Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
2 sides of the same coin. Take my money from me at gunpoint and give it to someone else.
Cheezy is misrepresenting the situation anyway, as socialism requires collective ownership of the means of production (and not just taxing the means of production, otherwise ALL forms of govt would be socialist), and the $1000 was proposed to go to every household, not just those that are poor.
cheezy321
Diamond Member
- Dec 31, 2003
- 6,218
- 2
- 0
Defense is part of the government budget. It always has been and always will be, no matter what you try and do. It wont go away. Do you suggest we stop funding an army completely? That would be absurd. They are "our" tax dollars for a reason. The defense industry has been and always will be mostly funded by the government. Quit trying to make comparisons.
The oil industry has always been a non-government industry. The government has made TRILLIONS off of taxing the shit out of gas. Where has that money gone? Oh yeah, it has gone nowhere. This can be partially blamed on Bush, but I mainly blame the government as a whole for misallocation of resources.
You honestly don't think that is it crazy that he wants to take an oil companies extra profits and give them to someone else(poor or not)? It isn't their fault that the price of oil is so high, the government and environmentalists are more to blame for the high oil prices than oil companies are. Do you really believe you have a right to be OWED money by the oil companies?
We should all get free ipods since apples profit margins are so high using that same line of thinking. Give me an F'n break.
What about during the 80's when all these oil companies were struggling? The government didn't come to help them then. But now they are prospering and the government wants to take their money. Its a bunch of bullshit that Obama feeds to the public and they eat it up
As Vic said, as I said, and as your definition you quoted said, socialism is government (or communal) control of the means of production. Taxation is not socialism. You can dislike it for plenty of valid reasons, but it isn't socialism.
Your problem is that you are viewing this from a US perspective. In the US the two parties in economic terms are a centrist party (Democrats) and an ultra right party (Republicans). I'm not trying to make an argument for which approach is better in this post, I'm just telling you how it is. On a worldwide scale, the economic policies of the Republicans are ultra, ultra right.
So, just because the Democrats do things to the left of the Republicans does not make them actually leftist on economic issues. Both parties are committed free market liberal (in the economic sense) parties... just to different degrees. And just because some people want to tax the wealthy more then the poor does not make them socialist. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
The bolded is completely false. Oil companies have always received large subsidies and tax breaks from the govt., particularly during the 80s and 90s when oil prices were relatively low (in fact, the drilling ban was put in place to prop up the low price of oil then). This is, in fact, the argument for the windfall profits tax, that now the oil companies should have to pay some of that back.
The rest of your post is just ridiculous and idiotic. You selectively condemn one form of taxation while praising another (I almost spat coffee all over my monitor at the 'They are "our" tax dollars for a reason' comment while you claim to be against socialism!). If anyone is eating up bullshit, it's you. You apparently have no clue how govt works, or what the differences are between different forms of govt. But keep spouting those spoonfed talking points!
cheezy321
Diamond Member
- Dec 31, 2003
- 6,218
- 2
- 0
Exxon Mobil paid $32.361 billion in taxes in the second quarter. I think the government already has enough of their grubby little mitts on the oil companies profits. The oil companies ARE paying those tax breaks and subsidies back. Its just not enough for the government to support their myriad of programs that they want to enact. I wonder how much these oil companies would have paid in taxes without these "large subsidies and tax breaks" from the government you talk about.
What version of taxing am i praising again? I don't want taxes of any type, and I prefer the government stay out of my business whenever it is possible. It is what republicans used to believe, until recently.
What kind of incentive would any company have if it knows that in any moment (or when it is popular, like what Barack is doing) the government can come in and sweep up their profits for their own intentions? It would become a very scary world if this type of thing became commonplace.
So where is my free ipod Barack Obama? Take the money away from apple too! And please take some from google too while you are at it.
What version of taxing am i praising again? I don't want taxes of any type, and I prefer the government stay out of my business whenever it is possible. It is what republicans used to believe, until recently.
What kind of incentive would any company have if it knows that in any moment (or when it is popular, like what Barack is doing) the government can come in and sweep up their profits for their own intentions? It would become a very scary world if this type of thing became commonplace.
So where is my free ipod Barack Obama? Take the money away from apple too! And please take some from google too while you are at it.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
Your Apple, iPod, and Google comments are pretty disingenuous considering that there is a lot more value-added in their products that in drilling for oil on public lands. The oil industry has one of the lowest value-adds of any.
As it is, you were specifically praising income and other individual taxes for the benefit of the military. It didn't sound then like you wanted the govt out of your business as much as possible.
You're basically being selective. When an individual has to pay taxes for some purpose that you approve of... hey, it's all good. But when it's some corporation that has fed off the public teat for decades, oh no, they must be protected.
