wrote:
Interesting Tom. It is only June, and I suspect there will be some flipflop tweeking going on in both camps before the election.
My big question is, When will mainstream media start giving some time and space to the other candidates? They get no coverage. They don't have the cash to make TV/radio/newspapers listen to them. Thats a big problem. Can't you guys at TLN do your part? Run some indepth stories on the other guys? Or are you bound by the Freedom Press to only cover the big two? Most people now days do have the internet, but most don't spend time researching these guys. I am guilty of that also. Maybe I will start today and do some homework. As I have noted before, the last 3 elections where won by the lessor of two evils, IMO. I suspect the MAIN reason Bush screwed up so bad was ego, to show his Dad that he could do what Bush the 1st failed to do when he had the chance, and the suport.
OK, I am off to Bob Barr, and Chuck Baldwin's web sites.
My big question is, When will mainstream media start giving some time and space to the other candidates? They get no coverage. They don't have the cash to make TV/radio/newspapers listen to them. Thats a big problem. Can't you guys at TLN do your part? Run some indepth stories on the other guys? Or are you bound by the Freedom Press to only cover the big two? Most people now days do have the internet, but most don't spend time researching these guys. I am guilty of that also. Maybe I will start today and do some homework. As I have noted before, the last 3 elections where won by the lessor of two evils, IMO. I suspect the MAIN reason Bush screwed up so bad was ego, to show his Dad that he could do what Bush the 1st failed to do when he had the chance, and the suport.
OK, I am off to Bob Barr, and Chuck Baldwin's web sites.
22 June 2008 05:59:04
wrote:
Hummmmm. I understand why you would chose Bob Barr, and I admit I like what his website says. He is right on the money as far as taxes and boarder control, and earmark spending, as well as national defense. Your other option, Chuck Balwin, .......umm, could you expand on why you like this guy? I found his website. Lots of info there too. I only know what I have read on here about you, and most of what I have read does not seem to fit Baldwin's agenda. I am just wondering what issues you agree with him on.
22 June 2008 07:52:56
wrote:
Danimal,
First off, thank you for trying everything possible to make an informed decision. It's something that obviously, many Americans didn't do this primary.
Here's my two cents.
Bob Barr: I like prety much everything he says. However, I don't like his voting record. He voted for the Patriot Act and for the war. He says he regrets both, however, I have a hard time believing that.
Chuck Baldwin: He has absolutely no - to minimal- experience in the political system. However, he is essentially running on Ron Paul's platform. He addresses the global elite, the North American Union, and the New World Order. He is completely ligite and is not corrupt. Chuck Baldwin will be receiving my vote this November.
Ralph Nadar: Very socialist views. I don't trust him.
There's my two cents!
First off, thank you for trying everything possible to make an informed decision. It's something that obviously, many Americans didn't do this primary.
Here's my two cents.
Bob Barr: I like prety much everything he says. However, I don't like his voting record. He voted for the Patriot Act and for the war. He says he regrets both, however, I have a hard time believing that.
Chuck Baldwin: He has absolutely no - to minimal- experience in the political system. However, he is essentially running on Ron Paul's platform. He addresses the global elite, the North American Union, and the New World Order. He is completely ligite and is not corrupt. Chuck Baldwin will be receiving my vote this November.
Ralph Nadar: Very socialist views. I don't trust him.
There's my two cents!
22 June 2008 10:08:42
wrote:
I also am voting 3d party, but haven't decided which one. They need more media coverage. I'm sick of the Obama show on every channel. His ease with lying outshines Bill Clinton, along with his race baiting tactics. Nothing derogatory has been said about his race, and he could not have gotten where he is today without white support. Even so, his television ads tout how the republicans are going to use his race as a factor in their campaign. He is the only one who brings it up, because he is after the sympathy vote and victim status. It won't work this time. He lost some of his support because of all the untruths and revelations about his past, most of which he tried denying. I originally liked him as a person, but now find him almost unbearable to watch and/or listen to. His is a blank sheet, unless someone has a script for him to read from.
22 June 2008 14:20:23
wrote:
Happy,
Tell how you really feel about Obama.
I agree. I think his popularity is based soley on his ability to speak well-and he does. His smooth voice and reading from script are great but thats all he has going for him. It's amazing how easy it is for people to be won over by a smooth talker.
Tell how you really feel about Obama.
I agree. I think his popularity is based soley on his ability to speak well-and he does. His smooth voice and reading from script are great but thats all he has going for him. It's amazing how easy it is for people to be won over by a smooth talker.
22 June 2008 15:43:32
wrote:
Sheesh Lucente, you lay out the perfect case for supporting McCain over Obama, then flake out at the end and say you'll be sitting this one out (ok not exactly, but you might as well if you're not voting for a viable winner).
We must not allow Obama in the White House, for the reasons outlined in this article, and many more not mentioned. It will either be him, or McCain. Period. I will vote for McCain, and try to be more pro-active in getting better candidates next time around.
Sure it might make the Republicans look better against a failed Obama presidency, but there is too much at stake right now to chance it. He can get a lot of stuff done with a Democratic congress, and it looks like they're keeping the majority. If we had a strongly conservative Congress, maybe letting Obama in wouldn't be such a big deal, but that's not the case.
It's very important that he not be the next POTUS.
We must not allow Obama in the White House, for the reasons outlined in this article, and many more not mentioned. It will either be him, or McCain. Period. I will vote for McCain, and try to be more pro-active in getting better candidates next time around.
Sure it might make the Republicans look better against a failed Obama presidency, but there is too much at stake right now to chance it. He can get a lot of stuff done with a Democratic congress, and it looks like they're keeping the majority. If we had a strongly conservative Congress, maybe letting Obama in wouldn't be such a big deal, but that's not the case.
It's very important that he not be the next POTUS.
22 June 2008 17:18:34
wrote:
Averageguy,
I agree with you about Obama. If MaCain gets the win I don't think he can stop much of what the lib Dems want to push through. Last I heard the Dems expect to pick up more seats in the house and senate and would be virtually veto proof against any thing MaCain would want. I have a feeling MaCain will have to move to the left if he wants to get anything done- I hope I am wrong.
I agree with you about Obama. If MaCain gets the win I don't think he can stop much of what the lib Dems want to push through. Last I heard the Dems expect to pick up more seats in the house and senate and would be virtually veto proof against any thing MaCain would want. I have a feeling MaCain will have to move to the left if he wants to get anything done- I hope I am wrong.
22 June 2008 18:02:00
TeeCee wrote:
I'm glad to see so many people actually checking out the candidates, instead of voting party lines, or race, or gender. Obama definitely has some weird views and scary skeletons in his closet.
But why would you vote for someone that can't win just to make a point?
At this point I plan on voting the least of the evils so to speak. If you don't like Obama why throw away a vote that could be used to defeat him, and take a chance on that vote actually helping him? Kinda like cutting off your nose to spite your face!!
Just remember if you vote in a way that "makes a point" and helps Obama, you have no more right to complain about what happens in the future than if you DIDN'T vote !!
Ciao "T"
But why would you vote for someone that can't win just to make a point?
At this point I plan on voting the least of the evils so to speak. If you don't like Obama why throw away a vote that could be used to defeat him, and take a chance on that vote actually helping him? Kinda like cutting off your nose to spite your face!!
Just remember if you vote in a way that "makes a point" and helps Obama, you have no more right to complain about what happens in the future than if you DIDN'T vote !!
Ciao "T"
23 June 2008 00:45:24
wrote:
I love how people demonize political parties by using words like "Socialist" and "liberal" etc. Two quick points: 1) Obama does not support a windfall tax on oil companies' profits. If you remember, Clinton supported a "tax holiday" and a windfall tax and McCain supported a "tax holiday". I'm sure many libertarians would support a gas tax holiday, but keep in mind that the federal government would still be spending money to repair highways; creating a larger deficit. Obama supported neither, saying they both were fiscally irresponsible. 2) Obama is not supporting raising the capital gains tax, he supports not extending the bill that decreased the capital gains tax (referred to as the Bush Tax Break). There is a slight difference here - if you are going to report the facts, let's be accurate.
One last point - I love how so many people are proponents for a "failed Presidency". If this guy wins, I hope he fails so it's easier for our party next time. This goes to Dems, Libertarians, and Republicans - it's a shame that you would rather have your country go backwards than to live in prosperity for the President's term just so your party might win the next time around.
One last point - I love how so many people are proponents for a "failed Presidency". If this guy wins, I hope he fails so it's easier for our party next time. This goes to Dems, Libertarians, and Republicans - it's a shame that you would rather have your country go backwards than to live in prosperity for the President's term just so your party might win the next time around.
23 June 2008 08:53:26
wrote:
Tom:
I read on a Yahoo news report last night that Bob Barr is against lightening the laws on medical marajuana. Infact, he doesn't want to leagalize drugs either. Ummmm, thats not very liberal-atarian is it?
Matt d Gilroy:
First i have seen you on here. Welcome to the fray.
On your second point.....lets not split hairs. By 'not extending' the bill on tax breaks, the effect would be higher taxes that we don't pay now. Don't care how you slice it. That is a raise in taxes.
And the terms 'socialist' and 'liberal' are not demonizing anyone. They are just adjectives that describe Obama well. And if he gets elected, they will become nouns and verbs faster than you can disect this sentance.
I read on a Yahoo news report last night that Bob Barr is against lightening the laws on medical marajuana. Infact, he doesn't want to leagalize drugs either. Ummmm, thats not very liberal-atarian is it?
Matt d Gilroy:
First i have seen you on here. Welcome to the fray.
On your second point.....lets not split hairs. By 'not extending' the bill on tax breaks, the effect would be higher taxes that we don't pay now. Don't care how you slice it. That is a raise in taxes.
