Printable View
This is great
Nobama wants a WINDFALL profit tax on big oil
give you a 1000 bucks...... I could use it Ill tell ya, BUT
Ask your MOM and DAD, look at you prospectus, statement, whatever......
If you have a 401k
YOU ARE BIG OIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
so Nobama wants to take money from you,to give to you.....
He is so stupid
discuss you are big oil, and if you were smart you would have bought oil low and sold it high.....ahhh the American Dream:thumbsup:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Billionfold
I am happy to interject here to help you understand what his post is about.
Barak Insane Osama, wants to TAKE money from the demonized "BIG OIL" and REDISTRIBUTE that wealth to the "less fortunate". You know, socialism, which apparently is one of the key points of liberalism today.
You know, as if there is only a certain amount of money available to be had in the world, and the BIG OIL DEMONS have taken it all. Because in Obama land that means there is no money left for the "poor".
Never mind that they earn that money, never mind that they employ Americans, never mind that Americans are shareholders in those "BIG OIL" companies and that would in turn hurt whom? NOT BIG OIL, they will just turn around and share that burden with all of us. And I am 99% sure that he is not planning on taking those "windfall" profits and investing in future energy (as the oil companies have and do since that is there business,) but he would instead hand the money out to people that will gladly take it and blow it on plasma t.v.s, and paps blue ribbon or whatever.
As far as profit margins are concerned "THE EVIL BIG OIL" is far from the top of that list. They have to invest in themselves, but most kool aid drinking libs love the idea of "sticking it to the man" and blindly believe what they are told to believe, hence the popularity of this horrible idea he has put forth. He knows this and this is nothing more than an attempt to hit people on an emotional level during hard economic times. Kool aid drinkers are real happy to think they are going to take money from THE EVIL BIG OIL, and of course are convinced that they are entitled to it. This also plays on the "entitlement mentality" that is so prevalent within the liberal left.
Here are some other industries that should worry about their future as well if we are going to start taking money businesses earn when we demonize them or "feel" (since that's what all good liberal policies are based on) have EARNED too much.
BIG DAIRY
BIG COFFEE
BIG PAPER
ECT...
ECT.....
I believe that was along the lines of the point he was trying to make.:thumbsup:
So if you are ready for "change", then vote for Obama, if you are ready to live in a country that demonizes success, individuality, independant thought, then he's your man.:D
Hey Bill,
sure I remeber you.....
what my post was about.
Liberals, and the liberal left media has villified BIG OIL. When you get right down to it. Any person that owns stock by way of thier 401K witch most people have. They are big oil. They are the share holder that the company is trying to make a profit for.
I know socialist wont like this....
The only job of a publicly traded company is to make a profit for its share holders.
Seams BIG OIL is doing a damn good job......:thumbsup:
how did big oil do in the 80s?
I like how you list no references or sources to back yourself up, while presenting an extremely biased viewpoint. I'm sure you feel right at home on the Internet. But really, not even so much as a link to a blog? You can do better.
So is the premise of this thread that everybody, or even most, who recieve the $1000 tax rebate are in fact shareholders in oil companies? And I suppose the taxes based on profit limits will result in a stock dip so steep that it will result in a whole thousand dollar loss for each shareholder?
I don't buy any of this thread, but didn't George Bush basically do the same thing a few months ago? Sent about $200-$600 to everybody as an "economic stimulus package", which every economist later agreed did NOTHING to stimulate the economy, while wasting millions in public money.
This particular plan of Obama's will do very little if anything, but you'd have to be a fool to think the Republican economic policies have been any wiser. McSame was all ready to jump on the 3-month gas-tax break that would amount to a mammoth $34 savings for the average American. Nothing but a little (illusionary) gift to buy some votes, while not actually accomplishing anything to fix a broken economy.
