A question for the Obamunists

[_Porter_]

RACK Cuda and RF!

[Tom In VA]

just so long as campaign finance reform gets done

no need for congressmen to whine for their careers to oil companies to finance their campaigns just so the congressperson can work more for the oil company and less for the costituents.

none of the issues staring america down will be properly addressed so long as deep pockets are calling the shots.

Amen.

Proof that Bacey isn't a liberal.

I'm just curious where in the course of human history the "deep pockets" haven't called the shots.


SECOND the RACKS add one for Marty

[ADAM]

C'mon people just think.....

If Obama-rama is elected....

A "Roscoe's Chicken & Waffles" on every corner!

[JayDuck]

C'mon people just think.....

If Obama-rama is elected....

A "Roscoe's Chicken & Waffles" on every corner!

Have you ever had Roscor's Chicken & Waffles? Its some good shit.

[_Porter_]

You've got a point, but I'm thinking that in England, each person running gets like $10k in campaign money. THAT is how you do it. Let about 8-10 people run and make people actually use their fucking heads as opposed to letting CNN do it for them.

I've felt the same way for a long time, but the courts already ruled on this. They said that in the good 'ol USA, the first ammendment protects campaign contributions as "free speech". That's right, now money = words. Brilliant!

[Wolfman]

where have you been ?
$$$ = advertising (you know--all those annoying political ads that we see on TV, read on billboards, listen to on the radio, etc.)
Advertising allows a candidate to promote their ideas and ask for your support/votes.
I say let them spend all the freaking $$$ they want (it generates jobs and even tax revenue)
BUT
--and it is a big BUT--
Make every penny of it public record so the voters also know the source of the money.
That way you can decide if you want to support the "deep pockets" or the "shallow ones" !
BTW--
the last time I knew-- the UK has a parliamentary form of government and they can keep it
-- big difference from the USA.

[Bizzarofelice]

They said that in the good 'ol USA, the first ammendment protects campaign contributions as "free speech". That's right, now money = words. Brilliant!

Let's get the strict interpreters on the bench to limit contributions to the previous limits of three negresses, a goat cart of sound construction and ten pinches of snuff.

And wolfman, part of what Obama wants to do is make the campaign contributions very, very transparent. I personally don't think thats enough.

[_Porter_]

Let's get the strict interpreters on the bench to limit contributions to the previous limits of three negresses, a goat cart of sound construction and ten pinches of snuff.

Expecting the SC justices to give the nod to limiting contributions, when they were appointed by a President who benefitted from that system, is like expecting Mount Rumplewife to bypass the nacho bar at Hometown Buffet on mexican night.

And wolfman, part of what Obama wants to do is make the campaign contributions very, very transparent. I personally don't think thats enough.

It's not enough. We already know that they're bought off and for the most part, who's doing the buying. How will proving what we already knew really change anything? What will the first exciting revelations of Obama's new plan produce, that Bush/Cheney took $$$ from big oil and defense contractors? Nothing will change until contributions are limited to something like $100 or a politician is actually thrown in the slammer for completing his end of a quid pro quo.

[Mister Bushice]

and in late breaking "save the poor oil companies from losing money" news:

Senate GOP blocks windfall taxes on Big Oil

By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer 57 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Saved by Senate Republicans, big oil companies dodged an attempt Tuesday to slap them with a windfall profits tax and take away billions of dollars in tax breaks in response to the record gasoline prices that have the nation fuming.


GOP senators shoved aside the Democratic proposal, arguing that punishing Big Oil won't do a thing to lower the $4-a-gallon-price of gasoline that is sending economic waves across the country. High prices at the pump are threatening everything from summer vacations to Meals on Wheels deliveries to the elderly.

The Democratic energy package would have imposed a 25 percent tax on any "unreasonable" profits of the five largest U.S. oil companies, which together made $36 billion during the first three months of the year. It also would have given the government more power to address oil market speculation, opened the way for antitrust actions against countries belonging to the OPEC oil cartel, and made energy price gouging a federal crime.

"Americans are furious about what's going on," declared Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D. He said they want Congress to do something about oil company profits and the "orgy of speculation" on oil markets.

But Republican leaders said the Democrats' plan would do harm rather than good — and they kept the legislation from being brought up for debate and amendments.

On world markets, oil prices retreated a bit Tuesday but remained above $131 a barrel. Gasoline prices edged even higher to a nationwide record average of $4.04 a gallon.

At the Capitol, Democratic leaders needed 60 votes and they got only 51 senators' support, including seven Republicans who bucked their party leaders. Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, a state tied closely to the oil industry, was the only Democrat opposing the bill.

"We are hurting as a country. We're hurting individually as Americans ... and the other side says, `Do nothing. Don't even debate the issue,'" complained Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.

