Chilly Posted June 10, 2008 Share Posted June 10, 2008 We are fighting a war that many have equated to being just like WWII... Not exactly a New Deal item as it was a war item... How about rationing gas? Ya, like that would really float. Like Tom said... We have the war part... And if it wasn't for the mega GDP we would be in a full blown depression. And how do you think this idea of rationing gas would impact the US economy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted June 10, 2008 Author Share Posted June 10, 2008 I hate to break it to you but this country is socialist in a number of aspects since we all use a number of shared services and facilities provided by the government. Taking over an industry is not the sole bailiwick of socialism. You like Joe's idea? Have the Gov. take over the Oil companys? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted June 10, 2008 Share Posted June 10, 2008 And how do you think this idea of rationing gas would impact the US economy? Pretty crappy I suppose... It would get the fat asses off the couch and take it to the streets at least! Signed, Radical in Illinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted June 10, 2008 Share Posted June 10, 2008 Presidents make laws? Since when? Use the "war" as the catch all... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted June 10, 2008 Share Posted June 10, 2008 Really what do you do for a living? Do you make more than your parents did? Do you think the CEO's, CFO's of these companies were born rich and just given the keys. How many of the F500 companies didn't even exist 50 years ago? The poor get poorer mostly through choice. The rich get richer through choice. If you want to work at the steel plant because your dad, granddad did that's up to you. But you have your head in the sand if you didn't see the demise of the industry. The unions are a big problem in this country and the union mentaility of people having soeme kind of job for life guanantee. Well that concept in reality is long gone. Socialism doesn't work just ask China, Cuba, Russia, etc... People get what they work for and part of that work means to constantly reinvent and learn new things. Just because 30 years ag you were the best damn buddy whip maker in the country doesn't mean 30 years later there is a viable market for buggy whips. The government and the buggy whip industry should have to continue paying you great wages just because you are good at an antiquated skill that is no longer required. I've been in I.T. my whole career (programmer, BA, system analyst, staff analyst), never been in a union. Went to night school to get my MBA. Worked for Carrier for 21 years before they moved the manufacturing I supported to China and Singapore, not because they were losing money, but they wanted to make more money with cheap labor and lax regulations. I make more at my current job than I ever have, but job security is a bigger issue for me than how much I make. And I worry about all the other people who are worse off than me with less options. No country has tried true socialism, they end up having some people "more equal than others". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted June 10, 2008 Author Share Posted June 10, 2008 Use the "war" as the catch all... Read the Jay Rockefeller report: On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates." On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information." On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information." On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information." Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence." Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted June 10, 2008 Share Posted June 10, 2008 Presidents make laws? Since when? You just burst a bubble. So brace yourself - you are going to be accused of being "mean-spirited". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In-A-Gadda-Levitre Posted June 10, 2008 Share Posted June 10, 2008 Presidents make laws? Since when? try googling signing statements our current president has raised this to an art form Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted June 10, 2008 Share Posted June 10, 2008 Read the Jay Rockefeller report: On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates." On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information." On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information." On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information." Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence." Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information." Should have listened to me... I proved to be a lot more intelligent! That is saying a lot! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted June 10, 2008 Author Share Posted June 10, 2008 try googling signing statements Its debatable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted June 10, 2008 Share Posted June 10, 2008 try googling signing statements our current president has raised this to an art form Isn't he way down on the list of vetoing legislation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted June 10, 2008 Author Share Posted June 10, 2008 You just burst a bubble. So brace yourself - you are going to be accused of being "mean-spirited". I do my best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In-A-Gadda-Levitre Posted June 10, 2008 Share Posted June 10, 2008 Isn't he way down on the list of vetoing legislation? in terms of sheer numbers, no, he's not the biggest issuer. But his way of using them and in what context has people shouting WTF. As an example, he will sign a bill from congress, invite the creators to the White House and praise them, then as soon as they're gone, issue a signing statement that he intends to ignore major portions of the bill because they conflict with his constitutional powers as his office interprets them. In other cases, he's signed things like the warrantless wiretap bill without going to congress and getting authorization. Even his National Security Chief Connie Rice or his Secy of State (Colin Powell) didn't get to review it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted June 10, 2008 Share Posted June 10, 2008 I'll fully admit, I know approximately zero about the oil industry. I have no idea if a windfall tax on them is a good idea or bad idea, although at first blush it seems like a bad one to me. On the other hand, there does seem to be something criminally wrong with the oil industry. And it surely doesn't seem right that when everyone is suffering the most, they are profiting the most. And while I fully understand that they spend a lot of money on R&D and allegedly looking for new ways to find and make oil, they surely haven't been able to come up with much. And there surely seems to be a huge incentive NOT to. So regardless of party you may lean to, or hate all parties, and all government, what exactly does anyone THINK should be done with or to or for the oil companies by the government, or do people here really believe we should just let them do business as usual because it is working out so well for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted June 10, 2008 Share Posted June 10, 2008 Capitalism is overrated Until you compare it to every other system. the