As reported on CNN and every other news outlet, Hillary Clinton on Feb. 5th gave a speech assuring her supporters that if she was in charge she would confiscate corporate profits from companies that performed too well and use them to further her own agenda.
http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/newstex/IBD-0001-14312283.htm
(I would welcome a transcript of the speech but most media outlets didnt seem to care about it)
Of course, for the time being she only wants to take property away from the oil industry and use it to subsidize its competition. The result of which being painfully obvious: the 50,000,000 Americans that work in, are associated with, or own stock (or who's funds won stock) in oil companies would lose money. Anyone who pays for oil products would pay more for them (plastics, heat, gas, any product requiring transportation). And, there would be a more limited supply of oil (why go out and find new reserves if the government just takes them away anyway?).
An even more painful side effect would be the unjustified taking of property by the Federal government. A corporation is granted the same rights to protection of property as an individual (since, obviously, people ultimately OWN the corporation). Thus, a precedent allowing the government to take profits from any company it deems appropriate would open the door for the seizure of any personal assets it wants. You must keep in mind, they arent really taking things from Exxon, they are taking it from the people who hold shares in Exxon (if you own a mutual fund, a pension fund, or a 401K this probably includes you).
This country used to bill itself as a land of opportunity; now, if you manage to succeed many people want to see the government take away what you have earned and give it to them.
The huge profits Exxon is able to reap should serve as an incentive to both intraindustry competition and alternative energy producers to step up their production. Unfortunately, the restrictive drilling laws of the United States have resulted in the vast majority of reserves being held in a small number of hands. Likewise, federal subsidies of certain renewable energies (whichever one is hot this year... solar, wind, bio) have hindered the free markets ability to chose which is the best.
Thus, if we chose to drive SUV's and pickups, dont mind paying $2.50 for a gallon of gas, and Exxon is able to provide us with what we want at a price we are willing to pay... why take what we give them away? They are not a monopoly nor a member of a cartel (they sell on the open market, unlike retailers who clearly set prices). There is no evidence they are abusing market power. This is simply a case of I want what they have and Im bigger, lets go take it.
Ah, she just wants to confiscate money from traditional GOP contributors and give it to traditional DNC contributors. It's so unfair for anyone to make a profit!
Yea, remember all the money people made back during Clinton's presidency? Even working people did better (for a change). Thank God for the Clintons. If it wasn't for them I wouldn't know what a good economy was.
Remember balanced budgets and rising wages? Remember that stock market? Socialism. You're funny Cannon Fodder.
Don't bother with Hometown Cannon...everything was better under the Clintons...the air was fresher, the birds sang louder....
He never bothers to realize that under Bush unemployment is lower than it was during Clinton. The stock market is at all time highs, and the budget will be balanced in half the time originally thought. Our tanking economy when Bush took office was a clear and direct effect of the 8 years of Clintonomics...
Did we confiscate the property from all the dot com's and give it to the struggling oil sector when "the Clinton's" were the White House? Some dot com's made 20 year olds millionaires for doing nearly nothing - so lets take it from them!
Dont forget the oil sector was really struggling for a while (ahh, 88 cent gas). Meanwhile the the tech companies made billions and billions. There wasnt a call to redistribute that wealth nor to help the struggling oil companies. Strange?
If you want to make this a Clinton debate, maybe you could help me with my sons president project. My wife told him to write about Bill Clinton, we needed 5 facts... this is pretty well all I came up with:
1) President before and after George Bush
2) His wife wants to be president
3) He was impeached (some people didnt think he did a good job)
4) He is from Arkansas
5) The internet got really popular when he was president
That's about it. He didnt really DO anything... which in my opinion is damn good for a president.
Anyway, I was trying to start a discussion about governmental taking of property for popular reasons. Easy to see this discussion branch into corporate profits, CEO wages, taxes, or a maximum wage law. I thought it was pertinent and interesting... but I guess I was mistaken.
(props to me, not one Clinton innuendo in this post)
While Clinton was in office, the Dems did essentially fleece additional "taxes" out of big tobacco and Microsoft.
Why Cannon, doesn't it make perfect sense for the government to reward those with lack of ambition, motivation, or vision with the fruits of those who have all the above? People should be punished for their success.[:O]
It is a great topic, just kind of overwhelming. Why do you not ask a simpler question like 'what is the meaning of life?'
I do not buy the 'socialist' scare line that the author pinned on Clinton, in fact it would have been nice for Investor's Business Daily to actually quote her statement.
I want to know what any of our GOP delegation did while the Bush Admin persecuted Williams Cos. dang near into bankruptcy on a witch hunt following the Enron scandal.
quote:
I do not buy the 'socialist' scare line that the author pinned on Clinton, in fact it would have been nice for Investor's Business Daily to actually quote her statement.
Redistribution of wealth is a purely socialistis dogma. I don't know any other political ideology that stands behind it. She is most definitely for income redistribution, therefore...
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
It is a great topic, just kind of overwhelming. Why do you not ask a simpler question like 'what is the meaning of life?'
I do not buy the 'socialist' scare line that the author pinned on Clinton, in fact it would have been nice for Investor's Business Daily to actually quote her statement.
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it isn't an alligator.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Don't bother with Hometown Cannon...everything was better under the Clintons...the air was fresher, the birds sang louder....
He never bothers to realize that under Bush unemployment is lower than it was during Clinton. The stock market is at all time highs, and the budget will be balanced in half the time originally thought. Our tanking economy when Bush took office was a clear and direct effect of the 8 years of Clintonomics...
IPPY!!!!!!! You're back!
Come over here and give this life long Democrat a big hug.
By the way, IPPY you're going to have to sell your snake oil to the youngsters because the adults will remember life under the Clintons.
I'm sorry that your Bush has been such a failure. It must be hard for you.
I made more money, had more fun, enjoyed life more and slept so much better when Clinton was President than any other time in my life.
Cannnot wait to cast my ballot for another Clinton for President.
So she is a bigtime tax and spender like most Republicans, what has she done to deserve being branded with the dreaded 'socialist' moniker? Republicans advocate spending others' money by the truckload, they just subscribe to risky tax schemes to the point of Americans having a $7 TRILLION deficit.
Why did our GOP delegation allow the Bush Admin to ruin Williams Cos if they were so pro-business?
quote:
Originally posted by AMP
I made more money, had more fun, enjoyed life more and slept so much better when Clinton was President than any other time in my life.
Cannnot wait to cast my ballot for another Clinton for President.
