Cut taxes or spending? - Page 9

7thsfsniper · 04-29-2008, 23:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gunnut

We need to drill our own oil if we want to get that price down. More oil from continental US would discourage speculators from bidding up oil. What is the most stable region in the entire world? Right here. Our supply would be guaranteed, unlike the oil from unstable regions of the world.

Gunnut, You have many VERY good posts on the WAB. I would venture to say IMHO, that this was one of the absolute most absolute things you have said. I absolutely agree! That is the definitive nail on the head in my POV.

you have summed up much in very few words.

gunnut · 04-30-2008, 03:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 7thsfsniper

Gunnut, You have many VERY good posts on the WAB. I would venture to say IMHO, that this was one of the absolute most absolute things you have said. I absolutely agree! That is the definitive nail on the head in my POV.

you have summed up much in very few words.

Thank you sir.

Even a monkey can come up with something good once a while if given enough time.

rj1 · 04-30-2008, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gunnut

We need to drill our own oil if we want to get that price down. More oil from continental US would discourage speculators from bidding up oil. What is the most stable region in the entire world? Right here. Our supply would be guaranteed, unlike the oil from unstable regions of the world.

We do need to drill our own oil.

If you want more info on oil supply, go here: Energy Information Administration - EIA - Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government

Per this site, the week of April 18th we produced 5.1 million barrels of crude oil that week. It has data going back to January 1983 showing that back then, we produced 8.6 million barrels of crude oil per week.

Not 100% confident on this, but I think I've heard that current worldwide weekly demand is something like 80-85 million barrels.

ba1025 · 05-01-2008, 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shek

I'm with BA that it is clear that humans have added a whole bunch of "greenhouse" gases, that it is not negligible.

However, I'm with you in the sense that the timing of the correlation between some of these "greenhouse" gases is off and that the causal mechanism linking them to global warming hasn't been scientifically proven. Thus, I'm leery of AGW as an explanation.

Although i do believe putting all the carbon taken out of the atmosphere in the Permian period has and will continue to effect our climate I never stated that here. I stated global warming was real and attributed no cause and furthermore that believing otherwise just meant someone didnt know or didnt want to know the statistical truth to that. I apologize for that. I thought I was being flame baited I didn't understand someone could actually believe the earth hasn't gotten warmer.

My disgust with a comment about pollution being over rated comes from growing up in a time before the clean air and water act and seeing dead rivers and choked skies.

**Shek** · 05-01-2008, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ba1025

My disgust with a comment about pollution being over rated comes from growing up in a time before the clean air and water act and seeing dead rivers and choked skies.

Agree here. It is the huge increase in incomes that have made people care (e.g., I'm beyond subsistance living, and so now I care about my surroundings more).

We're seeing the same thing in China where people see that they will continue to grow, and so the tradeoff between growth and pollution is becoming more costly, i.e., they are beginning to lean towards potentially sacrificing some growth for better pollution standards.

7thsfsniper · 05-01-2008, 13:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ba1025

I stated global warming was real and attributed no cause and furthermore that believing otherwise just meant someone didnt know or didnt want to know the statistical truth to that.

I could say the same

I apologize for that. I thought I was being flame baited I didn't understand someone could actually believe the earth hasn't gotten warmer. Ok, I'll concede....over 240 years.....8/10s of a degree!

My disgust with a comment about pollution being over rated comes from growing up in a time before the clean air and water act and seeing dead rivers and choked skies. I grew up in a small town in SE kansas. In a 20 mile radius of where I lived there are more EPA superfund projects than aywhere else in the United States. Leftovers from an out of control mining boom. Oh Yes! I have seen it all! The worst of the worst. Google these towns and see what you get, Galena, Treece, KS. Picher, Cardin, Miami, Quapaw, OKLA. I am not adressing pollution as in dioxins and heavy metals. I am referring to CO2 as a "pollutant".

Aren't we having the same discussion on two threads? -I'm going back to the other just for convenience sake.

**Shek** · 05-09-2008, 10:11 AM

Something that I hadn't considered about tax revenues was the impact of whether tax brackets move with increases in income or not. From the WSJ via http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2008/...tax-hike.html:

Quote:

Going back to the tax rates of the 1990s doesn't mean that households will pay 1990s taxes. Because the tax brackets haven't risen along with incomes, average taxes would be significantly higher, and grow each year.

If the [Bush] tax cuts expire, income-tax revenues by 2018 will rise to 10.8% of the total economy from 8.7% today – an increase of 24%. Compared to the average over the last 50 years, allowing the rates to rise would increase tax revenues by 32%.

Believe it or not, income taxes will rise even if the tax cuts remain in place, because the revenue-increasing effects of bracket creep more than offset the lower rates. With the lower rates, total income-tax revenues will increase to 9.3% of GDP by 2018. This level is 7% higher than today, and 13% above the 1957-2007 average....

So even if the tax cuts are made permanent, future Americans will pay a greater share of their incomes to the government than in the past.

7thsfsniper · 05-09-2008, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shek

Something that I hadn't considered about tax revenues was the impact of whether tax brackets move with increases in income or not. From the WSJ via http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2008/...tax-hike.html:

So that kind of seals the deal that cutting spending is the solution.(in part)

Sounds like we are in desparate need of the fair tax or APT tax. That gives me an idea for another thread.

View Poll Results: Cut taxes or spending?
Cut taxes	4	11.76%
Cut spending	30	88.24%
Voters: 34. You may not vote on this poll

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Stupid Gobal Warming Alarmists	Leader	Science & Tech	386	04-28-2008 09:32 AM
Pakistani Sovereignty	Ironduke	South Asian Defense Topics	47	02-05-2008 13:44 PM
Economic Survey 2005-06: overview of the economy Part I	Neo	Political Discussions	3	10-31-2007 09:19 AM
Beijing Accelerates Its Military Spending	Ray	International Defense Topics	2	03-05-2007 21:24 PM
has america lost its luck?	astralis	Political Discussions	71	11-15-2006 09:44 AM

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)