Why United States is going to lose the War on Terror

[freeandfun1]

The fact is the economy is in horrible shape. No one is really denying this. Top financial experts are bearish on America for at least the next several years! The jobs levels are bad, and the figures are skewed by the method of measurement to look better than they are (most who have been unemployed for more than 6 months are not considered unemployed).

In the private sector jobs have been lost, not gained, over the last year. Not only that, but things are worse than the figures show because high paying skilled labor jobs with quality benifit packages are being replaced with low paying retail service jobs with almost no benifts. And all the new job creation in the last year has been in the public sector. For the first time since WWII, the skilled and educated are having just as hard a time finding work as the unskilled and poorly educated. The whole "re-educate and retrain" theory is being proven wrong.

Where do you get your information? From the DNC website? You are SO full of shit.

I just had a luncheon yesterday with our business banker and about 20 other business owners. ALL the talk is positive. Now is the time to get into the stock market. Prices are low, the economy is looking good, etc.

You forget that the BULK of the jobs lost at the BEGINNING of the Bush admin were due to companies like Enron, Worldcomm, etc. that hired employees in the 90's that they NEVER needed and NEVER could afford (hence the BK of Worldcomm, Enron, Global-Xing, etc.).

You just spout shit without understanding what you are saying. The economy is good. Is it shakey? Yes and as long as there is terrorism in the world, it will be. No matter WHO is president.

I would like to know where you get your economic data, cuz it does not at all jive with the experts.

Provide a link to a legit source supporting your assertations.

Top financial experts are bearish on America for at least the next several years!

Name them. Link!?

 

[insein]

The fact is the economy is in horrible shape. No one is really denying this. Top financial experts are bearish on America for at least the next several years! The jobs levels are bad, and the figures are skewed by the method of measurement to look better than they are (most who have been unemployed for more than 6 months are not considered unemployed). In the private sector jobs have been lost, not gained, over the last year. Not only that, but things are worse than the figures show because high paying skilled labor jobs with quality benifit packages are being replaced with low paying retail service jobs with almost no benifts. And all the new job creation in the last year has been in the public sector. For the first time since WWII, the skilled and educated are having just as hard a time finding work as the unskilled and poorly educated. The whole "re-educate and retrain" theory is being proven wrong.

You must have 4 hands. One for each eye and ear. Nearly 2 million jobs have been gained this year. Not just the schlub jobs as people are trying to portray them either. Hourly wages are up as well. So where are your numbers to back up your bullshit?

In the end, it may come to genocide. Every year that goes by the chances that the enemy will gain WMD's grows. A hybrid strain of influenza or smallpox would kill millions. If at the same time the Islamic world appears to have unified behind the terrorists, we will be fighting a war of anihilation. I agree, we need to stop things from getting to that point, but to deny it may come to that point if we do not succeed and succeed quickly is just going to make it inevitable.

Ok if you feel this way, how could you possible vote against Bush? Bush has sped up the WOT. There wasnt ANY WOT before he came into office. We're now taking the fight to those who want to do us harm.

Unfortunately, we have not always been "just and humane" in our policies and actions. This is one of the reasons why we have such a hard time selling our benevolence in the rest of the world. Their are too many instances where we have let self-interest rule our actions. Vietnam, Chile, El-Salvador, the whole foriegn surgar investments fiasco (which bankrupted many 3rd world nations), the World Bank and World Court behavior in general... all these things make us look bad when trying to flash the big S on our shirts.

Every nation has had its share of foreign policy screw ups. Bush however is trying to do the right thing. Whether the world wants to believe our benevolence or not is not our problem. Like a parent to a child, you still protect them even when they say they hate your guts. Thats what we do.

 

[wade]

Arguing Pres. Bush's motives is pointless.

However, I cannot believe you guys think the economy is in good shape. Are you seeing the employment figures comming in far below fed. estimates? See any of a host of sources for data - I'll supply http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=3823099 and

"The week ending Aug. 15 is the week the government conducts its survey of employers that will be used in the closely watched August employment report. After three strong months of employment gains starting in March, the June and July reports were far below economists' forecasts."
http://money.cnn.com/2004/08/19/news/economy/jobless/index.htm

as a starting points.

