Campaign 2008

[Danville_Wrestling 0]

I don't really see it as a big deal. It's in the oil companies best interests to back candidates that increase their bottom line and so now that McCain seemed like the candidate to favor more drilling it only makes sense that those oil interests back him.

 

On another note, I think Mitch McConnell will be safe in the Senate race here in Kentucky. His Democratic opponent, Bruce Lunsford is being ravaged over his gas tax policy in the state in recent TV ads and mailings. The Lunsford campaign has released a new commercial quoting the left-leaning Lexington Herald Leader who said the attacks were not valid and then saying that Mitch McConnell has taken in over $3 million from energy companies. Then the commercial somehow makes the comparison between those contributions (which they say led to oil company tax breaks) and high gas prices......uh yeah. The ad just seemed very defensive to me and did nothing to refute the charges McConnell made in his ads. If the election here in KY hinges on energy I have to think that McConnell will win it.

 

I just think the high gas prices/energy debate has been a godsend to GOP candidates and might mitigate some of the disaster they expect to see on election night based on the mood of the country on energy as well as recent polling data in regards to drilling/nuclear power.

[EricMM 0]

Except the high cost of gas has been the birthing pains of weaning America off of the oil economy. An undeniably good thing.

 

Also, next years fiscal deficit is projected to be $490B.

 

Disgusting.

 

Just imagine how much we're going to have to raise taxes to pay this off...

[Danville_Wrestling 0]

Except the high cost of gas has been the birthing pains of weaning America off of the oil economy. An undeniably good thing.

 

Also, next years fiscal deficit is projected to be $490B.

 

Disgusting.

 

Just imagine how much we're going to have to raise taxes to pay this off...

 

I don't disagree with you here, but to the average "middle American" voter being told that they are going to have to pay a ton for gas is not fun (especially in tough economic times like now when incomes are already stretched), especially when they are getting the impression from Congress that the GOP is trying to increase supply and the Democrats are not. Voters I talk to on both sides of the aisle are getting the feeling that we are beholding too much to the environmental lobby on nuclear power and oil/coal and are saying that they are reconsidering voting Democratic this November.

 

The biggest thing that hurts the argument that the high prices are a good thing is that there is nothing in the IMMEDIATE future to replace them. So Americans are asking themselves "just how long/how much are we going to have to suffer to live in this great, big beautiful tomorrow politicians who do not want offshore drilling are talking about?" I think that's an effective turn on the argument for the GOP to use.

 

I think we need to increase the supply of energy but also look into the alternatives we can use (more nuke power plants, electric cars, wind power, etc.) One way would be to use the royalties from opening up pockets of offshore drilling to go to alternative energy research. I think Rep. Nick Lampson, a Democratic out of TX (who has a high probability of losing his House seat), has written up a compromise energy bill for the House to consider in this regard.

 

Like it or not, our economy will still need fossil fuels for the next several decades and while there will be costs, we have to have a long term vision to making the cost of those fossil fuels reasonable while also preparing for an economy that will not use fossil fuels down the road. It's a tricky balancing act for sure, because if oil prices plummet people will simply want to jump off the alternatives train, but we have to do the best we can in that regard.

[snuffbox 0]

Am I understanding you, Danville, you don't think letting the oil companies (already federally subsidized to begin with) call the shots has something to do with the price we have to pay for gas? They have a huge market, with constant heavy demand, completely cornered: why the fuck would they LOWER prices? The record profits should kinda be telling people something.

[Danville_Wrestling 0]

Am I understanding you, Danville, you don't think letting the oil companies (already federally subsidized to begin with) call the shots has something to do with the price we have to pay for gas? They have a huge market, with constant heavy demand, completely cornered: why the fuck would they LOWER prices? The record profits should kinda be telling people something.