Democrat or Republican, Americans still seem bent on voting for the safe 'ol candidates that will tweak the status quo while the nation circles the drain. Of course you get anybody with some fiscal responsibility and actual respect for the constitution (aka, Ron Paul), and joe-schmo voter thinks you're an "extremist" for actually taking the action necessary to bring about the real change that they keep demanding but refuse to vote for.
Sorry, I meant to quote the OP, not you. Hell, I agree with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Billionfold
Quote:
Originally Posted by khronik
Quote:
Originally Posted by khronik
I am going to go out on a limb here and guess that you meant to knock me on those posts?
I am wondering what exactly you want "sources" for? My post was my opinion, so the source is me. Feel free to pick out exactly what you want a "source" for though if you want.
From what I can tell, everyone here has a "biased" view, based on your personal political beliefs. So if my belief that taking money from people that EARNED IT TO BEGIN WITH and giving to people that DID NOTHING TO EARN IT, is "biased" then so be it. Why don't you start sending me half of all the money you earn if you want to! LMFAO!:thumbsup:
I don't think that's the premise here, at least that's not what I took from it, and that's not at all what I was trying to argue. I am simply pointing out that "Big OL' MEan OIL" does have shareholders, and if the gov starts to just take money they make, then yes, that will have a direct and significant impact on all shareholders, shareholders being, Americans that work for the companies, that invest in the companies, and Americans that purchase their goods and services.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gandalf_The_Grey
Big Oil is not a person, (not speaking to you Gandalf, this is more for everyone else that likely do not comprehend this concept.) If you take the profits from a corporation or company, then they will simply make up for those lost profits by passing on the "costs" to us. So hello! If you get a grand from the gov that they took from "Big Oil, or Big Rice, or Big Paper, or Big Coffee, then these companies will simply make up for the difference by charging more for their goods. So yeah, you may want to hang onto that "Big Oil" money if you get it folks, you'll need it to buy your gas @ 9.00 a gallon.
Big difference here, the money Bush sent to people was their money to begin with! The money wasn't stolen from a company that earned it and then given to people that had nothing to do with earning it. The money Bush gave out was money that Americans had given to the federal gov in the form of income taxes. Hence, "income tax rebate". Now whether or not it helped the economy, who knows? That's debatable. But fact is that money belonged to the people to begin with!Quote:
Originally Posted by Gandalf_The_Grey
Dead on!!!!! couldn't have said it better myself:stoned:Quote:
Originally Posted by 8182KSKUSH
no i prefer to think we came from America and our views are based on logic rather that speculation. the windfall bs tax thing will only hurt americans in the long run, no matter how you look at it Obama is the fastest way we can convert to socialism.......do you want that?:stoned:Quote:
Originally Posted by khronik
Usually you think of pot smokers as being hippies who are more liberally inclined... it just seems strange that there are so few of them here, and so many libertarians.Quote:
Originally Posted by ldg420
I like logic, but I don't understand why you think your position is necessarily the logical one.
As for socialism, where do you think this quote came from?
Yeah, Barack said it. It actually headlines his economic policy paper. Nobody seriously advocates socialism these days. Since you're someone who claims to be logical, let's look at this quote:Quote:
"I believe that America's free market has been the engine of America's great progress. It's created a prosperity that is the envy of the world. It's led to a standard of living unmatched in history. And it has provided great rewards to the innovators and risk-takers who have made America a beacon for science, and technology, and discovery?We are all in this together. From CEOs to shareholders, from financiers to factory workers, we all have a stake in each other's success because the more Americans prosper, the more America prospers."
And no matter how you look at it, turning on the tap is the fastest way we can flood our house.Quote:
Originally Posted by You
Quote:
Originally Posted by khronik
That's perfect!!! So glad you posted that right before I made my post!
LMFAO!!!
You should replace the word "you" with the word "I".
And not everyone is a libertarian just because they don't drink the liberal kool aid!
Main Entry: so·cial·ism http://www.merriam-webster.com/images/audio.gif Pronunciation: \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\ Function: noun Date: 1837 1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
Might be a little tough to understand I guess, probably not all that coherent.