And the terms 'socialist' and 'liberal' are not demonizing anyone. They are just adjectives that describe Obama well. And if he gets elected, they will become nouns and verbs faster than you can disect this sentance.
23 June 2008 16:59:07
wrote:
Hey Tom, my reply to Mattgilroy disappeared. I'll try it again.
Obama stated he wanted to raise the Capital Gains tax from 15% to 28% several times. He said it would be more fair to the middle class. Is he aware that many middle class people use capital gains as a saving? He also reiterated many times that the oil companies profits are outrageous, and he would tax their profits and give the money to the middle class. Exxon Mobil paid $30 billion in taxes last year, paying 41% in taxes. It paid more in taxes than the bottom 50% of individual taxpayers, which is around 65 million people, who paid 3% in taxes. Sure, the profits are outrageous, but so are Tom Cruise, Sandra Bullock, and all those other multi million dollar stars. Why isn't anyone complaining about Oprah? What Obama wants to do is tax the economy, which isn't a good idea.
Obama stated he wanted to raise the Capital Gains tax from 15% to 28% several times. He said it would be more fair to the middle class. Is he aware that many middle class people use capital gains as a saving? He also reiterated many times that the oil companies profits are outrageous, and he would tax their profits and give the money to the middle class. Exxon Mobil paid $30 billion in taxes last year, paying 41% in taxes. It paid more in taxes than the bottom 50% of individual taxpayers, which is around 65 million people, who paid 3% in taxes. Sure, the profits are outrageous, but so are Tom Cruise, Sandra Bullock, and all those other multi million dollar stars. Why isn't anyone complaining about Oprah? What Obama wants to do is tax the economy, which isn't a good idea.
23 June 2008 18:01:02
wrote:
Well I think we should just tax Milk @ 5 cents a gallon, and bread @ 5 cents a loaf. Wonder how fast those nickles would add up?
23 June 2008 19:09:31
wrote:
TeeCee,
I respectfully disagree with you. You said your going to vote for the lesser evil, that tells me you really don't think MaCain is best for the job. I understand what you mean about throwing away your vote, and maybe some people are voting thrid party to make a point. Is that so bad? People have a right to vote who they feel is the best canidate. I am looking hard at a thrid party not to make a point, but for someone who mirrors my own values and belifes of the direction the country should go in. I have not made up my mind yet it's a tough call. It seems I have been voting for the lesser of two evils for to long and want to vote for someone I think can run the country, just not too cast my vote to keep the other guy out. If I do vote that way why wouldn't I have a right to complain. I stay involved, write my representatives and voice my opionion.
I respectfully disagree with you. You said your going to vote for the lesser evil, that tells me you really don't think MaCain is best for the job. I understand what you mean about throwing away your vote, and maybe some people are voting thrid party to make a point. Is that so bad? People have a right to vote who they feel is the best canidate. I am looking hard at a thrid party not to make a point, but for someone who mirrors my own values and belifes of the direction the country should go in. I have not made up my mind yet it's a tough call. It seems I have been voting for the lesser of two evils for to long and want to vote for someone I think can run the country, just not too cast my vote to keep the other guy out. If I do vote that way why wouldn't I have a right to complain. I stay involved, write my representatives and voice my opionion.
23 June 2008 19:54:45
Lucente wrote:
Danimal,
Media attention to third parties has long been a pet peeve of mine. It is the same when debates are scheduled. The media won't give attention to third-party candidates (unless the candidate is well-known) until they have high poll number, yet, they can't get the high poll numbers until the media gives them attention. The American people has chosen to let the media dictate which candidates are the real ones.
My thinking is if one candidate has his or her name on the ballot in enough states to mathematically win the election, then that candidate deserves the same attention and respect as the main candidates.
As far as which candidate I am going to choose, you are right, there is some problems with Barr and Baldwin. I have not researched either candidate enough yet to make a decision. I have long liked Barr, though, even though some of his positions in the past have been anti-libertarian. I think the key is choosing the candidate closest to your beliefs. But you can't rule out a candidate because he or she does not agree completely with your own positions, or you would never get to vote.
~tjl~
Media attention to third parties has long been a pet peeve of mine. It is the same when debates are scheduled. The media won't give attention to third-party candidates (unless the candidate is well-known) until they have high poll number, yet, they can't get the high poll numbers until the media gives them attention. The American people has chosen to let the media dictate which candidates are the real ones.
My thinking is if one candidate has his or her name on the ballot in enough states to mathematically win the election, then that candidate deserves the same attention and respect as the main candidates.
As far as which candidate I am going to choose, you are right, there is some problems with Barr and Baldwin. I have not researched either candidate enough yet to make a decision. I have long liked Barr, though, even though some of his positions in the past have been anti-libertarian. I think the key is choosing the candidate closest to your beliefs. But you can't rule out a candidate because he or she does not agree completely with your own positions, or you would never get to vote.
~tjl~
24 June 2008 02:14:06
Lucente wrote:
HappyG,
You are dead right. Obama is the one who keeps bringing race into the election.
~tjl~
You are dead right. Obama is the one who keeps bringing race into the election.
~tjl~
24 June 2008 02:15:38
Lucente wrote:
AverageGuy,
I can't disagree with you more. I will not contribute to the problem by choosing a candidate based on his or her probability of winning. That is what is wrong with American elections. No one wants to vote for the best candidate because they would rather vote for a Dem or Rep. because they have a better chance of winning.
I am going to vote my conscience and live with the consequences. If more Americans did that, our elections would actually mean something.
~tjl~
I can't disagree with you more. I will not contribute to the problem by choosing a candidate based on his or her probability of winning. That is what is wrong with American elections. No one wants to vote for the best candidate because they would rather vote for a Dem or Rep. because they have a better chance of winning.
I am going to vote my conscience and live with the consequences. If more Americans did that, our elections would actually mean something.
~tjl~
24 June 2008 02:18:01
Lucente wrote:
TeeCee,
I disagree. I think people who vote for the major parties just because they don't want to waste their votes are the ones who should not be complaining when they get people like Bush and Clinton in the White House. It is pure lunacy to keep voting for the same parties over and over and expecting things to change.
I will not be a part of the problem.
~tjl~
I disagree. I think people who vote for the major parties just because they don't want to waste their votes are the ones who should not be complaining when they get people like Bush and Clinton in the White House. It is pure lunacy to keep voting for the same parties over and over and expecting things to change.
I will not be a part of the problem.
~tjl~
24 June 2008 02:21:25
Lucente wrote:
mattdgilroy,
Welcome to the fray!
Socialist is not demeaning, it is an accurate depiction of Obama.
Also, you re the one not being accurate. Obama: "What I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness."
Sounds like a tax increase to me. Eliminate previous tax cuts is, in reality, a raise in taxes.
Finally, I agree with you on people wanting to vote for a candidate they don't like in hopes they will fail. Everyone has a responsibility to vote for the person they think is best for the job, not who can win or who will bomb and make the other party look better.
~tjl~
Welcome to the fray!
Socialist is not demeaning, it is an accurate depiction of Obama.
Also, you re the one not being accurate. Obama: "What I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness."
Sounds like a tax increase to me. Eliminate previous tax cuts is, in reality, a raise in taxes.
Finally, I agree with you on people wanting to vote for a candidate they don't like in hopes they will fail. Everyone has a responsibility to vote for the person they think is best for the job, not who can win or who will bomb and make the other party look better.
~tjl~
24 June 2008 02:29:55
wrote:
One problem is we have all been taught that winning is everything. Thus, many people want to be on the winning side, even in elections. So they only choose between the front runners. Real basic. But it seems to me to be true.
Scant:
Widgets are non-taxable. They are made in China out of raw materials that we ship to them at half the cost we charge the AWM. (american widget makers)
Scant:
Widgets are non-taxable. They are made in China out of raw materials that we ship to them at half the cost we charge the AWM. (american widget makers)
24 June 2008 03:17:08
wrote:
Anyone who supports McCain, as the lesser of two evils is STILL supporting
evil.
Face it the Repubs have gone so far to the left that they have become
as socialistic as the Dems used to be, and the Dems are simply lost in the
wilderness.
evil.
Face it the Repubs have gone so far to the left that they have become
as socialistic as the Dems used to be, and the Dems are simply lost in the
wilderness.
24 June 2008 12:00:51
wrote:
SgtGideonsDad'
Couldn't agree more, this is a very interesting time. If MaCain wins he is not going to push through any Repubs or conservative agenda, the dems will pick up more seats in congress this November to make them veto proof. My feelings are they will have their way and overide any opposition from MaCain or Repubs.
Couldn't agree more, this is a very interesting time. If MaCain wins he is not going to push through any Repubs or conservative agenda, the dems will pick up more seats in congress this November to make them veto proof. My feelings are they will have their way and overide any opposition from MaCain or Repubs.
24 June 2008 17:43:33
wrote:
Sgt. GideonsDad, and Scant: I agree with you both. However, I don't think the dems will be as gung ho as they pretend. A lot of what they did the past eight years was to make things rough for this administation, rather than do what they were elected to do. Their hatred against the Bush administration runs so deep that it took up most of their time and our money.
25 June 2008 08:03:07
wrote:
ANYONE WITH HALF A BRAIN WILL NOT VOTE FOR BARAK HUSSIEN OBOMA; HE IS NOT EXPERIENCED ENOUGH FOR ONE THING, ANOTHER IS THAT HE DOES NOT SEEM TO BE A LOYAL AMERICAN; HE SIAD HE WILL RAISE TAXES; HE SAID HE WOULD TAKE FROM FROM SOME AND GIVE TO OTHERS; THAT'S RIGHT OUT OF KARL MARX'S BOOK. REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH. OR COMMUNISM. 
25 June 2008 11:02:14
bengalbob wrote:
Right on H.Clark.