CNN Money has lots of data at:

http://money.cnn.com/markets/IRC/economic.html
http://money.cnn.com/markets/dow30/

And the contention that the new jobs being created are better than the jobs being lost is just preposterous. Why don't you support your statements? All you have to do is turn on the buisness news channels and watch for an hour to clearly see what is going on with the economy. But if you need to have it summerized, here's a link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61975-2004Jun22.html

As you can see, incomes are rising, but not fast enough to keep up with inflation, resulting in a net loss of spending power for the average american. And the one thing that is clear is that new jobs are in the service sector, which generally means they pay less than the jobs lost in manufacturing and technical that they are replacing.

I'll cover this in more detail later if you like, but the figures are all there for anyone who wants to see them. All you have to do is look.

Wade.

 

[Annie]

Wade, I don't feel much like arguing either:

http://www.polipundit.com/2004_08_15_polipundit_archive.html#109296656065804414

Thursday, August 19, 2004
Cognitive Impairment: Clinton's Economy vs. Bush's Economy

The total rate of inflation since George W. Bush took over is 6.95 percent. (Click "CPI inflation calculator"). That's an average annual rate of inflation of 1.74 percent. And, for those who are interested, that's the lowest rate of inflation since Landslide Lyndon Johnson was President, back in the mid-1960's.

On the other hand, the total rate of inflation inherent in the racist economy of Clinton's first term was . . . 8.58 percent (2.14 average annual rate).

Hmm.

Lower inflation under Bush. So, therefore, more purchasing power for consumers.

But I've never seen these stats anywhere in the "mainstream media."

http://www.polipundit.com/2004_08_15_polipundit_archive.html#109296656065804414

Poli-Economic Quote of the Day


In the week ending Aug. 14, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims [for unemployment benefits] was 331,000, a decrease of 3,000 from the previous week's revised figure of 334,000. The 4-week moving average was 337,000, a decrease of 2,500 from the previous week's revised average of 339,500. (Emphasis added.)

-- The U.S. Department of Labor, in its weekly report on state unemployment insurance claims.

And the four-week moving average at this same point in 1996?

330,000.

And yes, Virginia, the size of the workforce was much, much smaller back then.

Do the freakin' math!

posted by Jayson at 1:16 PM

 

[wade]

As for inflation, yes they say the inflation rate is low, but that too is a sham figure. Low or negative inflation in high ticket goods is skewing the figures. You cannot tell me you have not noticed the increase in the cost of a loaf of bread, a dozen eggs, or a gallon of milk.

But the point is the relative inflation vs. growth in income. In the Clinton years, inflation was lower than growth of income, where in the Bush years, it's been the other way around. Actual gains of about 17% in the 90's have been almost entirely lost since Black Tuesday.

The lower unemployment claims are mostly due to the storms. But, if you know how unemployment figures are calculated, you know this is a sham figure in the first place. And, most significantly, the state of the jobs economy is badly skewed by the high number of poeple called to military service, and the state of the whole economy is skewed by the influence of high military spending. Most of that spending is salaries, which are mostly spent by the families of those who serve, artificially pumping up the economy.

The inevitable consequence of the current economic policy is high inflation. It's comming, you can bet on it. Greenspan knows he cannot continue to hold inflation down with cheap $, it only works for a short while.

And finally, if you look at what's going on in the world economy, land devaluation, you realize that we are seriously threatened by this here in the USA. If we suffer the 1/2 of devaluation going on in much of the world right now, the whole Western economy will probably spiral into depression. Americans are very debt heavy, espeically with respect to their houses. Reduce the value of their homes by 20% and banks will be forclosing left and right.

Wade.

 

[Comrade]

The fact is the economy is in horrible shape. No one is really denying this.

Yes, we are.

Top financial experts are bearish on America for at least the next several years! The jobs levels are bad, and the figures are skewed by the method of measurement to look better than they are (most who have been unemployed for more than 6 months are not considered unemployed). In the private sector jobs have been lost, not gained, over the last year. Not only that, but things are worse than the figures show because high paying skilled labor jobs with quality benifit packages are being replaced with low paying retail service jobs with almost no benifts. And all the new job creation in the last year has been in the public sector. For the first time since WWII, the skilled and educated are having just as hard a time finding work as the unskilled and poorly educated. The whole "re-educate and retrain" theory is being proven wrong.

