|
|
Post by Lee Browning on Sept 12, 2008 18:29:00 GMT -5
As for a win fall tax, I never said I agreed with that. I don't believe Obama will be able to put taxes on everything that has been mentioned if he was elected. However, the budget does need to be balanced. You can't cut taxes and increase spending at the same time. The deficit and national debt is one of the factors causing the dollar to devalue. What are the things that congress has done, or not done, that has caused the dollar to devalue and gas to go up? ............................................... Just starting at the top.  Also, as for companies being able to make a profit. Nothing wrong with that. However, in most industries supply and demand will determine a fair price for goods and services. But in cases, such as with electric companies, there is government oversite and regulatin. You can't exactly decide who you want to buy electricity from. Therefore there is not sufficient competition to bring about a fair market price, hence the need for regulation. If oil companies price fix instead of competing against each other it can cause gas prices to be higher than they should be. This is why people are concerned about oil companies making record profits. According to the petroleum marketers association, local service station owners get 3 to 15 cents profit per gallon of gas sold. I know of exxon mobile stations that make over 50 cents in profit per gallon (my brother is a manager with exxon mobile). That's just profit from what the station pays for it and what they sell it for. That doesn't count the profit between the refinery and the station. The dollars problems are many but the main ones are A. over spending and creation of National Debt. The President doesn't spend one dime. Only Congress can spend money. So that is on Congress B.Massive trade deficits which sends our dollars overseas. I believe that the biggest problem is oil and the less we drill in our country the more we have to buy overseas. We are producing less oil now than in the 70"s and not because it is not there or there is no money to be made. Taxes and regulation, again Congress. So Leonard, you're stating that when it comes to federal spending and oil/gas prices its congress, not the president, that is at fault? Well, then isn't it also congress, not the president, that decides whether or not to lift drilling bans? If so, then shouldn't we not consider the candidates positions on drilling when deciding who to vote for? And if so, we can agree that Carey Nick's first listed reason for voting for McCain over Obama has been determined to be irrelevant. ;D Also, I just want to mention that I'm an electronics engineer and probably pay as much in federal taxes as the majority of the rest of the people on this board. So, I'm not going to exactly be coming out the greatest if taxes go up. Just letting you know that I'm not supporting a democrat because I'm wanting a handout. I personally think its good to not have democratic or republican control over the white house for more than 8 years. I see a benefit in things switching back and forth. Some things republicans may be better at, others democrats seem to be better at. Everytime republicans try the whole trickle down economics strategy, the economy slows down. Do you think a tax cut to oil companies will trickle down to the pumps? The tax cuts would increase the oil company profits only slightly. As oil company profits have risen in the past, has the oil companies allowed that to trickle down to consumers. No. Prices just went up more. Time for a switch. Anyway, once we beat the hole drilling/gas/oil issue to death we still have a lot more items on Nick's list to debate. John B. I see you live in Texas, hope all is well over there with Ike headed that way. I live in the New Orleans Metro area and I lost power earlier today because of wind gusts off hurricane Ike. It's got to be horrible over there. |
|
|
|
Post by Erick "Zap" Szczap on Sept 12, 2008 18:51:27 GMT -5
So what are the stances of the other candidates?
|
|
|
|
Post by chrislydman on Sept 12, 2008 19:27:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Lee Browning on Sept 14, 2008 23:25:09 GMT -5
So what are the stances of the other candidates? Well, the stance of the republican vice presidential nominee is that she is against drilling in alaska....I saw her state that herself on the news today. So even McCain's own running mate sides with Obama on not drilling in the 2000 acre area in Alaska that McCain wants to drill in. The whole drilling in Alaska has always been something that democrats have been against and republicans have been for. Bush used the whole gas situation to try to put political pressure on the dems to allow drilling. Bush got on national TV stating he wanted to drill in alaska to ease gas prices....dems said no...Bush gets on national TV and says high gas prices are the dems fault for not allowing drilling in the 2000 acre area in alaska. All experts including republicns stated driling in that area in alaska would take atleast 10 years to have any effect on oil prices. So Bush yet again looked like an idiot. This whole drilling in alaska is simply a logical red herring on the energy debate. There's plenty of oil to be drilled in other places here in the US. I only brought up the drilling/oil issue because it was first on Carry's list. I'd like anyone who believes McCain's energy plan to be better than Obama's to try to explain why? Noone has done this so far. If noone can, then I'll move on to point 2 by Mr. Nick.  |
|
|
|
Post by John Byerley on Sept 15, 2008 4:00:50 GMT -5
Just a fact check - in my opinion this debate shouldn't continue on the main forum its completely off topic now. And if you're going to post please continue to do research or else it is not worth replying. Lee - This is an excerpt from two days ago. Palin said: "I'm going to keep working on that one with him. ANWR, of course, is a 2,000 acre swath of land in the middle of about a 20 million acre swath of land. 2,000 acres that we're asking the feds to unlock so that there can be exploration and development… We'll agree to disagree but I'm gonna keep pushing that and I think eventually we're all gonna come together on that one." It might, however, not take so much work to convince McCain to change his mind. "I continue to examine it," the Arizona Senator told The Weekly Standard at the end of August about ANWR. www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/Story?id=5778018&page=2--------------------- McCain has always taking a stance against the drilling, but in June shifted towards favoring drilling, because of the current situation. And is now researching ANWR. Read this about anwr if