I have thought now for a while that Obamas agenda seems very communist. But he is just saying the same thing that other dems have stated in the past. Tax the wealthy in a different tax bracket- so that they pay the most taxes. This thought process is looney! People are simple minded and do not think these things out. That statement seems like it would be fair...stick it to the rich...besides they live off of 5% of what they earn. Think about that statement...they live on 5% of what they earn. Everytime a politician says something like that they are only trying to sell you a lie. Yes, they can even pass a tax increase on the rich to save face and make you think they are doing something. But look at these points:
1. Rich people can afford good lawyers...whose sole job is to find the loopole around the tax increases...and if it costs them say 1-2% to pay a lawyer to find a way for him to get around the increase it is a smart investment to them. Most people don't have 100-200k or more sitting around to afford that service.
2. The majority of voters work for the rich...so it is a great game plan for politicians to say that they are going to stick it to the rich people drawing on peoples emotions. By raising taxes on the rich, you would really be limiting business growth and jobs. You would also be limiting their budgets which would mean lower paying jobs would become available and seasoned employees could be on their way out.
3. Most politicians are included in the rich! Do you really think that they are going to pass a tax increase on themselves without knowingly adding a loopole to get around it. Are we really that shallow-minded? Most people also choose to claim zero on your taxes so they can have a bigger tax return? If so, they are giving the government an interest free loan! Does the government offer interest free loans to us? Just shows how some americans get pissy when you talk about taxes, but are unwilling to be financially disciplined to set aside their tax money every month and earn interest on it themselves.
We should not be so negative on the wealthy...they employ most of us! Why not ask your politicians to lessen the tax burden on businesses so they can afford to pay us more! But seeing as how most of us are simple-minded they will just find another way of getting back!
I have thought now for a while that Obamas agenda seems very communist. But he is just saying the same thing that other dems have stated in the past. Tax the wealthy in a different tax bracket- so that they pay the most taxes. This thought process is looney! People are simple minded and do not think these things out. That statement seems like it would be fair...stick it to the rich...besides they live off of 5% of what they earn. Think about that statement...they live on 5% of what they earn. Everytime a politician says something like that they are only trying to sell you a lie. Yes, they can even pass a tax increase on the rich to save face and make you think they are doing something. But look at these points:
1. Rich people can afford good lawyers...whose sole job is to find the loopole around the tax increases...and if it costs them say 1-2% to pay a lawyer to find a way for him to get around the increase it is a smart investment to them. Most people don't have 100-200k or more sitting around to afford that service.
2. The majority of voters work for the rich...so it is a great game plan for politicians to say that they are going to stick it to the rich people drawing on peoples emotions. By raising taxes on the rich, you would really be limiting business growth and jobs. You would also be limiting their budgets which would mean lower paying jobs would become available and seasoned employees could be on their way out.
3. Most politicians are included in the rich! Do you really think that they are going to pass a tax increase on themselves without knowingly adding a loopole to get around it. Are we really that shallow-minded? Most people also choose to claim zero on your taxes so they can have a bigger tax return? If so, they are giving the government an interest free loan! Does the government offer interest free loans to us? Just shows how some americans get pissy when you talk about taxes, but are unwilling to be financially disciplined to set aside their tax money every month and earn interest on it themselves.
We should not be so negative on the wealthy...they employ most of us! Why not ask your politicians to lessen the tax burden on businesses so they can afford to pay us more! But seeing as how most of us are simple-minded they will just find another way of getting back!
25 June 2008 13:48:42
wrote:
maybe more time and ink should be spent on , what IS going on. And a lot less on, what if and or whens, and a few maybes and could be? Obama will lower my taxes and raise those of millionaires, SO WHAT? Eveverything else, IMO is guess at best.
I do have a few questions for you on another matter you spoke on, Drilling.
1) why are they not drilling NOW, on the 68 million acres, they now can drill on?
2) why would oil companies spend money to drill, so supply would go up, and thier profits down?
3) and this would lower gas prices, how?
I do have a few questions for you on another matter you spoke on, Drilling.
1) why are they not drilling NOW, on the 68 million acres, they now can drill on?
2) why would oil companies spend money to drill, so supply would go up, and thier profits down?
3) and this would lower gas prices, how?
25 June 2008 16:47:04
wrote:
H Clarck
Do you make more than $250,000? If not your taxes are going down.
Redistribution of wealth, sounds like a Jesus thing to me.
Do you make more than $250,000? If not your taxes are going down.
Redistribution of wealth, sounds like a Jesus thing to me.
25 June 2008 16:49:21
wrote:
Redistribution of wealth is definitely not a Jesus thing. Jesus asked people to help the poor, not the government. Jesus said to give the government its due, as well as tithe, I doubt He would demand or even ask the government for money. He asked the multitudes of people to feed the hungry. And, as good Christians and Americans, it is up to us to see that no one goes hungry, not a bureaucratic mess of nincompoops, who take their share off the top.
25 June 2008 18:24:17
Scant wrote:
Dan,
Geez man. Christ never advocated that Cesar level the playing field by taxing the rich or taking from those who have and give to the have nots. Christ encouraged love for one another and helping your niegbhor, clearly taught in the parable of the good samaretian. Jesus had no use for the government and their evil ways of ripping off the poor- he even made a wipe and drove out the tax collectors from the temple- a government backed practice in the day.
A quot from Thomas Jefferson in his first inaugural address said: "A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industury and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government." If someone has worked hard and has become rich, why is it right to punish them for busting their butts.
Your taxes are not going down if Obama gets the nod. He clearing supports raising the capital gains tax which will hit anyone, of any tax bracket. He will not continue the bush tax cuts which will raise your taxes.
HappyG, your right on. Agree 100%.
Geez man. Christ never advocated that Cesar level the playing field by taxing the rich or taking from those who have and give to the have nots. Christ encouraged love for one another and helping your niegbhor, clearly taught in the parable of the good samaretian. Jesus had no use for the government and their evil ways of ripping off the poor- he even made a wipe and drove out the tax collectors from the temple- a government backed practice in the day.
A quot from Thomas Jefferson in his first inaugural address said: "A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industury and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government." If someone has worked hard and has become rich, why is it right to punish them for busting their butts.
Your taxes are not going down if Obama gets the nod. He clearing supports raising the capital gains tax which will hit anyone, of any tax bracket. He will not continue the bush tax cuts which will raise your taxes.
HappyG, your right on. Agree 100%.
25 June 2008 19:13:50
wrote:
"go give it all to "those" people"!
And I think he said GIVE UNTO CESAR!
Which one of you, make more than $250,000? Guess Qbama wont be raising your taxes, and McCain wont be lowering yours?
And I think he said GIVE UNTO CESAR!
Which one of you, make more than $250,000? Guess Qbama wont be raising your taxes, and McCain wont be lowering yours?
25 June 2008 20:08:13
wrote:
He said, GIVE UNTO CAESAR WHICH IS CAESAR'S. Our money does not belong to Caesar (the government). The government needs a minimal amount of money, mainly for defense, not giving to every lobby group that begs for a handout.
25 June 2008 20:23:46
wrote:
Happy,
nice try, but not scripture. I may agree with your view, But Jesus said, pay your taxes, and if you are rich, give it all away. Period
Why not answer the other questions?
nice try, but not scripture. I may agree with your view, But Jesus said, pay your taxes, and if you are rich, give it all away. Period
Why not answer the other questions?
25 June 2008 22:10:41
bengalbob wrote:
Dan,
1. They are not drilling yet because the Dems have the majority in Congress and Senate, and have yet to pass on the permission slips saying that they are allowed.
2. Oil companies would spend money to drill so they can aquire more! If your business sold widgets, wouldn't you like to find more widgets before someone else? Not to mention if they aquire it themselves then they are not paying someone else to aquire it for them.
3. Simple supply and demand would tell you that the price would go down. If they drill and find more then there will be more available. The market price for a barrel will go down because investers are not worried about supply anymore. If a barrel of oil goes down under $100 again then gas will follow suit. Don't get me wrong...the days of $2.00/ gal of gas are gone for good. But we could easily see it come down to $3-3.50.
And just for good measure...I think you are a looney if you actually believe that Obama will lower your taxes. I know the guy is a smooth talker, but he is not going to change the minds of "seasoned" congressmen and women. Not to mention he is like a 1st grader in political experience. He's simply just telling you what you want to hear- obviosly some are gullable enough to listen...and buy it!
1. They are not drilling yet because the Dems have the majority in Congress and Senate, and have yet to pass on the permission slips saying that they are allowed.
2. Oil companies would spend money to drill so they can aquire more! If your business sold widgets, wouldn't you like to find more widgets before someone else? Not to mention if they aquire it themselves then they are not paying someone else to aquire it for them.
3. Simple supply and demand would tell you that the price would go down. If they drill and find more then there will be more available. The market price for a barrel will go down because investers are not worried about supply anymore. If a barrel of oil goes down under $100 again then gas will follow suit. Don't get me wrong...the days of $2.00/ gal of gas are gone for good. But we could easily see it come down to $3-3.50.
And just for good measure...I think you are a looney if you actually believe that Obama will lower your taxes. I know the guy is a smooth talker, but he is not going to change the minds of "seasoned" congressmen and women. Not to mention he is like a 1st grader in political experience. He's simply just telling you what you want to hear- obviosly some are gullable enough to listen...and buy it!
25 June 2008 22:41:57
wrote:
Bengalbob did a good job of answering your questions. The U.S. has more oil than any other country. Yet, the democrats don't want to tap into it. A current excuse is that it would not be feasible for at least ten years, but the same happened ten years ago, twenty years ago. The oil would be flowing by now, had the democrats allowed new exploration and drilling. We would not be in this fix, if not for them.
As for Obama's intelligence, the more I hear him, the more naive I find him to be. He has no clue in more ways than just politics. Pretty words do not make intelligent decisions.
As for Obama's intelligence, the more I hear him, the more naive I find him to be. He has no clue in more ways than just politics. Pretty words do not make intelligent decisions.