It’s these kinds of baseless, all-encompassing claims that frustrate my willingness to debate you.

In the end, it may come to genocide. Every year that goes by the chances that the enemy will gain WMD's grows. A hybrid strain of influenza or smallpox would kill millions. If at the same time the Islamic world appears to have unified behind the terrorists, we will be fighting a war of anihilation. I agree, we need to stop things from getting to that point, but to deny it may come to that point if we do not succeed and succeed quickly is just going to make it inevitable.

Recall, I also do not deny that.

Unfortunately, we have not always been "just and humane" in our policies and actions. This is one of the reasons why we have such a hard time selling our benevolence in the rest of the world. Their are too many instances where we have let self-interest rule our actions. Vietnam, Chile, El-Salvador, the whole foriegn surgar investments fiasco (which bankrupted many 3rd world nations), the World Bank and World Court behavior in general... all these things make us look bad when trying to flash the big S on our shirts.

I repeat again, we are the most just and humane great nation in all of human history.

And it is about being cost-effective. To deny this only works if the war is short lived. This is what cause us to back out of Veitnam, the banks and financial intrests, which supported the VN conflict at the beginning in the hopes of developing new markets in the region, withdrew their support, the public protest was only a minor factor in comparison.

Kind of like saying that votes were only a minor factor in being elected President. Public policy, not the inner workings of some international banking cartel, ended Vietnam.


I think as for the rest, you disagree with me that we can win without committing genocide, or what?

 

[Merlin1047]

Yes, we are.

Save your breath. You'll make no progress with people like Wade. If Clinton were still in office and the economy was exactly the same as it is now, Wade would be extolling its virtues.

Far lefties have an affinity for dogma. It keeps them from getting a brain sprain from trying to think for themselves. All they have to remember is "Bush bad, kerry good".

You remember the Pavlov experiments? Well just ring your bell and watch these guys start to slobber. They're conditioned, they can't help it.

 

[wade]

It is pointless to discuss most of this with you, you clearly cannot look at the raw data I've presented and realize what you are seeing.

You can keep on saying how great this country is, and I agree it has at times been truly great, but at other times it has been dispicable. The very fact that we have the highest % of our population imprisoned in the World speaks to the fact that their are serious problems in America. Have you looked at the base quality of life in Canada or Sweden? What they call a slum we would call lower middle class.

I just get the feeling from your posts that you are young and have no real world experiance and limited historical/political education. Do you even know about the sugar and fruit polices which destroyed many developing nations we made a commitment to help? What about our policy in Chile, where we instigated an assination against a popular leader and then supported a vile dictator's resumption of corrupt totalitarianism? The Philapines under Marcos?

Have you studied the World Bank water scandal in Bolivia and the USA's part in this? Have you ever studied the banking sectors support and then withdraw of support for the VN war? I spent years studing these and other issues, and I was far more right-wing than you. Only after seeing what was really going on over a period of years did my belief in an idealistic USA waiver.

Often the USA is on the side of right, but too often it is not. It only takes a very few corrupt men in the right positions to cause the USA to do the wrong thing, rather than the right thing. These people have concentrated influence, and manipulate the media to allow them to do what they want. I believe if the US people understood what goes on, they'd stop it, but they really have little clue as to what is really going on.

I think as for the rest, you disagree with me that we can win without committing genocide, or what?

I think that we must either convince them that we can and will destroy their culture if they do not stop the terrorists, or we will have to destroy their culture (Islam). I believe that conventional warfare will never be convinicing.

Wade.

 

[wade]

Save your breath. You'll make no progress with people like Wade. If Clinton were still in office and the economy was exactly the same as it is now, Wade would be extolling its virtues.

Far lefties have an affinity for dogma. It keeps them from getting a brain sprain from trying to think for themselves. All they have to remember is "Bush bad, kerry good".