So what is "national health care"
So what is "TAKING MONEY FROM PRIVATE COMPANIES AND REDISTRIBUTING IT ELSEWHERE"
You are saying those are in fact NOT socialist policies?
OK!:thumbsup:
So long as he doesn't come out and say "I am a socialist pinko" then I guess he's not.
Or you could actually critically look at his vision for America and come to your own conclusion. Whatever! One thing he mentions alot, "FAIR, FAIR, FAIR".
Socialism is fair, it makes everyone equal, it sucks for everyone! But hey at least it's fair.
This is why most liberal bed wetters hate America, America IS NOT FAIR. WAAAAA!
Cuba is a pretty fair country where everyone has about the same amount of wealth! No big ol' mean nasty oil companies there! Venezuela is pretty fair! No evil oil companies there huh!?!
I know I know, nothing I said was coherent, and it sounds retarded, but hey as long as you say that to yourself then you can easily dismiss it and keep savoring the flavor of your kool aid!
^^^lol, i was just getting ready to define socialism, thanks 818..:stoned:
That'll teach ya to go off posting on another thread you stop light vandalizing mf'er!!! LOL I love that avatar! I need to switch mine up to something a lil' more humorous!
Wow, it's really easy to push your buttons. ;)
By the definition you posted, the government would have to take over all private companies to count as socialism. By the definition you seem to think it means, any form of taxation to fund government programs counts as socialism. Try and resolve this disparity, ok?
Technically, Bush is borrowing money from the Federal Reserve to give people an "Economic Stimulus Package." But since the people who will pay that loan back probably aren't born yet and don't have a say in the matter, I guess you're right. He's not borrowing from them, he's stealing from them.
The $1000 that Bong30 is talking about is a repeal of the payroll tax. I assumed that you knew that. My mistake. It's not a government handout, it's a tax rebate.
WTF does that even mean? I don't suppose it has anything to do with invading other countries on false pretenses?Quote:
real American values
I was just sitting back thinking to myself hmm.... I wonder when khronik will start to bring up the Iraq war, and then miraculously you pulled the infamous Iraq Card................:stoned:Quote:
Originally Posted by khronik
If by "push my buttons" you mean participate in an on line forum and respond to your posts, then yeah sure. If by "push my buttons" you mean make me angry or whatever, then no, sorry, I drop deuces every morning that bother me more than anything anyone could post on a discussion board. :thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by khronik
Wrong. That's YOUR definition, so long as you define socialism in that way you can assure yourself that you don't support a socialist.Quote:
Originally Posted by khronik
any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
Gotta love it when someone tells you what YOU think! Doesn't work on me buddy, I am not a liberal, can't tell me what to think, nice try!Quote:
Originally Posted by khronik
Again, disparity resolved, I never said that "any form of taxation to fund government programs counts as socialism," you just implied that I said that to make yourself sound better I guess?Quote:
Originally Posted by khronik
I did say, TAKING MONEY FROM COMPANIES IN ADDITION TO THE TAXES THAT THEY ALREADY PAY BECAUSE YOU FEEL THEY ALREADY "MAKE ENOUGH MONEY", AND REDISTRIBUTING IT IS A FORM OF SOCIALISM! I don't care if you call it a "windfall profits tax" or not.