26 June 2008 07:14:35
wrote:
Bengalbob, BS!
THEY, the oil folks already have leases and/or permission to drill RIGHT THIS SECOND on 68 million acres of american land, LOOK IT UP! Has nothing to do with (D) in DC!
Nice try!
Care to try again?
The rest is nonsense IMO
WHY woulld they spend money to drill, so the supply goes up and profits go down?
THE GAS AND OIL FOLKS WANT THIER PROFITS TO GO DOWN ALONG WITH THE PRIUCE OF GAS? LMAO!
THEY, the oil folks already have leases and/or permission to drill RIGHT THIS SECOND on 68 million acres of american land, LOOK IT UP! Has nothing to do with (D) in DC!
Nice try!
Care to try again?
The rest is nonsense IMO
WHY woulld they spend money to drill, so the supply goes up and profits go down?
THE GAS AND OIL FOLKS WANT THIER PROFITS TO GO DOWN ALONG WITH THE PRIUCE OF GAS? LMAO!
26 June 2008 16:03:39
wrote:
If had thousands of widgets for $135, why would I want 10,000 more, so the price would drop to $10?
Run that by me again
Run that by me again
26 June 2008 16:10:47
wrote:
Happy,
wrong again! THE IOL PEOPLE DONT WANT TO DRILL, on the 68 million acres THEY NOW HAVE PERMISSION TO! WHY? So they can reap huge profits, They are keeping it off the market to raise prices. But you know that, or maybe Fox hasnt told you yet?
wrong again! THE IOL PEOPLE DONT WANT TO DRILL, on the 68 million acres THEY NOW HAVE PERMISSION TO! WHY? So they can reap huge profits, They are keeping it off the market to raise prices. But you know that, or maybe Fox hasnt told you yet?
26 June 2008 16:14:56
Scant wrote:
Dan,
Your not thinking straight. The oil companys make around eight to nine cents a gallon-look that one up. They will still make that if there is more supply. Problem now is everyone is cutting back on driving and giving up the bigger cars and trucks. That means there is less gas being used so their profits will suffer. More supply and cheaper gas, and people will drive the bigger cars and trucks, most people prefer to drive the bigger stuff. Oil companys want more supply.
Your not thinking straight. The oil companys make around eight to nine cents a gallon-look that one up. They will still make that if there is more supply. Problem now is everyone is cutting back on driving and giving up the bigger cars and trucks. That means there is less gas being used so their profits will suffer. More supply and cheaper gas, and people will drive the bigger cars and trucks, most people prefer to drive the bigger stuff. Oil companys want more supply.
26 June 2008 16:16:34
wrote:
Dan, I did look it up. Fox who? Here is a reply to the 68 million acre question:
[The oil industry has argued that it doesn't produce oil on much of the land and ocean floor it has leased from the federal government because there often isn't enough energy in those areas to make it profitable to do so.
Red Cavaney, president of the American Petroleum Institute, put forward the argument on Fox News Sunday just days ago:
CAVANEY: Well, we are developing. And there's a big misunderstanding. If they understood the industry, they would appreciate the fact that we bid for those leases competitively in the open market. We pay the government to get them.
We have to pay annual lease fees on those particular leases. And at the end of the lease term -- five years, six years, whatever it may be -- if we haven't done anything on those leases, they go back to the government to be bid again.
What's going on is they -- the first step in our industry is called exploration. In other words, the creator didn't put oil and gas on every plot of land. So we have to go and explore.
We're willing to put our capital at risk to find out whether or not there's oil and gas there. And there's been very few cases where there is oil and gas in amounts that are commercially usable. And those are the ones that you can develop.
The rest of them, why drill where you know there's no oil or gas? And let those things go back to the government.
Capitol Hill Democrats have heard these arguments but sound like they don't believe them. ]
link: http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/06/dem_to_bush_drop_dead_on_offsh.html
The money makers in the oil business have nothing to do with oil. Check out the middle man.
[The oil industry has argued that it doesn't produce oil on much of the land and ocean floor it has leased from the federal government because there often isn't enough energy in those areas to make it profitable to do so.
Red Cavaney, president of the American Petroleum Institute, put forward the argument on Fox News Sunday just days ago:
CAVANEY: Well, we are developing. And there's a big misunderstanding. If they understood the industry, they would appreciate the fact that we bid for those leases competitively in the open market. We pay the government to get them.
We have to pay annual lease fees on those particular leases. And at the end of the lease term -- five years, six years, whatever it may be -- if we haven't done anything on those leases, they go back to the government to be bid again.
What's going on is they -- the first step in our industry is called exploration. In other words, the creator didn't put oil and gas on every plot of land. So we have to go and explore.
We're willing to put our capital at risk to find out whether or not there's oil and gas there. And there's been very few cases where there is oil and gas in amounts that are commercially usable. And those are the ones that you can develop.
The rest of them, why drill where you know there's no oil or gas? And let those things go back to the government.
Capitol Hill Democrats have heard these arguments but sound like they don't believe them. ]
link: http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/06/dem_to_bush_drop_dead_on_offsh.html
The money makers in the oil business have nothing to do with oil. Check out the middle man.
26 June 2008 16:27:10
Scant wrote:
Dan,
Your understanding of scripture is wrong. I believe you are refering the the rich young ruler asking Jesus what he must do to inherate eternal life? You need to read the story in it's full context. Jesus knew the mans heart and that the young man worshiped his money more than he would Jesus. Jesus wanted to be first in the mans life, not second to the young mans money, thats way He said go and sell all that you have and give to the poor and come follow me. Jesus talked about helping the needy, yes, but did not say it should be forced from the rich. He said that EYERYONE should have that kind of heart for their neigbhor to help them when they are in need not just those who have more than others.
Your understanding of scripture is wrong. I believe you are refering the the rich young ruler asking Jesus what he must do to inherate eternal life? You need to read the story in it's full context. Jesus knew the mans heart and that the young man worshiped his money more than he would Jesus. Jesus wanted to be first in the mans life, not second to the young mans money, thats way He said go and sell all that you have and give to the poor and come follow me. Jesus talked about helping the needy, yes, but did not say it should be forced from the rich. He said that EYERYONE should have that kind of heart for their neigbhor to help them when they are in need not just those who have more than others.
26 June 2008 16:58:13
wrote:
lol! I understand just fine. That eye of the needle is still pretty small, RIGHT?
HE did say PAY CAESAR, and that was not a if you feel like it thing was it?
Happy $140 is not profitable? LOL
HE did say PAY CAESAR, and that was not a if you feel like it thing was it?
Happy $140 is not profitable? LOL
26 June 2008 19:56:10
Scant wrote:
Dan,
You are one bitter man! What is it with your hatred of people with money? If you think Christ is saying those who have money, are evil or something, and it needs to be taken away and given to the poor then you are reading his words way wrong brother. Christ said, render unto Cesar what is Cesar's-meaning the tax that is owed- nothing more. You don't owe Cesar or the government anything or nothing more than that.
You don't understand- the eye of the needle is still pretty small, please! You have that one wrong also. Christ said it is hard for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven- meaning, it can be hard to trust in Christ rather than their money. In no way was He saying their wealth should be taken and given to you, Dan.
You are one bitter man! What is it with your hatred of people with money? If you think Christ is saying those who have money, are evil or something, and it needs to be taken away and given to the poor then you are reading his words way wrong brother. Christ said, render unto Cesar what is Cesar's-meaning the tax that is owed- nothing more. You don't owe Cesar or the government anything or nothing more than that.
You don't understand- the eye of the needle is still pretty small, please! You have that one wrong also. Christ said it is hard for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven- meaning, it can be hard to trust in Christ rather than their money. In no way was He saying their wealth should be taken and given to you, Dan.
26 June 2008 20:40:32
Scant wrote:
Dan,
I don't know you, and I would probably get along with you just fine in person, I do everybody, whether we agree or disagree on whatever. I think your distorting scripture, and will call you on that one everytime. Jesus acknowlegde paying the taxes to Caesar, your right there, but you go off the reservation when you try and link that too the government or caesar collecting money from people and redistributing it to those who are less fortunate as leveling the playing field- that is what you are trying to argue here in your posts. Jesus was never into the government taking care of the people, He left that up to the Church.
Did you read one of my earlier post about Thomas Jefferson's address when he was elected president- he said it was not right to take the bread from those who earend it and give to those who had not.
I don't know you, and I would probably get along with you just fine in person, I do everybody, whether we agree or disagree on whatever. I think your distorting scripture, and will call you on that one everytime. Jesus acknowlegde paying the taxes to Caesar, your right there, but you go off the reservation when you try and link that too the government or caesar collecting money from people and redistributing it to those who are less fortunate as leveling the playing field- that is what you are trying to argue here in your posts. Jesus was never into the government taking care of the people, He left that up to the Church.
Did you read one of my earlier post about Thomas Jefferson's address when he was elected president- he said it was not right to take the bread from those who earend it and give to those who had not.
26 June 2008 21:21:35
wrote:
Scant, You are making too much sense for a liberal to understand. They are bitter people, at least those around here. Many miss the correct meaning of scripture because they don't read the Bible, but hear quotes here and there, and apply them without reading the entire message. I believe in God's message. However, many do not, and many atheist agree that the Constitution is the ultimate source of the kind of lives we should lead. One must put the Bible aside when committing our money to others. The Constitution provides that issue. However, I believe we should give to those less fortunate, but straight to the source, and not by way of the government who has too much of an overhead to make charity worthwhile. The role of government is minimal, and should never be an intrusion on our lives. But, we have the right to intrude into government.
26 June 2008 21:26:24
wrote:
Im distorting anything. You are tweisting it to say what you want it to.