You remember the Pavlov experiments? Well just ring your bell and watch these guys start to slobber. They're conditioned, they can't help it.

Merlin,

I was not happy with how the economy was managed under the Clinton Adiminstration either. Even when it was good, it was not well managed.

I am not a "lefty". You however, are an extreme righty, so almost everyone appears lefty to you.

The Bush administration, and the Republicans in general, have badly mis-managed the US economy, both under the Bush and the Clinton Admins, and before. The "moral majority" is directly reponsible for the Enron/WorldCom/A.Anderson debacles via their "contract with America", which was about making it possible for the very rich to rip-off the average American.

I don't really like Kerry, but I know Bush's economics are unsound. Another 4 years of Bush and we will be in a depression. Bush does not care though, he and his cronies and supporters will do well in good times or bad.

What we need is a President who is a fiscal conservative, but who also places a priorty on the rights promised under the Constitution. Bush is neither of these, I fear Kerry will provide the latter but not the former.

Wade.

 

[Merlin1047]

I am not a "lefty". You however, are an extreme righty, so almost everyone appears lefty to you.

The Bush administration, and the Republicans in general, have badly mis-managed the US economy, both under the Bush and the Clinton Admins, and before. The "moral majority" is directly reponsible for the Enron/WorldCom/A.Anderson debacles via their "contract with America", which was about making it possible for the very rich to rip-off the average American.

Right. And they eat babies and sacrifice virgins - that is when they're not busy scheming how to enslave their fellow Americans. See? I can make baseless accusations too - just like you. If that's really what you believe then you might want to check out this board:
http://www.unknowncountry.com/board...8867/14403.html

But you're not a lefty. Right. And I'm Little Orphan Annie.

I don't really like Kerry, but I know Bush's economics are unsound. Another 4 years of Bush and we will be in a depression. Bush does not care though, he and his cronies and supporters will do well in good times or bad.

Let's see - you think that tax cuts are unsound. You think that recovering from the Clinton recession is unsound. You place the blame for Clinton's mismanagement of the economy with Bush. But you're not a lefty.

Being a lefty is not necessarily a bad thing. But in your case, it appears that you're simply looking for something to bitch about and despite the fact that Pres. Bush and the Republicans are leading the economy back to a sound footing, you continue to refuse to acknowledge that fact. Clinton let the economy overheat and run away. We had a seven year drunken orgy. Now it's time for the hangover and it's not going to go away quickly. But blame Bush if it makes you happy. It just doesn't make your views very credible.

 

[Comrade]

It is pointless to discuss most of this with you, you clearly cannot look at the raw data I've presented and realize what you are seeing.

You're willingness to provide links is not lost here, and demonstrate much more than most are willing to do. That's commendable.

You can keep on saying how great this country is, and I agree it has at times been truly great, but at other times it has been dispicable.

I always look at greatness as a measure to others now and in the past. I agree, we're not perfect, but I also don't want to drag the US through the mud until our actions are no more honorable and just than the run of the mill empires of the past. We must keep our perspective.

The very fact that we have the highest % of our population imprisoned in the World speaks to the fact that their are serious problems in America.

But that could simply mean we have effective law enforcement and enough wealth to feed and house our criminals, too, right?

True, crime in America is greater than in European society. But crime in North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc is less than in Europe. Crime is relative to freedom, in a lot of respects. Not to mention that America deals with a range of multicultural tensions that any other state on Earth (except perhaps for UK) cannot even claim to have dealt with. And the 2nd amendment is another trade-off that clearly contributes to crime while increasing individual freedoms. Drug use is exceptional simply due to our wealth. And yet most per capital rates of hard drugs about in states like Australia, New Zealand, UK, beyond those rates in the USA.

I'm betting you know this site well, given you're informed a great deal:

http://www.nationmaster.com/

Have you looked at the base quality of life in Canada or Sweden? What they call a slum we would call lower middle class.

Perhaps similar to the USSR vs. the USA in the 60's. And yet they all found their median lifestyle eventually equated with our poorest in the end. Such is the long term cost of socialism.

I just get the feeling from your posts that you are young and have no real world experiance and limited historical/political education.

