lynks66

I don't think it would matter much if we expanded drilling in ANWR or offshore--we wouldn't be able to produce oil fast enough (in barrels/day terms) to have any significant effect on gas prices. A reasonable guesstimate of ANWR reserves is 7.7 billion barrels, which amounts to a little over a year of U.S. consumption. Estimates for peak production rate from ANWR are only about 800,000 barrels/day, compared to daily U.S. consumption of 20 million barrels/day, mean that even at maximum output, ANWR would produce less than 5% of U.S. consumption and less than 1% or current world consumption. Experts expect it would take 20 years for ANWR to reach peak production. According to the U.S. government Energy Information Administration, world oil consumption is expected to rise by about 37% by 2030. If ANWR were producing oil flat-out today it would be a tiny drop in the bucket in terms of affecting global oil prices and if consumption rises by that much the effect of ANWR on prices would be even less.

What about offshore drilling? Do you think that combined with ANWR could helped to increase supply enough to make an impact?

3rd Bold - If Obama were white and was quoted as saying "that's typical of black people" would he still be your candidate?

 

Interesting question. I would think most on here would not continue to support a white candidate saying that. Myself included. Anyone agree or disagree?

I

I have some qualms about two ideas that I see in these types of posts repeatedly: 1) increased domestic drilling (ANWR, offshore, etc) and 2) building of more refineries.

 

On the first, increased domestic drilling, I am of the opinion that the current runup in gasoline prices is probably good for the long term health of our country and economy because it provides an incredibly strong market incentive for the development of alternative technologies to reduce our dependence on oil imports from the Middle East. GM and Toyota have announced production plans for plug-in hybrids and Nissan recently announced that they would be offering plug-in hybrids and electric cars for the U.S. market. Would these developments be happening if we were still fat, dumb, and happy paying $1.50/gallon?

Just curious, what point would gas prices have to reach before you would support expanding drilling here?

He would be way too liberal for American taste.

 

"Everything is permissable, but not everything is beneficial".

Curious as to your reasons that he would be way too liberal?

It was a mis-understanding. I mis-understood what someone told me. I already addressed the fact that I was not 100% sure on that post, in case you decided to skip right through to the end without reading.

My bad. I should have read all of the posts before posting my question. I sometimes forget that things do get posted on here that are incorrect. I will be sure to read ahead in the future before posting.:thumb:

The rich may pay more taxes, but percentage wise, they do not pay a greater part of their salary. The middle class and the poor pay substantially more out of their checks each week than a rich person and the effects hurt the poor/middle class more than it does a rich person as well.

Is this a joke? Or do you have little to no grasp of the tax system in our country?

You may call this outrageous, but it has more merit than the thought that Bush is profiting off of these high oil prices. How about this- The Democrats want to keep the poor in poverty.

 

They support higher taxes that lower prices and hinder investment spending. Since investment spending is often the cornerstone of economic growth, our country has less innovation, entrepreneurship, new factories and research and development. Why is it that our poor are better off than the rest of the world's middle class? Because we are incredibly advanced in terms of technology, medical products and pharmaceutical drugs, etc. What does welfare do? Raises taxes (on everyone) and inherently makes prices higher.

 

They don't reserve there attempts to keep the poor in their state to just America. Democrats love using the word "sweatshops" and "fair trade" to keep foreign countries poor. Child labor was not outlawed in the U.S until the 1930's, and I can assure you that the standard of living in the US was much higher in the 1930's here than it is now in developing countries. Often times, when child labor is banned (or countries that employ children are forced to move out or close), the children must resort to prostitution or begging, because often their families rely on their income. Public schooling simply isn't available in these countries, and it won't be until the total income in the country is higher. It is a normal good.

 

"Fair trade" hurts America and other countries. In America, often times tariffs and quotas eliminate jobs (i.e., tariffs in the sugar industry saved American sugar jobs but eliminate many more jobs in the American candy industry- and FWIW I am not saying that total jobs in the economy go down) Also, how is that countries get rich? When foreign countries build factories and create jobs in other economies? The country has the availability for loanable funds, which can be used by firms for investment spending, and furthermore allow the workers to obtain knowledge capital, which can only spread (see the Bangladesh clothing industry)

 

The Democrats need the poor vote. Is this theory alive and well? Who knows. But at least it is backed up by fact, and it is more than just a shallow, hollow statement.