That's sad...if you're a good business person you should be able to do that under any president, save Jimmy Carter.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Don't bother with Hometown Cannon...everything was better under the Clintons...the air was fresher, the birds sang louder....
He never bothers to realize that under Bush unemployment is lower than it was during Clinton. The stock market is at all time highs, and the budget will be balanced in half the time originally thought. Our tanking economy when Bush took office was a clear and direct effect of the 8 years of Clintonomics...
IPPY!!!!!!! You're back!
Come over here and give this life long Democrat a big hug.
By the way, IPPY you're going to have to sell your snake oil to the youngsters because the adults will remember life under the Clintons.
I'm sorry that your Bush has been such a failure. It must be hard for you.
Yeah, a rocket hot economy sure bites...
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
So she is a bigtime tax and spender like most Republicans, what has she done to deserve being branded with the dreaded 'socialist' moniker? Republicans advocate spending others' money by the truckload, they just subscribe to risky tax schemes to the point of Americans having a $7 TRILLION deficit.
Those "risky" tax schemes have brought the DOW to record levels, home ownership to record levels, unemployment to all time lows and cut the deficit in half 5 years prematurely. You lose...
The funniest part is your post is it's completely contradictory...Republicans are BIGTIME tax and spenders, yet you claim it's because of Bush's tax CUTS that we're in this mess...which is it?quote:
Why did our GOP delegation allow the Bush Admin to ruin Williams Cos if they were so pro-business?
Got some proof to back this up?
Let me break it down very slowly, I'll even use a syllogism:
1. All those who favor income redistribution are Socialists.
2. Mangina favors income redistribution.
3. Therefore Mangina is a Socialist.
We all lose when our national debt is $7 TRILLION. Keep printing that Monopoly money and see how it does against the Euro.
Why does Cheney have the majority of his investments in non-American hedge funds if'n our economic future is so rosey?
'Mangina'? That is disgusting misogyny. Guess someone is threatened by powerful women.
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
We all lose when our national debt is $7 TRILLION. Keep printing that Monopoly money and see how it does against the Euro.
Why does Cheney have the majority of his investments in non-American hedge funds if'n our economic future is so rosey?
'Mangina'? That is disgusting misogyny. Guess someone is threatened by powerful women.
You're a confused little man. Thanks for not responding to a single point I made, fricken trolls...
Bush ruin the Williams Cos? I never knew he worked there. Puh-leaze!
Williams is as robust as ever, hardly a ruined company.
The Wil-Tel debacle was symptomatic of the over-exuberance and overspending in the telecom industry during Clinton's second term. It was a bad management decision by Williams executives, nothing more, nothing less.
I do not recall the GOP advocating the abolishment of all taxes. Ergo they are socialists, right? Right. We agree?
The DOW can go crashing down in the first day of the Democratic president and you will blame the Dem. No doubt if it is Hillary you will blame it on her being a woman.
The factors you (IPLAW) point to are bauble bubbles. We are in a credit fantasy, leveraged up to our necks for generations in an endless cycle of debt and borrowing.
1)Socialist
I dont understand why branding a wealth redistribution program 'socialist' is somehow offensive?
Taking property from one person and giving it to another is socialism, by definition. Senator Clinton wants to take money away from corporations and give it to others. Corporations are owned by people. Therefor, Senator Clinton is a socialist.
2) Big government
I loath big government spending no matter who does it. The Republican controlled Congress spent as egregiously as any democrat. I dont care what color your lapel pin is if your policies arent in line with mine I disagree with them.
3) National Debt
The national debt is not out of line with world economics. Most European counties and indeed all of the economic powers of the world, bar China, are within 10% of our debt load by GDP:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt
Likewise, the vast majority of this debt is held by United States controlled interests. Our government barrows money from its own people to fund itself.
That's not to say it isnt a concern. Clearly a government should operate in the confines of its ability to generate revenue. Ie, spend less.
4) COMPLETE LIE ABOUT CHENEY'S INVESTMENTS
I dont care if you dont like people. I am interested to read when our leaders do shady crap. However, I hate it when people hear or read bullsh!t and then pass it off as fact.
As illustrated by required public disclosures, Cheney has 57% of his wealth in strictly US assets. An additional 36% is in an international fund that buys assets globally, including in the US. 7% are in international bonds.
Cheney takes heat for owning assets in US companies because people claim he attempts to benefit them, people called foul when he held high risk investments because he was set to make a killing off of them... now people ***** because he has spread his risk to international markets and taken less risk in his portfolio in general (as well a man of his age and health should). What the hell is he supposed to do?
Not to mention, according to all reports his investment manager handles everything. He has no input on his portfolio to help insulate him from charges of corruption AND because it is unlikely he has time to keep up with it.
5) Euro
Of course the Euro is gaining in popularity. It is an amazing tool to spread your financial risk and allows a huge portion of the world to trade without exchange. If I was an industrialist in Russian, the Middle East, or North Africa the Euro would be very attractive for general operations. Not to mention the 30 or so countries mandated by law to use it.
The dollar is sliding because it is no longer an US v. them atmosphere. For 50 years you used Russian Rubbles or Dollars... there was no viable alternative. If you think the dollar has slid... look at the Rubble. And the manipulation by China isnt helping (which pegs its currency to ours while buying as much of our debt load as they can).
If this concerns you, perhaps we should affirm NAFTA and CAFTA and create a trade zone like the EU in the America's. A single median of exchange (make it digital though, countries can keep their paper money) and no trade barriers. Such a zone would come to dominate the globe more so than the US currently does, or China or the EU hopes to. But I'm guessing you're not concerned enough to actually want to mimic the success of the EU and encourage free trade.
Not to mention, in an international currency market a weak currency HELPS the country that backs it. With dollars trading at a 20% discount to the Euro, US goods cost 20% less to Europeans and European goods cost that much more in the US. Thus, helping US based manufacturing and discouraging the sale of European goods here. There are, of course, downsides for US travelers, companies with exclusive stocks of dollars trying to invest in Europe, and corporate buyouts... but by and large the industry of the weaker (BUT STABLE) currency gains.
------
Odds of a response to any substantive point - 1 in 3. Odds of a logical, researched response to them all - 1 in 50.
quote:
The DOW can go crashing down in the first day of the Democratic president and you will blame the Dem. No doubt if it is Hillary you will blame it on her being a woman.
Yet when it was Clinton who was in office when the DOW was growing, it was all due to his presidency...you can't pick and choose.
quote:
The factors you (IPLAW) point to are bauble bubbles. We are in a credit fantasy, leveraged up to our necks for generations in an endless cycle of debt and borrowing.
