weekend to drive to Detroit and back.

Heh. Just as you speak of dependency. I seem to recall the majority of talking heads on the right having a laff-a-palooza at Obama's expense because he suggested maintaining your tire pressure. So much for a concern of dependency if we're laughing at the prospect of using less oil, no?[/QUOTE]

Thats the problem. People like Thrust will just assume all of us are completely against any sort of drilling(look at his response to me despite the fact that im actually pro limited drilling)or any method other then green....when in reality its the opposite. Like I said im pro limited drilling but think that its hardly even a band aid for the problem. THe right wants to act like more oil will get us through when its just not freaking true. Expert after expert after expert has come out and said that more drilling might over a 10 year period lower gas by a very marginal amount(we are talking cents not dollars)so what we need isnt more oil. We should approve some small amount just to show the rest of the world we are serious, but 9/10ths of our effort needs to be green tech.

The craziest thing about all of this is that green tech would actually create a whole new wave of not just jobs but also cash flow to the US.....yet the right is so against it.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']At the time of the post, I had not been out today. Since then, I have, and here, it's gone up 90 cents since yesterday. But they could still continue to argue that offshore drilling outside of the Gulf Coast is what they need.[/quote]

Are you considering "Drill, Baby, Drill" is less effective than "Refine in more places that aren't prone to hurricanes, Baby, Refine in more places that aren't prone to hurricanes"?

...

The one good thing about dramatic price increases is that they tend to sear themselves in a person's memory.
 
I would only support allowing off-shore drilling if it were bundled with an increased oil tax and tax reform.

Opening up the outter shelf to domestic drilling would lower the price for spectators but that wouldn't help anyone other than the oil companies who could simple gouge consumers at the accepted rate. Even if prices were to lower at the pump, it would only damage the conservation movement which is finally gaining steam -- there'd be less of a push on efficiency and alternative energy.

In short, allowing off-shore drilling is only a good idea if the increased revenue goes toward alternative energy, which can only happen with strict government control which many would consider unamerican...
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']The craziest thing about all of this is that green tech would actually create a whole new wave of not just jobs but also cash flow to the US.....yet the right is so against it.[/quote]

To channel a little level1, the government is against green tech because it leads to self-sufficiency. Self-sufficiency leads to decentralization. Decentralization leads to libertarianism. And no Democrat or Republican wants that. Politicians need your success or failure depend on them and not you.
 
^ In a world where "lunchables" sell so well, I'm not sure that I'd be worried that using, say, pure ethanol sources (whether a good idea or not) would increase self-sufficiency any.

Christ, go to a grocery store, man. People don't even cook their own fucking bacon anymore! They buy it, already cooked and in microwave packages, sitting in a store at room temperature!
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']Thats the problem. People like Thrust will just assume all of us are completely against any sort of drilling(look at his response to me despite the fact that im actually pro limited drilling)or any method other then green....when in reality its the opposite. Like I said im pro limited drilling but think that its hardly even a band aid for the problem.[/quote]Please list people "on the right" that are blatantly against alternative energy research and getting off oil. List their names with quotes. And don't give the "that's how they act" argument. That one is getting old in perpetuation falsities.

THe right wants to act like more oil will get us through when its just not freaking true.
Click to expand...
That's not entirely true. Nobody is saying or believes all we need is more oil. And you know it. You just like playing these stereotype games.

"The Right" is simply asking why we continue to prevent private oil company's from domestic drilling, thereby FORCING the status quo foreign energy dependence. That's really it. That's the gist of it. And from your post, it sounds like you agree with them. Big deal, it's just logic.

Nobody is suggesting the taxpayers help the oil company's relocate. Nobody is suggesting we invest federal money in domestic drilling (that I've seen). It's all a simple question of lifting governmental bans on private corporations from doing their job locally.

Expert after expert after expert has come out and said that more drilling might over a 10 year period lower gas by a very marginal amount(we are talking cents not dollars)so what we need isnt more oil. We should approve some small amount just to show the rest of the world we are serious, but 9/10ths of our effort needs to be green tech.
Click to expand...