you havent already: save it for after this reply. www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/Story?id=5778018&page=2AND MR OBAMA shifted as well, stating some drilling is ok, if we use it for alternative fuel sources, which everyone agrees on. www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/Story?id=5778018&page=2Palin made a statement at the convention that you "could't get elected dog catcher if you opposed [any type of drilling.]" Which the vast majority of Alaskans are for. -------------------------------- Besides, if you're of the mind that you want to elect Obama then vote for him. At THIS POINT we've all see enough of the candidates to make up out our mind. And we all probably invidually are voting for very different reasons, and different issues, that can't be debated. McCains not perfect - all of his views are not my own. But they are closer than that of Obamas. Policies remain policies until people are in office. Which often changes. Stances on issues change, as it has with Obama and McCain. The man is a war hero - I'm voting on who I think is the most qualified individual American to be president - serving his country for the better part of the last 60 years in either armed forces or political service. The important think is that everyone just gets out and votes. Theres no debate here. Let's focus on ArmWrestling!!!! Everyone take care. |
|
|
|
Post by Erick "Zap" Szczap on Sept 15, 2008 5:40:07 GMT -5
Lee, Palin isn't a candidate. I'm asking about the candidates for other parties. Believe it or not, we DO have choices beyond the democratic and republican candidates.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lee Browning on Sept 15, 2008 9:24:59 GMT -5
John, all 3 of you links appear to be the same in your message. Don't know if you intended on that or not. Also, I never researched McCain's position on drilling because I could care less where drilling is done. However, I did learn something from the link you posted. It appears that McCain is opposed to the Alaska drilling and Palin is actually for it. I assumed from Carry Nick's original post that Obama was for it and McCain was against it. That's why I assumed Palin was opposed to it when I saw she and McCain felt differently. Wonder what Carry meant by Obama was against drilling and McCain was for it? Oh well. I know that if drilling needs to be done, it will be by whoever is president. Also, I'm sure whoever the president is, he will consider all viable alternative forms of energy.
Also, I agree that this post need to be moved to the off topic forum. I'll try to PM Kurt and see if he'll move it.
Erick, I know that other candidates exist, but I don't think they stand a chance of getting elected this time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Leonard Harkless on Sept 15, 2008 16:32:17 GMT -5
John, all 3 of you links appear to be the same in your message. Don't know if you intended on that or not. Also, I never researched McCain's position on drilling because I could care less where drilling is done. However, I did learn something from the link you posted. It appears that McCain is opposed to the Alaska drilling and Palin is actually for it. I assumed from Carry Nick's original post that Obama was for it and McCain was against it. That's why I assumed Palin was opposed to it when I saw she and McCain felt differently. Wonder what Carry meant by Obama was against drilling and McCain was for it? Oh well. I know that if drilling needs to be done, it will be by whoever is president. Also, I'm sure whoever the president is, he will consider all viable alternative forms of energy. Also, I agree that this post need to be moved to the off topic forum. I'll try to PM Kurt and see if he'll move it. Erick, I know that other candidates exist, but I don't think they stand a chance of getting elected this time. Lee it is congress that allows the drilling or stops it. Congress!! You would think that with a 9% approval rating they would wake up. Oh well we can vote them out........probably not.  |
|
|
|
Post by Erick "Zap" Szczap on Sept 15, 2008 17:40:03 GMT -5
Leonard, congress wasn't exactly popular when the republicans controlled it.
Lee, whether or not third party candidates have a chance, it's a good idea to post their positions on the same topics.
|
|
|
|
Post by Leonard Harkless on Sept 15, 2008 18:23:10 GMT -5
Leonard, congress wasn't exactly popular when the republicans controlled it. Lee, whether or not third party candidates have a chance, it's a good idea to post their positions on the same topics. Erick there is a difference between not popular and 9% approval rating. Thats like just staffers and relatives. ;D This current congress has done nothing. What a joke. |
|
|
|
Post by Erick "Zap" Szczap on Sept 15, 2008 19:24:40 GMT -5
Leonard, I agree. But the prior congress did nothing but cater to Bush's every whim. They were just as much of a joke, and voters ousted them. The prior congress hurt the image of republicans so badly that it's going to be hard for republicans to win back the seats they just lost, even with the current congress bordering on single-digit approval ratings. That goes to show how bad this congress has been, regardless of which party has been in the majority.
|
|
|
|
Post by jamesretarides on Sept 15, 2008 19:29:33 GMT -5
Eric, a little off topic (though somewhat relevant)...it must have been a tough day at work today. |
|
|
|
Post by Carey Nick on Sept 15, 2008 21:57:37 GMT -5
Glad to see we got this moved to the Off Topic page because it was taking up too much room on the main page.
|
|
|
|
Post by Leonard Harkless on Sept 16, 2008 9:52:52 GMT -5
Leonard, I agree. But the prior congress did nothing but cater to Bush's every whim. They were just as much of a joke, and voters ousted them. The prior congress hurt the image of republicans so badly that it's going to be hard for republicans to win back the seats they just lost, even with the current congress bordering on single-digit approval ratings. That goes to show how bad this congress has been, regardless of which party has been in the majority. Oh I am not happy with how the republicans ran the congress and they let the power go their heads. But come on this one has been twice as bad and they are not "bordering" on single digit approval ratings they have been at 9% for some time now. Again you want things changed then elect new senators and house of Rep congressman. Even if they are new Democrats, Pelocie and Reed need to go. |
|
|
|
Post by Erick "Zap" Szczap on Sept 16, 2008 17:52:51 GMT -5
Eric, a little off topic (though somewhat relevant)...it must have been a tough day at work today. This week has been the busiest since I got into the biz. |
|
