Incredible. I would like a McCain supporter to enlighten me on how his proposing to make Bush's tax cuts permanent is "reform". It sounds like the same to me, unless "reform" is continuing on with what the previous administration did.

Source please? I have never heard anything to that effect. I'd like to see it.

I watched the ad, and I didn't hear anything about the Bush tax cuts. However, I did not read the MSNBC article.

What I heard in the ad is McCain's plans to lower taxes even further to boost business and the economy. If you look back several pages in this thread to the tax plan that Jess linked us to, it compared 2008 taxes to 2009 taxes under both McCain and Obama. McCain had tax cuts across the board and Obama increased taxes on the top three brackets. McCain reduced all brackets.

The ad also noted the reform creditials of both candidates (McCain/Palin) as proof that they can do it.

I just dont understand how Obama's tax plan will boost the economy. I am at a loss there.

Source please? I have never heard anything to that effect. I'd like to see it.

I will look..

Edited September 15, 200817 yr by Casey008

I found two articles about it..One from Newt Gingrich (LOL) I know you guys will have something to say about that..

I found another article that is more balanced..

Why don’t oil companies drill on leased federal land?

Newt.org

I watched the ad, and I didn't hear anything about the Bush tax cuts. However, I did not read the MSNBC article.

What I heard in the ad is McCain's plans to lower taxes even further to boost business and the economy. If you look back several pages in this thread to the tax plan that Jess linked us to, it compared 2008 taxes to 2009 taxes under both McCain and Obama. McCain had tax cuts across the board and Obama just increased taxes on the top three brackets. McCain reduced all brackets.

I read through the tax plans. McCain's biggest tax cuts go toward the weathy. Sure, he gives some relief to the middle class and poor, but not a substantial amount.

IMO, if you give tax relief to the people that need it the most - the middle class and poor - it would do more to stimulate the economy because those people make up the bulk of the population in the US. They would have more disposable income and would therefore spend more.

Do the rich really need that huge of a tax break? Why? Could you explain why you or the McCain camp feel the rich should get more tax relief than the middle class and poor?

The ad also noted the reform creditials of both candidates (McCain/Palin) as proof that they can do it.

Of course it would note the "reform creditials". It's a McCain ad! I still don't understand how making Bush's tax cuts permanent is "reform" or how staying in Iraq is "reform". It's the same.

Wait, are we talking about the kind of "reform" the Republicans put in place in Congress when they rose to power in 1994? Penalizing lobbyists if they worked with Dems to get a bill passed? That kind of "reform"??

I just dont understand how Obama's tax plan will boost the economy. I am at a loss there.

Partial explanation above.

Oil companies aren't as profitable as you think

I sometimes get the impression that people think oil executives hold clandestine meetings where they unilaterally decide to set the price of oil and gas in order to maximize their profits. After maniacally laughing about how they are gouging the American public, they then go swimming in pools of gold ala Scrooge McDuck.

But there's a problem with that theory. Even though many oil companies are reporting record profits, many people forget just how expensive it is for energy companies to engage in the oil business.

The average net profit margin for the S&P Energy sector, according to figures from Thomson Baseline, is 9.7%. The average for the S&P 500 is 8.5%. So yes, energy companies are more profitable than many others...but not by an inordinate amount.

Google, for example, reported a net profit margin of 25% in its most recent quarter. Should we have an online advertising windfall profit tax?

CNN/Money: In defense of oil companies

Mr. Whitehouse asked a very good question. The fact of the matter is that the Oil Companies already have vast areas already leased to them that they aren't using. Until those areas are used, or Big Oil forms some sort of exploratory mission to determine what resources are there, there's no use allowing them complete autonomy in drilling for oil elsewhere. None.

I stand 100% behind Obama on this issue. Drilling for more oil is not the solution. Finding new technologies and investing in them is the way to go. This "problem" has been with us for over 30 years now since the oil crisis of the 70s. As a little kid, I remember signs at gas tanks touting "ETHANOL IS HERE!" but it seems no progress has been made on this matter. I'm not blaming one political party or the other for the current situation, as it's clear that our current crisis was created by both Repub and Dem administrations and Congresses.

We don't need to keep raping the Earth of it's natural resources when an alterative can be found if the effort is put behind it.

