Obama: Offshore drilling will not lower gas prices this year, next year or 5 years from now

washed up wrestler · 06-21-2008, 05:34 PM

To sum up the republican frustration in this thread:

Democrats are bad. Democrats are stupid. Corporations are ripped off. Republicans feel your pain. The Economy is ruined because of the Democrats. Gas flows from the sky but the Democrats don't see it. Compassionate Conservatism Rocks!

UGLY · 06-21-2008, 05:34 PM

Originally Posted by ban basketball

Yes, drill for more oil. 46 million leased acres that the oil companies are deliberately not drilling in or exploring. Why?

They are exploring it and you can not prove otherwise.

ban basketball · 06-21-2008, 05:35 PM

Originally Posted by skipster

Ban,

You are doing a perfect job of illustrating how the left doesn't understand that economics is interconnected. Yuo seem to think that if taxes are lowered for the middle class, everything will be better for them, or that life will be more "fair" iof taxes are increased on the wealthy, yet you can't tell us how that will work. You only tell us that it will be more "fair," whatever that means. You still haven't told us how it will make middle class life better if we punish the wealthy by making them pay more.

But, also think of the interconnectedness of life and the economy. Generally, the middle class work for people who have more money than they do themselves and they buy things from people who have more money than they do themselves. If you tax those peolpe more, the cost of doing business goes up. Thus, less money is available with which to employ people and products cost more.

If you want fewer jobs, lower wages, and higher product prices, all you have to do is make the cost of doing business higher for those who do business -- the wealthy.

I understand you have this Robin Hood delusion that you can take from the rich and give to the poor, but all you're doing is making things more and more expensive for the poor.

I've been making a very logical argument on here forever as to why tax cuts are better given to the middle and working classes, versus any other social class/income bracket. Simply stated, there's more of them.

75% of Americans reside within the middle classes, and they are the ones hit hardest today by declining wages, higher prices, greater debt burden, credit cards, etc. Give those folks more money and they will spend it; they have to on helping themselves get out of debt. This will, thus, strengthen the economy faster than any other way that we could imagine.

Tax breaks to the wealthy have not resulted in the trickle down effect that Laffer theoretically talked about. It didn't work for Reagan (among the lowest rates of private sector job growth in modern times), and it didn't work for Bush. Putting money into the pockets of the wealthy doesn't make them go out and suddenly spend, as they don't need to immediately provide for themselves as desperately as other classes do.

Again, I've made this argument on here many times before. It isn't new.

ban basketball · 06-21-2008, 05:51 PM

Originally Posted by UGLY

They are exploring it and you can not prove otherwise.

Actually, no they aren't. I saw a news program on it yesterday where the oil companies, themselves, said that they haven't explored most of it yet.

I can't prove it, but they can prove it for us.

ban basketball · 06-21-2008, 05:55 PM

Cyclone85,

Why does my colleague, an economist, William Reich, a Harvard economist, say the same thing that Warren Buffett (and I) say? Yet, I'm wrong and you're right?

"Buffett cited himself, the third-richest person in the world, as an example. Last year, Buffett said, he was taxed at 17.7 percent on his taxable income of more than $46 million. His receptionist was taxed at about 30 percent."

"The rich can take advantage of tax loopholes, including one that allows those managers to pay the capital gains tax rate of 15 percent instead of the ordinary top income tax rate of 35 percent."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...062700097.html

UGLY · 06-21-2008, 06:02 PM

Originally Posted by ban basketball

I've been making a very logical argument on here forever as to why tax cuts are better given to the middle and working classes, versus any other social class/income bracket. Simply stated, there's more of them.

75% of Americans reside within the middle classes, and they are the ones hit hardest today by declining wages, higher prices, greater debt burden, credit cards, etc. Give those folks more money and they will spend it; they have to on helping themselves get out of debt. This will, thus, strengthen the economy faster than any other way that we could imagine.

Tax breaks to the wealthy have not resulted in the trickle down effect that Laffer theoretically talked about. It didn't work for Reagan (among the lowest rates of private sector job growth in modern times), and it didn't work for Bush. Putting money into the pockets of the wealthy doesn't make them go out and suddenly spend, as they don't need to immediately provide for themselves as desperately as other classes do.

Again, I've made this argument on here many times before. It isn't new.

You want higher paying jobs find a way to stop illegal immigration, just talk to a few meat cutters about that.

If you want to lower tax rates for the middle class and not raise taxes on the rich I could go for that on principle I don't know how much it would work.

UGLY · 06-21-2008, 06:04 PM

Originally Posted by ban basketball

Actually, no they aren't. I saw a news program on it yesterday where the oil companies, themselves, said that they haven't explored most of it yet.