Yeah, I recall reading that once before and asking you for a source. I guess the source is you, just repeating it over and over again huh? Let me ask you this, do you realize that the money people received, they PAID into the fed already?Quote:
Originally Posted by khronik
Again, the government paid us back, they borrowed the money from us, it's called the federal income tax. It wasn't their money, it was yours and mine to begin with. Hello, (knock knock knock) McFly?Quote:
Originally Posted by khronik
Really? I really thought that I had heard him say point blank that he would use the "windfall profits tax, aka, theft of private companies money" to give Americans the $1000. I am willing to believe you on this if again you could provide a source other than you.Quote:
Originally Posted by khronik
That being said, sounds like a really nice thing he wants to do for little ol' us, since he wants to double the capitol gains tax, (source, Barak Obama in the democratic primary debates) which is currently @ I believe 15%ish and where he would like it to be @ I believe 28%ish. Nice guy! Hope you don't own any stock!:D That $1000 will come in real handy I guess come tax time.:thumbsup:
[quote=khronik]WTF does that even mean? I don't suppose it has anything to do with invading other countries on false pretenses?[/quote]
Definitions of incoherent on the Web:
Perfect! Don't forget Bush lied people died, the government blew up the levies in N.O., the 911 conspiracy, and oh yeah, global warming!
- without logical or meaningful connection
Thanks for the real life example of incoherent!
:S2::S2::S2::S2:
Ok, now you are starting to fucking scare me!! Just kidding, how funny is that though!:D:DQuote:
Originally Posted by ldg420
You must have a copy of the liberal playbook too huh? Isn't that like page 5 where it says "no matter what you are talking about, don't fail to mention Bush took us to war under false pretenses, and if possible somehow get in there a catchy rhyme like "Bush lied People Died".
It's fun to debate liberals, especially when you can almost write the posts for them! So predictable! Oh yeah, and Bush eats babies and kills polar bears too!:D And he's listening in on my phone calls too! Shit! LMFAO!
It's so easy! How can you blame me? Would you criticize Jeffery Dahmer without mentioning that he killed people and ate them?Quote:
Originally Posted by ldg420
Quote:
Originally Posted by khronik
Yeah except the post is about Obama taking profits from private companies that earned them and has nothing to do with Bush? So I guess somehow I am missing the correlation between Bush and the Iraq War, and Obama being a socialist pinko?
But yeah if you are talking about Dahmer that makes sense to mention he ate people I guess?
Definitions of incoherent on the Web:
- without logical or meaningful connection
8182, and idg420,Quote:
Originally Posted by ldg420
You guys are allright. Taking care of the Light work.......
Quote:
Originally Posted by khronik
You twist the truth to fit your Hate......
"I believe that America's free market has been the engine of America's great progress. It's created a prosperity that is the envy of the world. It's led to a standard of living unmatched in history. And it has provided great rewards to the innovators and risk-takers who have made America a beacon for science, and technology, and discovery?We are all in this together. From CEOs to shareholders, from financiers to factory workers, we all have a stake in each other's success because the more Americans prosper, the more America prospers."
That last sentence there says it all, and that is my opinion of what socialism is. Although it is partly true, but it does not mean everybody should get an equal share, just equal opportunity.
And on a different point, Do you know what the "payroll tax" is...Social Security, which is going broke. So the messiah wants to give every american $1000 X 350 million Americans is $350 billion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by McDanger
YES McDanger you are using LOGIC and Reasoning....
Most Liberals have lost THAT ability....they make all there decisions Based on emotion.
Every one should get an equal opportunity....What you do with it is called "the American Dream"
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8182KSKUSH
Right on Point FUNNY.......
they go right to the Bumper stickers, dont they.
"Usually you think of pot smokers as being hippies who are more liberally inclined... it just seems strange that there are so few of them here, and so many libertarians."
So much for stereotypes. Not all pot smokers fit the hippie stereotype - not even close.
Your point is right on. BTW, Exxon/Mobile has a profit margin of 8%, for every dollar they take in, they make 8cents. They already pay more in taxes than thier after tax profit, would any of you want to pay out over 60% of your paycheck in tax? And I'm not going to provide the link to thier financials, they are readily available to anybody with 2 fingers.Quote:
Originally Posted by khronik
Yeah they make 8%...and they do all the work.Quote:
Originally Posted by McDanger
the Goverment takes in taxes that make, what, like..... 16-40 and more cents per gallon for what? NOTHING... red tape?
You dont need to provide the financials, cause it is obvious to anybody with 2 brain cells to rub together...