Look, I've pointed out before that we mostly agree here. What is needed is a multi-pronged approach. That's really all I, and you, are saying. And I think that's really all most people on the right are saying. And you'd see that if you could stop putting words in their mouths.

It's foolish to keep throwing out the "10 years for cents" argument when it's irrelevent. Oil company's are private. Nobody is proposing we give them tax payer money to drill domestically. The only proposal is to stop preventing them from investing their own money in our own country. It's not your concern or worry how it's profitable for the oil company's to do so, it's theirs.

The craziest thing about all of this is that green tech would actually create a whole new wave of not just jobs but also cash flow to the US.....yet the right is so against it.
Click to expand...
No they aren't. You really should spend less time on dailykos.

That may be true. Especially if that were combined with more refineries and drilling operations, as long as it's on our soil (refineries alone can employ small cities). I'm all for it, as long as all the "Green tech jobs" aren't mostly subsidized by our tax money. That won't help anyone, and would be like feeding a starving person his own leg.
 
[quote name='Koggit']I would only support allowing off-shore drilling if it were bundled with an increased oil tax and tax reform.

Opening up the outter shelf to domestic drilling would lower the price for spectators but that wouldn't help anyone other than the oil companies who could simple gouge consumers at the accepted rate. Even if prices were to lower at the pump, it would only damage the conservation movement which is finally gaining steam -- there'd be less of a push on efficiency and alternative energy.

In short, allowing off-shore drilling is only a good idea if the increased revenue goes toward alternative energy, which can only happen with strict government control which many would consider unamerican...[/QUOTE]

Now we're talking. This is the kind of conversation that needs to be had across party lines. As soon as they can stop pointing at each other and screaming and sit down like adults.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Which point do you need clarification on?

Do you not understand you cannot keep money for incomplete work?

Do you not understand the money taken from the Treasury to build a bridge does not belong to Alaska?

Do you not understand why I wanted to paint the invisible jet?

Do you not understand how you can be employable in a hypothetical situation?[/QUOTE]


Do you not realize that the money was given to Alaska for infrustrcture and that's exactly where the money went? It simply went to different projects. What do you think she pocketed it?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']jputa,

You did, at some point, answer the question I asked. But you didn't, still, answer the question.

;)

I'm not suggesting that keeping the money was illegal. It isn't.

The point was that she received between $250-300 million in federal funds towards this project.

This was not the full amount to build said bridge.

Congress, not Sarah Palin, decided against funding the bridge, surely as a result of the public uproar it caused (thanks in no small part to McCain speaking out against such porkbarrel projects).

So, with a partially funded project, it was canceled.

Here's a question: who deserves more responsibility for killing the bridge project? The federal congress who opted to not fully fund it, or the governor who decided to not pursue a project for which they had insufficient funds (ignoring the PR embarrassment the project was)?

The governor canceled a project she didn't have money for and kept the money she was already allocated. With the resource limitations, I wouldn't applaud that. Period.

You can't be proud of something you think you did when decisions and limitations elsewhere had a significantly greater impact on whether or not it would happen.

Now, that all said, everything's above board and fully legal. That's correct.

But this governor has repeated her "thanks, but no thanks" lie over two dozen times (well, really once, I suppose, since she's on a short enough leash that she hasn't said anything in public save for a well-rehearsed stump speech, since they're scared to let her be interviewed by a journalist who asks questions).

She said "thanks" for the money that she kept. That's the main problem. You have two candidates speaking out against government misspending. One of those candidates received a heaping portion of that very misspending and prides herself on not building a frivolous bridge.

In the process, you overlook the fact that the state kept the money.

Thanks, for the money!

No thanks, for deciding to stop funding a project I favored! Guess I'll "decide" to not implement it now.

A real maverick would have handed the check right back and said something like "pay down the debt, you nitwits!"

A real maverick would have not accepted, or applied for, such funding.

A liar would have accepted the money, been out of the power loop deciding to not fund a porkbarrel project, kept the money, and then taken credit for being against government misspending.