When asked about taxes, Jesus said PAY THEM. He told the rich man, for whatever reason, to GIVE IT ALL TO THOSE PEOPLE. He also said, that litle thing about the rich, and the eye of a needle, Whats to distort? Seems simple to me.
YOU can put the Bible aside, But should those who CLAIM IT AS THE POLITICS put it aside?
Like I said Obama will lower my taxes, McCain will not, show me Im wrong on that, and you will change my mind. Many of the people, useing your arguement, supported Bush, has any Prez abused the Constitution more the Bushco? Now Y,all seem to be defending the oil companies? ABSDURD!
And why Happy is so quick to sprew crap, LIBERALS give more than others look it up.
By the way, If Obama will lower your taxes and McCain will not, please explain why you dont want your taxes lower. And who is it that will do this? Borrow more from the commies, so you can feel better?
When asked about taxes, Jesus said PAY THEM. He told the rich man, for whatever reason, to GIVE IT ALL TO THOSE PEOPLE. He also said, that litle thing about the rich, and the eye of a needle, Whats to distort? Seems simple to me.
YOU can put the Bible aside, But should those who CLAIM IT AS THE POLITICS put it aside?
Like I said Obama will lower my taxes, McCain will not, show me Im wrong on that, and you will change my mind. Many of the people, useing your arguement, supported Bush, has any Prez abused the Constitution more the Bushco? Now Y,all seem to be defending the oil companies? ABSDURD!
And why Happy is so quick to sprew crap, LIBERALS give more than others look it up.
By the way, If Obama will lower your taxes and McCain will not, please explain why you dont want your taxes lower. And who is it that will do this? Borrow more from the commies, so you can feel better?
26 June 2008 22:17:47
Scant wrote:
Dan,
Holy cow, I got my work cut out for you. where do I start. I will start by saying a prayer for you- dear God show Dan the light. Reread Matthew 19 versus 16 through 26. By your own words- you say and I quot "for whatever reason, to give it all to those people." For whatever reason Dan, That statement tells me you are not confident in what the scripture says, by saying, For whatever reason, tells me you are not really sure what Jesus is saying. You are the one who brought up the Bible, so I will not put it aside. Jesus was making the point that many of those who have wealth, have a difficult time coming to God, because they trust their riches instead of God- thats why he said it's easier for a camel to go through an eye of a neddle. If the rich have a hard time going through that needle it still does not mean Jesus is advocating the Robin Hood method of taking from the rich and giving to the poor! The Pharisee asked Jesus if it was lawful to pay Ceaser the taxes, Jesus said give to Ceaser what is Ceaser's meaning the currency of the day had Ceasers image on it and to give him what is his, pay the taxes, but was in now way advocating that the government should decide what is best for the people, He wanted that to be left up to the Church and love for your brother kind of thing you know? Don't go to the bible for your arguements unless you know it well, I am not a pastor but feel confortable going head to head with anyone who wants to bring it up as a topic.
As for Obama and taxes, well, that argument has been made and will not rehash that cause you don't want to acknowlegde that the capital gains increase he wants or letting the Bush tax cuts expire. You are to hardheaded to consider that maybe Obama is not the Messiah.
Holy cow, I got my work cut out for you. where do I start. I will start by saying a prayer for you- dear God show Dan the light. Reread Matthew 19 versus 16 through 26. By your own words- you say and I quot "for whatever reason, to give it all to those people." For whatever reason Dan, That statement tells me you are not confident in what the scripture says, by saying, For whatever reason, tells me you are not really sure what Jesus is saying. You are the one who brought up the Bible, so I will not put it aside. Jesus was making the point that many of those who have wealth, have a difficult time coming to God, because they trust their riches instead of God- thats why he said it's easier for a camel to go through an eye of a neddle. If the rich have a hard time going through that needle it still does not mean Jesus is advocating the Robin Hood method of taking from the rich and giving to the poor! The Pharisee asked Jesus if it was lawful to pay Ceaser the taxes, Jesus said give to Ceaser what is Ceaser's meaning the currency of the day had Ceasers image on it and to give him what is his, pay the taxes, but was in now way advocating that the government should decide what is best for the people, He wanted that to be left up to the Church and love for your brother kind of thing you know? Don't go to the bible for your arguements unless you know it well, I am not a pastor but feel confortable going head to head with anyone who wants to bring it up as a topic.
As for Obama and taxes, well, that argument has been made and will not rehash that cause you don't want to acknowlegde that the capital gains increase he wants or letting the Bush tax cuts expire. You are to hardheaded to consider that maybe Obama is not the Messiah.
27 June 2008 00:03:15
Scant wrote:
Happy,
You are someone with much understanding, I agree with what you have said. So I geuss I am not alone!
You are someone with much understanding, I agree with what you have said. So I geuss I am not alone!
27 June 2008 00:13:32
wrote:
Scant, Thanks. Probably our common stances come from our conservatism, as well as the Bible.
And to Dan, Some time ago, research was done to find out who donated more to charity. The republicans did, hands down. And, I did look it up. You might look it up, too.
And to Dan, Some time ago, research was done to find out who donated more to charity. The republicans did, hands down. And, I did look it up. You might look it up, too.
27 June 2008 07:08:12
wrote:
To be more precise, Republicans give 30% more than Democrats.
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730&page=1
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730&page=1
27 June 2008 07:12:14
bengalbob wrote:
Dan,
About the supply and demand thing. If you were sitting on 1000 more widget than everyone else, wouldn't you control your own profit? Everyone else would be pricing their widget at the largest price that the market will bear-That's called retail. If you have more widgets than they do you can let them test the market to see what price it would bear for your competetors to make a profit. You, in turn, will make MORE profit seeing is how you have more supply. Not everything you read on your democratic (bible) website is true! For that matter neither is everything on a republican website either.
About the supply and demand thing. If you were sitting on 1000 more widget than everyone else, wouldn't you control your own profit? Everyone else would be pricing their widget at the largest price that the market will bear-That's called retail. If you have more widgets than they do you can let them test the market to see what price it would bear for your competetors to make a profit. You, in turn, will make MORE profit seeing is how you have more supply. Not everything you read on your democratic (bible) website is true! For that matter neither is everything on a republican website either.
27 June 2008 08:28:09
wrote:
So I want more widgets so the price goes down, and I have to sale 10 times as many to make any profit? If I control ALL widgets, cant I just screw anyone who needs one? Great business plan. ITS WHY THEY ARE NOT DRILLING NOW, ITS WHY THEY ARE NOT PUMPING MORE, ITS WHY THGE ARE NOT REFINEING MORE, TO KEEP THE PRICE UP!
BTW GFY! Im proud of you, and your defense of the oil companies, and your twisted view of the known facts.
MORE SUPPLY MEANS THE PRICE GOES DOWN, and you have to sale more to make the same amount of profit. PERIOD! keep cheap oiul off the market, what happens to the price? Tell us again why thats in the oil companies best interest or mine.
WHAT IS NOT TRUE IN MY (D) BIBLE? Just running your mouth or what? You do have an answer right?
BTW GFY! Im proud of you, and your defense of the oil companies, and your twisted view of the known facts.
MORE SUPPLY MEANS THE PRICE GOES DOWN, and you have to sale more to make the same amount of profit. PERIOD! keep cheap oiul off the market, what happens to the price? Tell us again why thats in the oil companies best interest or mine.
WHAT IS NOT TRUE IN MY (D) BIBLE? Just running your mouth or what? You do have an answer right?
27 June 2008 10:22:31
wrote:
What you all don't understand is that perfect competition and the effects of supply and demand really don't apply to cartels such as OPEC. What really should be looked at here, is the value of the dollar. Also, just as an FYI, the same people who own the oil companies, are the same ones who created these environmental organizations that don't want drilling. Maybe to create artificial scarcity? hum? Look into it.
27 June 2008 10:49:44
wrote:
Agree Eleanor
For those who care about WHERE I read something, I got my info from BUSH ENERGY DEPT! Liberal Bible? All the drilling, now debated, would not help at all for 5-10 years, and even then would only drop the price of gas FIVE CENTS! And WHO, really believes record prices and record profits have nothing to do with each other? Really? Do tell.
For those who care about WHERE I read something, I got my info from BUSH ENERGY DEPT! Liberal Bible? All the drilling, now debated, would not help at all for 5-10 years, and even then would only drop the price of gas FIVE CENTS! And WHO, really believes record prices and record profits have nothing to do with each other? Really? Do tell.
27 June 2008 12:06:46
wrote:
ONE MORE TIME, if Obama will lower my taxes, and for MOST OF YOU, and McBush will not, your point is what? OBAMA WILL WIN, and then the sky will fall.
27 June 2008 12:13:09
Lucente wrote:
Dan,
You liberals live in fantasy land. There is no way Obama is going to lower your taxes. He is going to raise taxes. Why in the world would you think otherwise? Do you really believe that raising the taxes of the rich is not going to affect you? Besides, there is no way in the world he could implement all the liberal programs he is bribing you with without raising everyone's taxes. Do you have any clue what his socialized medicine plan would cost?
You better face reality before election day.
Obama is a socialist pure and simple and he will engage in wealth redistribution at a level we haven't seen since the great communist himself, FDR.
~tjl~
You liberals live in fantasy land. There is no way Obama is going to lower your taxes. He is going to raise taxes. Why in the world would you think otherwise? Do you really believe that raising the taxes of the rich is not going to affect you? Besides, there is no way in the world he could implement all the liberal programs he is bribing you with without raising everyone's taxes. Do you have any clue what his socialized medicine plan would cost?
You better face reality before election day.
Obama is a socialist pure and simple and he will engage in wealth redistribution at a level we haven't seen since the great communist himself, FDR.
~tjl~
27 June 2008 13:06:41
wrote:
Obama is a socialist, hands down. democrats raise taxes, period. Always have, always will. They want to give your 40, 000 a year away to, cause the base of dems live off the rest of us. And Dan, please do get a bible. Stay in a motel and swipe a gideons if you must, but get one and read it. You are soooo far off!