 

So does this mean that you are advocating complete federal control of the oil companies (i.e. nationalization)? The whole argument I am making is in terms of supply and demand. Currently our supply isn't high enough and as India/China grow those supplies become harder to get. With more supply on the market, the price is bound to fall because people will know they don't have to pay "x" amount for the oil they are getting. The oil companies don't have to lower prices on their own, the market would work and force them to do so.

 

Now, I'm not saying its a simply solution in the price game because if you want gas prices to fall BUILD SOME NEW REFINERIES! We haven't build a new refinery in the U.S. since 1974, which is absolutley ridiculous based on the growth rate in population and economically we've experienced since that time. We have a bottleneck on the supply front for gas and THAT is really where anyone who wants to solve the high prices dilemma needs to start looking.

 

To be honest I wouldn't be surprised to hear some blowhard come out next year in Congress arguing for a "right to gas" and trying to push through a price cap on the gasoline...which will inevitable lead to shortages and it'll be the gas lines all over again. That'll show the oil companies!

[snuffbox 0]

I feel like I just read something Marvin Beck would write/say.

 

 

[Danville_Wrestling 0]

Interesting since I never listen to Glen Beck and hate his show.

 

I'm just an independent conservative who believes in free markets/free trade.

[snuffbox 0]

You're supporting a federally subsidized industry. Not a free market or even close to it. Sorry.

[Danville_Wrestling 0]

Fine, I grant that (and recognize that some tax breaks given to oil companies don't need to exist) but if those federal subsidies did not exist it could have very negative ramifications on the economy. Without certain tax provisions (which work both ways in terms of sales taxes, etc.) the U.S. economy, built on road systems and cars, could suffer massive financial damage. I suppose you could destroy everything to build new, but it definitely would not be pretty. Hence, the gradual adjustment I pointed out several posts ago.

 

I mean if you think gas prices are bad now wait till we up gas taxes to the point where people will love the day when $3-4 gas was the norm.

[SuperJerk 0]

Oh, which Republicans aren't rumored to be gay these days?

 

Unfortunately, the governor of Alaska.

How is that unfortunate?

 

If you can't figure out why I'd say its unfortunate a hot chick isn't rumored to be gay, there's no hope for you.

[At Home 0]

Hot chick? Dude. In the realms of business and politics, we're so used to shitty old men that any glimmer of tirts on someone who doesn't look like Margaret Thatcher is an instant bonerizer.

 

[Jingus 0]

If you can't figure out why I'd say its unfortunate a hot chick isn't rumored to be gay, there's no hope for you.

I don't follow your logic. You would prefer that an attractive woman be a lesbian instead of heterosexual?

[Guest Vitamin X]

Yeah, I was trying to figure that out too.

[Danville_Wrestling 0]

Bad news for the GOP today in terms of Senate races as Ted Stevens gets indicted. However, the GOP does have some hope that he won't even make it out of the primary or will withdraw meaning that they can field a different candidate.

[snuffbox 0]

Do they have a series of tubes in jail?

 

Too bad the GOP's presidential candidate can't bring himself to rule out a payroll tax hike. What do working/middle-class people need money for anyway, they wouldn't know what to do with it.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Am I understanding you, Danville, you don't think letting the oil companies (already federally subsidized to begin with) call the shots has something to do with the price we have to pay for gas? They have a huge market, with constant heavy demand, completely cornered: why the fuck would they LOWER prices? The record profits should kinda be telling people something.

 

So does this mean that you are advocating complete federal control of the oil companies (i.e. nationalization)? The whole argument I am making is in terms of supply and demand. Currently our supply isn't high enough and as India/China grow those supplies become harder to get. With more supply on the market, the price is bound to fall because people will know they don't have to pay "x" amount for the oil they are getting. The oil companies don't have to lower prices on their own, the market would work and force them to do so.

 

Now, I'm not saying its a simply solution in the price game because if you want gas prices to fall BUILD SOME NEW REFINERIES! We haven't build a new refinery in the U.S. since 1974, which is absolutley ridiculous based on the growth rate in population and economically we've experienced since that time. We have a bottleneck on the supply front for gas and THAT is really where anyone who wants to solve the high prices dilemma needs to start looking.

