Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
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.
|
Well, the points your quote are *exactly* the talking points McCain and his people are using, and I personally find most of them highly disingenuous. So, maybe you came up with these points completely on your own, but it seems more likely to me that you're carrying their water for them, either on purpose or just because you heard them and they sounded reasonable to you. A very little bit of research on my part shows how unreasonable most of them are, so...
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
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?
|
Because he understands that compromise is part of governing. Sometimes you have to give up things you want in order to achieve more important objectives. He knows he almost certainly won't have a filibuster-proof majority in congress, so he's going to have to negotiate. He thinks he might have to allow offshore drilling, but *in exchange* for some concession from the republicans in congress - like, say, cash to fund alternative energy research.
Other nations are drilling closer and closer to our shores? Which ones?
China?
What is the problem with off-shore drilling? I think the fact that you have to ask this question shows how really terrible the MSM is. They talk about the issue as a case of political football, but I've *never* seen anyone in the MSM say why off-shore drilling might be bad. Try the
wikipedia article for a start. The reason the areas in question are protected is because they are close to shore - as in 'right off shore', not deep in the Gulf of Mexico. Any oil spills from those rigs will wash up...on the Gulf Coast. You don't have to be a nutty environmentalist to object to this - people live there, and tourism is a huge part of the local economy in many of these areas. Not to mention the environmental costs.
It's an oft-repeated lie (including by McCain) that Katrina and Rita didn't cause any major offshore oil spills. This simply isn't true - Katrina and Rita together caused some of the worst spills ever recorded. See
this story along with several others. So the next time a cat-4 or cat-5 hurricane comes through after the oil rigs McCain wants to allow go up, it's almost inevitable that similar spills will occur - and the oil will wash up right on shore. How much of a penalty will the oil companies incur? Very little. They'll probably be involved in some cleanup efforts, but cleanup after a major hurricane is going to be almost impossible. Will they lose even a significant fraction of the profits they plan to make? Certainly not.
Now, every time there's a potential risk compared to a potential reward, we have to make a judgement call and decide if the risk is worth it. Up until now, we've decided that the risk is not worth the reward. Even now, any oil produced in these offshore areas isn't going to come onto the market for another 10 years. The effect on gas prices is projected to be less than 6 cents a gallon. Is that worth the risk? I think not. Obama agrees. As I said above, he did say he would consider compromising on this issue. I'm not sure if that's such a good idea, but it might be necessary to get anything done at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
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.
|
I don't see how this is true. Obviously there is some turnover. Obviously people grow older, become more (and sometimes less) successful. But I don't see that the group of 'rich' people turns over every 10 or 15 years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
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.
|
Simply not true. These tax policies don't suddenly kick in at 250,000 - the higher tax is on income in *excess* of $250,000. The Tax Policy Center recently release a
report (warning: long PDF) comparing the two plans in detail. And, I just happened upon
this very nice graphic which explains things pretty well. It looks pretty accurate to me based upon the tax policy center analysis. Your hard-working $250,000/yr business owner will pay approximately...no more taxes under Obama. Capital gains taxes are on a similar scale, so I wouldn't expect him to pay much more there, either.
Here is a good rebuttal of some of the other specific distortions of Obama's tax plan that are floating around.
Now, Obama's tax plan *does* increase taxes by quite a bit on the very, very wealthy. Honestly, they can afford it. Now, I'd of course be happier if no one had to pay any taxes at all. But that's not the way it works. If we're going to tax people, I'd prefer that the people who can afford it most bear most of the burden. And people making more than $2.87 million dollars a year can afford it.
Would it surprise you to know that the top marginal tax rate between 1936 and 1980 ranged between 70% and 91%? It
surprised me. And yet the country wasn't destroyed by this horribly unfair policy.
What really concerns me about both Obama and McCain's tax policies is the fact that neither of them balance the budget. I think that's something we *have* to do, soon. Now, we probably can't balance the budget in the middle of a couple of wars, and a major financial crises. But to me, that's a good reason to not start wars, and to have proper regulation so we don't have avoidable financial crises like this one.
Guess who I trust more to not take us to war, and to be in favor of reasonable regulation?
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
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..
|
The points thing was a little tiny bit snarky, wasn't it? ;-)
The 'taxes will be passed onto consumers' is really an argument against *all* corporate taxes. As I said before, that's a debatable point, and I frankly don't have the economics chops to debate it properly. *However*, I still think the windfall tax is a good idea. First, it provides a much-needed cash infusion to working-class people without further breaking the budget (like W's tax rebates). If these costs are passed on to consumers, it will be a gradual process, and give people time to continue to adjust to a high-gas-prices world. Which we'll *have* to do. Cheap gas (and yes, we still have cheap gas prices) won't last forever. We're going to have to change our habits. Easily accessible oil *is* going to run out, sooner or later. Remember the 'Peak Oil' thing? It's still coming. Higher gas prices are inevitable, we're going to have to adjust. However, government can make itself useful by providing cushions to precipitously rising gas prices and by helping us transition to alternate energy sources. Obama is in favor of both of these policies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
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?
|
Look at
Exxon's income statement? Ok.
"they pay more in taxes than they make in profits" is demonstrably false. I'll assume that by 'profits' you mean Income Before Tax ($70 Billion in 2007). And by taxes you mean Income Tax Expense ($30 Billion in 2007). So, no, they pay about 43% tax on their income. High, but not really out of line with what many Americans pay.
Other than that, I can't really make sense of your argument. Obama has never said that Exxon shouldn't make money. Taxing a company doesn't automatically make those profits disappear and re-appear in some Foreign company.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
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?
|
I agree that this is going to cause problems for the democrats in 2012. It's pretty clear that he changed his stance as an appeal to party unity, giving them something that won't have any real effect (for this election, anyway) to help heal some of the divisiveness from the primaries. It tells me that he'd be the kind of leader that is willing to compromise to get what he wants, especially when the compromise doesn't really cost him anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
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.
|
Calling him a 'borderline socialist' isn't hyperbole?
He's a liberal. Sure, plenty of people like to call liberals socialists. We're used to it. To my mind, he's been a fairly centrist liberal all along. Being willing to compromise to get what you think is important isn't 'moving to the center'.
Now, on the FISA issue, I can see *that* as moving to the 'center' (more like ultra-right-wing), or at least appealing to it, and frankly, it pisses me off to no end. If he had done that before the primaries, I probably would've switched my vote to Hillary right there (not that it would've mattered). But we've got the candidates we have, not the ones we would like to have, and Obama is entire worlds better than McCain on *every* single issue that matters to me.
-----Added 5/8/2008 at 02 : 46 : 21-----
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
O'Bama? He look Irish to you? They're always after my lucky hope!
|
An Irish President?! Hey, it worked in Blazing Saddles!
Wait...no...that's not quite right.