27 June 2008 17:10:19
wrote:
Eleanor's value of the dollar theory ties right in to dan's record profits outrage, doesn't it? Are they really record profits when you factor in the falling dollar?
I'm with Lucente on this: what in the world would make anyone think that Obama will lower taxes, and McCain will raise them? That's the exact opposite of their stated policies! I'm afraid this debate has not been an intelligent one.
I'm with Lucente on this: what in the world would make anyone think that Obama will lower taxes, and McCain will raise them? That's the exact opposite of their stated policies! I'm afraid this debate has not been an intelligent one.
28 June 2008 10:35:03
bengalbob wrote:
Dan,
Your sense of confidence in not knowing anything about business amazes me. When the "boys" of Braddock were kings of the world during the steel boom, otherwise known as the industrial revolution, they did everything in their power to make sure the price of steel beams went down. Why? Because they knew that they would sell more. They even invested millions of dollars in redesigning the old Bessemer style furnaces to an open hearth style furnace. Why? To produce more, stronger beams at a lower price. And passing the lower prices on to their customers, the customers in turn would purchase more of the product. On a different note, Wal-Marts number one goal is not to attract more customers, it's to have your average customer buy more. The higher the price of gas goes the less people will use it. People are cutting back on mowing, vacations, boating and other common place things that use gas...because of the price.
Your sense of confidence in not knowing anything about business amazes me. When the "boys" of Braddock were kings of the world during the steel boom, otherwise known as the industrial revolution, they did everything in their power to make sure the price of steel beams went down. Why? Because they knew that they would sell more. They even invested millions of dollars in redesigning the old Bessemer style furnaces to an open hearth style furnace. Why? To produce more, stronger beams at a lower price. And passing the lower prices on to their customers, the customers in turn would purchase more of the product. On a different note, Wal-Marts number one goal is not to attract more customers, it's to have your average customer buy more. The higher the price of gas goes the less people will use it. People are cutting back on mowing, vacations, boating and other common place things that use gas...because of the price.
28 June 2008 11:54:16
wrote:
AverageGuy, yes you are right, this has not been an intelligent debate.
28 June 2008 12:07:23
bengalbob wrote:
I do not necessarily feel that drilling is the ultimate answer, however, it would help down the road. What they really should be focused on is how to get rid of some of the middlemen that make the price go up. I'm all for investing into pipelines from major water channels to get the unrefined oil to the refineries without the use of trucks. This is just one example of cutting the costs...there are several more I'm sure. Lots of middlemen getting their piece of the pie which include lots of politicians, democrat and/or republican, that get their "donations" too!
28 June 2008 14:03:54
Scant wrote:
Bengalbob,
You aren't going to change Dan's mind. He has drawn a line in the sand and will not cross it no matter what info you give him on the contraray. You have made some good points there in your posts, maybe you will be able to change his mind but I can't. Alot of talk about the speculaters, I don't know much about how that works so I am holding my opionon on that till I can get more info and can comment on that with more confidence.
You aren't going to change Dan's mind. He has drawn a line in the sand and will not cross it no matter what info you give him on the contraray. You have made some good points there in your posts, maybe you will be able to change his mind but I can't. Alot of talk about the speculaters, I don't know much about how that works so I am holding my opionon on that till I can get more info and can comment on that with more confidence.
28 June 2008 14:26:48
Scant wrote:
Whenever I hear politicians point their fingers at this group or that one, I naturally think to myself, are they trying to divert the attention to someone else to get the heat off of themselves. The latest wiping boy by the politicians are the - oil speculators. I still have not come to an opionion on this but have come across some interesting info that makes me pull up and take a second look at the oil speculators. I will include the links to the info I have found and encourage others to get more info on this as I certainly will keep plowing through this stuff. This, I think maybe off the original subject of this blog. Hey Tom, maybe you should start a new blog about oil prices.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9505
http://www.businessandmedia.org/articals/2008/20080624115730.aspx
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9505
http://www.businessandmedia.org/articals/2008/20080624115730.aspx
28 June 2008 18:46:31
wrote:
scant, BS. I have seen zero facts to change my view. You have offerd none, to support your view. Guess you have already made up your mind, and drawn your line, no matter what? You are defending the oil companies, and you think Im not thinking clear? LOL
30 June 2008 16:25:12
Scant wrote:
Dan,
Quit cussing at me! You should be able to argue without resorting to that, and the LOL statement. I find that many people that have no arguement left have to resort to cussing and name calling, that tells me that I have beaten you on this one. You haven't hurt my feelings don't get me wrong, I will sleep just fine tonight. I find it amusing that I have struck such a cord with you. HappyG responded to your qeustion of the 68 million acre qeustion you had, but you never acknowlegde it. I am not defending the oil companys, what I am trying to do is get to the real truth of oil prices. The politicians have done a masterful job deflecting the real problem. I think you will buy anything the government will tell you. The problem with oil prices is - supply and demand - Their is not enough supply for the demand in the world. Our government and the environmentalist have blocked any new drilling, no refineres built in 30 years, there is more demand for oil from countries like India and China, our falling dallor does not buy as much as it used to. There is more to it, Dan, than just the greedy oil companys.
Quit cussing at me! You should be able to argue without resorting to that, and the LOL statement. I find that many people that have no arguement left have to resort to cussing and name calling, that tells me that I have beaten you on this one. You haven't hurt my feelings don't get me wrong, I will sleep just fine tonight. I find it amusing that I have struck such a cord with you. HappyG responded to your qeustion of the 68 million acre qeustion you had, but you never acknowlegde it. I am not defending the oil companys, what I am trying to do is get to the real truth of oil prices. The politicians have done a masterful job deflecting the real problem. I think you will buy anything the government will tell you. The problem with oil prices is - supply and demand - Their is not enough supply for the demand in the world. Our government and the environmentalist have blocked any new drilling, no refineres built in 30 years, there is more demand for oil from countries like India and China, our falling dallor does not buy as much as it used to. There is more to it, Dan, than just the greedy oil companys.
30 June 2008 17:30:15
wrote:
Dan, You are not going to change your view because you don't have one. Obama has a D behind his name, and so do you. It's very obvious to me, that's enough for you to vote for him. Your thinking on this thread has been shallow, as well as your argument in favor of Obama. A group from the Communist Party of America just came out in support of him. His followers, alone, should scare the heck out of you.
30 June 2008 18:48:02
wrote:
Haqppy
Confused are ya? Just alot of blab. Several of you have cried about taxes, I asked if Obama will lower my taxes, (and most of you), and McBush will not.
Whats your point? So, all you have is lables, accusations, inuendos and blab?
Danimal, seems you are still stuck on (D) raise taxes, (R) loewer them, but is that really true? And Happys answer to my question was BS. Thats why I didnt respond. And there is not much of a chance any of that oil would be sold in America, or benifit us any time soon if at all. Obama will win, and I hope so, even if the only reason is to drive y,all nuts. That would be good enough for me.
Confused are ya? Just alot of blab. Several of you have cried about taxes, I asked if Obama will lower my taxes, (and most of you), and McBush will not.
Whats your point? So, all you have is lables, accusations, inuendos and blab?
Danimal, seems you are still stuck on (D) raise taxes, (R) loewer them, but is that really true? And Happys answer to my question was BS. Thats why I didnt respond. And there is not much of a chance any of that oil would be sold in America, or benifit us any time soon if at all. Obama will win, and I hope so, even if the only reason is to drive y,all nuts. That would be good enough for me.
01 July 2008 10:31:17
wrote:
mattdgilroy,
I agrree.
One more time folks. If Obama will lower most of our taxes, and McCain will not, Whats your point? I will await your lables, accusations, and blab, while avoiding the question.
I agrree.
One more time folks. If Obama will lower most of our taxes, and McCain will not, Whats your point? I will await your lables, accusations, and blab, while avoiding the question.
01 July 2008 10:36:09
wrote:
Scant,
I guess you missed the part where Bush WAIVED the laws for drilling and buliding of new refineres? Guess you believe all the bull you hear? Go do your homework and then tell me what I believe? Because not only do you not know what I believe, you dont know what you are taliking aboiut. I understand there is much more, I also understand the crooks in the whitehouse and the oil companies, have more to do with this, than you want to admit. Maybe we the people should own these oil fields and refineres? Maybe we should stop giving billions in welfare to the oil companies? Maybe we should have let Saddam flood the world with cheap oil? Maybe we should support the ind. oil companies who ARE DRILLING NOW, on US lands? Maybe we should make oil companies pay us for OUR OIL?
I guess you missed the part where Bush WAIVED the laws for drilling and buliding of new refineres? Guess you believe all the bull you hear? Go do your homework and then tell me what I believe? Because not only do you not know what I believe, you dont know what you are taliking aboiut. I understand there is much more, I also understand the crooks in the whitehouse and the oil companies, have more to do with this, than you want to admit. Maybe we the people should own these oil fields and refineres? Maybe we should stop giving billions in welfare to the oil companies? Maybe we should have let Saddam flood the world with cheap oil? Maybe we should support the ind. oil companies who ARE DRILLING NOW, on US lands? Maybe we should make oil companies pay us for OUR OIL?
01 July 2008 10:57:40
wrote:
Gas is 12 cents in Venasuella, 40 cents in Iraq. Why not just buy it from them?
Why is it so much cheaper there? Must not be part of the global supply and demand thing?
Why is it so much cheaper there? Must not be part of the global supply and demand thing?
