OT: Election/Politics thread, Part 6

Jackdog · Post by **Jackdog** » Thu Oct 30, 2008 9:18 am

RobVarak wrote: Edit: That said, we should really dedicate some public funding to developing systems that prevent the exploitation of credit cards in campaign fundraising.

Do you think Union members were given pre-paid credit cards?

Brando70 · Post by **Brando70** » Thu Oct 30, 2008 9:22 am

JackDog wrote:Yeah,that pretty f*cked up. Did you see this type of response to the idiots that did it too Palin?

Well, JD, it's a different situation. A college president has a lot more authority over what students can do on campus. In the story about the Palin effigy, that's on someone's private property. The mayor said he was investigating legal options, but they probably don't want to march in and tear it down and risk a lawsuit from the owners.

I think any display that reflects violence on a political candidate is not only in extremely poor taste, but a sign of sheer idiocy considering it's illegal to make threats against candidates and elected officials.

Jackdog · Post by **Jackdog** » Thu Oct 30, 2008 9:29 am

Brando70 wrote:
Well, JD, it's a different situation. A college president has a lot more authority over what students can do on campus. In the story about the Palin effigy, that's on someone's private property. The mayor said he was investigating legal options, but they probably don't want to march in and tear it down and risk a lawsuit from the owners.

I think any display that reflects violence on a political candidate is not only in extremely poor taste, but a sign of sheer idiocy considering it's illegal to make threats against candidates and elected officials.

I understand. I agree with your point that it's sheer idiocy. If I lived in W. Hollywood it would have been gone already. F*ck that. If I lived in LA. I've been to W. Hollywood. I would never live there.

JackB1 · Post by **JackB1** » Thu Oct 30, 2008 10:11 am

Jared wrote:
JackDog wrote:Can anyone imagine what would happen if this was Obama?

(Palin effigy pic)
No need to imagine...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081029/ap_ ... ama_effigy

LEXINGTON, Ky. – A life-sized likeness of Barack Obama was found hanging from a tree with a noose around its neck Wednesday at the University of Kentucky, the second time in about a month such an effigy of the Democratic presidential nominee was reported on a college campus.

Just proves that neither party has a monopoly on scumbags. Anyone who thinks this type of stuff is only happening on one side or the other is delusional. Those 2 guys that said the Palin thing was done in the spirit of Halloween were complete morons. A Holiday doesn't give you a license to do whatever you want and think it's fine.

JackB1 · Post by **JackB1** » Thu Oct 30, 2008 10:16 am

RobVarak wrote:

OTOH, after sitting through the 30-minute Obama infomercial I'm wondering if I can borrow one of those nooses for myself.

I thought it was terrible and a mistake. It kind of "cheapened" him a little in my eyes. When I heard he bought 30 mins of network time, I assumed it would be used for a live speech, not a 25 minute infomercial and a 5 minute speech that added nothing. He would have been better off just broadcasting his whole Florida stump speech.

I found the whole thing was too much "forced emotion" showing us all these "typical", hardworking US citizens who have fallen on tough times. Haven't we had enough "Joe The Plumbers" for a while? Hopefully that network spot won't cause too much backlash and people will just ignore it and move on.
I think the whole thing was very disappointing.

GTHobbes · Post by **GTHobbes** » Thu Oct 30, 2008 10:29 am

So Exxon, headquartered in W's homestate, made a 14 BILLION dollar this last quarter? Anyone making that kind've PROFIT should pay more than their fair share in taxes, IMO...I'd vote for any candidate who could accomplish that.

matthewk · Post by **matthewk** » Thu Oct 30, 2008 10:37 am

GTHobbes wrote:So Exxon, headquartered in W's homestate, made a 14 BILLION dollar this last quarter? Anyone making that kind've PROFIT should pay more than their fair share in taxes, IMO...I'd vote for any candidate who could accomplish that.

Deja Vu all over again....

They already pay their fair share. Have you seen their profit margin? It's a lot lower than many other industries. Last time I checked it was around 8%. Where is the outcry against Google and Apple to pay more? The reason they have "record profits" (that is the most misleading statement I've ever heard) is out of sheer volume of how big the companies are. With gas now at $2.40, I doubt you'l hear anything the next quarter about how their profits went down. We only hear when they are "record profits".

If you think they are making filthy amounts of money you could also buy some of their stocks and get in on the action yourself

GTHobbes · Post by **GTHobbes** » Thu Oct 30, 2008 10:42 am

matthewk wrote: They already pay their fair share. Have you seen their profit margin? It's a lot lower than many other industries. Last time I checked it was around 8%. Where is the outcry against Google and Apple to pay more? The reason they have "record profits" (that is the most misleading statement I've ever heard) is out of sheer volume of how big the companies are. With gas now at $2.40, I doubt you'l hear anything the next quarter about how their profits went down. We only hear when they are "record profits".