Could you please point out how credit leverage applies to the DOW records or lower UNEMPLOYMENT, it's barely connectable to homeownership...
I'm still waiting for your proof that Bush destroyed Williams...
quote:
Odds of a response to any substantive point - 1 in 3. Odds of a logical, researched response to them all - 1 in 50.
You're odds are WAY too generous, you haven't been here long enough.
BTW, more bad news about this s**tty economy.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0221/p01s03-usec.html
(http://b.im.craigslist.org/uk/hg/sgzUwIOctDIjlmobkLFaadM52qng.jpg)
CF presents a well-reasoned argument, IP just spews. Who is the loyyah, again?
1. The GOP has yet to repeal all taxes. Ergo, they are socialists.
2. I agree.
3. We are a debtor nation to China. That concerns me. We have a $7 TRILLION national debt and ya'll want to congratulate the GOP for cutting the deficit in half in five years? That is disconcerting.
4. Kipplinger's was the ultimate source of info re: Cheney's foreign investments, not the infallible wikipedia. Yup: he should put his money where his mouth is and invest 100% in American funds and stocks, that is what he should do. Kipplinger's is well-known for its liberal leanings.
5. We are an economic power in decline, that is a fact. The reasons may be unclear but the trend is not.
The DOW is nothing but a chimera, whose value is purely perceived. I do not cotton up to all that phoney politicorporate cheerleading. Attacking Clinton as a socialist is meaningless when you believe that any taxation is socialism.
quote:
1. The GOP has yet to repeal all taxes. Ergo, they are socialists.
Are you really that thick little boy? Can you really not understand the difference in paying for road repair and infrastructure and confiscatory financial policies, of course not... There is a world of difference between the two.
quote:
3. We are a debtor nation to China. That concerns me. We have a $7 TRILLION national debt and ya'll want to congratulate the GOP for cutting the deficit in half in five years? That is disconcerting.
Can you please restate this after removing the non-sequitors.
quote:
4. Kipplinger's was the ultimate source of info re: Cheney's foreign investments, not the infallible wikipedia. Yup: he should put his money where his mouth is and invest 100% in American funds and stocks, that is what he should do. Kipplinger's is well-known for its liberal leanings.
This post is so ignorant no response is appropriate.
quote:
The DOW is nothing but a chimera, whose value is purely perceived. I do not cotton up to all that phoney politicorporate cheerleading. Attacking Clinton as a socialist is meaningless when you believe that any taxation is socialism.
Tell that to my fund manager...[xx(] Again, it's clear you can't understand the simple difference between a tax and income redistribution.
People who are obsessed with Cheney's investment holdings also ignore the plethora of of corporate and individual contributors to all 537 elected officials in D.C. who do so to gain favor and influence for their own interests and companies.
They also neglect to look into nor mention the investment portfolios of those other officials and their spouses. You honestly don't think Thresa Heinz Kerry's holdings benefitted from time-to-time by issues promoted or voted on by John Kerry? H.J. Heinz owns a boatload of Del Monte stock, and it's reputed that Paul Pelosi has a sizeable stake in Del Monte as well. Why is that relevant? How about leaving American Samoa out of the minimum wage hike since Star-Kist (a division of Del-Monte) is a major employer there.
But you libs don't care about the living conditions of people on a remote Pacific island as long as you can still buy cheap tuna. Pelosi and Heinz-Kerry don't care as long as profits stay healthy in their investments.
Paul Pelosi's occupation is listed as "investor". How many of you believe there hasn't been some arm twisting asserted in his real estate dealings because of "who" his wife is?
You libs wish to step over the odd financial influences on Democrats in order to demonize Republicans. Why not acknowledge the obvious: much of what happens on either side of the isle has more to do with the personal benefit of the elected official than the benefit of his/her constituents.
1. I can tell the diff. But apparently some cannot. Taxes are the premium we pay to live in a free, prosperous, equitable society. I am not the one supposing that taking any taxes and using them is socialism. Apparently you would love to know how thick I am!
3. Comparative economics are useful when they buttress your point, evidently. CF rightly points out that our debt is in line with other nations so the amount may be troubling but only in a perceived sense. IP clearly wants to ignore the 'great news' that our deficit is shrinking in the slightest. Have you not been paying attention to Saint Coburn? We are in debt for generations and a five-year projected shrinkage of the deficit does not even begin to address that.
4. I would want to attack the Kipplinger's report, too, in defense of a war profiteer.
5. All taxes are redistributed, ergo we are already a socialist nation. It is just a matter of code enforcement.
FWIW, since someone will say the American Samoa issue is a red herring, for the most part anytime one politician accuses another of impropriety regarding financial influence, it's to deflect attention away from their own shenanigans.
The connections I'm drawing are recent examples. If I cared to waste the time to prove further what most rational people already know- that Congress is a corrupt institution, I could spend hours digging around and posting links to contributors and investments which would paint just about every member of Congress, President Bush and VP Cheney in an unflattering color.
quote:
1. I can tell the diff. But apparently some cannot. Taxes are the premium we pay to live in a free, prosperous, equitable society. I am not the one supposing that taking any taxes and using them is socialism. Apparently you would love to know how thick I am!
You have proven consistently on this thread that you haven't the slightest clue as to the difference...
3. Comparative economics are useful when they buttress your point, evidently. CF rightly points out that our debt is in line with other nations so the amount may be troubling but only in a perceived sense. IP clearly wants to ignore the 'great news' that our deficit is shrinking in the slightest. Have you not been paying attention to Saint Coburn? We are in debt for generations and a five-year projected shrinkage of the deficit does not even begin to address that.
We will have NO budget deficit within the next 5 years if we keep on pace with the financial plan we have in place, it doesn't get much simpler than that.
4. I would want to attack the Kipplinger's report, too, in defense of a war profiteer.
Weak. Try again.
5. All taxes are redistributed, ergo we are already a socialist nation. It is just a matter of code enforcement.
Distributing funds of the taxbase to infrastructure is not even in the same ball park as income redistribution...the taking of one's property to give to another who has none...
Sorry, I had to peak under the curtain and see what Tim is blabbing about:
"I am not the one supposing that taking any taxes and using them is socialism."
Neither is IP.
You keep missing the point that what Ms. Clinton proposes is confiscating the legally earned after-tax profits of corporations and re-distributing them to less the less fortunate. That is not simple taxation, that is a re-distribution of wealth over and beyond what is called for in the present tax code.
