|
|
Post by Naptaq on Sept 11, 2008 17:43:38 GMT -5
4 Trillion USD debt produced in the last 8 years. Now it's at 9 Trillion. Well, the good news for you is that Obama and McCain will, apperently, both cut taxes. And just how exactly is that good news? I mean where are they going to come up with the money for these tax cuts, Oh wait I don't want to know. If they can cut spending they'll be fine. I believe lower taxes mean higher tax revenues because of the simple fact that economies grow a lot more when there is a small tax burden on them. Well I said lower taxes are good news for you because, in your own words, "I see not reason why I or anyone else for that matter should send them [money] any more." I guess I was wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by MrNice on Sept 11, 2008 17:50:19 GMT -5
tax cuts = more money in your pocket = good news
unfortunately they won't cut taxes most likely
as far as getting money for the tax cuts - its very simple - they get it from the people that pay
taxes
haven't you noticed that oil prices are going down?
|
|
|
|
Post by MrNice on Sept 11, 2008 17:52:27 GMT -5
now some democrats want to freeze foreclosures
democrats will wreck what's left of the economy much faster then republicans - vote McCain
|
|
|
|
Post by HybridMoment on Sept 11, 2008 18:01:34 GMT -5
4 Trillion USD debt produced in the last 8 years. Now it's at 9 Trillion. Well, the good news for you is that Obama and McCain will, apperently, both cut taxes. And just how exactly is that good news? I mean where are they going to come up with the money for these tax cuts, Oh wait I don't want to know. Interesting question, especially now with the mortgage bailout. |
|
|
|
Post by Sweet Pea on Sept 11, 2008 18:04:50 GMT -5
you can't look at one factoid in a vacuum. as the price of fuel goes up and up, taking all the rest of the prices with it, the american taxpayer is going to have less and less surplus cash to give away. Alright. Let's drill! that would be a temporary bandaid on a hemorraghing carotid artery. the US alone uses about 20 million barrels of oil a day. ANWR is predicted by the pro-drilling camp to be capable of producing only about an average of a million barrels of oil a day over a 25 years span...or about the amount of oil we import from nigeria alone. it's also less than 1/10 of what we presently import total. it won't help solve the problem immediately either cuz...well...it's not like just turning on a spigot ya know. until people stop thinking of drilling as a solution to our energy problem, we won't make any real progress towards solving it. alternative technologies are definitely the way to go. they take time to develop too, so we'd better get our minds off this finite energy resource of the past and looking forward. the people who are pushing for oil drilling are the ones who are going to get rich off of it and the people who work for them. we should have turned away from oil and put our emphasis on alternative technologies back in the 70's. every day we delay just makes the future scenario worse. |
|
|
|
Post by malcom72 on Sept 11, 2008 18:23:27 GMT -5
If they can cut spending they'll be fine. I believe lower taxes mean higher tax revenues because of the simple fact that economies grow a lot more when there is a small tax burden on them. Well I said lower taxes are good news for you because, in your own words, "I see not reason why I or anyone else for that matter should send them [money] any more." I guess I was wrong. OK answer this question exactly when has the US government ever cut spending? As I said before "There isn't enough money in the world to satisfy Congress". If you believe that congress will cut spending then I have some ocean front property in Utah for sell. ;D Hey I don't like paying taxes either but tax cuts financed by more deficit spending is something I can do without. Also what happens when the Chinese decide to cut off the USA's credit card? |
|
|
|
Post by MrNice on Sept 11, 2008 18:27:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Sweet Pea on Sept 11, 2008 18:45:03 GMT -5
regardless of what the prices are doing at the moment, the US has an insatiable appetite for oil and oil is a finite resource. pretty stupid to keep drilling and sucking it out of the ground and ignoring the fact that we will have to find ways to adjust to a life without oil when it runs out. stupid AND irresponsible with regard to future generations. |
|
|
|
Post by MrNice on Sept 11, 2008 19:01:00 GMT -5
we will adjust to a life without oil it is not clear what we can do about it right now simply throwing money at problems may not help - and solutions that are forced by the government and not based on the real market/economic demand can actually make things worse here is one example www.csmonitor.com/2007/0521/p09s02-coop.html?page=2 |
|
|
|
Post by Naptaq on Sept 11, 2008 19:22:47 GMT -5
I don't think America wants to be dependend on oil from countries, or organizations that don't like America very much and care only about collecting dough.