Do you own a 401k? If you do you know that the options you can invest are actually collections of various stocks. Some/most of which include Oil.Quote:
Originally Posted by khronik
Really it's common sense and not necessarily something that can be verified as you would need access to all the different 401k programs to source it.
I had to do a bit of a clean up in aisle seven just now. Lets keep this thread without the insults and directed to the topic.
Thank you much for your cooperation....:D
Have a good one!:jointsmile:
$1000 x 300 million population = $300,000,000,000. And people wonder why I was against the 1st and second Tax Rebates Bush sent out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gandalf_The_Grey
Yes.. 300 billion will effect the profits of oil companies to where it trickles down to the consumer. What you fail to realize is that a 401k is an investment, and while you may not lose $1k... you are still doing the opposite of what a 401k should do and that is build money/funds.
In addition even if yo ulose $100 from your 401k... that $100 had an oppurtunity to turn into Thousands or tens of thousands but now it will never have that chance since it's lost.
I thought it was stupid also, but apparently our reasons for thinking the stimulus package was stupid are for different reasons.Quote:
I don't buy any of this thread, but didn't George Bush basically do the same thing a few months ago? Sent about $200-$600 to everybody as an "economic stimulus package", which every economist later agreed did NOTHING to stimulate the economy, while wasting millions in public money.
It's not tax breaks that make me think that Republicans will do any better. It's the amount that Obama plans on taxing corporations. Currently Companies have some incentive to be here. If you hurt their profits companies will cut jobs or move their factories elsewhere that it's cheaper to manufacturer. Combine a bad economy with a high unemployment rate and it's just a recipe for disaster.Quote:
This particular plan of Obama's will do very little if anything, but you'd have to be a fool to think the Republican economic policies have been any wiser. McSame was all ready to jump on the 3-month gas-tax break that would amount to a mammoth $34 savings for the average American. Nothing but a little (illusionary) gift to buy some votes, while not actually accomplishing anything to fix a broken economy.
It's no secret that companies will cut their employees if their profit line is hurt. Look at Wachovia very recently and Historically HP/Compaq. Two very real situations at what happens when a companies profits are hurt.
I didn't want either of these candidates, Just like you I would like Ron Paul with a strong VP to fill in the gaps. However there is nothing wrong with voting for the status quo. America is really not a bad place to live currently. I think, despite what many others will try to have you believe, that we are one of the greatest countries on this planet and I am PROUD to call this my home.Quote:
Democrat or Republican, Americans still seem bent on voting for the safe 'ol candidates that will tweak the status quo while the nation circles the drain. Of course you get anybody with some fiscal responsibility and actual respect for the constitution (aka, Ron Paul), and joe-schmo voter thinks you're an "extremist" for actually taking the action necessary to bring about the real change that they keep demanding but refuse to vote for.
You are right of course. That is because us libertarians love FREEDOM, and hate Gov't intrusion into our lives.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iguana
I am a proud Libertarian. GO LIBERTY:D
Quote:
Originally Posted by daihashi
Sorry daihashi but your numbers are pretty skewed here. The rebate isn't going out to each and every single American, it's going out to the "middle class", however that's defined (probably $150,000 a year or less as he defines it). 300 million Americans include children and the homeless, both of which probably make up more than the working adults.
Now I'm completely pulling numbers out of my ass here, but for the sake of creating a ballpark figure:
300 million Americans.
lets say 250 million middle class as defined by Obama
divided by an average family size of, lets say, 6 people: 41.66 million x 1000
= $41.66 Billion
(again, ballpark figure)
Still a huge waste of money, and lets face it; Dems and Reps have become masters of waste.
Regarding the original thread; I've seen no evidence that big-oil taxation is actually paying for this $1000 rebate. Obama wants to put a profits-tax cap on the oil companies, he wants to institute a $1000 rebate; nowhere has he said that they're going to directly take $41.66 billion from oil companies and give it directly to the American people. Oil company taxation and the rebate are two separate issues. Just being new doesn't make the two initiaves linked. You could just as easily say the rebate is coming from income tax, property tax, or any other source that makes it's way into the government coffers.
