Clinton Seeks Vote on Gas Tax Holiday

[jreeves]

That is simply wrong. If that had happened, it would not have been such an anemic, jobless recovery.

Unrealistic mortgage interest rates and huge deficit spending had more to do with the recovery. But the cost of Bush's short-sighted policy was weakening the dollar, increasing our debt load, and postponing serious economic problems in a manner that will make them much worse.

Hmmm.....Thought a recession refers to positive and negative growth of economic activity, not unemployment isolated?

 

[Dogger]

Hmmm.....Thought a recession refers to positive and negative growth of economic activity, not unemployment isolated?

Employment is an indicator of the strength of the recovery. Recovery is usually accompanied by strong job growth. Bush's weak recovery produced little job growth because it was based on expanded purchasing on credit, rather than stimulus of production.

 

[Gunny]

None of your replies really address the primary problem here….that liberals now think it's OK to just arbitrarily take a company's profits.

Lobbying is not against the law. I'm glad you blame the government for its part in the problem.

A corporation's primary purpose is to make money, not take care of granny. If it doesn't, it fails. Call it
"greed" if you want, but the profit motive is what drives capitalism. Sure, it's nice to have companies that "care" but unless things are spelled out in the law a company should not be held to some shifting and unknown standards. It is wrong for politicians to just take money from a company based upon some arbitrary moral judgement on what they deem to be "windfall" profits. A company should not be penalized because some think it made "too much" money.

Whether or not a corporation pays its "fair share" of the tax burden is the responsibility of the government. However, taxes should be fairly legislated in a democratic society…..not just arbitrarily levied and taken by force whenever the government feels like it.

If you don't think the high cost of oil is due to supply and demand (not to mention our devalued dollar) but rather a monopoly problem, then it should be proven in the courts. And you can't hold the oil companies liable for the lack of refineries. (the socialist greenies have done their job well)

You blame the oil companies…..I blame the undermining liberal socialists whose intent is to largely destroy capitalism and institute socialism.

Bullshit. I have addressed the issue directly. You in turn keep attempting to give me a class on capitalism; which, is a symptom of the problem, but not the problem itself.

Please do make up your mind whether you want to have your cake or eat it. If whether or not a corporation pays its fair share of the tax burden is the responsibility of government, then don't squeal and toss out the "sounds like socialism to me" card when people call for the government to cut out their special privileges.

It is NOT wrong to force corporations to pay the same taxes as everyone else. Morally, it is right. Ignoring that and dragging in "windfall profit tax" is not addressing the issue I am since I have not weighed in either way in regard to that one.

I'm well-aware of what the corporation's purpose is. My purpose in the Marines was to kill. Do you think I tossed my conscience and morals aside for it? Same shit, different name.

Lobbying may not be illegal, but it allows the financially privileged to purchase votes in Congress that serve their interest. An interest that belongs to the people, not the dollar.

I don't blame "the oil companies." I blame unchecked capitalism. I have not stated going 180 the other way is the answer. Whatever happened to moderation based on common sense and logic, and giving back to the society that has allowed you to prosper?

No, you don't have to take care of Granny. Leaving her sitting on the curb won't get you any points from me.

 

[Care4all]

How do you in fact know that, democrats won't raise taxes on people outside of the top 1% wage earners because they said so?

Actually the tax cut you are referring to, helped bring us out of the 2001-2002 recession.

FYI
No Jreeves the 2001 tax cuts DID NOT bring us out of the recession.

The recession began March of 2001 and it ended November of 2001....

The tax cuts had NOT been effective yet for the wealthiest, the only part of this tax cut that was barely in to the market was the $300 per person rebates, which began to hit the tax payers in september, october and november.....

The recovery of this small recession took place with 9/11 happening, and without any tax cuts being effective, with very little stimulous hitting before the recovery.

Nice try though....

care

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Bullshit. I have addressed the issue directly. You in turn keep attempting to give me a class on capitalism; which, is a symptom of the problem, but not the problem itself.

Please do make up your mind whether you want to have your cake or eat it. If whether or not a corporation pays its fair share of the tax burden is the responsibility of government, then don't squeal and toss out the "sounds like socialism to me" card when people call for the government to cut out their special privileges.