To be honest I wouldn't be surprised to hear some blowhard come out next year in Congress arguing for a "right to gas" and trying to push through a price cap on the gasoline...which will inevitable lead to shortages and it'll be the gas lines all over again. That'll show the oil companies!

 

We dont have a right to gas anymore. That would be like saying we have a right to pollute the atmosphere and cause global warming, killing poor kids in Africa and polar bears in the Arctic region with every mile we drive our dirty pollutmobiles. If anything, come next year they will whine and complain that they dont have enough money to pay off all the crap that Obama is gonna push through even with the massive tax hikes, so as a favor for to the environmental movement they'll probably raise gas taxes to like $.50 a gallon to pay for them and stiffle gas usage even more. This will make the enviromentalists happy since it will artificially keep the price of gas higher. It'll be just like a tax on cigarettes..Gas is bad for the Environment (just like cigarettes are bad for everyone) so they have to tax it to make you stop using it since they cant get you to stop using it on your own..just watch. Its precisely the reason why gas prices are much higher in Europe and our government all of a sudden seems to have a hardon for the European way of doing things..

 

The only reason anyone is paying over $4 for gas now is because their state and local taxes are high. If the taxes were removed, some people would be paying less than $3 for gas.

[snuffbox 0]

How much did Beck tell you your 'massive tax hike' will amount to?

[SuperJerk 0]

Hey, didn't Ted "Series of Tubes" Stevens used to be the Senate President Pro Tempore (and would be so again if the GOP took back control of the Senate)? Golly, you don't think information like that might influence the outcome of the congressional elections, do you? I mean, not that being President Pro Tem is a real job, but still...

 

 

 

If you can't figure out why I'd say its unfortunate a hot chick isn't rumored to be gay, there's no hope for you.

I don't follow your logic. You would prefer that an attractive woman be a lesbian instead of heterosexual?

 

Because the idea of two hot chicks together is a lot hotter than the idea of a hot chick with her middle-aged husband.

 

I really had to spell that out, didn't I?

[Danville_Wrestling 0]

Yea, I don't believe Obama's economic plan amounts to a significant raise in taxes. Under his plan, the Bush tax cuts for lower/middle income Americans would stay and he would increase taxes on the 2% of Americans making over $250,000a year. The Tax Policy Centre suggests that this would raise about $800 billion. Obama also wants to extend the Earned Income Tax credit (which makes sense) but deciding to get rid of payroll taxes on those making under $50,000 a year doesn't make much sense if you want to balance the federal coffers. All told, Obama's taxes would make the federal tax rate about 18.5% (when the U.S. average is about 18%).

 

The only part of the Obama plan I'm skittish about is his idea of increasing the Social Security payroll tax to shore up the system on those making over $250,000 a year. If he were to double it to 12.4%, according to the Economist, that would mean a marginal tax rate of over 50% for this bracket, and economists will tell you that while that might shore up federal revenues in the short-term it could depress economic ingenuity/incentives in the long-term (although 50% is still less than the high marginal tax rates after World War II so the economic damage might not be as much long-term as you typically find with marginal tax rates).

 

I'm not surprised McCain won't rule out a payroll tax increase snuff, simply because he wants to pander to the elderly crowd that their Social Security will be safe. Dealing with the older generation is going to become a headache for middle aged and younger workers alike in about 10 years because as these people retire and the federal budget gets squeezed more and more we will all be faced with a choice: raise taxes or cut the benefits in these programs. Due to the fact that the elderly vote in larger numbers (and demographics will give them an edge) I have to say that our tax rate could become suffocating. It's definitely the biggest long-term dilemma America faces politically but no one wants to talk about in each election cycle, and the politicians that do such as Ron Paul, just get called wackos and no one listens to them.