Let me aks you dis- what would you say to a gentleman that came to your door and said: "I heard you cleared $1200 last week. You only needed $800 of that to live on, so I'm going to take the other $400 because four of your neighbors missed work last week and they are short on cash. You obviously are making too much and that's unreasonible and unfair to your less ambitious neighbors."
That's not a tax, that's re-distribution and that's exactly the essence of what Ms. Clinton is saying.
For the record the Bush Admin 'investigated' Williams in the wake of the Enron scandal. Thousands of Tulsans were laid off and billions of dollars net worth evaporated.
I never credited Clinton with the 90's economy. America is prosperous in spite of Washington, not because of it.
quote:
For the record the Bush Admin 'investigated' Williams in the wake of the Enron scandal. Thousands of Tulsans were laid off and billions of dollars net worth evaporated.
Yes, I understand both of those
distinct things happened...but what proof do you have that one necessarily lead to the next?
Taxes != Socialism
Not all taxes = socialism. Socialism in the forced redistribution of wealth. Taxes that pay for infrastructure, military, police and the like are not socialist. Taxes that pay for welfare, section 8, title 19, food stamps, free day care for some, Medicaid, or huge Republican drug programs are socialist. I never implied socialism was restricted to Hillary nor the Democrats.
---
I did not congratulate the GOP for their deficit cutting. While they seemed to make some attempts, it certainly was not in earnest. Likewise, the republicans under Clinton managed to collect surplus revenue and then spend it. Both parties suck fiscally, Ive been clear on that.
---
I look at Kiplinger's source and got the information for myself without spin in either direction. The numbers are there, fully disclosed along with most other politicians.
No, he shouldnt have 100% of his money in the US. Politically, perhaps, but from an investor standpoint that is a bad idea. His money seems to be well distributed for his age bracket - Im sure the advisers he can afford see to that.
---
We are not economically in decline.
We are still the world's economic, military, and political hegemond. We're the 500lb gorilla. Economically, we are equal to the next six (6) countries combined. Nearly 3 times our closest rival (Japan). The much fear EU combined just edges us out with all 30 nations included.
We are an economic super power that is continuing to grow. However, other undeveloped nations are able to post much higher growth rates as most sectors of our economy have been filled. While this will reduce the importance of the United States as a solo economic super power, it will generate greater world wealth and ultimately INCREASE the wealth of the Untied States. Relative to others, we will not be as wealthy... but in real terms, we will increase. Wealth is NOT, as colonialist believed, a zero sum game.
---
While the DOW is merely an indicator of wealth, it is a valuable indicator (not as good as the S&P). One does not try to view the wealth of nations by their liquidation value.
I fail to see how the FERC and SEC investigations caused the collapse of Willams' energy trading unit, other than making Williams come clean and hastening the inevitable. Saying Bush caused it is a very preposterous stretch of the imagination, but I am considering the source.
What led to the collapse of the trading unit was fraudulent business practices, which apparently were common in energy trading and have been effectively dealt with under the Bush admin.
Well, I think Timmy has effectively been bludgoned to death on this thread...next topic please.
Where's Dingus McGee when you need him...
See my problem? On one hand IP does not understand how the Bush Admin persecution of Williams caused its stock value to crash, while 71 sez they deserved it. Ask your stockbroker what affect Federal investigations have if you cannot figger it out yourself.
Bush & Co. (remember Dubya's affectionate term for Ken Lay, 'Kennyboy'?) saw a company involved in energy trading like Enron and let loose the dogs. Inhofe, Largent, Keating, the whole gang of do-nothings, did not say one word in defense. Cowards!
So now Hillary is a 'socialist' for suggesting boosting the marginal tax rate, citing energy sector profits. I am not in the bag for Hillary, but using loathsome terms like Mangina are just the thing to give her a boost.
So investigating companies for potential wrong doing is the same as seizing their profits for doing well?
What would you be saying if Bush & Co. didn't investigate companies for wrongdoing? You'd cry shenanigans for sure. So I fail to see how this point is relevant. He is damned because he did but would have been damned if he didn't.
Even if you disagree with the that somehow, I still fail to see the comparison between punishment because you may have done something wrong and punishment for doing too well. Let hope you never have a good year, make lots of over time, or get a raise and the government decides to take your money for doing well.
And thanks to an anti-worker Bush Admin - and a cowardly Congress - OT is taxed at the same rate as if one had won the lottery.
She is talking about raising the marginal tax rate on companies that had record profits and now you want to take away immunizations from poor kids because of some notion of gubmint you picked up from . . . whom?
Are you off your meds today Timmy? I think if it's one thing you've certainly proved, it's that you have absolutely no idea of what you're talking about concerning a wide range of topics...
Mangina.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
For the record the Bush Admin 'investigated' Williams in the wake of the Enron scandal. Thousands of Tulsans were laid off and billions of dollars net worth evaporated.
Yes, I understand both of those distinct things happened...but what proof do you have that one necessarily lead to the next?
FWIW, FERC and SEC investigated Williams & Enron. Those departments operate independently of the executive branch and report their findings.
If Timmy is implying there was some sort of a witch hunt on the part of Bush, that sort of flies in the face of all the theories about the Bush/Cheney administration protecting all their friends in the energy business, eh?
Hell yes Bush turned his back on Ken Lay. Lay was a crook, or at the very least didn't do anything about the crooks who were working for him.
I still fail to see how it's not Williams' or Enron's fault they were blatantly breaking the law, that it's the regulator's fault by doing what they are supposed to do to protect consumers and investors.
The regulators did not rip off the investors and employees. The corporations did it by over-inflating profits, improper accounting, and essentially price-gouging (California power crisis) for which they had to pay fines.
Typical liberal crap- the perpetrator is never at fault.
Timmy thinks that Warren and others got some great deals on Williams' assets. Tulsans lost billions of dollars, thousands lost their jobs, and Tulsans have yet to recover.
If Williams' energy trading was illegal where are the indictiments? If the FERC and SEC are independent than that makes Bush & Co's silence even more damning. The fact is Inhofe let Williams twist in the wind while it lost billion$ and billion$ in assets.
I'll take Revisionist History and Conspiracy Theories for 500, Alex... [xx(]
Look it up. Not a word in defense of Williams by any of our GOP delegation. No conspiracy, just cowardice. No theories, just facts. Because Williams eschewed political donations they had no defenders.
Protect freedom, elect Inhofe? I spit at the name.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
I'll take Revisionist History and Conspiracy Theories for 500, Alex... [xx(]
IP- you mind translating? I smell the fart, I just didn't hear it.