You talking about me? Hell dude, I turned 21 in Ukraine during 1991 while the USSR broke up. I've got some real life behind me.

Do you even know about the sugar and fruit polices which destroyed many developing nations we made a commitment to help?

Yes, Jamaica rings a bell. The World Bank loaned them money in return for them to open their trade restrictions. America's cheap produce meant the people chose to buy our products. Their own choice. Is that what you mean?

What about our policy in Chile, where we instigated an assination against a popular leader and then supported a vile dictator's resumption of corrupt totalitarianism?

Every South American intervention in our past is related to the cold war and the threat of communist totalitarianism. Ignoring that fact always makes it look worse than we need to be painted as.

Have you studied the World Bank water scandal in Bolivia and the USA's part in this? Have you ever studied the banking sectors support and then withdraw of support for the VN war? I spent years studing these and other issues, and I was far more right-wing than you. Only after seeing what was really going on over a period of years did my belief in an idealistic USA waiver.

I don't know the details. I've read enough about how we seem to contribute to the World Bank more than most. These loans agreed to under our own terms, freely, by other countries, are always described as intenionally devious in this kind of literature. I mean, hell, it's not always just our money anyway, but since we rarely get paid back in full and always end up renegotiating the terms or getting accused of following the terms with brutal insensitivity, we should cut off all money to everyone and reinvest it in ourselves.

Details are important here...

Often the USA is on the side of right, but too often it is not. It only takes a very few corrupt men in the right positions to cause the USA to do the wrong thing, rather than the right thing. These people have concentrated influence, and manipulate the media to allow them to do what they want. I believe if the US people understood what goes on, they'd stop it, but they really have little clue as to what is really going on.

I hate that kind of accusation. You're talking with brilliant, extremely informed people here. We also have a centuries old Democracy that's done more than any nation in human history. And calling Americans stupid is just not going to cut it, with the Internet, free media, tried and true Democracy, etc...

I think that we must either convince them that we can and will destroy their culture if they do not stop the terrorists, or we will have to destroy their culture (Islam). I believe that conventional warfare will never be convinicing.

Wade.

We know the extremist aspect of their culture is relatively recent, since the early era of Islam, though.

If we continue to pressure those states and topple those organizations which harness the extremist aspects of Arab society, we'll see progress and we won't have to destroy every single soul. I'm not giving up on humanity just yet.

 

[wade]

Right. And they eat babies and sacrifice virgins - that is when they're not busy scheming how to enslave their fellow Americans. See? I can make baseless accusations too - just like you. If that's really what you believe then you might want to check out this board:
http://www.unknowncountry.com/board...8867/14403.html

But you're not a lefty. Right. And I'm Little Orphan Annie.

Let's see - you think that tax cuts are unsound. You think that recovering from the Clinton recession is unsound. You place the blame for Clinton's mismanagement of the economy with Bush. But you're not a lefty.

Being a lefty is not necessarily a bad thing. But in your case, it appears that you're simply looking for something to bitch about and despite the fact that Pres. Bush and the Republicans are leading the economy back to a sound footing, you continue to refuse to acknowledge that fact. Clinton let the economy overheat and run away. We had a seven year drunken orgy. Now it's time for the hangover and it's not going to go away quickly. But blame Bush if it makes you happy. It just doesn't make your views very credible.

LOL - do you understand the US budget process? The Congress makes the budget, and during the entire Clinton Administration, the Congress was run by the REPUBLICANS! It was the Republican lead "moral majority" that blocked Clinton's attempts to force companies to report outstanding stock options to the public. It was the Republicans that loosened the regulations that protected us from corporate accounting fraud. It was the Republcians that forced through a host of changes which shield corprate criminals from accountability, over Clinton vetos.

You think this economy is recovering? You think tax cuts, mostly to the very rich, are good for an economy which has gone from a surplus to a substantial deficit? And speaking of tax cuts, the "trickle down theory" by which the Republicans justify their tax cuts to the rich is antiquated - it was semi-valid in the past, but in todays world, it's not "trickle down", it's "trickle out". The rich invest their $ in foreign lands and in moving jobs to locations where there is cheap labor. Bush and the Republicans have used every trick in the book to hide how bad the economy really is from the public, but it still fell short of getting us past this election. If you cannot see how badly the economy is really doing, you're just blind.