You're right.. my numbers were skewed. I don't know what I was thinking multiplying by 300 million.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gandalf_The_Grey
In regards to tax rebate and oil companies:
Obama Calls for Tax Rebates Funded by Windfall Profits Tax on Oil Companies - The Tax Justice Digest
from ctj.org:Obama's 'emergency' economic plan - Mike Allen - Politico.comQuote:
Presidential candidate Barack Obama has talked up several proposals relating to energy and taxes over the past couple weeks, including a one-time tax rebate of $500 per spouse that would be funded by a five-year windfall profits tax on oil companies.
From politico:CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Obama calls for windfall profits tax, ‘emergency’ energy rebate « - Blogs from CNN.comQuote:
Friday??s proposal says Obama ??is proposing to offset the cost of his emergency energy rebates over the next five years by enacting a windfall profits tax on big oil companies.?
From CNN:Lastly in one of the artices Obama claims to be able to save 1 million American jobs by the rebates.. I ask you... what do you think will happen when companies are being taxed upwards of 40% (I believe that's where Obama wants to move the tax to) and start cutting jobs. Let's say that the unemployment rate only rises 1%.. if you go by the 300 million population figure that's about 3 million jobs that would be lost. If you look at it from the 41.66 million of the adults that would get the rebate.. then that's still 416k jobs that would be lost. Does that really make sense to you? Let's help Americans save jobs by creating conditions that make companies have to cut jobs. I don't understand that logic at all.Quote:
Barack Obama said Friday that a windfall profits tax should be imposed on the oil industry to subsidize a $1,000 "emergency" rebate for consumers struggling with surging gas prices.
I predict that if he get's that 40% tax that there will be much more than a 1% unemployment rate increase.
Lastly.. what right do we have to tell a company what they have to make? What right does someone have to tell me how much I'm allowed to make before heavy taxation?
Thankyou Daihashi! I'm glad some posters are still making arguments based on evidence rather than wishy-washy rhetoric. I have a policy of remaining skeptical 'till I see some solid evidence, and this is the first I've seen in this thread so far.
Does Obama advocate the government owning or administering the means of production and distribution of goods? Of course not. Maybe some services like health insurance, but that's hardly socialism.Quote:
Originally Posted by 8182KSKUSH
I did look, and while I found plenty of sources where he said he wanted to create a windfall profits tax, and plenty where he said he wanted to rescind the payroll tax, I didn't find any where he linked them. I did find plenty of conservative news outlets that linked them though.Quote:
Really? I really thought that I had heard him say point blank that he would use the "windfall profits tax, aka, theft of private companies money" to give Americans the $1000. I am willing to believe you on this if again you could provide a source other than you.
He said he wants to raise it to somewhere between 20 and 28 percent. He knows as well as you do that raising it too high is counterproductive.Quote:
That being said, sounds like a really nice thing he wants to do for little ol' us, since he wants to double the capitol gains tax, (source, Barak Obama in the democratic primary debates) which is currently @ I believe 15%ish and where he would like it to be @ I believe 28%ish. Nice guy! Hope you don't own any stock!:D That $1000 will come in real handy I guess come tax time.:thumbsup:
You still haven't answered my question, as to what "Real American Values" means. Since you were implying that you have to be conservative to have "Real American Values", I pointed out the most widely-known fuck-up by American conservatives.Quote:
Definitions of incoherent on the Web:
Perfect! Don't forget Bush lied people died, the government blew up the levies in N.O., the 911 conspiracy, and oh yeah, global warming!
- without logical or meaningful connection
Thanks for the real life example of incoherent!
:S2::S2::S2::S2:
Not everyone pays the payroll tax. Babies, unemployed, old people, etc.Quote:
$1000 x 300 million population = $300,000,000,000.