He believes that Warren and Bush made money off of purchasing Williams' assets and it was Inhofe's fault for not saying anything...where's Altruismsuffers when you need him?
(http://www.kidsbooksandpuppets.com/images/folkmanis/disc/cuckooclock.gif)
I think the clock just struck 12....
Yup, sho nuff. It is called the bully pulpit. Use it or lose it.
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
Yup, sho nuff. It is called the bully pulpit. Use it or lose it.
Oh, you're usin' it brother, but have totally lost it...
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/99/Shonuff01.jpg/250px-Shonuff01.jpg)
Thousands of Tulsans lost their jobs, though. Williams lost billions in assets, though.
Yer pro-biz, thievin, lyin' elected GOP stoogers fiddle while Williams evaporated. And now Hillary is a socialist because she wants to up the taxes on the energy sector. Okaaaayyyy.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
He believes that Warren and Bush made money off of purchasing Williams' assets and it was Inhofe's fault for not saying anything...where's Altruismsuffers when you need him?
(http://www.kidsbooksandpuppets.com/images/folkmanis/disc/cuckooclock.gif)
I think the clock just struck 12....
So let's see, Warren, Bush, Inhoffe, Keating and all the Republicans were responsible for it, hmmmm. There's no truth to that, actually I made all the money off their assets. Yeah, that's the ticket!
(http://www.cinecon.com/bigstory/jonlovitzinterview_435.jpg)
Well, it certainly had nothing to do with the conspiracy amongst a few of Williams employees to keep a power plant shut down on purpose for two weeks to manipulate the power market in California, thereby hosing a bunch of consumers, nor some toads lying to regulators, and a few other toads putting the accounting hard drives in the microwave...[xx(]
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/99/Shonuff01.jpg/250px-Shonuff01.jpg)
Picture of the Day
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Picture of the Day
Obscure reference of the day.
I'm sorry Tim, I'm just not following you anymore.
It appears you are saying:
The Bush administration was too hard on Williams.
The Energy sector is all crooks and cost Tulsa.
Therefor Bush is a socialist.
I totally dont get it. Are you having four separate arguments:
1) Bush was too hard on Williams and therefor a socialist
2) Bush is too pro business
3) Inhofe let Williams swinging in the wind and screwed Tulsa
4) The Energy industry is a bunch of thieves
I dont understand how 1 & 2 reconcile, nor how 1 or 3 can be said in the same breath as 4. Nor, for that matter, how the FERC, SEC, or the Vatican investigating Williams has anything to do with Hillary being a socialist.
To continue the digression of this thread, I think Smurfet was a transvestite. I mean, Im fine with that, its her choice and everyone knows her brothers needed the company. But I think she was. Just sayin'.
quote:
I'm sorry Tim, I'm just not following you anymore.
Don't worry. All will be revealed when Timmy takes off his mask and we see that it's just Aox.
Trying to debate three people at once is bound to lead to confusion. Especially when all three are coming at one with a different angle.
I just wanted to take the opportunity to bash the do-nothing GOP elected officials for whistling while Williams Cos. lost billions in dollars and thousands of Tulsans lost their jobs. That drum beats loud and clear.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
I'm sorry Tim, I'm just not following you anymore.
It appears you are saying:
The Bush administration was too hard on Williams.
The Energy sector is all crooks and cost Tulsa.
Therefor Bush is a socialist.
I totally dont get it. Are you having four separate arguments:
1) Bush was too hard on Williams and therefor a socialist
2) Bush is too pro business
3) Inhofe let Williams swinging in the wind and screwed Tulsa
4) The Energy industry is a bunch of thieves
I dont understand how 1 & 2 reconcile, nor how 1 or 3 can be said in the same breath as 4. Nor, for that matter, how the FERC, SEC, or the Vatican investigating Williams has anything to do with Hillary being a socialist.
To continue the digression of this thread, I think Smurfet was a transvestite. I mean, Im fine with that, its her choice and everyone knows her brothers needed the company. But I think she was. Just sayin'.
That's usually what happens when someone jumps in over their head and doesn't realize it till too late. They try to bamboozle you with a bunch of irrelevant B.S. to cover up the fact they have no idea what they are talking about.
Here ya go Timmy:
(http://www.kurtsimmons.com/images/bunny-pancake.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
Trying to debate three people at once is bound to lead to confusion. Especially when all three are coming at one with a different angle.
I just wanted to take the opportunity to bash the do-nothing GOP elected officials for whistling while Williams Cos. lost billions in dollars and thousands of Tulsans lost their jobs. That drum beats loud and clear.
I suppose. If this is the drummer that's keeping your beat...
(http://myspace-238.vo.llnwd.net/00281/83/20/281630238_m.jpg)
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
Trying to debate three people at once is bound to lead to confusion. Especially when all three are coming at one with a different angle.
I just wanted to take the opportunity to bash the do-nothing GOP elected officials for whistling while Williams Cos. lost billions in dollars and thousands of Tulsans lost their jobs. That drum beats loud and clear.
I suppose. If this is the drummer that's keeping your beat...
(http://myspace-238.vo.llnwd.net/00281/83/20/281630238_m.jpg)
[}:)][}:)][}:)]
That's a classic!
Nope. Wrong again. Not over my head. I just know that an elected official with a pair would have defended Williams against the false allegations. The cowards did not do a thing and a great Tulsa company was brought to the point of bankruptcy.
quote:
Nope. Wrong again. Not over my head.
That's comforting reassurance of your position...do you own cats?
So Williams Companies lost billions during the Bush Admin's persecution and that is ok with you? Two people (you say) did wrong so that is ok that the whole company is punished?
This is a philosophical difference. I think our elected officials should have stepped up and expressed confidence in Williams. Some here think that Inhofe and crew sitting on their cowardly hands was the way to go.
We've all asked multiple times for evidence to back up your assertions and you refuse to provide anything. Without actual evidence your just a crackpot...
You know, there is a bigfoot thread that needs some attention.
Cannon Fodder, the energy you put into your posts is incredible. You are very talented, but.... Hey I just want to say. You don't get civic responsibility. You don't understand the shared cost of living in a civilized community. You really hate the New Deal and you're ready to roll back the clock to life before Social Security. But nothing worth having is cheap and you can't justify shifting your share of the burden.
Good work Tim.
Ippy, who does that hair?
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
We've all asked multiple times for evidence to back up your assertions and you refuse to provide anything. Without actual evidence your just a crackpot...
