Who is out of touch?

ba1025 · 04-27-2008, 18:29 PM

Quote:

Republican presidential candidate John McCain on Sunday called Democratic rival Barack Obama insensitive to poor people and out of touch on economic issues

Really Senator and why is that?

Quote:

Sen. Obama wants to raise the capital gains tax, which would have a direct effect on 100 million Americans," McCain said. "That means he has no understanding of the economy and that he is totally insensitive to the hopes and dreams and ambitions of 100 million Americans who will be affected by his almost doubling of the capital gains tax."

Really so the Bush tax cuts are really fueling the economy and our economic expansion...or are they?

Quote:

Greenspan, Bush to blame for U.S. crisis: Stiglitz
Sun Apr 27, 2008 6:48am EDT Email | Print | Share| Reprints | Single Page| Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and the government of President George W. Bush were to blame for the U.S. financial crisis, Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz said in a magazine interview.

"This man (Greenspan) has unfortunately made a lot of mistakes," said former World Bank chief economist Stiglitz, according to a preview of the interview to be published on Monday in profil magazine.

"His first one was to support all the tax cuts which were introduced under Bush -- they didn't stimulate the economy very much ... This task was then transferred more towards monetary policy, though then (Greenspan) created a flood of credits with low interest rates," Stiglitz was quoted as saying.

Earlier in April, Greenspan said in an interview with CNBC television that the U.S. economy was in recession and defended his chairmanship of the U.S. central bank against charges that his policy missteps had laid the groundwork for the crisis.

He said decisions during his charge had been rationally constructed based on evidence at the time. YES WE CANT PAY THAT DEFICIT DOWN TOO FAST CAN WE????

Stiglitz said Bush's government was also to blame.

"I reproach them, that the economy was not as resilient as it could have been due to the ongoing tax cuts and the huge costs incurred by the war in Iraq," he was quoted as saying.

He said it was a myth that Europe could decouple itself from the United States.

"Especially the weak dollar will continue to hit the European economy hard, because it will make it much harder to export,"

But really Senator why else does he hate poor people?

Quote:

The GOP nominee-in-waiting rapped his Democratic rival for opposing his idea to suspend the tax on fuel during the summer, a proposal that McCain believes will particularly help low-income people who usually have older cars that guzzle more gas.

????????????????????????? What's he smoking? How about that tax break that encourged small business owners to buy heavy turcks and Hummers as to get a write off???? The poor people I know/see drive 15 year old compacts if they drive at all because 2 dollar a gallon gas was a lot of money for them. Now sonce He is looking to help poor people and believes in balanced budgets he will be offering off a trade off right? What a crock. Talk about pandering! What ever happened to the straight talk express?
What we need is to try to lower the price of gas. My God if it's expensive we might economize or become energy efficent then how will the petro terrorist states manage?

McFire · 04-27-2008, 19:02 PM

OPEC sets the price of oil. With the oil demands of China and India, up goes the price of oil. If you want to lower the price of gas, we need to drill in the Gulf of Mexico and ANWAR. We have plenty of oil, we just don't drill it. The Dakotas may have a lot of oil, as well as the new discoveries by Brazil. We would also have to build more refineries, since they are already operating at capacity. There is no oil shortage, but our country has shot itself in the foot by kowtowing to environmentalists and we are now paying the price (literally). We should always look to improving our energy efficiency with a cleaner planet as the outcome. But until the time that we can switch from oil to a more eco-friendly energy, we have to use what we have. We've come a long way in my lifetime. When I was a little kid in the seventies, America was a far more dirty and polluted country than it is now.
In my opinion, man-made global warming is the greatest money-making hoax ever. It has done nothing more than panic people and raise prices on everything. Sorry, a bit off-track.
I agree that McCain is pandering and "helping the poor" is the "in" thing with politicians. The poor that I see drive whatever they can afford, gas guzzler or not.

ba1025 · 04-27-2008, 19:41 PM

Ahh the old it's the enviromentalists fault americans drive Hummers and use 1/4 of the worlds oil theory. You know maybe if we hadnt listened to people like you in 1980 we wouldnt be in the mess we are today.
Oil - production: 8.322 million bbl/day (2005 est.)
Oil - consumption: 20.8 million bbl/day (2005 est.)

the numbers arent going to work
Anwar is estimated to have between 4-11 billion barrels TOTAL. if you didnt already do the math that's one yrs worth of imports....NEXT

I AGREE TEHRE IS A LOT MORE OIL TO BE GOTtEN AT A LOT GREATER COST.

ba1025 · 04-27-2008, 19:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by McFire

In my opinion, man-made global warming is the greatest money-making hoax ever. .