I just found this:

http://zfacts.com/p/348.html

What about oil company profits

I found two articles about it..One from Newt Gingrich (LOL) I know you guys will have something to say about that..

I found another article that is more balanced..

Why don’t oil companies drill on leased federal land?

Newt.org

Hmmmm. I read through both articles. Not to belabor the point, but they don't clearly make McCain's case. There's arguments for and against on both sides (most notably in the Cline link).

So another question arises. If it's so expensive and time consuming to drill for oil in the Gulf, and the companies aren't sure there's anything there anyway, why do it? If it's going to take 5, 10 , 15 years to realize any oil from the Gulf, don't you think that we could make substanial progress in alternatives? I don't get it.

I read through the tax plans. McCain's biggest tax cuts go toward the weathy. Sure, he gives some relief to the middle class and poor, but not a substantial amount.

IMO, if you give tax relief to the people that need it the most - the middle class and poor - it would do more to stimulate the economy because those people make up the bulk of the population in the US. They would have more disposable income and would therefore spend more.

Do the rich really need that huge of a tax break? Why? Could you explain why you or the McCain camp feel the rich should get more tax relief than the middle class and poor?

IA that the middle class will be able to spend more under Obama's plan, but prices will increase. Companies will embed their increased tax burden into the products they sale.

In the most simple explanation, the "rich" are the creators and providers of jobs and products. If you "punish" business it will end up hurting the middle class even more than a slightly higher tax.

Furthermore, Obama's plan is just unfair. It is class warfare. He is playing Robin Hood with the rich. It's not fair IMO to increase taxes to one bracket and not on others. McCain is "across the boarding it" with tax cuts he is not pitting the classes against one another.

McCain wants to reduce spending in order to reduce the tax burden for all Americans. Obama wants to increase the tax on successful people to pay for his close-to trillion dollar spending plan (source below).

Obama's Trillion-Dollar Spending Plan: US News & World Report

Edited September 15, 200817 yr by Casey008

Hmmmm. I read through both articles. Not to belabor the point, but they don't clearly make McCain's case. There's arguments for and against on both sides (most notably in the Cline link).

So another question arises. If it's so expensive and time consuming to drill for oil in the Gulf, and the companies aren't sure there's anything there anyway, why do it? If it's going to take 5, 10 , 15 years to realize any oil from the Gulf, don't you think that we could make substanial progress in alternatives? I don't get it.

That's the biggest difference. We know there is oil in the Gulf and in ANWR. The research has been done, but congress will not allow the "lease". They will not repeal the ban on off shore drilling. The ban was put on when gas was super cheap pushed by tourism. They felt the drilling would hurt tourism on the coasts, even though the rigs will be miles and miles offshore..

Edited September 15, 200817 yr by Casey008

Oil companies aren't as profitable as you think

I sometimes get the impression that people think oil executives hold clandestine meetings where they unilaterally decide to set the price of oil and gas in order to maximize their profits. After maniacally laughing about how they are gouging the American public, they then go swimming in pools of gold ala Scrooge McDuck.

But there's a problem with that theory. Even though many oil companies are reporting record profits, many people forget just how expensive it is for energy companies to engage in the oil business.

The average net profit margin for the S&P Energy sector, according to figures from Thomson Baseline, is 9.7%. The average for the S&P 500 is 8.5%. So yes, energy companies are more profitable than many others...but not by an inordinate amount.

Google, for example, reported a net profit margin of 25% in its most recent quarter. Should we have an online advertising windfall profit tax?

CNN/Money: In defense of oil companies

Are you defending Big Oil, Casey?

The public backlash against Oil is due to the price of gas. If Google were charging us, for example, $10.00/hour to use their services, there would be backlash against them as well.

Are you defending Big Oil, Casey?

The public backlash against Oil is due to the price of gas. If Google were charging us, for example, $10.00/hour to use their services, there would be backlash against them as well.

I do feel its not all the oil companies fault. I blame OPEC mostly. They are the ones that control the cost of crude oil. Their production rates have a greater impact on gas prices than any other aspect. The oil companies pass along their increased costs of operation, much like all consumer and service businesses will do when their taxes are increased under Obama.

What do you think the oil companies would do if they were hit with a "windfall profit" tax? I can assure you that the prices will not go down. They will pass it along to every single person pumping gas..

Google was an example showing that many companies are far more profitable than oil.