Personally, I think there should be no income tax. Instead, we should only tax the use of non-renuable resources (such as oil) or slowly renuable public resources (such as wood). If this were done, everyone would by default pay their fair share, and everyone would be encouraged to conserve. Add a tax of a few dollars per barrel of oil, and we don't need any income or sales taxes! And the savings in terms of the expense of tax accounting to the public and the maintaining of the IRS would be huge!

Wade.

 

[Hobbit]

LOL - do you understand the US budget process? The Congress makes the budget, and during the entire Clinton Administration, the Congress was run by the REPUBLICANS! It was the Republican lead "moral majority" that blocked Clinton's attempts to force compaines to report outstanding stock options to the public. It was the Republcians that forced through a host of changes which shield corprate criminals from accountability over Clinton vetos.

You think this economy is recovering? You think tax cuts, mostly to the very rich, are good for an economy which has gone from a surplus to a substantial deficit? And speaking of tax cuts, the "trickle down theory" by which the Republicans justify their tax cuts to the rich is antiquated - it was semi-valid in the past, but in todays world, it's not "trickle down", it's "trickle out". The rich invest their $ in foreign lands and in moving jobs to locations where there is cheap labor.

Personally, I think there should be no income tax. Instead, we should only tax the use of non-renuable resources (such as oil) or slowly renuable public resources (such as wood). If this were done, everyone would by default pay their fair share, and everyone would be encouraged to conserve. Add a tax of a few dollars per barrel of oil, and we don't need any income or sales taxes! And the savings in terms of the expense of tax accounting to the public and the maintaining of the IRS would be huge!

Wade.

You seem to understand far less about the budget than you think.

A: Trickle-down is Macroecon 101. It always has worked and always will work. That's why unemployment is at an all-time low.

B: The tax cuts were not "mostly for the very rich." Based on the difference in the percentage of their income paid before the cut opposed to what they paid afterward, the lower half on income earners got the better tax breaks. In fact, they recieved almost 15% of the money returned, which is quite impressive for a demographic with only pays 5% of the total taxes. In other words, they got triple the money they would have gotten if the cuts had been even across the board.

C: If you think ANYBODY is going to try to pay off the national debt, you're kidding yourself. The last time the Republicans proposed a bill that was going to spend a lot of money, the Democrats criticized them for not spending enough.

 

[Comrade]

Couple thoughts about taxes:

1. The tax cuts, dollar for dollar, reduced taxes on the upper half of income earners far more than they went to reduce them on the lower half. However, since the lower half of income earners barely paid any taxes to begin with, this was naturally a fair deal. In fact, taxes paid by the poorer half were reduced, as a percentage, more than the upper half. Meaning, the tax scale after the cuts was tilted to be even more progressive than previously.

2. Reducing tax in a recession is usually a good idea, even if you have to run a deficit. Especially when interest rates are extraordinary low. And even more important in wartime. However, Bush's domestic policy is too fat for my conservative fiscal tastes, and if he doesn't cut this down in the 2nd term I'll be worried.

3. Heavy taxation on oil is a Europe and Asia deal. Carter tried that kind of B.S. and American's were not having any of it. For decades the rest of the modern world has taxed oil excessively in Japan and Europe and they have yet to actually develop and mature any cheap alternative power source to oil. When they do we'll adopt it, but until then artificial economic incentives on alternate sources of energy aren't welcome in the US economy. Some day oil will be just as expensive as a nuclear power ---> fuel cell chain of power technology and only then will it make any sense to give up cheap and portable oil.

 

[wade]

You seem to understand far less about the budget than you think.

A: Trickle-down is Macroecon 101. It always has worked and always will work. That's why unemployment is at an all-time low.

B: The tax cuts were not "mostly for the very rich." Based on the difference in the percentage of their income paid before the cut opposed to what they paid afterward, the lower half on income earners got the better tax breaks. In fact, they recieved almost 15% of the money returned, which is quite impressive for a demographic with only pays 5% of the total taxes. In other words, they got triple the money they would have gotten if the cuts had been even across the board.