As it is, my argument is not to prove that one is better than the other (as you are trying to make it), but that they are similar and you are a hypocrite. Because, pal, this kind of thing already IS commonplace and has been in America for 100+ years.
My problem with the excessive oil profits mantra is what is deemed excessive? Because Obama says they are? Their return on sales is very avg at 7-10%. I believe somebody like Intel is at ~15%, Nvidia and Apple pushing 20%. Is it going to be a norm that we tax corporations for good performance?
And the one that gets me the most is the profits from Big law. The number I saw was about 243 billion in litigation settlements in 2007. That is pretty close to Big oil but you dont hear about windfall profit taxes on big law.
And the one that gets me the most is the profits from Big law. The number I saw was about 243 billion in litigation settlements in 2007. That is pretty close to Big oil but you dont hear about windfall profit taxes on big law.
Fern
Elite Member
- Sep 30, 2003
- 26,907
- 174
- 106
This was Obama's camp initial denial that he was referring to race. Statement by Obama campaign spokesman Robert Gibbs :
Link
In a reversal the Obama campaign admits the remark did refer to race. Statement by Chief Obama strategist David Axelrod:
Link
So, the remark itself:
Link
Obama has not accused McCain of of playing the race card yet, but he says they will in the future. He uses the future tense "what they are going to try to do".
So, he has pre-emptivley accused McCain. Basically he says McCain is going to use the race card against Obama; hasn't done it yet, but will. Who but a racist would play the race card against someone? He's calling McCain a racist.
Up till now McCain has assidously avoided race, even the MSM has conceded no one on McCains' staffed has done so.
This is widely conceeded to be an Obama misstep, It is thought that his earlier similar remarks, although not namimg McCain, alerted the McCain campaign to this possibility and they had prepared themselves for it. And the Obama campaign was caught unprepared and has had to flip-flop around. He got caught playing the race (back), pre-emptively.
Fern
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
Now this is a valid complaint about the issue and I agree. Where do we draw the line? IMO, this is just more pandering, like when McCain was promised that phony gas tax 'holiday,' and will probably go the same way. Particularly as oil continues to tank and consumers finally get some relief at the pump.
cheezy321
Diamond Member
- Dec 31, 2003
- 6,218
- 2
- 0
I never praised the taxes being used for military. I said it is a necessary evil and to think that we could abolish defensive spending is a pipe dream.
Drilling for oil is a very very expensive thing to do initially. It takes a hell of a lot of money to drill initially and it might not even be profitable in the future because nobody knows what the future price of oil will be. The oil companies are taking huge risks in hope for a profit in the future. Why would they take those risks when they know if they make too much money the govt will take it from them? Oil just doesn't magically spew out of the ground and into our gas tanks. There is a long process and a lot of costs involved.
And who is the government to deem what is "Excessive"? If anything, I wish we could all deem the government as "Excessive" and get some of our wasted money back.
OrByte
Diamond Member
- Jul 21, 2000
- 9,303
- 144
- 106
I like how you break it down, thanks this makes sense.
And earlier I conceded that BHO MAY have "used the race card" in the past and in this campaign. This looks like one of those instances.
I just don't see how Obama's camp can address the race issue. An issue where states across the country have polled that Race is "a factor" in voters minds. An issue where he has had to overcome many stereotypes and misconceptions in his race to be POTUS. An issue where race continues to be a problem for America. I just don't see how he can address these issues and fears (that are legitimate btw..just look at W VA) and NOT look like he is making a "preemptive" strike against McCain. Maybe he should have just left McCain's name out of the comments then right? Then there wouldn't be a problem with the message he is saying?
OR I guess Obama just accepts that people are going to be afraid of him and vote against him because of his color right?
Even if he loses, and he says something about Race and the fear of Race in America I think its worth it to call people out on the race paranoia. And it's not like he is just pulling this paranoia out of his butt...
In the end McCain got his tail twisted because he was lumped into the catagory of people that have used underhanded and dirty politics to attempt to smear BHO. It wasn't nice of BHO to do to McCain. BHO is showing how he can and will play dirty politics. SO I guess we are playing dirty politics.
Unfortunately for BOTH candidates I think that when it comes to the issue of race in America, we have much bigger problems than a Presidential race to consider. Obama's comments are true...people are trying to make others afraid of him, and one of those fears plays on race.
THERE, I said it without mentioning McCain's name...is that any better/worse?
Fern
Elite Member
- Sep 30, 2003
- 26,907
- 174
- 106
Bolded part ^, that probably would have been a good idea.
My first thought is that he should he have used the phrase "some will say", and I think we'd all get the hint that he was talking about racists/bigots without the present drama. We're pretty much all ready to accepet the claim that some other guy is a racist, but if we're named as that other guy drama ensues.