I feel this does have some merit.

Why cant you people just understand that I have tried Christianity for 4 years now and I no longer have any urge, need, or inkling to try it anymore. I have beat that horse to a pulp. The Christiani Horse That Is...

 

Yes LBBC I see it as a random happening. I dont have to feel there is a magical guy in the sky to see the beauty and wonder in the world. I actually find it more beautiful knowing it was a thing of cosmic chance.

Why do you keep posting/starting threads dealing with Christianity?

He may have been talking about his first few years in office.

Maybe he mistyped 60 when he meant to type 50:thumb:

I can't trust Obama. There is something about him that is caniving and deceitful in my mind. Nor do I like his Muslim background. He says he is Protestant, but I have a hard time beleiving that as well. I am pulling for Hillary over Obama.

 

Personally, my vote goes for McCain. As someone mentioned earlier, he is the most bi-partisan experience than anyone. He is a moderate conservative, and gains the votes of the wavering Dem, while persauding the moderates to take his side as well. He has the votes of the conservatives wrapped up.

What evidence do you have of a Muslim background?

Any news on who the new coach will be?

Nice gimmick. Probably will work on several customers in the near future.

What surprises me is that some on here are still defending Rev. Wright while Obama is renouncing and trying to run from this as fast as he can????

ABC News' Ed O'Keefe Reports: Sen. Barack Obama strongly condemned recent comments made by his former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, in a high-stakes gamble by his campaign to control a spreading political firestorm.

 

Reacting to what he called the "spectacle" of his former pastor at the National Press Club, Obama, D-Ill., denounced Wright saying, "What Rev. Wright said yesterday directly contradicts everything I have ever done or said in my life."

 

"Whatever relationship I had with Rev Wright has changed as a result of this," Obama said.

 

Read More

Seems like it may have taken him a little too long to figure this out. He can't get far enough away from him now it appears.:walk:

I don't know where the scale currently is but I at 35 to 40 percent a 100,000 individual could walk home with 75 to 60,000 dollars a year. Which is plenty of money to live without much discomfort. At 1,000,000 dollars a year I don't much issues with saying 50% because you have to go out of your way to figure out ways of spending 500,000 a year on your lifestyle.

What about those who make 10,000,000 or more? Should it be higher than 50%?

Also, how would the scale go down for someone who makes 40,000-60,000? or even 20,000?

I don't have a hard number to give you without a reference. Are we talking about a 100,000 per year salary or a 1,000,000, it makes a difference.

How about for both. 100,000 and 1,000,000

They are blessed to have the opportunity to make the choice to work in such a productive field. If they didn't like what they did they could do other things.

So, at what point would a higher income individual be taxed enough to make you feel as though they were being taxed fairly?

I saw that earlier before I posted. So now the question becomes what is a reasonable rate that everyone has to pay... 10% Federal, 5% state or 10% Federal 10% state.

I appreciate you being willing to throw out some percentages for discussion. Where would you put the capital gains tax at? Just curious.

I wouldn't be opposed to that as long as it was a reasonable percentage.

I agree:thumb:

At what point would a higher income individual be taxed enough to make you feel as though they were being taxed fairly?

ttt

I'm sick of the whining about who gets treated better by the media. Honestly, I haven't read one bad thing on the internet or seen a bad word said about McCain thus far during the election.

 

Obama and Hillary on the other hand...

What media do you use for your information?

I was talking about Europe being capitalist. Obama said he may increase the capital gains tax. May. Not will. But I don't see how shifting some of the tax burden on the upper class is such a bad thing. Working class folks are the reason they are wealthy to begin with.

You mean shifting more of the tax burden to the upper income individuals right? They already pay more than everyone else already.

At what point would a higher income individual be taxed enough to make feel as though they were being taxed fairly?

The wealthy caring the majority of the tax burden as it is. Also, raising capital gains would not effect just the wealthy.

It amazes me how many people don't get this.

Could this be 1976 all over again? The superdelegates throw out both Obama and Hillary and opt for a 3rd candidate. Could be the perfect opening for Al Gore.

That is interesting. Could Gore be a VP candidate for one or the other?