Capiche?

It's not about who voted for it or against it. It's about who was in favor of it until there wasn't anything to be in favor of, took the money and ran, and then postured as if they fought against government excess.

That's what it's about.[/QUOTE]


Ignoring half the story and to a degree reality doesn't change the issues. She doesn't deny that she initially supported the bridge, with one of the main reasons being that the voters wanted it. She said no thank you when she saw the reality of the situation, hardly the lie you are trying to make it out to be. She didn't keep the money herself, it was put into other infrustructure projects. Funding allotted for infrustructure going toward infrustructure? What an evil bitch!!!!

Let's also ignore that earmark funding to alaska has been greatly reduced under her as compared to her predecessor. That's certainly not important because it doesn't make her look like a lier either. Damn you reality!!!
 
[quote name='mykevermin']It's not a matter of not wrong. It's a matter of saying one thing and doing another.

Now, normally I'm in favor of slashing earmarks. But seeing as how the annual amount of "pork" we spend is equal to 6 weeks of war in Iraq, I think that talking about vetoing pork project won't result in us being financially better off, federally, than we are now.

Again, look at the past 3 Republican administrations: responsible for 7.3 Trillion of our 9.6 Trillion dollar national debt. (It was under $1T before Reagan, and went from 4.4 to 5.7 under Clinton - and from 5.7 to 9.6 under Bush (and we're not done with that yet!)).

Cutting $18B from our annual expenditures is a nice start, but it won't do a thing to resolve debt issues; cutting corporate taxes (unless you consider the wind and solar energy R&D tax credits Bush let expire - but he's not an oil man!) won't spurn economic growth; cutting individual taxes won't spurn economic growth or stop the shedding of jobs (how well did your $600 check do in keeping the job drop from reaching over 620,000 jobs lost since the start of 2008?).

And, most easily as a basis of comparison, cutting $18B in spending is a nice start, but fiscally meaningless when more than that is spent every 6 weeks fighting a war that the "fiscally responsible" McCain/Palin ticket show no interest in ending (the very same war that Obama plans to use to implement an 18-month drawdown strategy - the same one Iraqi Prime Minister Al-Maliki agrees with. But, you know, he's just "some guy.")

I don't disagree with cutting pork. But I think it's so, so, so, so much lower on our national priority list than the McCain/Palin ticket leads you to believe. Moreover, the rest of their proposals show the same sort of "damn the deficits, full speed ahead!" philosophy of improving the economy that we've had during 8 years of Reagan and 8 years of Bush (not as much during Bush Sr., since he raised taxes). How many more years of draconian supply-side economics policies do we need to suffer through before we realize that they deliver 180 degrees opposite of its promise?

Their collective fiscal recklessness renders moot the idea of slashing pork, and Palin's record and false claims put a remarkable deal of doubt with regards to her sincerity about fiscal reform.[/QUOTE]


You're right, and Obama picking a VP that is a big Iraq war supporter is going to help with cutting war spending. Or his idea to invade Pakistan. Taxing businesses that create jobs will certainly help them create more. Then again, considering his plans to more than double taxes on things like capital gains Obama will do his best to keep people from becoming evil aka wealthy

sign me up!
 
[quote name='SpazX']Obama's apparent plan is to raise capital gains from 15% to 20%. The rate could possibly go up to 28% from something else I read, why the raise isn't an exact number I don't know. The raise only applies to married couples making $250,000 and up or singles making $200,000 and up.

If you're selling your house then there wouldn't be any change to the current exemption of the first $500,000 for couples and $250,000 for singles.

I don't think McCain plans to change anything in that department.[/QUOTE]

Where are you getting your informtion, Obama's plan is to raise capital gains to 39%, not 20.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Well, the environmental risk certainly is there, but let's not act as if avoiding increases in fuel efficiency standards, avoiding R&D in green/renewable sources of energy, and other "let's just keep going until we're out of gas" standards don't economically harm us simply because we aren't directly invested in oil. That's absurd.