As to your central question of how his camapign adresses the issue. I dont know the answer; it's a tough one, and a sensitive one.
Yes, polls have shown this is an issue for some voters. I suppose I would start with trying to understand *why* it's an issue. If their reason is simply "because he's black", may not be worth spending campaign resources, efforts and time to try and combat.
OTOH, could be the reason some people responded that way is because they do NOT want race to become an issue. I realize this will seem counterintuitive to some. But already we have various Black groups confronting Obama on why he is NOT raising MORE issues of racism. In other words, I think some don't look forward to re-directing the focus of the nations policies over to some few bitter radical groups and their complaints. Certainly the Rev Wright thing did nothing to comfort this concern. Whatever the merits, having the bulk of the Presidential race revolve around race relations and (perceived or real) wrongs etc is uncomfortable/unwelcomed by many. This would be a lot like airing your dirty laundry in pubic, and given the world's attention would be embarrasing.
Seems to me Obama started out pursuing a non-race based (post racial in his terms) campaign that would aleviate the concerns of the latter group. I.e., if he didn't bring it up, it would NOT be a focus, so they wouldn't they fear dwelling on it for the next several months (and years if was elected). For some reason, he's changed tactics. I have heard it speculated that he did so in anticipation of more Rev Wright stuff, and wanted to set that up as off limits so as not to face it again later. Campaigns often include some pretty complicated chess-type tactical manoeuvers that we may not be able to recognize, or even see played out for some time. Could it be the Obama campaign was willing to take this little *hit* so they could draw McCain into more heartily denouncing race-based politics and then hit him back with it later if Rev Wright is mentioned? Or was it an unintentional mistake? IDK.
Everyone seemed to think he handled the issue wonderfully back when he gave his *race speech* during the nomination contest. Were I an advisor I wouldv'e suggested he leave it at that unless forced to do otherwise. There are too many valid issues to focus on, instead of the usual partisan bitterness of one side demonizing the other for campaign gains (e.g., "Liberals hate america", or "Repubs are all Racists" etc)
Finally, I note while a candidate may be new, they are surounded, bombarded even, by the same old advisors and campaign strategists we've had for many years. They say "you can't teach an old dog new tricks" but maybe "you can teach a new dog old tricks*?
Fern
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
And now spin spin spin as if your earlier comments aren't forever recorded in this thread. Your 'necessary evil' is just as socialist as what you were calling socialism earlier. (edit: which is BTW not at all).
No one said the oil companies get their products for free. What I said is that their product has low value-added. Which is true. Look it up if you don't understand what that means.
As for your last sentence, I already agreed with that argument when Genx said it so I don't try to pretend that I didn't. That argument, and not your faux socialism rant, is the actual crux of this issue.
I'm surprised to read so little in this thread about the race thing. Seems to me Obama's selection automatically makes race the issue and all this liberal/conservative stuff merely jibberish for this election. Is there any doubt if Obama is elected that in the next 8 years we'll be importing another 10 million Africans, the earned income tax credit will continue exploding the minority population, and for whitey, that(and more) will spell the end of the country. Seems to me those young, (white) Obama "supporters" will wake up to the real issue here sometime before they step into the voting booth. The Blacks to their credit already have. Amazing to me being an old fart that you even have to spell it out. If I'm right, that makes this election for both Whites and Blacks pivot on which racial groups are going to control the country. That's the debate here regardless of what degree of buffoonrey you want to attribute to the Republicans.
RY62
Senior member
- Mar 13, 2005
- 891
- 153
- 106
I believe your wrong but, you can keep saying it if it makes you feel better. Personally, I think the Dems made a big mistake pushing Obama before he was ready. The best bet would have been Clinton/Obama to take the White House for 16 years. At the end of Clintons years, Obama would have been a known candidate with an established record and probably would have stood a chance.
BTW...Who's leading the polls just depends on which polls you look at. rasmussen and Zogby now have McCain at +1. Looks to me like its a tie in popular vote and Obama is falling on the electoral map. Too bad since Republicans generally tend to pick up 10-15 points from August to November.
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1535
HomerJS
Lifer
- Feb 6, 2002
- 39,520
- 33,053
- 136
I continue to be amazed by people who cite Obamas lack of experience as a reason for not voting for him.
Why are these same people willing to vote for something that we already know does not work as evidenced by the last 7.5 years.
Abraham Lincoln only had one term in the House before being elected President. Obama is no Linclon but Lincoln was not Lincoln before becoming President.
Why are these same people willing to vote for something that we already know does not work as evidenced by the last 7.5 years.
Abraham Lincoln only had one term in the House before being elected President. Obama is no Linclon but Lincoln was not Lincoln before becoming President.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter