What has the right done in 5 years of total control?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Jun 4 2006, 06:28 AM) [snapback]265523[/snapback]</div>

No, you haven't. You haven't answered one question. You bring up Alito and Roberts. That's it? That's all you've got to be proud of in six years? Hell, even I, as an admitted Bush-hater, can come up with more than that...unfortunately, the list is still far too small.

Proof positive that far too many Republicans are just drinking the kool-aid because it makes them feel all warm and fuzzy...and have no idea what's going on in this country. And unfortunately, several of my closest friends have fallen into this trap, as well. (Note I didn't say "Conservative." There is NO WAY a fiscal "Conservative" can support this adminstration...)

And, as far as the tax credit for hybrids that was listed...puh-leeeze. I love it, too, but can be pretty sure that Gore would've pushed for more...either a credit to us as owners or an incentive to the manufacturers for production that we would've seen in the sticker price.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jun 8 2006, 09:17 AM) [snapback]267877[/snapback]</div>

When I hear this, I choke. Wow...five years. First of all, I'm assuming by "innocent civilian murders" you mean "terrorist attacks" because I feel certain that amongst the thousands of people murdered in the country in the past five years, at least a few of them were "innocent."

Refresh my memory...wasn't it eight years b/t 9/11 and the previous innocent civilian murders on our homeland? (Not counting, of course, McVey, because he was a homegrown terrorist.)

How can that be a feather in your cap when 9/11 actually happened on this adminstration's watch? Don't give me the tripe about Clinton's legacy. What is undisputable is that from '93 WTC to '01, there was not one terrorist attack on US homeland. (And technically, using the same arguments that the righties say about '01, one could argue that '93 WTC was caused by the legacy of the Sr. Bush. But I don't believe that, either.)

Let the flaming begin.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(livelychick @ Jun 11 2006, 08:44 PM) [snapback]269736[/snapback]</div>

The other flaw in that "not a single attack since 9/11" routine is (other than, of course, what does a negative event prove- we have not been invaded by any other countries in five years either) that it shows the typical lack of understanding of the adversary. People who have actually studied Islamic fundamentalist all say that one of their salient characteristics is a different sense of time than we have. The American mindset is to immediately react to anything, so that when an event since 9/11 occurs, for instance, we have a need to respond immediately. Not so with al Qaeda; they could be hatching a plot for another attack that might not be planned for 5 or 10 years from now. So that really proves nothing.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(malorn @ Jun 8 2006, 01:30 PM) [snapback]268206[/snapback]</div>

Yeah, they need to lose the image that they are anti-faith, for one. Carville and Begala were interviewed a few weeks ago on Tim Russert's program about their book on this very issue, and the perception that the Democrat Party was anti-faith was one of their main points. Another one was to abandon gun control as a national policy; let the cities and states where there is a gun problem and leave rural gun owners ... like Carville and Begala! ... alone. They had several other points, but they all indicated a move to the middle on some of the issues, while maintaining the historic position of the party on worker's rights, social support issues, and expanded government roles "where it makes sense".

The party activists are far more liberal than the rest of the nation, just as the party activists for the Republicans are far more conservative than the rest of the nation. Candidates in both parties have a heck of a time getting nominated and then moving as quick as they can to the center to try and appeal to the rest of the electorate.

 

Apparently the good Mr. d. doesn't care about the innocent people murdered by drunk drivers, or the innocent children who die for lack of affordable health care, or all the innocent people killed as the result of poverty-related crime. It's only if you are killed by a foreigner acting out of political motivations that you'll get his sympathy.

The total number of people who die by preventable causes dwarfs the sub-set of those killed by foreign "terrorists." Yet our governments (both Dem's and Repub's) will spend billions to try to prevent terrorism, but won't spend a dime on preventative health care or jailing drunk drivers who are by far the greater terrorist threat.

Speaking for myself, I drive my car most days, and I am far more scared of drunk drivers than I am of al Queda!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Che @ Jun 3 2006, 05:24 PM) [snapback]265270[/snapback]</div>

This is where I disagree, Oil is not and should not be a product of supply and demand. It is simply too vital for every day life. Almost a must have. Tennis shoes for $200 are a product of supply and demand not all shoes cost that much. Therefore, we have a choice. Yes, I understand there are alternatives, however do we really want to go back to horse and buggies? I believe Oil should be regulated. I have no problem with making a profit but not EXCESS profit at the expense of the general population.

 

"Almost a must have." An enormous understatement. We depend totally on cheap fuel - to run cars, warm houses, run the agricultural and trucking industries, pesticides, plastics, - really everything we need to live.


The oil industry is certainly making obscene profits due largely to their control of the sources via the us military - hence the gulf war, Iraq, possible action in Venezuela. All wars to enable the US oil companies to effectively "own" other people's resources and thereby reap huge profits. On the other hand, there is a law of supply and demand and oil is running out. The depletion of oil and gas is one of the most serious problems the world faces, along with global warming. Oil companies should absolutely be required to spend a high percentage of their billions in profits on developing alternative and renewable energy sources - wind, solar, fusion, biomass, coal gasification and geo-thermal. These new sources, together with vastly increased effeciency in the way we consume energy are really the only way to any kind of future for civilization.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Jun 12 2006, 08:57 AM) [snapback]269873[/snapback]</div>

Pretty hard to argue with this...

h34r:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Jun 12 2006, 04:15 PM) [snapback]270097[/snapback]</div>

At least they're not isolated.

 

1. What they have the Republicans done that you are proud of?
Stayed in power, regardless of attempts to get them out of power, even though it may be for a short time.
They have also managed to bring to the forefront questions that would not otherwise be addressed (ex.
abortion)

2. How have they made America better in general?
They haven't. Then again, neither would any other party. It is called politics for a reason. Promises are
made that are, by and large, not kept.

3. How have they made us safer?
Maybe, a little bit. But the same progress would have taken place under any other party.

4. Aren't you angry that they haven't made abortion illegal? (That's what they've been saying they'd do for years?)
Like that is really going to happen. That is not a political problem (though it is made out to be one).
It is an entitlement problem. But that is an entire thread unto itself.

5. Aren't you mad they are cutting veteran's benefits?
Yep. Does that surprise you?

6. Do you realize almost none of them have ever served in the military? (except Rumsfield who was a desk jockey.)
And what the heck does that have to do with the price of rice in China? Just because a person serves in the
military does not make him/her qualified for public service. Not that service in the military isn't honorable,
but there are (and have been) some who have served our country in the military bravely who wouldn't
have the slightest idea of what to do if they held public office.

I remember the time when Jack Kennedy was assassinated. And I clearly remember thinking to myself 'why would anybody do such a thing?' I also remember the speaker of the house, Tip O'Niell, Vietname (brother in law did a tour of duty - USMC), Watergate 'can you spell DUMB?', Jimmy Carter, Reagen, etc. I don't recall the Republicans hijacking this country, but I sure have heard about it!

So the Democrats 'lost control of the country'. Perhaps that will help redefine and clarify the Democratic
Party. For me as a Republican who still believes that smaller government is better, I am disappointed by
the current administration. Still, before I am a Republican, I am an American, and I can (and do) vote for
the person(s) that are the best suited for the respective positions that are being sought, regardless of
party affiliation.

In so doing, I am unaware that I am supporting criminals. I am aware, of course, that many want to make
the current war in Iraq criminal. Neither am I aware that the Republican party is 'in office solely to line its pockets with money'. If one looked, one could say that about members from any party...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hjon71 @ Jun 12 2006, 09:15 AM) [snapback]269945[/snapback]</div>

You sound like a socialist. And I agree with you. The free market should not be permitted to set the price of necessities.

However, we do live in a capitalist society, where greed is the official state religion and money is god. And the oil industry owns the current administration. In the history of the world, wolves have never passed laws against eating sheep.

Also, the cost of extracting oil is rising, as easy reserves are depleted and more difficult reserves must be tapped. And as long as we do live in a free market economy, the very fact that oil is so necessary will drive its price up, as the small number of big companies that control it constitute a virtual monopoly and can demand ever higher prices as consumers and industry grow ever more desperate to obtain fuel.

I think the government should put big taxes on fossil fuel and use the money to build alternative-energy infrastructure. But whether they do or not, the price of gas is going up and up as market forces and the cost of production push inexorably onward.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Jun 12 2006, 08:42 PM) [snapback]270239[/snapback]</div>

No question that oil prices will rise with demand. I also agree with taxes on fossil fuel; however, the problem is that they are regressive. The guy driving his Escalade to Starbucks on $3 a gallon gas will still do it when gas is $5 a gallon, although he might drive a bit less. But the single mother working two jobs and driving her kids to daycare might be forced into either paying for gas or medicine. So there has to be some kind of tax relief for people below a certain income level to offset fuel taxes.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(larkinmj @ Jun 12 2006, 07:51 PM) [snapback]270245[/snapback]</div>

Great point, this is why I advocate the "gas guzzler" tax approach, here's how I would like to see it implemented. The tax would be an annual fee being a percentage of the average retail value of the vehicle based on its EPA mileage rating. For example, if the average (combined) EPA is under 20MPG, 10% per year of the value of the vehicle, 20 - 30 5%, 30 - 40 2%, above 40 0. Now if someone wants an Escalade, fine but you'll pay through the nose, sense enough to buy a Prius, tax free. But the single mom on the other had obviously can't afford a new anything and is probably driving an old $300 beater, well the tax is only $30 a year in the worst case.

I would however make an exemption for commercial vehicles, providing the actual use of that vehicle accounts for at least 51% of their income. I say actual use means truckers who own their tractors etc. an Escalade to commute to work don't count.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tleonhar @ Jun 12 2006, 09:18 PM) [snapback]270262[/snapback]</div>

One of the worst loopholes in the federal tax code is the deduction for SUVs for personal use. Originally this provision was added to give a break to farmers and people who need trucks for their business. But it was changed by the current administration to allow anyone to deduct a truck over a certain gross weight for "business purposes." I forget what the GVW is, but it allows deductions for Hummers, Escalaldes, Navigators, etc., but not for smaller SUVs like a Highlander. All you have to do is have a business and say that it's for business purposes. It is very easy to set yourself up as a "consultant" (I've worked as an independent consultant myself), maybe you do accounting or legal advice or whatever, and now that honkin' SUV is a tax write-off. Give a break to farmers, truckers, absolutely- but not to the SOB driving around in an Escalade.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(larkinmj @ Jun 12 2006, 09:00 PM) [snapback]270282[/snapback]</div>

Agreed, there would have to be very tight limits on what would constitute "business need". The consultant example you cited is a prime example. You whould have to prove you needed that vehilce of that class for your business. I know someone who is a real estate agent that claimes he needs an SUV to haul clients, sorry, our Prius' seats 5.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(larkinmj @ Jun 12 2006, 10:00 PM) [snapback]270282[/snapback]</div>

I remember thinking, back in '02 or so, that I didn't understand why all of these crazy-embellished Hummers were driving around town advertising a gas station, or a car wash, or a dry cleaners. We have one in town that is zebra-striped with a small, very small magnetic sign on the side for "Louie's Garage" or something like that. Guess it was all about the tax credit. Makes a lot of sense now.

Thank heavens that the most painted up cars I see now are the Scion xBs (?--I may have the model number wrong, but the little toaster-looking-boxes; gotta be better on the gas mileage). I guess the tax credit on the Hummer wasn't worth it in the long run. I guess that's a bright side...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(larkinmj @ Jun 12 2006, 05:51 PM) [snapback]270245[/snapback]</div>

The solution is not to keep gas cheap, much less a humungous bureaucracy to decide who "deserves" a subsidy. The solution is a living wage for that single mother (and for everyone else!) so people can afford gas, as well as health care, rent, and food. Then make gas expensive enough that people will make lifestyle choices that allow them to use less transportation, or more economical transportation.

If your problem is that rich people like me will NEVER have an economic incentive to burn less gas, then the solution is communism: make sure that everyone has what she needs, and nobody has obscene wealth. But as long as you allow extreme differences in wealth, some people will waste resources while others lack for the basic necessities.

And note that it's not necessary to make everyone equal or eliminate incentives for hard work: just eliminate extreme poverty and obscene wealth.

The regressivity of gas taxes is only a symptom of an underlying and shameful economic injustice that we are accustomed to ignoring because looking straight at it would upset our national myths about being a country where hard work is rewarded. The hardest workers are the poorest, due to unfair wages.

 

Has anyone looked at what the federal goverment tax is for the oil companies? I was in texas college station, gas was $2.93 reg. unleaded / deisel was $2.90.