Alternatives are coming slowly but surley. Some hybrid cars are extremely popular already.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sweet Pea on Sept 12, 2008 0:23:03 GMT -5
we will adjust to a life without oil oh i'm sure we will, probably gonna be extremely painful though. and for some, even deadly. when this big oil-driven machine which is our society grinds to a halt, there will be plenty of pain to go around. |
|
|
|
Post by Naptaq on Sept 12, 2008 6:18:10 GMT -5
Obama on O'Reilly, part 4 which is the last part www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cr5R0jF3GFQthey're talking oil and Russia I'm happy that both candidates say they will get nuclear power plants up. |
|
|
|
Post by Sweet Pea on Sept 12, 2008 8:50:47 GMT -5
I'm happy that both candidates say they will get nuclear power plants up. oh gee...didn't they teach you about the hazards of nuclear power in school where you live? in case you weren't aware, this is what happened when we developed nuclear power in my state. and unfortunately, due to the nature of nuclear energy, when anyone does this kind of thing anywhere on the planet, it affects everyone's health for eons. "A huge volume of water from the Columbia River was required to dissipate the heat produced by Hanford's nuclear reactors. From 1944 to 1971, pump systems drew cooling water from the river and, after treating this water for use by the reactors, returned it to the river. Before being released back into the river, the used water was held in large tanks known as retention basins for up to six hours. Longer-lived isotopes were not affected by this retention, and several terabecquerels entered the river every day. By 1957, the eight plutonium production reactors at Hanford dumped a daily average of 50,000 curies of radioactive material into the Columbia.[43] These releases were kept secret by the federal government.[4] Radiation was later measured downstream as far west as the Washington and Oregon coasts.[44] The plutonium separation process also resulted in the release of radioactive isotopes into the air, which were carried by the wind throughout southeastern Washington and into parts of Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and British Columbia.[4] Downwinders were exposed to radionuclides, particularly iodine-131, with the heaviest releases during the period from 1945 to 1951. These radionuclides filtered into the food chain via contaminated fields where dairy cows grazed; hazardous fallout was ingested by communities who consumed the radioactive food and drank the milk. Most of these airborne releases were a part of Hanford's routine operations, while a few of the larger releases occurred in isolated incidents. In 1949, an intentional release known as the "Green Run" released 8,000 curies of iodine-131 over two days.[45] Another source of contaminated food came from Columbia River fish, an impact felt disproportionately by Native American communities who depended on the river for their customary diets.[4] Beginning in the 1960s, scientists with the U.S. Public Health Service published reports about radioactivity released from Hanford, and there were protests from the health departments of Oregon and Washington. By February 1986, mounting citizen pressure forced the Department of Energy to release to the public 19,000 pages of previously unavailable historical documents about Hanford’s operations.[4] The Washington State Department of Health collaborated with the citizen-led Hanford Health Information Network (HHIN) to publicize data about the health effects of Hanford’s operations. HHIN reports concluded that residents who lived downwind from Hanford or who used the Columbia River downstream were exposed to elevated doses of radiation that placed them at increased risk for various cancers and other diseases.[4] A class-action lawsuit brought by two thousand Hanford downwinders against the federal government has been in the court system for many years.[46] The first six plaintiffs went to trial in 2005, in a bellwether trial to test the legal issues applying to the remaining plaintiffs in the suit.[47]" Hanford Site |
|
|
|
Post by MrNice on Sept 12, 2008 9:06:13 GMT -5
don't worry
whatever either candidate says he is planning to do has little to do with what he is actually going to do
|
|
|
|
Post by Naptaq on Sept 12, 2008 10:55:05 GMT -5
don't worry whatever either candidate says he is planning to do has little to do with what he is actually going to do We'll see about that. |
|