No. I'm a grad student now. But I do have an account invested in mutual funds, with about $20,000 in it. It's been losing money steadily for the last two years. Somehow I doubt Obama is going to make it worse than it is now.Quote:
Do you own a 401k? If you do you know that the options you can invest are actually collections of various stocks. Some/most of which include Oil.
One typical response is that the oil company profits are made at the expense of the environment. Therefore, these companies should be taxed extra to make up for the environmental problems caused by what they produce.Quote:
Lastly.. what right do we have to tell a company what they have to make? What right does someone have to tell me how much I'm allowed to make before heavy taxation?
8% of all the oil sold in the US is still a fuckload of money. And where do you think paved roads come from? The magic road fairy? Gas taxes are a bargain, considering what we get from them.Quote:
Yeah they make 8%...and they do all the work.
the Goverment takes in taxes that make, what, like..... 16-40 and more cents per gallon for what? NOTHING... red tape?
Just because I support Obama in this election, doesn't mean I'm a liberal. Hell, I voted for Michael Badnarik in 2004. He was the libertarian candidate. I've always been against the two-party system, but Obama has made a career out of listening to his constituents instead of party ideology. I think that as president, he would continue to do the same.
its called weednomics.....:thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by khronik
No but it's a socialized service. Which comes out of our pockets one way or another. Increase Capital Gains tax and guess what's going to happen.. unemployment rate will shoot up. Companies want to protect their profits. So guess who still ends up paying for this.. WE do in the form of a higher unemployment rate.Quote:
Originally Posted by khronik
Hey we may be unemployed and starving, but at least we have health insurance :thumbsup:
What are you talking about here? No one ever spoke about rescinding the payroll tax and as far as I know neither has Obama. He has talked about rescinding the Bush tax cuts. If I'm wrong please let me know. I sincerely don't recall the payroll tax; my brain is on overload these days.Quote:
I did look, and while I found plenty of sources where he said he wanted to create a windfall profits tax, and plenty where he said he wanted to rescind the payroll tax, I didn't find any where he linked them. I did find plenty of conservative news outlets that linked them though.
And he has specifically said that the stimulus package would be funded over the next 5 years by a windfall profits tax placed on companies. I'm not sure how much clearer it needs to be.
Here are some non-conservative sites I posted earlier in the thread:
CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Obama calls for windfall profits tax, ??emergency?? energy rebate « - Blogs from CNN.com
Obama's 'emergency' economic plan - Mike Allen - Politico.com
Obama Calls for Tax Rebates Funded by Windfall Profits Tax on Oil Companies - The Tax Justice Digest
Cap gains rate: How high would Obama go? - Jun. 20, 2008Quote:
He said he wants to raise it to somewhere between 20 and 28 percent. He knows as well as you do that raising it too high is counterproductive.
Correct... he does want to raise it from 15% to between 20-28%. Do you honestly think that 5% more of a companies profits is not a big deal??? How do you think companies make budgets for.. oh.. let's say raises, benefits, new hires. What factors do you think a company takes into account when trying to price their product.. profit is one of them... Trust me having worked for a number of fortune 500's where all companies deal in very large numbers.... 5% is a massive increase. And in all likely hood he'll probably move the number somewhere closer to 23-24%. I believe that article I posted outlined something like that.
Let's do some math.. company XYZ made $4billion in profits last year and got hit with a 15% tax..
$4,000,000,000 - 15% = 600,000,000 or $600 Million.
Now let's increase that to 20%
$4,000,000,000 - 20% = 800,000,000 or $800 million or 1/5th of their profits.
now let's set that in the middle at 24%
$4,000,000,000 - 24% = 960,000,000 almost 1 billion dollars.
The figure for the full 28% is 1.2 billion.
That is a substantial chunk of money that you are now taking from companies.. which in turn takes away money from investors. Investors sell due to declining profits.. companies cut jobs to appease investor and to save it's profits.