Ignoring your opinion the data would say otherwise. If you had the opinion the earth was flat you'd have that right as well. I hope you dont live near sea level if you are under 25....oh NM I see you are in FLA; Coming your way senior citizen waders in 2075

McFire · 04-27-2008, 20:11 PM

So what do you propose? You seem to like a lot of statistics and numbers (though not all correct). Ethanol is a hoax. Not only does it take more energy to produce than it yields, it's already driving up the prices of all things corn related. Solar, wind, hydrogen? All novel and great ideas, but nowhere near affordable or practical as yet. I'm all for more nuclear power, but again, "No!", so says the environmentalists. Cars and trucks with better mileage, hell yes (as long as it's affordable to the masses).
As for 1980, I believe folks who think like you (Carter for example) were in charge of running things (into the ground). If someone can afford a Hummer and wants one, so what? Having driven the real thing, I would not own one. I have a new Civic (which replaced a ten year old Civic) and a ten year old Explorer. If you can afford it, get what you want. You're the one paying for it.
Also remember, in 1980 China and India were not what they are today and America didn't have over 300 million people living here either. (And I was only fifteen years old.).

McFire · 04-27-2008, 20:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ba1025

Ignoring your opinion the data would say otherwise. If you had the opinion the earth was flat you'd have that right as well. I hope you dont live near sea level if you are under 25....oh NM I see you are in FLA; Coming your way senior citizen waders in 2075

The Earth's temperature hasn't increased since 1998. Do you really think the world's ice is all going to melt and flood the US? I think you've watched one too many Hollywood movies on global disasters. I've also been far more places on Earth than you have. I bet you're also quite certain the US is solely responsible for the rising temperatures on the other planets in our solar system.

Oh wait, that's right, only the Bush Administration is responsible for that. And republicans are the devil!

Gun Grape · 04-27-2008, 21:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ba1025

Ahh the old it's the enviromentalists fault americans drive Hummers and use 1/4 of the worlds oil theory. You know maybe if we hadnt listened to people like you in 1980 we wouldnt be in the mess we are today.

Ooh hell no. You should be on your knees thanking us big car, big truck, big house oil guzzlers. Because in 1980, all those environmental scientist were absolutely positive that humans were causing a new "Global Ice Age".

We turned that around for them

Just look how "Sure" of their facts they were in a reprint of that ever popular 1975 Newsweek article.

Newsweek’s 1975 Article About Coming Ice Age | Sweetness & Light

Or this article from the 2004 article

Ice Age

Quote:

Is a New Ice Age Under Way?

by Laurence Hecht

“Watch out, Al Gore. The glaciers will get you!” With that appended note, my friend, retired field geologist Jack Sauers, forwarded to me a report that should have been a lead item in every newspaper in the world. It was the news that the best-measured glacier in North America, the Nisqually on Mount Rainier, has been growing since 1931.

The significance of the fact, immediately grasped by any competent climatologist, is that glacial advance is an early warning sign of Northern Hemisphere chilling of the sort that can bring on an Ice Age. The last Little Ice Age continued from about 1400 to 1850. It was followed by a period of slight warming. There are a growing number of signs that we may be descending into another Little Ice Age—all the mountains of “global warming” propaganda aside.

Our current understanding of the long-term climate cycles shows that for the past 800,000 years, periods of approximately 100,000 years’ duration, called Ice Ages, have been interrupted by periods of approximately 10,000 years, known as Interglacials. (We are now about 10,500 years into the present Interglacial.)

What Causes Ice Ages
These cycles are not mere statistical correlations, as some Wall Street prognosticator working at the modern PC version of a ouija board might spin out. They are determined, with great scientific precision, to correlate with long-term, cyclical changes in the Earth’s orbital relationship to the Sun. Three fundamental orbital relationships are involved, each of which contributes to the amount of sunlight received in high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere. When these cycles combine to reduce the incoming solar radiation (insolation) during summer months, over a number of years, the ice sheets which permanently cover Greenland, parts of Alaska, northern Canada, Scandinavia, and elsewhere, begin to advance.