It is NOT wrong to force corporations to pay the same taxes as everyone else. Morally, it is right. Ignoring that and dragging in "windfall profit tax" is not addressing the issue I am since I have not weighed in either way in regard to that one.

I'm well-aware of what the corporation's purpose is. My purpose in the Marines was to kill. Do you think I tossed my conscience and morals aside for it? Same shit, different name.

Lobbying may not be illegal, but it allows the financially privileged to purchase votes in Congress that serve their interest. An interest that belongs to the people, not the dollar.

I don't blame "the oil companies." I blame unchecked capitalism. I have not stated going 180 the other way is the answer. Whatever happened to moderation based on common sense and logic, and giving back to the society that has allowed you to prosper?

No, you don't have to take care of Granny. Leaving her sitting on the curb won't get you any points from me.

It's really simple. What I am against is the mob mentality of liberal socialists today which is targeting the profits of corporations…and by extension, taking control of those companies.

I don't want any special privileges for corporations. They should pay their fair share just like anybody else. If you think oil companies making an 8.9% profit margin in today's market is "unchecked capitalism" you are falling for the liberal socialist propaganda.

What company should the Democrat Socialists target next after they swipe the "windfall profits" of the oil companies at 8.9%? Coca Cola? They had a 20% profit margin. How about Microsoft? They had a 22% profit margin. Or the steel industry at 14%? Or the shoe industry at 10%? There are plenty others that could also be defined to have "windfall profits". Why not go after all of them in order to finance Socialist wet dreams?

Lenin did the same thing that the liberal socialists are attempting to accomplish today. After the revolution against those "evil" rich people he took over the means of production, i.e., the farms, and turned them into state-owned collectives. What was the result? Russia starved. That took care of Granny…..yessiree.

Government needs to get out of business, not get into it.

 

[Yurt]

FYI
No Jreeves the 2001 tax cuts DID NOT bring us out of the recession.

The recession began March of 2001 and it ended November of 2001....

The tax cuts had NOT been effective yet for the wealthiest, the only part of this tax cut that was barely in to the market was the $300 per person rebates, which began to hit the tax payers in september, october and november.....

The recovery of this small recession took place with 9/11 happening, and without any tax cuts being effective, with very little stimulous hitting before the recovery.

Nice try though....

care

the economy was predicted to tank drastically, bush gave tax refunds and the recession was far more mild than expected. that is a fact. further, it is really silly to try and state with 100% accuracy whether the tax rebates helped or not as the economy requires numerous factors in order to be successful. from what i remember and from what i have read, even the most pessimistic view of the tax rebates in 2001 show they did help the economy, even if only a little.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18391650
He says that even the lowest estimate of how much of the rebate was spent was enough to help the economy,


http://media.www.udreview.com/media...al/Tax-Rebates.Help.The.Economy-3217578.shtml
But, in 2001, the last time this was attempted, the economy did seem to pick up, even if for a short period of time.
So we can only sit back and watch and hope that things will follow the same trends as the past.

 

[Care4all]

the economy was predicted to tank drastically, bush gave tax refunds and the recession was far more mild than expected. that is a fact. further, it is really silly to try and state with 100% accuracy whether the tax rebates helped or not as the economy requires numerous factors in order to be successful. from what i remember and from what i have read, even the most pessimistic view of the tax rebates in 2001 show they did help the economy, even if only a little.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18391650
He says that even the lowest estimate of how much of the rebate was spent was enough to help the economy,


http://media.www.udreview.com/media...al/Tax-Rebates.Help.The.Economy-3217578.shtml
But, in 2001, the last time this was attempted, the economy did seem to pick up, even if for a short period of time.
So we can only sit back and watch and hope that things will follow the same trends as the past.

Yurt, the tax rebates may have contributed, but the tax cuts for the Wealthiest, which is what jreeves said pulled us out of the recession, is simply not the case and this is what I was responding to....

jd

 

[Care4all]

It's really simple. What I am against is the mob mentality of liberal socialists today which is targeting the profits of corporations…and by extension, taking control of those companies.

I don't want any special privileges for corporations. They should pay their fair share just like anybody else. If you think oil companies making an 8.9% profit margin in today's market is "unchecked capitalism" you are falling for the liberal socialist propaganda.