[EricMM 0]

If anything, come next year they will whine and complain that they dont have enough money to pay off all the crap that Obama is gonna push through even with the massive tax hikes, so as a favor for to the environmental movement they'll probably raise gas taxes to like $.50 a gallon to pay for them and stiffle gas usage even more. This will make the enviromentalists happy since it will artificially keep the price of gas higher. It'll be just like a tax on cigarettes..Gas is bad for the Environment (just like cigarettes are bad for everyone) so they have to tax it to make you stop using it since they cant get you to stop using it on your own..just watch. Its precisely the reason why gas prices are much higher in Europe and our government all of a sudden seems to have a hardon for the European way of doing things..

This.

 

Gee, it sure seems like the Europeans are better equipped to deal with this gas shortage than we are.

 

On the same note, the gas tax should DEFINITLEY become percentage based, possibly with a bottom cap, because the more expensive gas gets, the less people drive, and the less money we have to fix roads. Which still need the fixing. Plus it would raise the cost of gas, which, as Marvin said, serves my interests.

[Guest Tzar Lysergic]

The fact that European countries are a fraction of the size of most of our states probably helps an awful lot, y'know?

[snuffbox 0]

Pretty good mass transit over there, too.

 

 

[Guest Tzar Lysergic]

Cars the size of hamster balls.

[EricMM 0]

You say that like it's a bad thing.

 

And yet you get where you're going without wasting so much gas.

 

[At Home 0]

...that's what he is saying.

[snuffbox 0]

The settings are completely different. What works in Europe won't in the US. There are thousands of towns, populated in the dozens and hundreds, and farm regions, that connect to towns with populations in the few-to-tens-of thousands that house the factory(rarely -ies anymore), the shops, and a Walmart. Can we connect all of these small rural environs with trains? Nope. Can they walk the several miles? Nope. Do they need to drive? Yep.

[Danville_Wrestling 0]

Snuff hit it on the head. America is built for the car/methods of personal transportation. A massive public transit system really won't work in the U.S. and if it was attempted it would cost trillions upon trillions of dollars.

[Golgo 13 0]

There's a way to make high-speed rail work within high-density metropolitan corridors like the Northeast, Midwest, California, etc., as a better way to connect those major cities, which is apparently being worked on anyway. It does nothing for rural commuters, but it's something that's at least being thought of.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

If anything, come next year they will whine and complain that they dont have enough money to pay off all the crap that Obama is gonna push through even with the massive tax hikes, so as a favor for to the environmental movement they'll probably raise gas taxes to like $.50 a gallon to pay for them and stiffle gas usage even more. This will make the enviromentalists happy since it will artificially keep the price of gas higher. It'll be just like a tax on cigarettes..Gas is bad for the Environment (just like cigarettes are bad for everyone) so they have to tax it to make you stop using it since they cant get you to stop using it on your own..just watch. Its precisely the reason why gas prices are much higher in Europe and our government all of a sudden seems to have a hardon for the European way of doing things..

This.

 

Gee, it sure seems like the Europeans are better equipped to deal with this gas shortage than we are.

 

On the same note, the gas tax should DEFINITLEY become percentage based, possibly with a bottom cap, because the more expensive gas gets, the less people drive, and the less money we have to fix roads. Which still need the fixing. Plus it would raise the cost of gas, which, as Marvin said, serves my interests.

 

In a few countries over in Europe, the price of an equivalent to 1 gallon of gas is composed of as much as 75% taxes vs 25% for the actual cost of the gas itself. That is where we are headed long term. Right now taxes in the US only make up about 10-20% of the cost depending on local taxes. If NYC can charge $3 a pack tax on cigarettes, they can charge $3 a gallon tax on gas just the same eventually...

[snuffbox 0]

Question for John "decades in DC to do something about it" McCain after mindlessly saying that Obama is entirely to blame for $4-a-gallon gas: Is he inexperienced or does he run the whole goddam show in this country?

 

Who would have guessed in 2000 that 8 years later McCain would be running one of the dirtiest campagns this side of LBJ?