01 July 2008 11:27:39
wrote:
Dan,
Why would the oil companies and state controlled oil nations want to lower oil prices? The answer is the long-run elasticity of oil. In the short-run, most folks will lower consumption of other goods and services to cover the rising costs of consumption for items directly/indirectly involving oil. However, over time, consumers will adjust behavior (look at hybrid car orders for example). The Saudis understand this point and worry about $150 barrel oil as much as when it was $10 a barrel less than a decade ago. The Exxon-Mobils can diversify their business to a degree while many of the OPEC nations are not positioning themselves (although the growth of sovereign wealth funds indicate some action to diversify) for an economy not underpinned by oil.
Why is gas 12 cents in Venasuella (sic) and 40 cents in Iraq? If you have been to those countries (I've been to Iraq and several other countries in SouthWest Asia), you would know the governments heavily subsidize retail gas prices. In fact, those nations are a great example of the market forces of supply and demand. Because gas is so cheap, there is excess demand (even in nations "awash in oil" and shortages. The blackmarket often serves as the means of redistributing resources to those who value it more. There is little incentive for domestic retailers to address the shortages. This mindset was (and is still) a big problem facing coalition economic advisors to the new Iraqi government. (similiar to that big ethanol subsidy that Sen. Obama supports -- http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2008/02/mccain-vs-obama-ethanol.html )
Eleanor -- If the oil companies could manipulate domestic oil and gas prices by creating artificial scarcities, why wouldn't they have done so when oil was $10-20 a barrel? The Exxon-Mobils have been steadily making "record" profits. Quote from a stock market analyst that follows the industry: "In 2007, 83% of the company's total revenues came from its downstream, or refining, operations, which accounted for just 23.6% of net income. On the other hand, oil and gas production, or upstream, activities accounted for only 7.3% of revenues but generated a whopping 65% of profits, mainly due to the jump in oil prices... even when the price of oil moderates, Exxon Mobil's refining operations could well produce increased earnings. As of 2007, it owned interests in 38 refineries worldwide."
Why would the oil companies and state controlled oil nations want to lower oil prices? The answer is the long-run elasticity of oil. In the short-run, most folks will lower consumption of other goods and services to cover the rising costs of consumption for items directly/indirectly involving oil. However, over time, consumers will adjust behavior (look at hybrid car orders for example). The Saudis understand this point and worry about $150 barrel oil as much as when it was $10 a barrel less than a decade ago. The Exxon-Mobils can diversify their business to a degree while many of the OPEC nations are not positioning themselves (although the growth of sovereign wealth funds indicate some action to diversify) for an economy not underpinned by oil.
Why is gas 12 cents in Venasuella (sic) and 40 cents in Iraq? If you have been to those countries (I've been to Iraq and several other countries in SouthWest Asia), you would know the governments heavily subsidize retail gas prices. In fact, those nations are a great example of the market forces of supply and demand. Because gas is so cheap, there is excess demand (even in nations "awash in oil"
and shortages. The blackmarket often serves as the means of redistributing resources to those who value it more. There is little incentive for domestic retailers to address the shortages. This mindset was (and is still) a big problem facing coalition economic advisors to the new Iraqi government. (similiar to that big ethanol subsidy that Sen. Obama supports -- http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2008/02/mccain-vs-obama-ethanol.html ) Eleanor -- If the oil companies could manipulate domestic oil and gas prices by creating artificial scarcities, why wouldn't they have done so when oil was $10-20 a barrel? The Exxon-Mobils have been steadily making "record" profits. Quote from a stock market analyst that follows the industry: "In 2007, 83% of the company's total revenues came from its downstream, or refining, operations, which accounted for just 23.6% of net income. On the other hand, oil and gas production, or upstream, activities accounted for only 7.3% of revenues but generated a whopping 65% of profits, mainly due to the jump in oil prices... even when the price of oil moderates, Exxon Mobil's refining operations could well produce increased earnings. As of 2007, it owned interests in 38 refineries worldwide."
01 July 2008 16:45:35
wrote:
ecomp,
Dont we subsidize the oil and gas companies in this country? To the tune of $trillions?
Dont we export oil? Are the refineries in the US, running at full cap? NO, 80-85%, why?
To control the the PRICE, aka thier profits. So, once again, why would oil and gas companies desire to lower the price? And why is it we dont just buy the gas from Iraq and Venasualla? Why dont "we the people" get a dime from the oil, the oil companies, take from our land? Isnt this really, "mission accomplished" for the Bush/Cheney energy task force? Isnt it what Osama wanted? Seems to me, its not supply and demand or bad breakes, it was planned. And they have even stold Iraqi oil and sold it to Dumb Americans for top dollar, then put into reserves, to keep the price up. The CEO of one of the big oil companies, said, "the laws of supply and demand, have been suspended. Its about coruptin and speculation. And they even said IF we drilled where they, want, and where the debate has been. There is no reason to believe that oil would even stay here, to our benifit. So, what was your point? Reagan lowerd taxes,= huge dbt, bad econ. Bush, and Clinton raised taxes= growing economy, surplus budgit. W, lowerd taxes=?
Dont we subsidize the oil and gas companies in this country? To the tune of $trillions?
Dont we export oil? Are the refineries in the US, running at full cap? NO, 80-85%, why?
To control the the PRICE, aka thier profits. So, once again, why would oil and gas companies desire to lower the price? And why is it we dont just buy the gas from Iraq and Venasualla? Why dont "we the people" get a dime from the oil, the oil companies, take from our land? Isnt this really, "mission accomplished" for the Bush/Cheney energy task force? Isnt it what Osama wanted? Seems to me, its not supply and demand or bad breakes, it was planned. And they have even stold Iraqi oil and sold it to Dumb Americans for top dollar, then put into reserves, to keep the price up. The CEO of one of the big oil companies, said, "the laws of supply and demand, have been suspended. Its about coruptin and speculation. And they even said IF we drilled where they, want, and where the debate has been. There is no reason to believe that oil would even stay here, to our benifit. So, what was your point? Reagan lowerd taxes,= huge dbt, bad econ. Bush, and Clinton raised taxes= growing economy, surplus budgit. W, lowerd taxes=?
02 July 2008 08:45:57
Scant wrote:
Dan,
You are all over the map on your last post. You have been asking everyone for proof, and they have been giving it to you but you refuse to - think - about this info, but rather, - feel your way through it. So I am going to ask you to give me some facts. You like most liberals want to throw up that, Bush/Cheney are in bed with Big Oil. Show me the proof. Show me any kick backs, seceret memos, meetings whatever things that proves Bush/Cheney is stacking the deck in favor of the oil companys, and are benifiting in some way from the oil companys, and don't mention they used to work for them that proves nothing. Oh, and don't try, they subsidize them cause The President does not have the power to pick and choose who gets any government subsidy, congrees has to go along and approve that also.
Also please give me the link to the statement the CEO made about supply and demand being suspended, I have a feeling you are taking that statment out of context also.
Reagan and George W, lowerd taxes and resulted in bad debt and bad economy. George H and Clinton raised taxes and growing economy, surplus budgit. If you remember Dan, If you were old enough to remember when Clinton ran for office his slogan then was, "It's the Economy Stupid." Clinton was criticizing Goerge H and Reagan for the worst economy for the last several decades. You don't remember. You keep saying Obama is going to lower your taxes and are excited about that, but now you are saying that is a bad thing????? Ok, so now you are for higher taxes. If thats true how much of a precentage of your income are you willing to give to the government to stimulate the enconomy?
Please Dan, give me the proof and answer my qeustions and don't give me just liberal talking points, and you will convice me. Reread my post were I qouted our founding father, Thomas Jefferson again.
You are all over the map on your last post. You have been asking everyone for proof, and they have been giving it to you but you refuse to - think - about this info, but rather, - feel your way through it. So I am going to ask you to give me some facts. You like most liberals want to throw up that, Bush/Cheney are in bed with Big Oil. Show me the proof. Show me any kick backs, seceret memos, meetings whatever things that proves Bush/Cheney is stacking the deck in favor of the oil companys, and are benifiting in some way from the oil companys, and don't mention they used to work for them that proves nothing. Oh, and don't try, they subsidize them cause The President does not have the power to pick and choose who gets any government subsidy, congrees has to go along and approve that also.
Also please give me the link to the statement the CEO made about supply and demand being suspended, I have a feeling you are taking that statment out of context also.
Reagan and George W, lowerd taxes and resulted in bad debt and bad economy. George H and Clinton raised taxes and growing economy, surplus budgit. If you remember Dan, If you were old enough to remember when Clinton ran for office his slogan then was, "It's the Economy Stupid." Clinton was criticizing Goerge H and Reagan for the worst economy for the last several decades. You don't remember. You keep saying Obama is going to lower your taxes and are excited about that, but now you are saying that is a bad thing????? Ok, so now you are for higher taxes. If thats true how much of a precentage of your income are you willing to give to the government to stimulate the enconomy?
Please Dan, give me the proof and answer my qeustions and don't give me just liberal talking points, and you will convice me. Reread my post were I qouted our founding father, Thomas Jefferson again.
02 July 2008 17:50:20
wrote:
Our budding economy during Clinton's terms, was from the (later) failed dot coms and because of the largest tax increase in history. Later, Clinton admitted the tax increase was too large, but he said he wouldn't give it back because we didn't know how to spend it properly.
When he gave his last SOU, he said, in his words, that the growing economy began 106 months ago. The reason he gave the length in months was because he had only been president for seven years, and 106 months is 8 years and 10 months, which was Bush I's trickle down effect from his tax cuts. Tax increases hurt the economy, as well as the rising minimum wage.
When he gave his last SOU, he said, in his words, that the growing economy began 106 months ago. The reason he gave the length in months was because he had only been president for seven years, and 106 months is 8 years and 10 months, which was Bush I's trickle down effect from his tax cuts. Tax increases hurt the economy, as well as the rising minimum wage.
02 July 2008 18:13:27
Scant wrote:
HappyG,
Your memory is good. I want Dan to start giving me some facts, like he keeps demanding of everyone else. He just keeps saying that he doesn't believe it. People have given him more links to info about all this, but does not give any to support his side.