What company should the Democrat Socialists target next after they swipe the "windfall profits" of the oil companies at 8.9%? Coca Cola? They had a 20% profit margin. How about Microsoft? They had a 22% profit margin. Or the steel industry at 14%? Or the shoe industry at 10%? There are plenty others that could also be defined to have "windfall profits". Why not go after all of them in order to finance Socialist wet dreams?

Lenin did the same thing that the liberal socialists are attempting to accomplish today. After the revolution against those "evil" rich people he took over the means of production, i.e., the farms, and turned them into state-owned collectives. What was the result? Russia starved. That took care of Granny…..yessiree.

Government needs to get out of business, not get into it.

Coke and Microsoft "Created" something with their own ingenuity and marketed it to the public, until success....they used their own money to create the items and the demand.

They deserve whatever profit they can make, as long as they are not a Monopoly.

Neither Coke nor Microsoft are a necessity to get back and forth to work or to the grocery store, and neither microsoft nor coke are natural resources collected from the earth and much of it in the usa, from OUR LAND....we the people's land, nor did the oil and gas companies create oil...

There is absolutely no comparison that can be made between oil, and coke and microsoft imho!

Care

 

[Yurt]

Yurt, the tax rebates may have contributed, but the tax cuts for the Wealthiest, which is what jreeves said pulled us out of the recession, is simply not the case and this is what I was responding to....

jd

ok, thanks for clarifying, apparently i did not catch the full gist of what you two were discussing. i do disagree with your conclusion, but i think i am getting way off topic.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Coke and Microsoft "Created" something with their own ingenuity and marketed it to the public, until success....they used their own money to create the items and the demand.

They deserve whatever profit they can make, as long as they are not a Monopoly.

Neither Coke nor Microsoft are a necessity to get back and forth to work or to the grocery store, and neither microsoft nor coke are natural resources collected from the earth and much of it in the usa, from OUR LAND....we the people's land, nor did the oil and gas companies create oil...

There is absolutely no comparison that can be made between oil, and coke and microsoft imho!

Care

So if a company uses a natural resource for its product, the company automatically becomes owned by "the people"?

Tell that socialist lie to multitudes of other businesses.....iron, coal, silver, gold, fishing, farming, lumber, concrete, etc., etc....I'm sure they will all agree...

And if you think MS products aren't a necessity in the business world today you are nutso....if you took them away from business today you wouldn't need oil or gas anymore to go to work...your job would probably disappear in a nanosecond...

 

[Care4all]

So if a company uses a natural resource for its product, the company automatically becomes owned by "the people"?

Tell that socialist lie to multitudes of other businesses.....iron, coal, silver, gold, fishing, farming, lumber, concrete, etc., etc....I'm sure they will all agree...

And if you think MS products aren't a necessity in the business world today you are nutso....if you took them away from business today you wouldn't need oil or gas anymore to go to work...your job would probably disappear in a nanosecond...

Not FOR its product, AS its product....and only resources that are necessities to living and no, it is not the people's resource automatically or owned by the people automatically....it all depends.

All the oil under south dakota/ montana etc....is montana's and South Dakota's resources, or those that own the land above the oil....and if under state or national parks then we the people do own it respectively.

And with the oil off the coast of Florida and Louisianna and texas and Mississippi in usa territory, it is owned by the people, we lease the space to the oil companies....in some cases....though those leases to drill were just given to the oil companies for nothing, by the republican congress in their energy bill... !

If Microsoft wasn't there, then it would be somebody else that advanced technology through their own ingenuity....like Apple... it can NOT be compared to oil, a natural resource.

And as far as farming and food....I'm uncertain...I do believe that excess profits should not be made off of food necessities if hundreds of millions of people are starving to death....it would be extremely unethical imho. This does not mean that the agriculture business should not make a decent profit...just that I feel that gouging is immoral on food necessities....

I don't believe that there is ever a free and fair market situation if something is a necessity to survive.

These kind of things are not based on competition, or marketing, or ingenuity or any other things in a free market economy that gives true success to capitalism, imo.