At a certain point, the growth process becomes self-feeding, partly because the high reflectivity of ice and snow reduces the local temperature, partly for reasons that are not fully understood. The glaciers thicken and expand until they become continental ice sheets, one to two miles thick, creeping ever southward. Geological evidence shows that in the last Ice Age, the southern boundary of the continental ice sheet, known as a terminal moraine, stretched down the center of Long Island, through New York City, across New Jersey and Pennsylvania to Southern Illinois and Missouri, then up the Plains States through Montana and Washington State. All of this real estate was buried under one to two miles of ice.

Geologically and climatologically speaking, we are due for another such glacial advance. It might not happen in our lifetimes, but radical shifts in the climate of northern regions can take place suddenly, and in some places may already be taking place.

How to Look at ‘Global Warming’
A very important thing to understand in interpreting all the swill that issues daily from the Global Warming mill (really the anti-industry, anti-population lobby, headed and pumped with money by the Royal Consort Prince Philip, and former Nazi Party member Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands), is that the onset of an Ice Age is not marked by global cooling. In fact, the very same astronomical conditions which cause a cooling at high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere, produce the opposite effect in the Southern Hemisphere, where there is much more ocean to absorb and retain the incoming solar radiation. Thus the global average temperature does not tell us anything of importance.

The geological requirements for an Ice Age are the presence of a large landmass around the Polar Circle and extending southward. A look at the globe, or world map, shows that those conditions exist in the Northern Hemisphere, but not in the Southern. Therefore, the important thing to look at is the climate conditions in northern and far northern regions. Some of the indicators:

• Since 1980, there has been an advance of more than 55% of the 625 mountain glaciers under observation by the World Glacier Monitoring group in Zurich. (From 1926 to 1960, some 70-95% of these glaciers were in retreat.)

• A comparison of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s 1965 and 1990 Plant Hardiness Zone Maps, shows a southward change of one zone, or 10°F, between 1965 and 1990.

• Careful measurements of the oxygen isotope ratios in German oaks, which are rigorously calibrated to temperature data, show a 1°C temperature decline from 1350 to 1800 (the lowpoint of the Little Ice Age). Temperature thereafter increased by 1°C from 1800 to 1930, and has been declining since then.

• From weather stations in the Alps, and in the Nordic countries, we find the temperature decline since 1930 is also 1°C.

• Satellite measurements have shown growth in the height and breadth of the huge Greenland ice sheet, the largest in the Northern Hemisphere

On Nisqually
That brings us to the Nisqually glacier, up on the 14,410-foot Mount Rainier, near Tacoma, Wash. Just 85 feet shy of Mount Whitney, the highest point in the lower 48 states, Mount Rainier has 26 glaciers, and is the largest single peak system in the United States.

In 1931, fearful that the receding glacier would provide insufficient runoff for their newly completed hydroelectric facility, Tacoma City Light began careful measurements of the glacier. Since the mid-1800s, the glacier had receded about 1 kilometer. Annual to semi-annual measurements, continued by the U.S. Geological Survey and private contractors for the National Park Service, provide the longest continuous series of glacier measurements in North America.

The details are described in a report by government specialists, which appeared in the September 2000 issue of Washington Geology:

“The greatest thickening during the period of measurement occurred between 1931 and 1945, when the glacier thickened by about 50% near 2,800 meters of altitude. This and subsequent thickenings during the mid-1970s to mid-1980s produced waves that advanced its terminus. Glacier thinning occured during intervening periods. Between 1994 and 1997, the glacier thickened by 17 meters at 2,800-m altitude, indicating probable glacier advance during the first decade of the 21st century.”

That’s the story from Mount Rainier. Retired geologist Sauers, who has been observing conditions in the Cascade Mountains of western Washington for a lifetime, says “I’m preparing for an Ice Age.” Perhaps we all should.

gunnut · 04-28-2008, 00:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ba1025

Really Senator and why is that?

All you have to do is look at Obama's proposal to help people cope with high gasoline cost.

He wants to tax the oil companies.