Look IP, you do not even understand how a Federal investigation would affect investor confidence and the stock price of a corporation. I suggest that someone create a user name of REALITY and then you and Kurt can hit the 'ignore' button.
Thanks, Homeskillet!
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
We've all asked multiple times for evidence to back up your assertions and you refuse to provide anything. Without actual evidence your just a crackpot...
Look IP, you do not even understand how a Federal investigation would affect investor confidence and the stock price of a corporation. I suggest that someone create a user name of REALITY and then you and Kurt can hit the 'ignore' button.
Thanks, Homeskillet!
Ladies and gentlement...I present to you Altruismsuffers part Deux.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
We've all asked multiple times for evidence to back up your assertions and you refuse to provide anything. Without actual evidence your just a crackpot...
Look IP, you do not even understand how a Federal investigation would affect investor confidence and the stock price of a corporation. I suggest that someone create a user name of REALITY and then you and Kurt can hit the 'ignore' button.
Thanks, Homeskillet!
Ladies and gentlement...I present to you Altruismsuffers part Deux.
Well no sh!t investigations hurt investor confidence. I bet that was a great epiphany for Timmy. If companies are going about business honestly, they don't get an anal probe by FERC, SEC, FBI, et. al. ad nauseum. By that logic, should Bill Bartmann and Jay Jones have been allowed to keep up an on-going criminal ponzi scheme just so 3700 jobs could be saved at CFS? Man, Clinton was just too hard on CFS!
Williams and Enron were engaging in on-going un-ethical and ostensibly illegal manipulation of energy prices to bolster their profits at the expense of the rate payer and state and local governments.
Williams and Enron were engaging in on-going un-ethical and ostensibly illegal manipulation of energy prices to bolster their profits at the expense of the rate payer and state and local governments.
Hear that, CF? The alleged actions of two employees means that the evisceration of billions of rightfully earned dollars should be confiscated! Socialists!
Well, Kurt, I am sorry you do not understand why Tulsans would be disappointed in their elected, 'pro-energy' officials. I am sorry that you would rather attack Williams than defend the notion that gubmint human service programs for the poor is not socialist, but 100% Mercan.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
Cannon Fodder, the energy you put into your posts is incredible. You are very talented, but.... Hey I just want to say. You don't get civic responsibility. You don't understand the shared cost of living in a civilized community. You really hate the New Deal and you're ready to roll back the clock to life before Social Security. But nothing worth having is cheap and you can't justify shifting your share of the burden.
Good work Tim.
Ippy, who does that hair?
HT- against my better judgement I'm going to try to educate the die-hard liberal out of you.
You obviously don't get the concept of success and being able to do as you see fit with the rewards of your success.
I assure you Exxon-Mobil knows better how to reinvest it's money instead of the government re-investing it for them. With that money, they will:
1) Upgrade drilling and refinery equipment which creates jobs- many pieces of that equipment are made in the Tulsa area- BTW
2) Invest in on-going exploration opportunties which creates more jobs and need for more equipment (see #1)
3) Invest in emerging technology by helping to start businesses which can improve their operations.
4) They know fossil fuels have limited reserves and will spend money to employ more people to research and develop efficient means of bringing rapidly renewable fuels to market.
5) Keep a cash reserve on hand to make payroll when the enevitable next down-swing in the petroleum market hits, thereby saving jobs.
These all create new streams of taxable revenue from the corporate level of various companies all the way down to the guy sweeping the shop floor in west Tulsa. A concept that Ms. Clinton and her followers don't seem to get. The oil companies are already remitting record tax revenues on local, state and federal levels.
Anyone who says there has been no growth or investment in alternative fuels during the Bush administration obviously is not reading the business pages. Scores of new bio-diesel and ethanol plants have been and are being built- all with trickle-down effects througout various industries. This is already being incubated with plenty of tax payer money. By many accounts there are already more plants than market demand for these products. Therefore there are very good government subsidies being doled out to agri-producers and refiners.
Here is what you get when government reinvests corporate and personal taxes:
1) Innefficient bureaucracies with select high paying jobs, but mainly low level, low paying clerk positions which bottleneck and flat-out inhibit new business start-ups and growth, unlike private investment.
2) More worthless social assistance programs which promote laziness and dependence on the government and which do not advocate individual productivity and responsibility.
3) Personal paradigms of politicians that direct where money gets spent, instead of what is really the best and most efficient way to invest money. Most of those paradigms are based on influence from lobbyists and campaign contributors who have their own interests at heart.
Social responsibility with a reasonible tax rate to support necessary government functions is one thing. Creating a new confiscatory tax because an enterprise is too successful is punitive.
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
Williams and Enron were engaging in on-going un-ethical and ostensibly illegal manipulation of energy prices to bolster their profits at the expense of the rate payer and state and local governments.
Hear that, CF? The alleged actions of two employees means that the evisceration of billions of rightfully earned dollars should be confiscated! Socialists!
Well, Kurt, I am sorry you do not understand why Tulsans would be disappointed in their elected, 'pro-energy' officials. I am sorry that you would rather attack Williams than defend the notion that gubmint human service programs for the poor is not socialist, but 100% Mercan.
Keep at it Timmy, the hole you're diggin' will be big enough for you to bury yourself in very soon.
(http://www.crocus.co.uk/graphics/feature/digging_the_hole.jpg)
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
Williams and Enron were engaging in on-going un-ethical and ostensibly illegal manipulation of energy prices to bolster their profits at the expense of the rate payer and state and local governments.
Hear that, CF? The alleged actions of two employees means that the evisceration of billions of rightfully earned dollars should be confiscated! Socialists!
Well, Kurt, I am sorry you do not understand why Tulsans would be disappointed in their elected, 'pro-energy' officials. I am sorry that you would rather attack Williams than defend the notion that gubmint human service programs for the poor is not socialist, but 100% Mercan.
Keep at it Timmy, the hole you're diggin' will be big enough for you to bury yourself in very soon.
(http://www.crocus.co.uk/graphics/feature/digging_the_hole.jpg)
You are bizarre, and not in a good way. You are bizarre in a creepy sort of way.
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
Hear that, CF? The alleged actions of two employees means that the evisceration of billions of rightfully earned dollars should be confiscated! Socialists!
Okay, brainicac, care to delineate how that sounds any different than the downfall of CFS? Was Clinton too hard on them? Should they have been allowed to continue to poke the pooch at the expense of pension plans and individual working-schmoe investors?
The way Enron and Williams were trading energy and manipulating the markets was nothing more than a house made of cards.