If you think they are making filthy amounts of money you could also buy some of their stocks and get in on the action yourself

Maybe I'm just a conspiracy nut, but it sure seems like an unlikely coincidence to me that the price of gas now happens to be going down, just as the man who these oil companies put into office is getting ready to leave. Why the f&$% were we paying $4 a gallon two months ago, and $2.39 now? The price of gas actually started to come down after the hurricanes this year, instead of going up.

If Google and Apple made $14 BILLION in PROFITS, I'd say tax them, too. That's a LOT of money, no matter what their margin may be, IMO.

Post by **Jared** » Thu Oct 30, 2008 10:50 am

GTHobbes wrote:Maybe I'm just a conspiracy nut, but it sure seems like an unlikely coincidence to me that the price of gas now happens to be going down, just as the man who these oil companies put into office is getting ready to leave. Why the f&$% were we paying $4 a gallon two months ago, and $2.39 now? The price of gas actually started to come down after the hurricanes this year, instead of going up.

Nothing to do with Bush; a lot to do with fears of a global recession (and a large decrease in the future demand for oil).

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Thu Oct 30, 2008 10:52 am

Jared wrote:
GTHobbes wrote:Maybe I'm just a conspiracy nut, but it sure seems like an unlikely coincidence to me that the price of gas now happens to be going down, just as the man who these oil companies put into office is getting ready to leave. Why the f&$% were we paying $4 a gallon two months ago, and $2.39 now? The price of gas actually started to come down after the hurricanes this year, instead of going up.
Nothing to do with Bush; a lot to do with fears of a global recession (and a large decrease in the future demand for oil).

The price of oil is listed every day for anyone to find. Its a traded commodity. Its not hidden under McCains bed.

Jackdog · Post by **Jackdog** » Thu Oct 30, 2008 11:15 am

JackB1 wrote:

Just proves that neither party has a monopoly on scumbags. Anyone who thinks this type of stuff is only happening on one side or the other is delusional. Those 2 guys that said the Palin thing was done in the spirit of Halloween were complete morons. A Holiday doesn't give you a license to do whatever you want and think it's fine.

Agreed.

Naples39 · Post by **Naples39** » Thu Oct 30, 2008 11:32 am

I have yet to hear a coherent economic argument as to how a windfall profits tax makes ANY sense. Every call for it is based on outrage rather than sound policy.

From an economic perspective, I fail to see how a windfall profit tax on oil companies could accomplish anything but decreased output from the companies you are taxing, and as a result, higher prices at the pump.

If anyone could post a story that makes an argument for a windfall profits tax that isn't based on broad shot public frustration and class warfare I'd love to read it.

Jackdog · Post by **Jackdog** » Thu Oct 30, 2008 11:42 am

JackB1 wrote:
I thought it was terrible and a mistake. It kind of "cheapened" him a little in my eyes. When I heard he bought 30 mins of network time, I assumed it would be used for a live speech, not a 25 minute infomercial and a 5 minute speech that added nothing. He would have been better off just broadcasting his whole Florida stump speech.

I found the whole thing was too much "forced emotion" showing us all these "typical", hardworking US citizens who have fallen on tough times. Haven't we had enough "Joe The Plumbers" for a while? Hopefully that network spot won't cause too much backlash and people will just ignore it and move on.
I think the whole thing was very disappointing.

I think it hurt him a little bit.
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/200 ... realities/

Some other views on it thanks to MSNBC
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/ ... 14245.aspx

Chris Matthews called it "Romantic" Remember when he said "I Felt This Thrill Going Up My Leg" back in Febuary? He has a man crush on Obama.

I didn't like the way Matthews brought race into his comments.

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/GHAQ9va2cQM&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed>

Jackdog · Post by **Jackdog** » Thu Oct 30, 2008 11:52 am

Naples39 wrote:I have yet to hear a coherent economic argument as to how a windfall profits tax makes ANY sense. Every call for it is based on outrage rather than sound policy.

From an economic perspective, I fail to see how a windfall profit tax on oil companies could accomplish anything but decreased output from the companies you are taxing, and as a result, higher prices at the pump.

If anyone could post a story that makes an argument for a windfall profits tax that isn't based on broad shot public frustration and class warfare I'd love to read it.

I no economist but your post makes sense too me.

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Thu Oct 30, 2008 12:24 pm

Depends on how much the windfall profits tax produces and what those revenues are used for.