See, for those on the right, it's about not looking forward, it's not about caring whether or not we harm the planet, it's not about looking into renewable resources, and how cheap they may be.

For those on the right, it's about getting your fix and getting it cheap. "Drill baby drill" is a maxim offered by those with no foresight, an uncontrollable instant gratification fix, and someone only concerned with energy on one end: economics (avoiding, of course, the obvious "WE'RE BEING fuckING GOUGED BY BIG OIL FOR MEGAPROFITS!!!" explanation).

The "drill baby drill" position is intellectually, environmentally, temporally, and economically short sighted. On all accounts.

It's a junkie looking for a fix instead of a rehab clinic.[/QUOTE]


Becuase there are so many alternative energy sources ready to go. We have to work with oil until something else is ready. I guess it's better to deal with the middle east and russia while we get everything else ready.

Of course it's all the evil oil companies, even though congress actually make 10x the profit off oil that the oil companies do.
 
I remember when the original talk of hitting up ANWR centered around the mere promise of oil. But its contents are uncertain, and that it would take a decade to get rolling.

And now I'm supposed to believe that it's an immediate fix, unlike searching for and transitioning to non-fossil fuel sources. Because we want our immediate gratification!

Boy howdy, those folks are gonna be pissed when they discover how the monied interests on the right pulled the wool over their eyes again, and we won't have a domestic increase in supply until 2018 at the earliest.

QUICK FIX NOW! QUICK FIX NOW! QUICK FIX NOW!

As for Congress - who am I fooling? You're a blithering idiot. Yes, Congress gets the profit. For every gallon of gas you buy, Nancy Pelosi gets 45 cents towards her next gay marriage. Robert Byrd gets 45 cents that he puts in his pocket and gives to a POOR PERSON! Dennis Kucinich (Representative, I know, but bear with me here) gets 45 cents towards a package of 'soysage'.

Yeah, because corporate profits and tax revenue are so fuckin' comparable. Grow up or stop typing. You aren't doing yourself any favors.
 
Keeping in mind that this thread is about 4 days old, I am going to say that some of that 20 percent switched back, because those people probably didn't see Palin's skeletons until now.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I remember when the original talk of hitting up ANWR centered around the mere promise of oil. But its contents are uncertain, and that it would take a decade to get rolling.

And now I'm supposed to believe that it's an immediate fix, unlike searching for and transitioning to non-fossil fuel sources. Because we want our immediate gratification!

Boy howdy, those folks are gonna be pissed when they discover how the monied interests on the right pulled the wool over their eyes again, and we won't have a domestic increase in supply until 2018 at the earliest.

QUICK FIX NOW! QUICK FIX NOW! QUICK FIX NOW!

As for Congress - who am I fooling? You're a blithering idiot. Yes, Congress gets the profit. For every gallon of gas you buy, Nancy Pelosi gets 45 cents towards her next gay marriage. Robert Byrd gets 45 cents that he puts in his pocket and gives to a POOR PERSON! Dennis Kucinich (Representative, I know, but bear with me here) gets 45 cents towards a package of 'soysage'.

Yeah, because corporate profits and tax revenue are so fuckin' comparable. Grow up or stop typing. You aren't doing yourself any favors.[/QUOTE]


or you can learn about what you're talking about. Do you even know how gas prices are determined? A lot of it is speculative and how much there is believed to be tomorrow is as important as what is available today. Drilling will help lower prices today and provide fuel for tomorrow. We don't need the supply today for it to pay off, just being able to drill for oil will provide some instant relief. There are short term and long term gains.

oil companies get about 10 cents per gallon profit while congress gets around 60 cents in taxes. You tell me that's not out of whack? Maybe when gas prices are low that makes sense, but in a time when so many problems are being caused by high gas prices that's just obscene. That's why whenever there are hearing with the gas corporation the congress are like a bunch of idiots because they know they are the biggest problem. I guess you're going to tell me that cutting that tax in half wouldn't help the economy. Oh, that's right, the best way to help the economy is to tax the hell out of anything and everything you can find. Thank god the democracts are there to make sure my money goes to everything but me.
 