Your memory is good. I want Dan to start giving me some facts, like he keeps demanding of everyone else. He just keeps saying that he doesn't believe it. People have given him more links to info about all this, but does not give any to support his side.
02 July 2008 19:08:43
Scant wrote:
Econp, put forth a well thought out opionion and given links to support his view. Dan just says - whatever.
Throwing down the gauntlet, Dan, will you pick it up?
Throwing down the gauntlet, Dan, will you pick it up?
02 July 2008 19:14:58
wrote:
That's what my husband says, Scant. But, I wrote a letter to the editor about Clinton at the time, so his crap is ingrained in my brain. I still have a lot of the documentation because I didn't get a computer until early 1999.
02 July 2008 19:39:47
Scant wrote:
HappyG,
I think your husband knows better than to cross you, huh. I got my computer later than that. I am now collecting the documentation I have known for a long time to be true, so I can offer it along with my position on issues, if asked for. My mind can be changed, but give me some reason too - thats what I am asking Dan for. Dan feels Clinton and the Democrates are the savior of the comman people, the dems are railing against the jobs going out of the country, but, does he know Clinton signed into law NAFTA? My position on that is somewhat middle of the road, I see the benifits and the downfalls of it, but I am getting off the subject of this thread. Keep posting your info, I enjoy reading many different views, after all thats what this country is all about right, freedom of speech.
I think your husband knows better than to cross you, huh. I got my computer later than that. I am now collecting the documentation I have known for a long time to be true, so I can offer it along with my position on issues, if asked for. My mind can be changed, but give me some reason too - thats what I am asking Dan for. Dan feels Clinton and the Democrates are the savior of the comman people, the dems are railing against the jobs going out of the country, but, does he know Clinton signed into law NAFTA? My position on that is somewhat middle of the road, I see the benifits and the downfalls of it, but I am getting off the subject of this thread. Keep posting your info, I enjoy reading many different views, after all thats what this country is all about right, freedom of speech.
02 July 2008 20:46:03
wrote:
Though NAFTA was a bipartisan effort, Clinton pushed it. Remember when Hillary got cornered because she said she was never for it? She was up front at the time, right along with her hasbeen. I can show proof of my 'facts' too, but since I was alive and well at the time, I rely on my memory...for the most part.
I also remember nearly all the aspects of McCain's last run for the presidency, and he turned me off then, and still does. Will it be voting the lesser of two evils, or a 3d party? Not voting is not an option. McCain is closer to my views than Obama, but not close enough for comfort.
I also remember nearly all the aspects of McCain's last run for the presidency, and he turned me off then, and still does. Will it be voting the lesser of two evils, or a 3d party? Not voting is not an option. McCain is closer to my views than Obama, but not close enough for comfort.
02 July 2008 21:00:58
Scant wrote:
Happy,
Understand about the lesser of the evils, I hate trying to make that decision anymore. Don't want to make that choice of, the lesser evil, but, want too instead vote for someone who holds my own belifes as I do. MaCain is closer to my views than Obama, for sure. I will be voting my conscience this time, even if it takes votes away from MaCain.
Understand about the lesser of the evils, I hate trying to make that decision anymore. Don't want to make that choice of, the lesser evil, but, want too instead vote for someone who holds my own belifes as I do. MaCain is closer to my views than Obama, for sure. I will be voting my conscience this time, even if it takes votes away from MaCain.
02 July 2008 22:46:27
wrote:
Same here. McCain's attempt this time was not on the up-and-up. Though not quite illegal, it wasn't right, and he knows it. So, I will vote for another person, along with millions of others. We might not win, but our collective voices will be loud enough to be heard by both sides.
03 July 2008 07:16:41
wrote:
thanks for the laugh,
as a long time Libertarian I can assure you there is nothing Libertarian about Barack Hussein Obama, he is a liberal nutjob.... a totalitarian....
get it marxist, socialist, communist, but not a libertarian in any way what so ever.
anyone who thinks Obama is a libertarian simply has no clue to what a libertarian is..
obama is BIG GOVERNEMENT BIG SPENDING LIBERALISM....
ZIEG HEIL !!!!
as a long time Libertarian I can assure you there is nothing Libertarian about Barack Hussein Obama, he is a liberal nutjob.... a totalitarian....
get it marxist, socialist, communist, but not a libertarian in any way what so ever.
anyone who thinks Obama is a libertarian simply has no clue to what a libertarian is..
obama is BIG GOVERNEMENT BIG SPENDING LIBERALISM....
ZIEG HEIL !!!!
12 July 2008 08:44:31
Lucente wrote:
Libertarian Larry,
My fear is not that libertarians will believe that Obama is a libertarian (he is clearly not), but that they will support him anyway, as many libertarians say they are going to do.
Welcome to the blog,
~tjl~
My fear is not that libertarians will believe that Obama is a libertarian (he is clearly not), but that they will support him anyway, as many libertarians say they are going to do.
Welcome to the blog,
~tjl~
12 July 2008 13:19:01
wrote:
Man ...I been laying awake at night dreading this election....I guess I am an Obamniac.
What do you get when you cross an athiest, an insomniac, and a dislexic?
Someone who stays up all night, wondering if there really is a DOG.
What do you get when you cross an athiest, an insomniac, and a dislexic?
Someone who stays up all night, wondering if there really is a DOG.
12 July 2008 17:52:45
wrote:
Why on earth do so many people try to blame the Bible for loony leftist views? Jesus is not the founder of the Democratic Party, nor the founder of Marxism, nor the founder of socialism. Shucks, He's not even the founder of the Republican Party.
He's sorta, kinda like, a teensy bit above all that. Know what I mean?
It just so happens that, for around 40 years or so, the Republican Party has been more in line with Biblical precepts. Too bad they have abdicated and joined the Democrats in betraying those principles lately. It would be swell if a third party candidate who actually supports the Constitution could get a fair amount of press. And wouldn't it be loverly if a majority of Americans could see through the smoke and mirrors long enough to vote for him?
He's sorta, kinda like, a teensy bit above all that. Know what I mean?
It just so happens that, for around 40 years or so, the Republican Party has been more in line with Biblical precepts. Too bad they have abdicated and joined the Democrats in betraying those principles lately. It would be swell if a third party candidate who actually supports the Constitution could get a fair amount of press. And wouldn't it be loverly if a majority of Americans could see through the smoke and mirrors long enough to vote for him?
23 October 2008 12:37:24
![[Valid RSS]](http://www.lucente.org/images/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")
[COLUMN] Libertarians should oppose Obama
What a topsy-turvy world we live in when libertarians begin to support a socialist for president.
More and more I am seeing libertarians voice support for Sen. Barack Obama. Web sites are springing up and libertarians on Internet forums are arguing for Obama. Having not yet settled on a candidate, I have tried to understand their reasoning. Unfortunately, like socialism and Obama, there is only a pretty façade and no real substance.
I understand their frustration. Libertarians hate President Bush, mostly because of the war and his constitutional abuses.
Libertarians such as myself were opposed to the war from the beginning. It was a stupid endeavor and made no sense politically or militarily.
So, if we are keeping a scorecard, Obama gets one point for opposing the war, even if his opposition to it was tepid at best in 2003.
That is, however, where the lead ends.
I don't want to defend Sen. John McCain. He is the worst kind of Republican, a big-government liberal. However, if we are to compare McCain to Obama, it is clear who is closer to the libertarian viewpoint when it comes to issues beyond the war.
The first thing we should look at is experience. McCain has it and Obama doesn't. No one can dispute that McCain's 26 years in Congress compared to Obama's three gives him the advantage.
On the environment and energy, McCain understands the issue a little better. McCain is advocating a market-based solution to our energy needs while Obama is making ignorant statements such as, "We can't drill our way out of this." That's akin to saying you can't quench your thirst with a cold glass of water.
The fact is, American oil production is down while usage is up. We need to produce more oil. That means drilling for it and then refining it. Depending on who you listen to, the United States could be sitting on more oil than Saudi Arabia. But liberals like Obama won't let companies dig for it.
Additionally because of liberals like Obama, this country has failed to open a new refinery since 1976. Liberals like Obama want alternative fuel sources, but not ones that actually work, such as nuclear power. They would rather issue silly sound bites, grill oil executives, make false accusations of price gouging, and issue windfall taxes to discourage oil companies from making profits. They would nationalize the oil industry if they could get away with it.
Obama wants to socialize our health care system while McCain is advocating a solution libertarians have long supported: Put the people in charge of their health care by taking it out of the hands of employers.
McCain is a strong supporter of the Second Amendment and is opposed to laws banning so-called assault weapons. Obama endorsed the Illinois handgun ban, sponsored a bill to limit gun purchases to one a month, and supports harassment lawsuits against gun manufacturers.
McCain supports school choice programs and is opposed to federal mandates. He also believes in merit pay and competency testing for teachers. Obama, on the other hand, believes strongly in government schools, but not enough to send his own kids to one. He wants a massive, federal program to build new government schools, without any idea how to pay for it.
McCain is mostly against taxation and supports requiring a supermajority before Congress can raise taxes. Obama, on the other hand, has never met a tax he doesn't like. He wants to raise the capital gains tax, not for revenue, but for fairness. How is that for fiscal management?
Clearly, McCain falls closer to the side of freedom and limited government than Obama, so I don't completely understand libertarians who support Obama. Of course, some libertarians only support Obama because they think a bad president will serve as a wake-up call to Republicans, similar to 1980 and 1994.
However, I can't support torching the village to save the village.
All that being said, I have no intention of supporting McCain. His positions on drugs, the war, and campaign finance are disturbing.
I will most likely go with a third-party candidate with the Libertarian Party's Bob Barr and the Constitution Party's Chuck Baldwin leading the pack.
category | Column
author | Lucente