Edited September 15, 200817 yr by Casey008

IA that the middle class will be able to spend more under Obama's plan, but prices will increase. Companies will embed their increased tax burden into the products they sale.

In the most simple explanation, the "rich" are the creators and providers of jobs and products. If you "punish" business it will end up hurting the middle class even more than a slightly higher tax.

Furthermore, Obama's plan is just unfair. It is class warfare. He is playing Robin Hood with the rich. It's not fair IMO to increase taxes to one bracket and not on others. McCain is "across the boarding it" with tax cuts he is not pitting the classes against one another.

McCain wants to reduce spending in order to reduce the tax burden for all Americans. Obama wants to increase the tax on successful people to pay for his close-to trillion dollar spending plan (source below).

Obama's Trillion-Dollar Spending Plan: US News & World Report

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this matter. I don't agree with McCain's tax plan and you don't agree with Obama's. Simple as that.

That's the biggest difference. We know there is oil in the Gulf and in ANWR. The research has been done, but congress will not allow the "lease". They will not repeal the ban on off shore drilling. The ban was put on when gas was super cheap pushed by tourism. They felt the drilling would hurt tourism on the coasts, even though the rigs will be miles and miles offshore..

Regardless, it will be years before the oil is realized. It will do nothing for prices at the pump today, what most Americans are concerned about. I still say if it's going to take 5, 10, 15 years to get the oil and then refine it and deliver to a "RaceTrac" near you, what's the point? Why destroy a natural resource when it's never going to deliver what you need, when you need it? By that time, a viable, cleaner, renewable resource will be found and we won't need the oil in the Gulf.

I don't buy the "miles and miles offshore" argument. I remember the Valdez.

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this matter. I don't agree with McCain's tax plan and you don't agree with Obama's. Simple as that.

Alrighty.

Regardless, it will be years before the oil is realized. It will do nothing for prices at the pump today, what most Americans are concerned about. I still say if it's going to take 5, 10, 15 years to get the oil and then refine it and deliver to a "RaceTrac" near you, what's the point? Why destroy a natural resource when it's never going to deliver what you need, when you need it? By that time, a viable, cleaner, renewable resource will be found and we won't need the oil in the Gulf.

What makes you think it will take 5-10 years, when they know where the oil is? The research has been done in ANWR and the Gulf. As soon as the pull it out when can get it refined and to the Chevron! They say that as soon as the drilling starts the oil speculators will reduce the gas prices. They have that power, much like the increases from Ike, before the damage was even assesed.

I don't buy the "miles and miles offshore" argument. I remember the Valdez.

Most are about 35 miles off shore. I'll try to find a source on that one for ya..Wasn't the Valdez an oil barge? I don't think it was an oil rig. We have barges coming in and out everyday.

Edited September 15, 200817 yr by Casey008

I do feel its not all the oil companies fault. I blame OPEC mostly. They are the ones that control the cost of crude oil. Their production rates have a greater impact on gas prices than any other aspect. The oil companies pass along their increased costs of operation, much like all consumer and service businesses will do when their taxes are increased under Obama.

What do you think the oil companies would do if they were hit with a "windfall profit" tax? I can assure you that the prices will not go down. They will pass it along to every single person pumping gas..

Google was an example showing that many companies are far more profitable than oil.

OPEC is a big problem, IA. One more reason to search for alternative fuels.

Regarding the windfall profit tax, I can understand why you would say that the taxpayers would have to pay more for fuel. However, Obama's proposal is to use that tax to give everyone an emergency energy rebate.

And there's no guarantee that the tax will even be levied. They are targeting excessive oil company profits. What "excessive" means I would not know, as I am not writing the policies.

100 Miles off shore.

I was wrong. The rigs are about 100 miles off shore. This is a job description for a "Rough Neck" job.

OPEC is a big problem,

We definitely agree there. And yes we do need alternative solutions..

What makes you think it will take 5-10 years, when they know where the oil is? The research has been done in ANWR and the Gulf. As soon as the pull it out when can get it refined and to the Chevron! They say that as soon as the drilling starts the oil speculators will reduce the gas prices. They have that power, much like the increases from Ike, before the damage was even assesed.

It's not quite that simple.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/busines...9-1b14dean.html

"According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf will not have a notable impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production before 2030. And even then, the EIA projects, the effect on prices will be “insignificant.”