Quote:
Originally Posted by robot_parade
So you decided to come and post a nice list of right-wing talking points for us? Let's go ahead and knock 'em down, just for fun.
|
I would love to go point to point with you, but your assumption regarding "right-wing talking points" suggests that you would be dismissive of any point I try to make. But it has been a while since I have engaged anyone here, so I will give it a shot, granted superficial at first - but we will see where it goes.
Quote:
He doesn't support off-shore drilling. Read his actual quote:
That's not support, that's willingness to compromise.
Your score: 0/1
|
If he does not support off-shore drilling why would he compromise on the issue? We currently have off-shore drilling, is he going to take actions to stop off-shore drilling entirely? Other nations are drilling closer and closer to our shores, what is he going to do about that? What exactly is the problem with off-shore drilling?
There are some threads on tax policy and tax avoidance strategies employed by "rich" people so I won't repeat most of the things already posted. The single biggest fallacy in the logic employed by the "tax the rich" liberal mindset is that they seem to think that the top wage earner class is static (doesn't change). The 1%, 2%, 5%, 10% largest wage earners this year will be totally different in five, ten, fifteen years. Tax policy is based on wages, wealth is measured by assets.
The small business owner who started his business from scratch, sacrificed, paid taxes every years, made payroll every pay day for his employees, worked 80 hours a week for 25 years, never took vacations and has now got his business to a point where he is comfortable (perhaps netting $250,000 per year in income), who now is retiring and need to sell his business - he will get hit with exorbitant income taxes and on top of that pay about 30% of his capital gain under Obama's plan. Wow! So much for hard work, sacrifice, doing the right thing and trying to live the American dream. Gee, those evil rich people.
Quote:
It's called a windfall tax. You know, a tax on the windfall profits oil companies have been making lately. This one is actually up for debate (and his hotly debated by economists). Some economists claim that all corporate taxes should be abolished, because the costs are inevitably passed onto consumers anyway. Many claim that taxes on oil + gas companies fall into this category, because demand for gas is inelastic. This has historically been true, but with the gas prices shooting up this summer, demand *has* fallen, so maybe demand isn't as inelastic as we thought. But, since this is a debatable point, you can have some credit.
Your score: 1/3
|
You are awfully kind. But the point was that any additional tax on oil companies will get passed to consumers. The average profit margin is going to stay at about 10%, no matter what Obama does..
Quote:
Oil and gas companies are making record profits while consumers are paying out the nose. Some people are unhappy about that. No one blames Exxon for making money, but taxing windfall profits isn't exactly a crazy notion.
Your score: 1/4
|
What about the windfall taxes paid by a company like Exxon. Look at their income statement, they pay more in taxes than they make in profits! Details, details! The government has been collecting more and more from Exxon, what are they doing with that tax money? However, it seems the liberals want Exxon to be less profitable, paying less in taxes. Perhaps they want foreign oil companies to make all the profits and take those profits overseas. That doesn't seem like a win-win scenario to me, does it to you?
Quote:
True, but so what? It's a bone to toss to help party unity.
Your score: 1/5
|
What about the principle behind the whole issue? If the two states failed to follow the rules, and there are no consequences why would any state follow the rules the next time? Why did he change his stance on this issue? Is he showing us and the world what kind of leader he would be?
Quote:
Wait a sec - so, after carefully observing Obama and his positions, you've decided he has no substance and doesn't stand for anything. Or...not so much. You've had the same line against Obama for months, with no substance behind it. What's kindof surprising to me is that you've missed the actual issues that I might consider as hits against Obama. He opted out of the public finance system after he said he would make use of it. He failed to oppose the warrantless wiretapping and amnesty for telecoms after he pledged to do so.
Of course, those aren't exactly reasons to vote for McCain instead. McCain's problems with the public financing system are well-documented. McCain has always supported Bush's expanded surveillance powers, warrantless wiretapping, and telecom amnesty.
|
I admit to using hyperbole, I am sure Obama has some substance in his words. However, I think he is a borderline socialist trying to run to the center to get elected. I think that is dishonest.