I have a question. How does taxing the oil companies translates to saving money at the pump? We are already doing that. There are federal tax, state tax, and sales tax (where applicable) on gasoline. So far that means 20% of the cost we pay at the pump is to the government. How did that save us money?

bolo121 · 04-28-2008, 00:47 AM

Just a question from an outsider, is it possible to tax a company's margin? As they are public listed companies analysts usually have a pretty good idea of what their costs and margins are and how much (roughly) they are smoothing their accounts. Then if indeed they are 'profiteering' they can be discouraged from doing so.

dalem · 04-28-2008, 04:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bolo121

Just a question from an outsider, is it possible to tax a company's margin? As they are public listed companies analysts usually have a pretty good idea of what their costs and margins are and how much (roughly) they are smoothing their accounts. Then if indeed they are 'profiteering' they can be discouraged from doing so.

What you'll discourage is their total production. Nixon proved this in the 70s.

-dale

bolo121 · 04-28-2008, 08:48 AM

Hmm I see. The problem people seem to have with oil Cos is the fact that their big men are having a whale of a time at their expense. So the companies should be left alone and the big chiefs taxed a bit more?

ba1025 · 04-28-2008, 11:58 AM

I agree Ethanol is a joke. It's welfare for corn producers. Why in the world do we have farm subsidies when farm commodities are at record prices? If ethanol were about price and energy efficiency at the least we would drop the tariff on Brazilian ethanol and import the cheaper oless energy intensive sugar cane based ethanol from S. America till we could actually make ethanol from cellulose efficiently and in large amounts.

I agree people should drive Hummers if they can afford to. I don't believe they should of received tax incentives to buy them. In fact if anything there should be a penalty based on the increased usage of limited resopurces they require which increases teh price of those resources for everyone not just the Hummer owners.

Solar and Wind showed promise. Reagan dismantled both programs. That was a mistake. We went from first in both fields to way back. every kilowat produced by that means is 5 cents the Iranians wouldn't get.

Demand has increased because of India and China. it still would help if we weren't pigs at the energy trough. our pigishness is also 'extra' demand on the supply and again in te end extra dollars in the hands of Countries that are hostile to us
I have np with nuclear energy myself. They better be able to withstand a 767 flying into one.

Gun Grape · 04-28-2008, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ba1025

I agree people should drive Hummers if they can afford to. I don't believe they should of received tax incentives to buy them. In fact if anything there should be a penalty based on the increased usage of limited resopurces they require which increases teh price of those resources for everyone not just the Hummer owners.

The Luxury Tax that expired in 2002 did that. The auto companies, and UAW couldn't wait for that to expire. The same with luxury boats. All it did was send small companies into bankruptcy and cost workers jobs.

Quote:

Solar and Wind showed promise. Reagan dismantled both programs. That was a mistake. We went from first in both fields to way back. every kilowat produced by that means is 5 cents the Iranians wouldn't get.

And its funny that environmental groups are now suing companies to keep them from building new wind farms. Solar requires too much space for large scale usage. And for the US that nickel is most likely going to our Canadian friends, Mexico , Saudi or Venezuela. Thats the top 5. We don't import from Iran.

dalem · 04-28-2008, 13:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bolo121

Hmm I see. The problem people seem to have with oil Cos is the fact that their big men are having a whale of a time at their expense. So the companies should be left alone and the big chiefs taxed a bit more?

It's a market commodity largely marketed by a corrupt organization to a captive market. Why do anything at all except buy it or rely on your own supply?

And yeah, it really sucked when Reagan made wind and solar power illegal. What a bast@rd.

-dale

04-27-2008, 19:02 PM	#2 (permalink)
McFire Regular Join Date: 04-26-06 Location: Tampa Posts: 66 Country:	OPEC sets the price of oil. With the oil demands of China and India, up goes the price of oil. If you want to lower the price of gas, we need to drill in the Gulf of Mexico and ANWAR. We have plenty of oil, we just don't drill it. The Dakotas may have a lot of oil, as well as the new discoveries by Brazil. We would also have to build more refineries, since they are already operating at capacity. There is no oil shortage, but our country has shot itself in the foot by kowtowing to environmentalists and we are now paying the price (literally). We should always look to improving our energy efficiency with a cleaner planet as the outcome. But until the time that we can switch from oil to a more eco-friendly energy, we have to use what we have. We've come a long way in my lifetime. When I was a little kid in the seventies, America was a far more dirty and polluted country than it is now. In my opinion, man-made global warming is the greatest money-making hoax ever. It has done nothing more than panic people and raise prices on everything. Sorry, a bit off-track. I agree that McCain is pandering and "helping the poor" is the "in" thing with politicians. The poor that I see drive whatever they can afford, gas guzzler or not. __________________ McFire

