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

Cyclone85 · 06-22-2008, 12:24 AM

The 15% sounds an awful lot like capital gains which you didn't understand last month. Please do not confuse capital gains with income taxes -- they are separate taxes. Now, if Buffet with his big glasses is only taking a nominal salary like $800 or something like that, yes -- it is possible that he could pay less than you or me. But that's because he only earned $800 or $1. If you're not earning anything, you're not paying a tax on it; get it? If he has a billion bucks in cash laying around the bank earning 0% interest, he's not earning an income -- so theoretically, he could pay 0% tax. Again, you can't tax what is not earned. I know what I'm talking about. You think the billion dollars in cash earning 0% interest can be taxed again and again and again? Like a property tax? Sorry -- it doesn't work that way.

Stop worrying about Buffet with his big glasses. Now, just allow energy companies to put the needle in so we can get the energy that people need to live prosperously. Or don't you care about the poor people in Arkansas? In New Orleans? In East Des Moines? In East St. Louis? You think those people can afford $4.25 gas? I'm a little ticked at people like you who are in charge that are wrecking poor people's lives -- not to mention mine. I canceled a family vacation to Colorado Springs because $4.07 gas has inflicted damage in my budget.

Originally Posted by ban basketball

I'm not even referring to his secretary. Of course she doesn't pay that in taxes. I'm referring to Buffet 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.

skipster · 06-22-2008, 07:54 AM

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.

False. The middle class is NOT hit hardest economic swings. If you go back and look at the links I provided on the thread about Social Security and OASDI benefits, you will see that an income cap was put on the Social Security tax in part because upper income levels swing much more drastically that lower income levels -- the high incomes drop more during hard times than the lower incomes. If you want to talk about who will spend more money, the wealthy will always spend more money -- that is part of being wealthy. Wealthy people also usually invest money into businesses or other activities that create jobs. I'm not passing judgment as to the value of purchases, I'm just saying everyone spends money, so the point is moot.

Tax increases for those who own the means of production always raise costs for the poor and middle class. Again, I ask you to tell me how raising taxes on employers makes the things that I buy cheaper or gives me a pay raise, or lets my employer hire more people.

Remember, higher costs to employers and producers result in higher prices for the middle class and poor. Lower costs to producers and employers result in higher wages and lower prices -- we have NEVER seen it work the opposite way in American history.

buckeye125 · 06-25-2008, 02:31 PM

I don't know if this point has been raised (i didn't read all 4 pages), but prices are not the only thing to consider here. It is almost universally agreed upon that the USA needs to not only cut back on foreign oil, but oil period. Why keep drilling for oil when there are cheaper and cleaner alternatives? Why not invest the $100 million+ that it costs to set up a deep water oil rig, into the cleaner / more efficient energy sources of the future? Why keep investing in something that is detrimental financially and environmentally? That's like saying "America is too obese and needs to cut back on sugar intake", but then going and investing in more sugar production, instead of using better alternatives.

matclone · 06-25-2008, 03:28 PM

There's probably disagreement as to whether there are cheaper and cleaner alternatives, but those entities who are invested in oil clearly have an interest in perpetuating the use of oil.

Funny analogy re: obesity and sugar.

fj1200 · 06-25-2008, 05:22 PM

Obama is lying and he knows it. Drilling today coupled with alternatives, futures caps and just using less will definately decrease oil costs. I give Obama the benefit of doubt that he is a liar as opposed to just stupid. The reason he will not say drilling will affect the market positively is that he is in the pocket of the tree huggers.

FloggingSully · 06-25-2008, 05:25 PM

"Drilling today coupled with alternatives, futures caps and just using less will definately decrease oil costs"
-It isn't just Obama, I heard an interview with someone from Chevron (an oil company) who said best case scenario it would be 10 years (from when the offshore areas are opened) before any oil from new offshore drilling would hit the market.

fj1200 · 06-25-2008, 05:40 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.

Duh. Most of tax breaks are aimed at the middle class now. Who do you think the stimulous checks are going to?

Of course it is important to know who you deem “middle class”….who are they? Politicians have a great deal of trouble defining the middle class as relates to taxes.

You’re confusing the laffer curve with trickle down economics. They are not the same thing, look it up. President Bush’s economic strategy was the application of the laffer curve and was without doubt successful.

fj1200 · 06-25-2008, 05:45 PM

Originally Posted by FloggingSully

"Drilling today coupled with alternatives, futures caps and just using less will definately decrease oil costs"
-It isn't just Obama, I heard an interview with someone from Chevron (an oil company) who said best case scenario it would be 10 years (from when the offshore areas are opened) before any oil from new offshore drilling would hit the market.

Oil from ANWR could be to market in 3 years, if we had to. But that is not the question. It is, whether drilling would lower prices, not when the crude could be refined.

Cyclone85 · 06-25-2008, 06:11 PM

I don't care if it is 10-years; I have young kids who want to have a prosperous life. Also, I don't think it would take 10-years especially if you don't have to build a pipe-line. We have domestic sources on U.S. soil that can't be drilled. It doesn't take 10-year for that. It doesn't take even a year.

I gave up 7-years of my life to study so that I could make a good living. It paid off. Should have I said, 'nah...7-years is too long....I'll just drink instead.'

Originally Posted by FloggingSully

"Drilling today coupled with alternatives, futures caps and just using less will definately decrease oil costs"
-It isn't just Obama, I heard an interview with someone from Chevron (an oil company) who said best case scenario it would be 10 years (from when the offshore areas are opened) before any oil from new offshore drilling would hit the market.

FloggingSully · 06-26-2008, 10:21 AM

Originally Posted by fj1200

Oil from ANWR could be to market in 3 years, if we had to. But that is not the question. It is, whether drilling would lower prices, not when the crude could be refined.

-Good, spend your time worrying about the 2 cents/gallon drilling in ANWR could save you, I'll worry about ways to make a noticable dent in transportation costs.

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

Politics & Religion