Care

 

[midcan5]

Politics makes for some bizarre rhetoric, I wonder if some focus group said yes, reducing taxes is always good regardless of the outcome. Americans have become a bunch gas addicts. Elite economists, jeez, I'm gonna have to stop calling myself an elitist as it is now a bad word.


"Clinton dismisses "elite" economists on gas tax plan"

http://www.reuters.com/article/wtMostRead/idUSN3055017520080504

"But economists and energy analysts say it would have little impact on mitigating the rise in gasoline prices. In fact, it could lead to the opposite result.

The federal gasoline tax represents a flat fee of 18.4 cents a gallon nationwide. With gasoline currently averaging $3.39 a gallon, the tax represents a mere 5 percent of today’s pump price. While that’s not trivial, consider that gasoline prices have more than doubled since 2004."

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/economists-weigh-mccains-gas-tax-plan/

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Not FOR its product, AS its product....and only resources that are necessities to living and no, it is not the people's resource automatically or owned by the people automatically....it all depends.

All the oil under south dakota/ montana etc....is montana's and South Dakota's resources, or those that own the land above the oil....and if under state or national parks then we the people do own it respectively.

And with the oil off the coast of Florida and Louisianna and texas and Mississippi in usa territory, it is owned by the people, we lease the space to the oil companies....in some cases....though those leases to drill were just given to the oil companies for nothing, by the republican congress in their energy bill... !

If Microsoft wasn't there, then it would be somebody else that advanced technology through their own ingenuity....like Apple... it can NOT be compared to oil, a natural resource.

And as far as farming and food....I'm uncertain...I do believe that excess profits should not be made off of food necessities if hundreds of millions of people are starving to death....it would be extremely unethical imho. This does not mean that the agriculture business should not make a decent profit...just that I feel that gouging is immoral on food necessities....

I don't believe that there is ever a free and fair market situation if something is a necessity to survive.

These kind of things are not based on competition, or marketing, or ingenuity or any other things in a free market economy that gives true success to capitalism, imo.

Care

Don't try to split hairs. There's no big difference between "for" the product as opposed to "as" the product. Whether in whole or in part one is still using natural resources. Bottom line, natural resources are natural resources…… and many, many, many (if not all) companies use natural resources. Some consider the human mind and ingenuity a natural resource…

Yes, the government can control oil in the public spaces such as under parks, offshore, etc. That is what leases to drill are all about….the government has control of those….but not the company itself. The fact is, the government is not in the business of drilling for oil and thus should neither be in the business of stealing a company's profits. If the government wants to rescind its leases and run the oil companies itself (and keep the profits)……that is called Socialism. Kinda like what Hugo Chavez did in Venezuela.

You are using the same socialist arguments for oil and food that are being used for health care. You think that anything that is a necessity to survive must be socialized. Guess what? That could include almost anything in this world…

If you want America to be turned over to a bunch of Socialists who want to control your life then vote for a Democrat Socialist….uh, that would include either Hillary or Obama....and other friends of Hugo...

 

[doeton]

no reason to split hairs.

congress has the power to tax.

it's that simple.

it's called the constitution.

Power to Tax and Spend

Section 8. Clause 1. The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States


they also tax liquor and cigarettes.

oh and hello

gasoline.

 

[doeton]

yeah those crazy socialists

who want to pay for our roads and bridges...

 

[ScreamingEagle]

yeah those crazy socialists

who want to pay for our roads and bridges...

Those crazy capitalists...they just want to keep the money they earn....

Speaking of roads and bridges...why is it our infrastructure is falling apart after years and years of government taxation on gas companies AND gas at the pumps? Why is it the government can't do anything right? Hell, they can't even keep the potholes filled...

...and you want Socialism?

 

[doeton]

"Speaking of roads and bridges...why is it our infrastructure is falling apart after years and years of government taxation on gas companies AND gas at the pumps?"

uh, free market contractors ripping off the public?

 

[Dogger]

yeah those crazy socialists

who want to pay for our roads and bridges...

And our socialized army, too!

 

[ScreamingEagle]

"Speaking of roads and bridges...why is it our infrastructure is falling apart after years and years of government taxation on gas companies AND gas at the pumps?"

uh, free market contractors ripping off the public?

ok....so why isn't big brother government handling that problem?

 

[doeton]

uh, free market judges?