"Average citizens are scratching their heads and saying, what's wrong with Washington," said Schumer.

GOP opponents argued that little was to be gained by imposing new taxes on the five U.S. oil giants: Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp., Shell Oil Co., BP America Inc. and ConocoPhilips Co.

While these companies may be huge, they don't set world oil prices and raising their taxes would discourage domestic oil production, the Republicans said of the Democrats' plan.

"In the middle of what some are calling the biggest energy shock in a generation ... they proposed as a solution, of all things, a windfall profits tax," Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky chided the Democrats. He called their proposal "a gimmick" that would not lower gasoline prices and only hold back domestic oil production.

"The American people are clamoring for relief at the pump," agreed Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., but "they will get exactly what they don't want" under the Democrats' plan — higher prices and an increase in oil imports.

The bill's supporters argued that their proposal was different from the windfall profits taxes of the early 1980s that thwarted domestic production and led to a rise in imports. The oil companies could avoid the tax by using their "windfall" to push alternative energy programs or refinery expansions, they said.

Shortly after the oil tax vote, Republicans blocked a second proposal that would extend tax breaks that have either expired or are scheduled to end this year for wind, solar and other alternative energy development, and for the promotion of energy efficiency and conservation. Again Democrats couldn't get the 60 votes to overcome a GOP filibuster.

Neither Republican presidential candidate John McCain nor his Democratic rival, Barack Obama, were in Washington to cast votes on the energy issue on Tuesday.

Obama, in a statement, said Republicans had "turned a blind eye to the plight of America's working families" by refusing to take up the energy legislation. Obama has supported additional taxes on the oil companies. McCain is opposed to such taxes and has proposed across-the-aboard tax reductions for industry as a way to help the economy.

Election-year politics hung over the debate. Democrats know their energy package has no chance of becoming law. Even it were to overcome a Senate GOP filibuster — a longshot at best — and the House acted, President Bush has made clear he would veto it.

But there was nothing to lose by taking on Big Oil when people are paying $60 to $100 to fill up their gas tanks.

The oil companies have been frequent targets of Congress. Twice this year, top executives of the largest U.S. oil producers have been brought before congressional committees to explain their huge profits. And each time the executives urged lawmakers to resist punitive tax measures, blaming high costs on global supply and demand.

In addition to the proposed windfall profits tax, the Democrats' bill also would have rescinded tax breaks that are expected to save the oil companies $17 billion over the next 10 years. The money would have been used to provide tax incentives for producers of wind, solar and other alternative energy sources as well as for energy conservation.

In an attempt to dampen oil market speculation, the legislation would require traders to put up more collateral in the energy futures markets and would provide authority to regulate U.S.-based trading in foreign markets. And it would make oil and gas price gouging a federal crime, with stiff penalties of up to $5 million during a presidentially declared energy emergency.

After Tuesday's defeat, Democrats did not rule out pushing the issue again.

"This was politics at its worst," complained Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo. "This was a refusal to debate the biggest problem confronting the American people. ... That takes nerve."

Nice job, Bush administration. Way to pave the way for your boy Mccain.

That makes good sense. Don't punish the oil companies that are profiting to an insane level from this price run up, punish the consumer.

36 BILLION dollars in profits in 3 MONTHS is reasonable? Why would this do "More harm than good"?

How about we windfall profit tax, then reduce the taxes consumers pay on the other end equally. The oil company doesn't profit excessively, the government doesn't profit excessively, and we get some what more of a status quo at the pumps,enabling people to go on vacations, make trips, prevent truckers from going out of business, IOW it will HELP THE ECONOMY.

Sort of like the tax rebate checks concept.

[Tom In VA]

Of course they should tax the hell out of the oil companies. It's unfair, they haven't earned it, the people who invested them haven't risked money at all, the people that work for the oil companis don't deserve to be compensated. Tax them.

Then go after these rich actors, actresses, athletes, musicians and politicians who basque in the filth of wealth, they don't deserve it, they don't EARN their money.


Tax everyone, TAX TAX TAX.


Except of course overpaid IT workers, and desk jockeys who post their opinions on the internet throughout the day. Leave them alone, don't tax them at all.

Now that would be fair.

[Cuda]

36 BILLION dollars in profits in 3 MONTHS is reasonable?

Is it unreasonable? Who makes that determination and under what legal authority is it made?
What are their margins? Do you even know?

Gross profit is supposedly somewhere around 8% Net profit is approximately 4% At $4.00/gallon on gasoline, that's 16 cents. Meanwhile the Feds take 18.6 cents for themselves just because they can.

Why would this do "More harm than good"?

If you think raising taxes on a product will reduce the price and create more of it, you are fucking moron.

mvscal, think about who you're talking to here.