Are you an advocate for corporate fraud?
You socialist, Kurt! By your own admission only two traders allegedly did something wrong (what is the crime) but the whole Williams Cos should be punished? Socialist!
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
You socialist, Kurt! By your own admission only two traders allegedly did something wrong (what is the crime) but the whole Williams Cos should be punished? Socialist!
It's amazing to me that some people like can even tie their own shoes without help, of course I'm assuming alot here...
QuoteOriginally posted by iplaw I am a troll. I am so inherently offensive and stoopid that I have a thread dedicated to my ignorance. I am a bizarre whack-job!
Quote
Amen!
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
You socialist, Kurt! By your own admission only two traders allegedly did something wrong (what is the crime) but the whole Williams Cos should be punished? Socialist!
It's amazing to me that some people like can even tie their own shoes without help, of course I'm assuming alot here...
Is he ducking a running from my questions again?
And who the eff is Kurt?
Would someone explain to Timmy that forum etiquette dictates using screen names?
Conan:
He's never once attempted to answer your questions...
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
QuoteOriginally posted by iplaw I am a troll. I am so inherently offensive and stoopid that I have a thread dedicated to my ignorance. I am a bizarre whack-job!
Quote
Amen!
Awwwwwwww. does someone else need a kiss from Helen Thomas too Corky?
(http://cache.valleywag.com/images/2006/07/calcanis_et_corky.jpg)
I assumed you would know KurtSimmons.com inasmuch as that is the domain name you swiped the bunny image from.
(http://www.schino.com/images/troll_norvegia_01.jpg)
Hometown -
I would love to roll back the new deal. It was the largest usurpation of power by our government to date. It led the way to our current government of limitless powers - taking what it wants, regulating where it wants, and spending on anything it wants. Yay for limited government.
The new deal, nor social security, have NOTHING to do with civic responsibility. Civic responsibility is a virtuous sense of need to take care of ones community. Carnegie should great civic responsibility when he built libraries across America. Likewise, the commitments of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation are a terrific example of civic responsibility. When done at the point of a gun (I dont pay taxes they come with guns to take me to jail) you are no longer exhibiting any virtuous quality nor civic responsibility... you are merely in compliance with what everyone else must do. To pretend paying taxes is somehow virtuous is an insult to anyone who has given time or money to their community.
While nothing cheap is worth having, being expensive doesn't mean its worth it. In my working lifetime the federal government will take about 25% of my earnings for Social Security, Medicaid, and other wealth redistribution programs. It is very unlikely that I will ever see any of this money and it is even more likely the money will be outright squandered.
I don't have a problem with social welfare. I both prefer and insist that people that are down are given a chance to get back up. It is better for everyone in society, equitable, and it is what I would want if I ever fail. However, such a system should not be administered blindly. So as to promote leaching off the system as a lifestyle choice. The person who tries and fails or the person who gets horribly sick or the person who is abused gets the same help as the person who is simply too lazy to do anything different.
In that instance they are taking my money, which I invested a great deal for and worked hard to earn, and giving it to someone who took an easier path. Perhaps that person chose to party instead of going to classes. Maybe they did too many drugs or drank too much. Or maybe they were just too lazy to do anything to improve their situation. In those instance you deserve help only if you have decided to do something to improve and be a member of society - not a leach on it. I dont give money to the scam artists standing on street corners and I dont want to give money to you - but I have to.
In fact, you'll have everything I had for the first 9 years of my adult life. A roof over your head, food in the pantry, a bus ride to work, low quality medical care, and some spending money in your pocket. The difference is, I was going to school during the day and working 2nd shift at a factory to make sure I had those things. I worked my donkey off to live in a sh!t hole, drive a POS, eat mostly ramen noodles, potatoes & corn (It was Iowa, ok?), have laughable medical coverage, and have no spending money. Meanwhile, title 19, section 8, food stamps, medicaid, a welfare check and the EITC ensure someone who either sitting at home watching their cable TV or working some menial job and not trying to improve, had all the same things.
Now, the tables have turned. My hard work is starting to pay off. I have spending money, drive a nice car (its a 2000 Nissan with 80K miles... but its nice to me damnit) and boost great health coverage (that I never use). So the government sees fit to siphon off some of my income to fund the guy that is still sitting at home or still working his no risk, 9-5, easy job. That's awesome.
Some people just need to be allowed to fail. If you are a more compassionate man than I, I applaud you. But forcing others to fund your compassion seems somehow very, very backwards.
Pre-New Deal, welfare was a spiritual and family concept, if you will.
People went to their Churches and families for help when they were down and out, faced an unexpected disaster, or prolonged illness.
Since that sort of help was more face-to-face, it instilled a sense of personal responsibility to pull onesself back up, self-esteem, and an appreciation of what others were doing to help out and created a desire to improve one's station in life. If a capable individual refused to display any inclination toward self-help, they eventually were cut off.
Since the dawn of the human race, there have been lazy people. However the anonymous "giving" of the tax-paying public and anonymous distribution by the government do nothing to inspire a change within the people who recieve our largesse.
I do realize that not everyone on the government dole is lazy. There are retirees who contributed to SS and Medicare who have earned the right, there are truly disabled people who simply cannot work. However, there are many, many people who have no business being on the gov't teat who make it difficult to near impossible for those who really do need the help to get it.
Government-sponsored assistance programs guarantee something for those who have no more ambition in life than to sit in a skanky apartment, watching Jerry Springer, smoking a joint, and eating pork rinds all day and night. It encourages people to over-populate, and do nothing to give back to society.
You heard it here folks:
Cannon Fodder, "I would love to roll back the new deal."
This is where the middle to right of the Republican Party is now.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
You heard it here folks:
Cannon Fodder, "I would love to roll back the new deal."
This is where the middle to right of the Republican Party is now.
Thank God. Finally.
Oh, yeah... like I'd trust a republican party that can't even balance federal budgets to administrate a fair and equitable rollback of the new deal... [B)]
I know a couple of people who are on supplemental social security... and they don't "sit in a skanky apartment, watching Jerry Springer, smoking a joint, and eating pork rinds all day and night." There have always been and will always be "bad apples." But there ARE older folks on social security who've worked their entire lives... who can have the necessities of life without having to resort to begging on the streets and eating cans of cat food...
I'll make ya a NEW deal... if the republicans can dismantle the corporate welfare state, I'll promise to give them a chance to "reform" social security...
In the meantime, I'll continue voting for tax-and-spend democrats over spend-and-spend republicans... [:D]
Back to topic...