The conservative claim is that the windfall profit tax in the late '70s, early '80s led to decrease in oil production, as if there were no other external factors, such as the price of oil dropping which decreased the incentives and the profitability of domestic production.

Windfall tax revenues could be used to close the budget deficit. Or they could be used as rebates or to finance a stimulus. Of course, people inclined to be against any taxes don't believe in the notion of an economic stimulus.

Class warfare? That's the old strawman pulled out any time there's discussion of taxes. What about the redistribution of wealth from energy consumers to energy producers because of market prices which were probably hiked from speculation?

I'm not necessarily for a windfall profits tax (which is being considered in the UK for BP and in Australia for their coal producers) but in the wake of these kinds of profits, we need to look at the billions in subsidies the oil companies currently receive and re-examine the terms of the leases they hold on oil production from federally-owned lands and waters.

It happens in business all the time, where business arrangements and contracts are renegotiated when one of the parties realizes a windfall which wasn't foreseen when the original terms were negotiated.

GTHobbes · Post by **GTHobbes** » Thu Oct 30, 2008 12:53 pm

Naples39 wrote:I have yet to hear a coherent economic argument as to how a windfall profits tax makes ANY sense. Every call for it is based on outrage rather than sound policy.

From an economic perspective, I fail to see how a windfall profit tax on oil companies could accomplish anything but decreased output from the companies you are taxing, and as a result, higher prices at the pump.

If anyone could post a story that makes an argument for a windfall profits tax that isn't based on broad shot public frustration and class warfare I'd love to read it.

I see your point. But in my small mind, allowing the oil companies to charge us whatever the hell they want while keeping almost $15 BILLION profit (from just 3 months) aint all that much better.

JRod · Post by **JRod** » Thu Oct 30, 2008 1:30 pm

GTHobbes wrote:
Naples39 wrote:I have yet to hear a coherent economic argument as to how a windfall profits tax makes ANY sense. Every call for it is based on outrage rather than sound policy.

From an economic perspective, I fail to see how a windfall profit tax on oil companies could accomplish anything but decreased output from the companies you are taxing, and as a result, higher prices at the pump.

If anyone could post a story that makes an argument for a windfall profits tax that isn't based on broad shot public frustration and class warfare I'd love to read it.
I see your point. But in my small mind, allowing the oil companies to charge us whatever the hell they want while keeping almost $15 BILLION profit (from just 3 months) aint all that much better.

I know what you are saying but doesn't every other company do that. MS charges us whatever they want for Windows.

The tax breaks are crazy to me. Tax breaks are to spur on development when there isn't capital. Certainly this isn't the case with big oil.

TheGamer · Post by **TheGamer** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 12:44 am

This is awesome!!! Barack Obama is really the bastard son of Malcolm X.

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atla ... stanl.html

Brando70 · Post by **Brando70** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 9:57 am

TheGamer wrote:This is awesome!!! Barack Obama is really the bastard son of Malcolm X.

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atla ... stanl.html

Pam is by far the craziest rat in the blogging shithouse. But always good for a laugh.

Naples39 · Post by **Naples39** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 10:19 am

TheGamer wrote:This is awesome!!! Barack Obama is really the bastard son of Malcolm X.

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atla ... stanl.html

I hear that 23% of Texas believes this to be true.

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 10:21 am

Brando70 wrote:
TheGamer wrote:This is awesome!!! Barack Obama is really the bastard son of Malcolm X.

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atla ... stanl.html
Pam is by far the craziest rat in the blogging shithouse. But always good for a laugh.

I dont think its funny...I think shes pathetic.

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 2:57 pm

Hey, all of us who don't want our taxes raised-you know what we are?

We're selfish.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch ... -atta.html

Jackdog · Post by **Jackdog** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 4:07 pm

Obama's first tax plan.......anyone under 250,000
Obama's second tax plan...anyone under 200,000
Biden say's.....................150,000
Richardson say's............120,00

WTF is the number? Anyone.

matthewk · Post by **matthewk** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 4:59 pm

JackDog wrote:WTF is the number? Anyone.

Yep. That's the number. Anyone. Just give it enough time.

Soon every taxpayer will have a "Welfare buddy" they are responsible for helping out. I thought I already had two of them...my children

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 5:07 pm

wco81 wrote:I'm not necessarily for a windfall profits tax (which is being considered in the UK for BP and in Australia for their coal producers) but in the wake of these kinds of profits, we need to look at the billions in subsidies the oil companies currently receive and re-examine the terms of the leases they hold on oil production from federally-owned lands and waters.

I wholeheartedly agree. Government has NO business subsidizing any industry that has BILLION-dollar profits per quarter. I think that business can just barely squeeze by without the taxpayers' help ...

Take care,
PK