[quote name='n25philly']or you can learn about what you're talking about. Do you even know how gas prices are determined? A lot of it is speculative and how much there is believed to be tomorrow is as important as what is available today. Drilling will help lower prices today and provide fuel for tomorrow. We don't need the supply today for it to pay off, just being able to drill for oil will provide some instant relief. There are short term and long term gains.[/quote]

Oh, I didn't know oil was a speculative market. You mean to tell me, then, that we don't know how much oil we have? That prices rise and fall based on an estimate of demand and an estimate of supply? That we don't have gnomes in hard hats running under the continental shelf with oil-o-meters, telling us how much oil we have?

No kiddin? Woah. I never knew that before. I mean, really, oil is a speculative market? You fuckin' opened my EYES, man. I never looked at it this way before. It's, like, a whole new fuckin' universe in front of me.

Speculative? No shit? I had no idea whatsoever. I though the price per barrel was determined by those little wind tunnels they use on Saturday night television to show you the local "Pick 6" numbers written on the ping pong balls. They gotta use 'em for something from Monday to Friday. That's what I've always said.

oil companies get about 10 cents per gallon profit while congress gets around 60 cents in taxes. You tell me that's not out of whack? Maybe when gas prices are low that makes sense, but in a time when so many problems are being caused by high gas prices that's just obscene. That's why whenever there are hearing with the gas corporation the congress are like a bunch of idiots because they know they are the biggest problem. I guess you're going to tell me that cutting that tax in half wouldn't help the economy. Oh, that's right, the best way to help the economy is to tax the hell out of anything and everything you can find. Thank god the democracts are there to make sure my money goes to everything but me.
Click to expand...

Yes, let's cut that in half. Brilliant plan. You can make W's record deficits look like we just misplaced a couple bucks somewhere.

As a Democrat, I demand to know where you get your money for your internet. I hope it's not from your paycheck, since we want to take every last penny of that. If it is, I'll have to make sure we raise taxes (MU-HA-HA) so you have no more money. And we'll spend it all on abortions and decorations for gay weddings, and molotov cocktails for churches!!!!!

Really, as a wise man once said "Get a Brain! Morans"
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Oh, I didn't know oil was a speculative market. You mean to tell me, then, that we don't know how much oil we have? That prices rise and fall based on an estimate of demand and an estimate of supply? That we don't have gnomes in hard hats running under the continental shelf with oil-o-meters, telling us how much oil we have?

No kiddin? Woah. I never knew that before. I mean, really, oil is a speculative market? You fuckin' opened my EYES, man. I never looked at it this way before. It's, like, a whole new fuckin' universe in front of me.

Speculative? No shit? I had no idea whatsoever. I though the price per barrel was determined by those little wind tunnels they use on Saturday night television to show you the local "Pick 6" numbers written on the ping pong balls. They gotta use 'em for something from Monday to Friday. That's what I've always said.



Yes, let's cut that in half. Brilliant plan. You can make W's record deficits look like we just misplaced a couple bucks somewhere.

As a Democrat, I demand to know where you get your money for your internet. I hope it's not from your paycheck, since we want to take every last penny of that. If it is, I'll have to make sure we raise taxes (MU-HA-HA) so you have no more money. And we'll spend it all on abortions and decorations for gay weddings, and molotov cocktails for churches!!!!!

Really, as a wise man once said "Get a Brain! Morans"[/QUOTE]




1) if you know it's speculative then why can't you see how drilling will improve things now, other than perhaps just shutting you eyes pretening things don't exist

2) right, the answer to overspending isn't to cut spending but to just tax more.

Of course you want to blame the economy that fell apart under a democratic congress on republicans, say adding taxes to the wealthy that provide the jobs will solve anything and then say that you won't actually enact the policy if we are still in the recessions because it would only hurt the economy more, so I guess that would make sense in comparison.

3) if you really do what you promised there I'll gladly give up my paycheck!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top