C: If you think ANYBODY is going to try to pay off the national debt, you're kidding yourself. The last time the Republicans proposed a bill that was going to spend a lot of money, the Democrats criticized them for not spending enough.

Macro economic theory is based on the idea that the economy is mostly internal, which is no longer true. It used to be that you would figure the effect of a new dollar in the hands of the consumer by a very simple formula which basically said that he would spend X% of it and save (100-X)% of it, but that is not the case anymore, because investment can and does move abroad as well. In the new international economy, you cannot depend on reduced taxes fully going to increased spending/investment within this country. The dynamics have changed. And if you recall your macro-econ theory clearly, the most bang for the buck in the short term comes from government spending, and we know this stays within our economy.

You are right, the lower 50% did make out on the "returned" part of the tax reduction. But they got ripped off on the long term relative tax levels.

The last time the Republicans proposed a bill to spend a lot of money, they passed it - over $80 billion as I recall.

Wade.

 

[wade]

Couple thoughts about taxes:
(1 and 2 already covered)

3. Heavy taxation on oil is a Europe and Asia deal. Carter tried that kind of B.S. and American's were not having any of it. For decades the rest of the modern world has taxed oil excessively in Japan and Europe and they have yet to actually develop and mature any cheap alternative power source to oil. When they do we'll adopt it, but until then artificial economic incentives on alternate sources of energy aren't welcome in the US economy. Some day oil will be just as expensive as a nuclear power ---> fuel cell chain of power technology and only then will it make any sense to give up cheap and portable oil.

None of these nations made taxation of oil (and other non-renuable or slowly renewable resources) their ONLY form of taxation. Think about it, taxing by this system makes everyone pay in proportion to what they use. And the amount a gallon of gas would go up to support such a tax would be more than offset by not having any income tax. Some provisions to make sure the poor could heat their homes would have to be worked out, but beyond this, it's fair to everyone.

I for one would much rather pay at the pump than have to expose my financial life to a host of private and government parties through income tax.

Wade.

 

[Comrade]

None of these nations made taxation of oil (and other non-renuable or slowly renewable resources) their ONLY form of taxation. Think about it, taxing by this system makes everyone pay in proportion to what they use. And the amount a gallon of gas would go up to support such a tax would be more than offset by not having any income tax. Some provisions to make sure the poor could heat their homes would have to be worked out, but beyond this, it's fair to everyone.

I for one would much rather pay at the pump than have to expose my financial life to a host of private and government parties through income tax.

Wade.

Would that not be a regressive tax?

 

[wade]

Would that not be a regressive tax?

No. In general, there is no getting around the cost of such resources in everything you consume, and in every aspect of business.

Some protections to ensure the poor can heat their homes would be necessary, but beyond this, the higher your income (and thus spending) the more you would pay, unless you choose to consume at a level below your income standard.

Wade.

 

[Comrade]

No. In general, there is no getting around the cost of such resources in everything you consume, and in every aspect of business.

Some protections to ensure the poor can heat their homes would be necessary, but beyond this, the higher your income (and thus spending) the more you would pay, unless you choose to consume at a level below your income standard.

Wade.

But why would an energy tax on oil be directly relative to income? I called it a regressive tax because, while anyone earning 200K/year may be able to affort a larger vehicle, or have a bigger home to heat, or demand more luxury items shipped from abroad, among other factors, they certainly don't consume 10 times the oil as any average American earning only 20K/year.

A tax on energy is based on a declining scale as a percentage of total income, per consumer, wouldn't you agree?

Congress would never be able to shift the whole burden of our traditional progressive income tax to what would only end up as a highly regressive energy tax, since the majority of voters would reject this policy.

In fact, no Liberal Democracy has an effective regressive tax on it's citizens... one citizen = one vote. (think about it)

Sure, we can increase taxes on oil, while also maintaining the usual income tax, but to what end? Artificially raise the cost of oil to $100/barrel, perhaps close to the cost of all other energy sources, and so what?