I can't prove it, but they can prove it for us.

There is a big diffrence between they arent exploring it at all and they havent explored all of it yet.

Cyclone85 · 06-21-2008, 06:10 PM

Forget the tax talk. Conservatives will always lose that argument because they are a minority. There are a lot fewer people pulling the cart than there are people in the cart, so any talk of tax reform will fall on deaf ears. Believe me Ban -- you're going to get your wish for higher taxes on the rich.

Back to the much more important topic of energy. The 50M acres are likely 'throw a bone at ya' crap reserves. Why are there any limitations at all? We're trying to have a civilization here, ya know...and in case you missed it, it was built with massive amounts of coal, oil, and gas. Just in case you forgot, the market has bid up oil from $10 in CY 1999 to over $135 today, with no end in sight. That was then, this is now; things have changed. Why does Congress, various states, and some Presidents get off on making so many no drill zones where there is known oil? Oil is a beautiful thing, man. It has built the great society that you live in and enjoy. Cheap and abundant oil supplies increase the standard of living for everyone.

On the one hand, you're saying oil companies aren't doing enough with the 50M acres they have; on the other, you don't want them to drill any place else. That's a foolish position to take.

One of these days, Americans are going to get fed up with $5, $6, and $9 gas which will happen if people like you are in charge. And when they are fed up, they are going to vote the idiots out of office like Chucky Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo Rangel, the diminutive Grandma Pelosi, and the rest of the no drill dunces which is causing considerable stress on our economy.

For the life of me, I do not understand why the radical left doesn't want cheaper oil and cheaper gas. Why? Why? Why????? Why????????

Originally Posted by ban basketball

Actually, no they aren't. I saw a news program on it yesterday where the oil companies, themselves, said that they haven't explored most of it yet.

I can't prove it, but they can prove it for us.

Cyclone85 · 06-21-2008, 06:19 PM

I have a cousin that graduated from Harvard in mathematics, and I'm not going to lie to you; I'm not too impressed with the curriculum these days. Buffet's little story has been rebuked not only in the technical sense, but using common sense as well. Without going into extreme detail, everybody knows what Buffet's secretary was making. I make a lot more than that secretary and my Fed tax rate is a fraction of hers, so there is absolutely no way she's paying 30%. Her income is way too low to even approach 30% based on the Federal tax tables. Someone making that amount with a reasonable mortgage, a kid or two, would be paying in the range of 10% or perhaps a little higher. Again, it depends on the deductions, interest, charity, etc. But no way (no way whatsoever) does the 30% jive with the Fed tax tables. Zero percent chance.

I don't like Buffet with those big glasses anyway. He's very partisan and he wants to pay more taxes. I know one thing -- he didn't volunteer to pay extra when he submitted those forms in.

Originally Posted by ban basketball

Cyclone85,

Why does my colleague, an economist, William Reich, a Harvard economist, say the same thing that Warren Buffett (and I) say? Yet, I'm wrong and you're right?

"Buffett cited himself, the third-richest person in the world, as an example. Last year, Buffett said, he was taxed at 17.7 percent on his taxable income of more than $46 million. His receptionist was taxed at about 30 percent."

"The rich can take advantage of tax loopholes, including one that allows those managers to pay the capital gains tax rate of 15 percent instead of the ordinary top income tax rate of 35 percent."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...062700097.html

ban basketball · 06-21-2008, 07:12 PM

Originally Posted by Cyclone85

I have a cousin that graduated from Harvard in mathematics, and I'm not going to lie to you; I'm not too impressed with the curriculum these days. Buffett's little story has been rebuked not only in the technical sense, but using common sense as well. Without going into extreme detail, everybody knows what Buffett's secretary was making. I make a lot more than that secretary and my Fed tax rate is a fraction of hers, so there is absolutely no way she's paying 30%. Her income is way too low to even approach 30% based on the Federal tax tables. Someone making that amount with a reasonable mortgage, a kid or two, would be paying in the range of 10% or perhaps a little higher. Again, it depends on the deductions, interest, charity, etc. But no way (no way whatsoever) does the 30% jive with the Fed tax tables. Zero percent chance.

I don't like Buffett with those big glasses anyway. He's very partisan and he wants to pay more taxes. I know one thing -- he didn't volunteer to pay extra when he submitted those forms in.

I'm not even referring to his secretary. Of course she doesn't pay that in taxes. I'm referring to Buffett and the rest of the billionaires who pay, on average, about 15% in taxes.

Yes, I'm citing that number from other sources, but these people are economists who give me these numbers. Surely, they all can't be wrong.

Obama: Offshore drilling will not lower gas prices this year, next year or 5 years from now

Politics & Religion