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
Multiculturalism is making Britain 'a soft touch for terrorists'	Adux	Political Discussions	2	02-16-2008 08:39 AM
What do you think of the ipod touch?	jame$thegreat	Science & Tech	4	12-31-2007 18:10 PM
China's oil output to touch 180 mn tonnes in 2005	oneman28	Political Discussions	0	08-02-2005 09:02 AM

04-27-2008, 19:41 PM	#3 (permalink)
ba1025 Banished Patron Join Date: 04-04-08 Posts: 287 Country:	Ahh the old it's the enviromentalists fault americans drive Hummers and use 1/4 of the worlds oil theory. You know maybe if we hadnt listened to people like you in 1980 we wouldnt be in the mess we are today. Oil - production: 8.322 million bbl/day (2005 est.) Oil - consumption: 20.8 million bbl/day (2005 est.) the numbers arent going to work Anwar is estimated to have between 4-11 billion barrels TOTAL. if you didnt already do the math that's one yrs worth of imports....NEXT I AGREE TEHRE IS A LOT MORE OIL TO BE GOTtEN AT A LOT GREATER COST.

04-27-2008, 20:11 PM	#5 (permalink)
McFire Regular Join Date: 04-26-06 Location: Tampa Posts: 66 Country:	So what do you propose? You seem to like a lot of statistics and numbers (though not all correct). Ethanol is a hoax. Not only does it take more energy to produce than it yields, it's already driving up the prices of all things corn related. Solar, wind, hydrogen? All novel and great ideas, but nowhere near affordable or practical as yet. I'm all for more nuclear power, but again, "No!", so says the environmentalists. Cars and trucks with better mileage, hell yes (as long as it's affordable to the masses). As for 1980, I believe folks who think like you (Carter for example) were in charge of running things (into the ground). If someone can afford a Hummer and wants one, so what? Having driven the real thing, I would not own one. I have a new Civic (which replaced a ten year old Civic) and a ten year old Explorer. If you can afford it, get what you want. You're the one paying for it. Also remember, in 1980 China and India were not what they are today and America didn't have over 300 million people living here either. (And I was only fifteen years old.).

04-28-2008, 00:47 AM	#9 (permalink)
bolo121 Contributor Join Date: 12-19-07 Location: india Posts: 540 Country:	Just a question from an outsider, is it possible to tax a company's margin? As they are public listed companies analysts usually have a pretty good idea of what their costs and margins are and how much (roughly) they are smoothing their accounts. Then if indeed they are 'profiteering' they can be discouraged from doing so.

04-28-2008, 08:48 AM	#11 (permalink)
bolo121 Contributor Join Date: 12-19-07 Location: india Posts: 540 Country:	Hmm I see. The problem people seem to have with oil Cos is the fact that their big men are having a whale of a time at their expense. So the companies should be left alone and the big chiefs taxed a bit more?

04-28-2008, 11:58 AM	#12 (permalink)
ba1025 Banished Patron Join Date: 04-04-08 Posts: 287 Country:	I agree Ethanol is a joke. It's welfare for corn producers. Why in the world do we have farm subsidies when farm commodities are at record prices? If ethanol were about price and energy efficiency at the least we would drop the tariff on Brazilian ethanol and import the cheaper oless energy intensive sugar cane based ethanol from S. America till we could actually make ethanol from cellulose efficiently and in large amounts. I agree people should drive Hummers if they can afford to. I don't believe they should of received tax incentives to buy them. In fact if anything there should be a penalty based on the increased usage of limited resopurces they require which increases teh price of those resources for everyone not just the Hummer owners. Solar and Wind showed promise. Reagan dismantled both programs. That was a mistake. We went from first in both fields to way back. every kilowat produced by that means is 5 cents the Iranians wouldn't get. Demand has increased because of India and China. it still would help if we weren't pigs at the energy trough. our pigishness is also 'extra' demand on the supply and again in te end extra dollars in the hands of Countries that are hostile to us I have np with nuclear energy myself. They better be able to withstand a 767 flying into one.

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