Alternative energy sources (nuclear/solar/wind/tidal/geothermal/hydro) are mature technologies. Almost all of these have had 50 years to mature and develope, and since both Europe and Japan have had that kind of taxation policy, where are the economies of scale and breakthroughs?

It all comes down to our own consumer choices on that matter. It's not the government's job to force us to restrict that free market decision with a massive tax on something "bad" like oil.

I know some Americans like to preach about the need to restrict our oil use, as if a huge tax is going to fix our energy problems. But we all know how this works for each of us, personally... those same people won't actually spend their OWN MONEY on expensive, high maintenance technology when they can help it.

So we don't need our government nagging and taxing our buying decisions in the free market. We should maximize our use oil while it's there. If WE don't other nations like China most certainly will.

The idea that consumers must be guided by the state ahead of time, some decades in advance of fair economic motivation... well, the best thing we can do now, is prosper on cheap power and use the remaining crude to advance our economy, so as to be in the best position to develop and afford a new energy technology when the market will actually bear the cost. If we can't do it by then, well we sure as hell couldn't do it now. We know Europe and Asia already can't offer a cheaper alternative, given their policy of high taxation on oil. And they certainly haven't prospered much since then.

Make sense?

 

[wade]

But why would an energy tax on oil be directly relative to income? I called it a regressive tax because, while anyone earning 200K/year may be able to affort a larger vehicle, or have a bigger home to heat, or demand more luxury items shipped from abroad, among other factors, they certainly don't consume 10 times the oil as any average American earning only 20K/year.

A tax on energy is based on a declining scale as a percentage of total income, per consumer, wouldn't you agree?

Congress would never be able to shift the whole burden of our traditional progressive income tax to what would only end up as a highly regressive energy tax, since the majority of voters would reject this policy.

Alternative energy sources (nuclear/solar/wind/tidal/geothermal/hydro) are mature technologies. Almost all of these have had 50 years to mature and develope, and since both Europe and Japan have had that kind of taxation policy, where are the economies of scale and breakthroughs?

With some kind of relief for basic needs use (ie: heating a basic home), the fact is that people do consume energy in proportion to their incomes, usually more than in proportion. With such a caveat, I agree the tax is not particularly progressive, but it is not regressive. Some tweaking of the system however, could make it progressive. For instance, give everyone $X in energy credits each year, which they (and only they) can spend at the gas pump or for heating thier homes or whatever... or something along those lines.

----

As for alternative power sources, so far there really is not a good technology available. Ion fuel cell tech is still years away (if it ever actually works), hydrogen fuel cell tech relies on natural gas to get the hydrogen. Solar - well it's a mature tech in terms of heating water in appropriate areas, but the cost of making a solar electric panel largely defeats purpose, and even if we could make them w/o expending huge energy up front placing enough panals to convert sunlight to electricity on any signifcant scale has a huge negative impact on the environment. The same is true for wind, tidal, and even hydro-electric power, you can only tap so much before you impact the environment in a significant way.

OTEP's (ocean thermal conversion units) would likewise have an impact, but it would admittedly be delayed several hundred years - but getting the power from the approprate locations out over the deep ocean to the mainland is a problem still to be solved. Geo-thermal power is a good alternative, but we don't have the tech to do this in any but a very few locations yet, nor do we know the consequences of trying to drill geo-thermal taps in general locations. Finally, we could build a couple of huge rotational taps (which draw energy from the Earths rotation), however only certain regions of the world are approprtiate for these - Alaska/Canada, Chile/Argentina, North-eastern Europe - and of course this would slow down the Earths rotation but probably this impact is acceptable for at least 100,000 years. Or we could put space stations up to run a cyclic solar powered turbine - but the cost of getting them up (in terms of energy) might take decades or even longer to recover, and the issue of how to get the energy to earth (microwaves) has environmental impacts that are probably not acceptable.

In the end, of the known technologies (I have a theory of gravity which might allow power production - but this is of course an unknown), what we need is fusion power. Rather than spending $200+ BIL on a war with Iraq, we should be spending on developing fusion power. The only negative to fusion power would be heat production, and that is a negative I think we can deal with (I hope).

One thing is for certain, if we can get off the oil-drug, the terrorists are beat.

Wade.