gap between rich and poor is growing So what? This by itself is indicative of nothing. The major corporations give us the illusion that we have equal economic opportunity, and try to pacify us with cheaper Tupperware at Walmart, but it's all smoke and mirrors. Right. Which explains why people from all over the globe still come to this country for economic opportunity. Idiots like you forgot that the word is opportunity, not guarantee. I think it's time we try some socialism. That's because you are a moron. We have already traveled far down the road of socialism over the past 40 years and it's been a disaster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted June 10, 2008 Share Posted June 10, 2008 That's because you are a moron. We have already traveled far down the road of socialism over the past 40 years and it's been a disaster. And you're the reason inbreeding is discouraged if you want to play that game, so it's not suprising that you offer no solutions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted June 10, 2008 Share Posted June 10, 2008 And you're the reason inbreeding is discouraged That was uncalled for Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills_fan Posted June 10, 2008 Share Posted June 10, 2008 I'll fully admit, I know approximately zero about the oil industry. I have no idea if a windfall tax on them is a good idea or bad idea, although at first blush it seems like a bad one to me. On the other hand, there does seem to be something criminally wrong with the oil industry. And it surely doesn't seem right that when everyone is suffering the most, they are profiting the most. And while I fully understand that they spend a lot of money on R&D and allegedly looking for new ways to find and make oil, they surely haven't been able to come up with much. And there surely seems to be a huge incentive NOT to. So regardless of party you may lean to, or hate all parties, and all government, what exactly does anyone THINK should be done with or to or for the oil companies by the government, or do people here really believe we should just let them do business as usual because it is working out so well for us. A couple of things, and I am by no means an oil industry expert, so any corrections are welcome... I can see five solutions to the present problem. They should all be done simultaneously. Taken in tandem, they should reduce the price significantly. 1- Increase Supply. - The world's daily output of oil has not changed since 2005. The amount of oil has remained stagnant, while industrial demand from India and China has increased. Domestically, we can tap sources such as the gulf coast and ANWR to increase our supply, reducing our need to import. We can (and are) developing technology to tap our oil shale resources. Any increase in supply will lower the price. 2- Increase the Margin Requirements for Traders. - Traders currently have very little margin requirements, the amount of money they need to put up to purchase an oil futures contract. You can have $5 controlling $100 worth of assets (and worse in some instances). If the margin requirements were raised such that $20 was necessary to control $100 worth of assets (as in most other types of securities), the price would drop, as you need more cash to accomplish the same speculation. This is known as closing the "Enron" loophole. 3- Increase Refining Capacity. - We are woefully underserved as nation in refining capacity. No new refineries have been built in over 20 years (although one town in either Montana or Wisconsin has voted to build one very recently). This is due to a combination of very difficult regulatory requirements and NIMBY. If the regulatory requirements were streamlined, I have often thought that a refinery or two could be a great boost to the local Buffalo economy. 4- Continue to develop real alternative energy sources. - I use the world real to knock the ridiculous ethanol out of the argument. Nuclear, marine and wind power can all help ease the burden but research into developing the hydrogen fuel cell should become a very large priority. 5 - Strengthen the US dollar. - The Fed has let the dollar get shamefully cheap. This forces the price of oil up as oil contracts are traded in dollars, hence the hedge (would you rather own oil contracts or dollars?) I don't attribute it to Bernake because he is still cleaning up Greenspan's mess. Greenspan could really have been the worst Fed chairman in several generations. Creating conditions that lead to speculative bubbles is not a recipe for sustainable economic growth. Greenspan's Fed led to two massive bubbles (equity and housing). Bernake, in seeking to mitigate the housing bubble, has created a commodities bubble. The recent language regarding interest rate rises later in 2008 is a very positive sign, even though it could hit the brakes on the overall economy. Any suggestions of windfall profit taxes is, IMHO, ridiculous. Yes, oil companies make large profits. They also happen to be some of the largest US corporations and pay some of the largest taxes in the country. They are already investing heavily in R&D, and would invest more if they were allowed to drill the gulf coast and ANWR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted June 10, 2008 Share Posted June 10, 2008 I'll fully admit, I know approximately zero about the oil industry. I have no idea if a windfall tax on them is a good idea or bad idea, although at first blush it seems like a bad one to me. On the other hand, there does seem to be something criminally wrong with the oil industry. And it surely doesn't seem right that when everyone is suffering the most, they are profiting the most. And while I fully understand that they spend a lot of money on R&D and allegedly looking for new ways to find and make oil, they surely haven't been able to come up with much. And there surely seems to be a huge incentive NOT to. I disagree that there is a huge incentive for them not to be successful in R&D - the long-term success of their companies depends on finding more forms of oil and energy. I also am not going to pretend that any R&D solutions to oil and energy will be anything short of very-long-term solutions (cept Exxon, apparently) So regardless of party you may lean to, or hate all parties, and all government, what exactly does anyone THINK should be done with or to or for the oil companies by the government, or do people here really believe we should just let them do business as usual because it is working out so well for us. I'm not so sure anything should be or could be done to oil companies by the government. Anything done will likely have the effect of causing gas prices to increase. I think the real question would be: How do you better encourage investment into R&D of alternative energy sources? The classic Republican answer would be to cut taxes in exchange for doing so, while the classic Democratic answer would be to have government spend money researching it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted June 10, 2008 Share Posted June 10, 2008 I think it's time we try some socialism. Have you ever talked to an ambitious person who lived in a socialist system? They don't have a lot of very nice things to say about it. I wonder why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts