Frances Bavier

Okay, I give. After 3,951 posts, it is obvious that you are not going to acknowledge that paying a reduced rate on their raw materials is a tax break. You've convinced me - the oil giants are our friend, and we should feel guilty because we didn't eliminate their tax burden completely. I will try to contact the people that teach economics at the various universities around the country, to let them know that they don't truly understand how money is raised by the levying of taxes. Frances

I'm convinced that I am "slim". I wonder how Ted sleeps at night ... Frances PS - and don't say "face down".

AT&T is an excellent example, HHSDad. They didn't break 'em up because of their profits - they broke 'em up because they were a true monopoly. The result of that breakup of a monopoly is that we no longer have party lines, we no longer pay exorbitant fees for a long distance call, we now have wireless calling on our cell phones, we can buy any phone we want from any company we want, we have nationwide calling plans, etc., etc., etc. None of which, by the way, would EVER have happened prior to the breakup of AT&T. Frances

And this is where Habib and I agree. Until the spineless people that sit in Congress can somehow find their eyeglasses, they will continue to be unable to find collusion between the oil companies when it comes to setting the prices of their product on the open market. Oddly, this is the same august body that was able to find that the owners of Major League Baseball were colluding in an effort to hold down salaries for baseball players, but amazingly, they can't seem to put their finger on the fact that in any given area, the cost of a gallon of gasoline rises and falls in lockstep across every station in a given radius. Frances

At no point did I indicate that Exxon didn't pay any taxes, so I'll pass on your attempt to force me to defend a point that I didn't make. What I DID say (and what H has pointed out to you multiple times) is that the oil companies didn't pay taxes on A PORTION of their income. Notice the difference? Frances

How far my Libertarianism goes? I'm not sure exactly where I draw the line, but wherever it is, the idea of giving tax breaks to companies that are pocketing $10 BILLION PER QUARTER is on the other side of the line. On the other hand, if you feel like these oil giants need, or deserve, these windfalls, that is fine. I'll wait to see if you change your tune when the price of a gallon of gas nears $3.00 (again) or even $4.00. Frances

Well - that post was written as a response to a post by Habib, and we just spent the last 20 posts or so going over it, so I'll leave it at what has already been posted. Frances

In a way, you are correct. And this is exactly why those of us that are truly fiscal conservatives like much of what they see in Libertarianism. In my opinion, the government shouldn't be in the business of subsidizing industry with our tax dollars - regardless of the industry. If we are going to subsidize industry, I would at least make the argument that we not subsidize companies that are reaping surreal profits. Frances

HHSDad - I agree with your assessment. In all honesty, the best thing that could have happened to the Democratic party would to have barely missed taking the majority in both houses of Congress. The situation in Iraq is not going to end well - regardless of which party is in control of Congress. We will now watch a classic case of finger pointing unfold, as the situation worsens, and the election nears. Sadly, the real loser in this won't be either political party - it will be the men and women that are in harm's way, and the civilians of Iraq. Frances

I find it sad that anyone would put scientists on the same level as politicians - especially a teacher.

Of course there will be political fallout - there ALWAYS is. That is what the "game" has been reduced to - putting your opponent in a position that whatever move he makes, you will hold it against him. The Democrats will (ultimately) have to "put up or shut up" with regards to funding this war, or showing that they don't have the backbone to do what they were sent to Washington to do - reign Bush in before he goes much further down this path. Without a doubt, there will be repercussions, whatever move they make. The Republicans will feel those repercussions as well. The voting public sent them a message in November - and if they didn't open their mail, they will get a "Second Notice" in November 2008. Frances

You told H:

This was no loophole in the tax code. It was the result of sponsored legislation - written with the express intent of giving the oil industry a chance to make a profit that was essentially "untaxed". Frances

Why indeed? I would submit that the tax money that comes from my pocket or your pocket is all the same. Once it goes into the federal coffers, it is all "our" money. This also applies to tax money that comes from industry as well. My (original) point was that it IS wrong for a company being granted tax breaks to use that money to pay people to intentionally distort scientific findings. The fact that (in this instance) that company is receiving tax breaks while reaping the largest annual profit in the history of the US only serves to illustrate the insanity of granting the tax break in the first place. Frances

Whether the dollar bill that went from one pocket to another is exactly the same one is immaterial. When you write a check for $25 to Wal-Mart, does it matter whether that $25 came from this week's paycheck, or if the money had been in the checking account for over a month? Frances

Uh, no. The quote from H says: H is asking you to provide evidence that an attack that was planned was, in fact prevented by virtue of the US invasion of Iraq. If such an attack was planned and prevented, there would be evidence of those occurrences (i.e. intelligence reports, arrests, prisoners, bodies, intercepted messages, plans for the attack, etc.). H is challenging you to provide evidence that an attack was prevented (which is possible, if such an attack was prevented). You are challenging H to provide evidence of an occurrence that DIDN'T happen, thereby asking him to prove a universal negative - something that is logically impossible. Frances

Let me get this straight. You are attempting to place the burden of proof on H, to provide evidence (that cannot possibly exist) that a hypothetical crime never took place because a terrorist is no longer alive. Now THAT my friend, is magic! Frances

No - it's all of us. Frances

This is pretty basic. If you and I both owe the federal government $1,000 because we had identical incomes and I receive a tax break of $500 that you are not entitled to, I think most people would recognize that I received an advantage. If the legislation for that tax break was based on the supposition that I would donate that tax money to the local orphanage, many people would say "Well, I don't think he deserves the tax break, but at least it is going for a good cause". Two months later, you discover that instead of helping the children down at the orphanage, I spent that money overhauling the engine of the car that I use for my moonshine running operation, well ... I think most people would feel as though that was somewhat inappropriate. Frances

In a nutshell, this entire line of argument is one of the most common red herring fallacies in logic. It is a straightforward case of "Two Wrongs Make a Right". Whether a family blows their tax rebate on alchohol, gambling, prostitution, or any other vice is immaterial to the question at hand. The fact that someone else is "more wrong" does not absolve a person (or group) of wrongdoing on their part. Frances

LOL - that's fair enough, Hearsay. I guess I could schedule some visitation time to the various mental health centers around the state, just to comfort those that continue to insist that the Democrats got us into this war, or that this "surge" will somehow turn the tide, and save the legacy of their "golden boy" - W. Frances

We look forward to having you back, Cville. This time, however, if you don't mind, leave the win with us. Frances

Somewhere, John Denver is turning over in his grave. Frances

For Pete's sake, Diamond Dandy - everyone knows that all of those things are directly the fault of the liberals. Just because they were in the minority in Congress doesn't mean that it wasn't their fault. Frances

I think CCH5542 was somewhere between sarcastic and rhetorical when he wrote his post. Frances