"I want to take those profits and put them into an alternative energy fund that will begin to fund alternative smart energy, alternatives that will actually begin to move us toward the direction of independence."--Hillary Clinton
These words will be very popular in non-oil states... like it or not...
And no matter what any dem could say to appeal to Oklahomans, this state will still vote Republican in the next presidential election... you can take that one to the bank... OK has become as reliable for the repubs as Massachusetts is for the dems...
It could be worse for oil people in Oklahoma... the USA doesn't have a state-run oil company...
Pemex provides about one-third of government revenues in Mexico...
http://migration.ucdavis.edu/MN/more.php?id=1973_0_2_0
quote:
Mexico collects about 11 percent of GDP in taxes [18 percent including Pemex], one of the lowest tax takes in the world; Chile collects 20 percent, and the US, 31 percent. Most Mexican taxes flow to the federal government, which then returns tax monies to the 31 states on the basis of complex formulae that reflect their needs. Northern states such as Nuevo Leon (Monterrey) in 1998 accounted for nine percent of taxes paid and received only four percent of federal tax monies, and are complaining about the "unfairness" of federal redistribution formulae. Mexican states can add a two percent sales tax that they keep, but few have done so.
Iraq
had a nationalized oil company, much like Iran and Saudi Arabia still have today, but that is about to change...
http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article2132467.ece
quote:
For more than three decades, foreign oil companies wanting into Iraq have been like children pressed against the sweet shop window - desperately seeking to feast on the goodies but having no way of getting through the door.
That could soon change.
The Iraqi Council of Ministers is expected to approve, as early as today, a controversial new hydrocarbon law, heavily pushed by the US and UK governments, that will radically redraw the Iraqi oil industry and throw open the doors to the third-largest oil reserves in the world. It would allow the first large-scale operation of foreign oil companies in the country since the industry was nationalised in 1972.
-----------------------------------------
Critical to whether the petro-leum industry will be able to exploit Iraq's buried treasure will be the introduction of production-sharing agreements (PSAs). These are contracts that allow the state to retain legal ownership of its reserves but let international companies share in the profits from extracting oil, in exchange for investing in the infrastructure and operation of the wells, pipelines and refineries. The agreements would be the key to the sweeping development of the Iraqi industry by international companies.
According to an early draft of the legislation that was sent to oil companies this past summer and obtained by The Independent on Sunday, PSAs are the centrepiece of the new legal framework.
Their introduction would be a first for a major Middle Eastern power and is sure to be highly contentious. Saudi Arabia and Iran, the world's number one and two producers, both control their industries tightly with no appreciable foreign company collaboration. According to the Iraqi draft legislation, the PSAs could be fixed for as long as 30 years, which would provide a welcome framework in which the companies could work. Though they are preferred by the oil industry, PSAs don't always guarantee profits for Western companies.
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
I know a couple of people who are on supplemental social security... and they don't "sit in a skanky apartment, watching Jerry Springer, smoking a joint, and eating pork rinds all day and night." There have always been and will always be "bad apples." But there ARE older folks on social security who've worked their entire lives... who can have the necessities of life without having to resort to begging on the streets and eating cans of cat food...
I'll make ya a NEW deal... if the republicans can dismantle the corporate welfare state, I'll promise to give them a chance to "reform" social security...
Thanks for paraphrasing me on the first paragraph, I'm flattered. Did you have an original idea you wanted to add to that?
All Hillary is talking about is more corporate welfare with the oil profits, how does that escape you? Take profits from a productive entity and give it to another- that IS corporate welfare. I guess it just sounds better to you when a Democrat says it.
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
Oh, yeah... like I'd trust a republican party that can't even balance federal budgets to administrate a fair and equitable rollback of the new deal... [B)]
I know a couple of people who are on supplemental social security... and they don't "sit in a skanky apartment, watching Jerry Springer, smoking a joint, and eating pork rinds all day and night." There have always been and will always be "bad apples." But there ARE older folks on social security who've worked their entire lives... who can have the necessities of life without having to resort to begging on the streets and eating cans of cat food...
I'll make ya a NEW deal... if the republicans can dismantle the corporate welfare state, I'll promise to give them a chance to "reform" social security...
In the meantime, I'll continue voting for tax-and-spend democrats over spend-and-spend republicans... [:D]
I don't think anyone ever said SS should be eliminated, or that deserving people shouldn't get it. The idea of the new deal is bigger than the narrow definition you want to give it. You're just desperate to make a point.
I'm sure you're okay with more of the same, with our politicians just driving it into bankruptcy. Democrats had 40 years to fix it and they punted the issue.
I'm actually smart enough not to depend on SS and I feel sorry for you if you think it's going to be around when you need it.
SS was designed to provide for people at age 65, when the average life expectancy was 67. It was a stop-gap measure to offset a pensions and savings plans. It was never meant to be used as a primary source of income.
I could care less if you never change a damned thing about SS, just don't come begging from those of us who planned ahead.
Yeah, it's welfare moms, illegals and the working poor who are gaming the system... right?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108066,00.html
quote:
In the three years since Bush took office, discretionary spending — money that is not tied to long-term entitlements, including defense, domestic security, education and transportation — has grown by 31.5 percent. Non-discretionary spending — mandatory programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid — has reached record highs.
Overall, federal spending grew on average by 7.6 percent in each of the last two years, more than double the 3.4 percent average annual growth under the Clinton administration.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/116678.html
quote:
The Republican Congress that has expanded federal spending by 45 percent since fiscal year 2001, more than doubled education spending, and enacted insanely expensive agriculture, highway, energy, and prescription drug bills is still bingeing on our tax dollars. But instead of working through the regular appropriations process, Congress is hiding behind "emergency" supplemental bills.
Originally posted by conan71
quote:
All Hillary is talking about is more corporate welfare with the oil profits
Part of those oil profits may be slipping away as President Chavez has now signed an order to Nationalize the oil companies in Venezuela..
USRufnex:
I am positive I, for one, have been VERY clear in pointing out that the current administration has horribly failed to show any fiscal restraint. Both major parties have job #1 - stay in Washington. The easiest way to do that is to spend money we dont have on crap we dont need.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
USRufnex:
I am positive I, for one, have been VERY clear in pointing out that the current administration has horribly failed to show any fiscal restraint. Both major parties have job #1 - stay in Washington. The easiest way to do that is to spend money we dont have on crap we dont need.
Geez, sounds like parent/child relationships. [xx(][;)]