Look at Wachovia bank very recently when it reported it's losses. It cut thousands of jobs right there on the spot without even batting an eye.
If you own a home then you know that even though the numbers are small.. there is a pretty substantial increase between 2.8% tax and 3.4% tax. For my home the difference is from 4k to almost 5k. That is significant despite such a small increase.
It works the same for companies who EMPLOY YOU... who make the products YOU use.. who provide services YOU need. Do you think that these people won't roll the tax over onto you somehow either through job layoffs or increase in the cost of products and services?
In the end we all suffer for capital gains.
This disgusts me. You are obviously wanting to lash out against people who may have a tendency to lean to the right. Honestly I think that coined term is a load of Bologney. I have a very strong moral core and a concrete value system that does not align with conservatives or liberals perfectly. Yet people want to label me. Toss aside your labels that are used at attempt to insult others. If you're conservative then embrace it (as many conservatives already do) and if you're liberal then stop being chicken shit and just say that this is what you believe (honestly most liberals do seem to be ashamed of the word liberal and I've never understood why).Quote:
You still haven't answered my question, as to what "Real American Values" means. Since you were implying that you have to be conservative to have "Real American Values", I pointed out the most widely-known fuck-up by American conservatives.
Now if someone were to say it is not in the United States best interest to elect Obama then I would have to STRONGLY agree.
Yes.. apparently I was high when I wrote that. Good job repeating what someone else already pointed out :thumbsup:Quote:
Not everyone pays the payroll tax. Babies, unemployed, old people, etc.
You realize that you can control that account right? If you are losing money than that is just poor investment.Quote:
No. I'm a grad student now. But I do have an account invested in mutual funds, with about $20,000 in it. It's been losing money steadily for the last two years. Somehow I doubt Obama is going to make it worse than it is now.
Might I recommend some books on learning to read the market from the pioneer himself Benjamin Graham?
Check out the Intelligent Investor and Security Analysis. Both are excellent reads. If you're losing money then that is no one's fault but you're own. This is a free market society and because the government doesn't control every aspect of that the condition of a stock can go in either direction. However through careful analysis and calculation you can determine if a company will be profitable in the long term or not.
Key word being LONG TERM. Investing is a long term thing. You won't make much money if you are doing short term investing.
Do you even know what is in your mutual fund?
Either way just from your response it seems you have little experience in the way of finances. I really didn't need you to throw a number out there, but since you did 20k is not that much. It's a good starting point though.
You are in control of your own money. You don't want to lose any more money but don't know how to invest.. PULL IT OUT and invest in a bond or CD or something else with a crappy vested amount value. At least you won't be losing money.
You always have a choice. This is America, don't put your losses off on someone else.
If that is the typical response then tell me why are we increasing the capital gains tax. Why don't we impose an environmental tax (which I believe already exists but have to verify) on the companies?Quote:
One typical response is that the oil company profits are made at the expense of the environment. Therefore, these companies should be taxed extra to make up for the environmental problems caused by what they produce.
This seems like a poor rebuttal. Try again khronik.
You're right.. it is a shit ton of money. Now take 30% of that 8%... That's a pretty hefty chunk you just took out of that 8%. 1/3 of that is gone now. Where do you think jobs, benefits, raises, cheap products and services come from? Certainly not from heavy taxation of companies!Quote:
8% of all the oil sold in the US is still a fuckload of money. And where do you think paved roads come from? The magic road fairy? Gas taxes are a bargain, considering what we get from them.
2 terms in the senate constitutes a career?Quote:
but Obama has made a career out of listening to his constituents instead of party ideology. I think that as president, he would continue to do the same.
Name 5 major accomplishments Obama has made during his time in the senate.
Please provide sources and elaborate how these were 'accomplishments' when compared to other long standing politicians.
Even other senators who back Barack Obama can't name any of his accomplishments
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGeu_4Ekx-o[/YOUTUBE]