[War Wagon]

Of course they should tax the hell out of the oil companies. It's unfair, they haven't earned it, the people who invested them haven't risked money at all...

Good point, Tom. Afterall, who "owns" the oil companies?

Chances are that if you have a 401k retirement account, invest in mutual funds or other financial instruments, then you own a piece.

Approx. 50 million Americans invest in one or the other, or both.

[titlover]

and in late breaking "save the poor oil companies from losing money" news:

Senate GOP blocks windfall taxes on Big Oil

By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer 57 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Saved by Senate Republicans, big oil companies dodged an attempt Tuesday to slap them with a windfall profits tax and take away billions of dollars in tax breaks in response to the record gasoline prices that have the nation fuming.


GOP senators shoved aside the Democratic proposal, arguing that punishing Big Oil won't do a thing to lower the $4-a-gallon-price of gasoline that is sending economic waves across the country. High prices at the pump are threatening everything from summer vacations to Meals on Wheels deliveries to the elderly.

The Democratic energy package would have imposed a 25 percent tax on any "unreasonable" profits of the five largest U.S. oil companies, which together made $36 billion during the first three months of the year. It also would have given the government more power to address oil market speculation, opened the way for antitrust actions against countries belonging to the OPEC oil cartel, and made energy price gouging a federal crime.

"Americans are furious about what's going on," declared Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D. He said they want Congress to do something about oil company profits and the "orgy of speculation" on oil markets.

But Republican leaders said the Democrats' plan would do harm rather than good — and they kept the legislation from being brought up for debate and amendments.

On world markets, oil prices retreated a bit Tuesday but remained above $131 a barrel. Gasoline prices edged even higher to a nationwide record average of $4.04 a gallon.

At the Capitol, Democratic leaders needed 60 votes and they got only 51 senators' support, including seven Republicans who bucked their party leaders. Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, a state tied closely to the oil industry, was the only Democrat opposing the bill.

"We are hurting as a country. We're hurting individually as Americans ... and the other side says, `Do nothing. Don't even debate the issue,'" complained Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.

"Average citizens are scratching their heads and saying, what's wrong with Washington," said Schumer.

GOP opponents argued that little was to be gained by imposing new taxes on the five U.S. oil giants: Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp., Shell Oil Co., BP America Inc. and ConocoPhilips Co.

While these companies may be huge, they don't set world oil prices and raising their taxes would discourage domestic oil production, the Republicans said of the Democrats' plan.

"In the middle of what some are calling the biggest energy shock in a generation ... they proposed as a solution, of all things, a windfall profits tax," Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky chided the Democrats. He called their proposal "a gimmick" that would not lower gasoline prices and only hold back domestic oil production.

"The American people are clamoring for relief at the pump," agreed Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., but "they will get exactly what they don't want" under the Democrats' plan — higher prices and an increase in oil imports.

The bill's supporters argued that their proposal was different from the windfall profits taxes of the early 1980s that thwarted domestic production and led to a rise in imports. The oil companies could avoid the tax by using their "windfall" to push alternative energy programs or refinery expansions, they said.

Shortly after the oil tax vote, Republicans blocked a second proposal that would extend tax breaks that have either expired or are scheduled to end this year for wind, solar and other alternative energy development, and for the promotion of energy efficiency and conservation. Again Democrats couldn't get the 60 votes to overcome a GOP filibuster.

Neither Republican presidential candidate John McCain nor his Democratic rival, Barack Obama, were in Washington to cast votes on the energy issue on Tuesday.

Obama, in a statement, said Republicans had "turned a blind eye to the plight of America's working families" by refusing to take up the energy legislation. Obama has supported additional taxes on the oil companies. McCain is opposed to such taxes and has proposed across-the-aboard tax reductions for industry as a way to help the economy.

Election-year politics hung over the debate. Democrats know their energy package has no chance of becoming law. Even it were to overcome a Senate GOP filibuster — a longshot at best — and the House acted, President Bush has made clear he would veto it.

But there was nothing to lose by taking on Big Oil when people are paying $60 to $100 to fill up their gas tanks.

The oil companies have been frequent targets of Congress. Twice this year, top executives of the largest U.S. oil producers have been brought before congressional committees to explain their huge profits. And each time the executives urged lawmakers to resist punitive tax measures, blaming high costs on global supply and demand.

In addition to the proposed windfall profits tax, the Democrats' bill also would have rescinded tax breaks that are expected to save the oil companies $17 billion over the next 10 years. The money would have been used to provide tax incentives for producers of wind, solar and other alternative energy sources as well as for energy conservation.

In an attempt to dampen oil market speculation, the legislation would require traders to put up more collateral in the energy futures markets and would provide authority to regulate U.S.-based trading in foreign markets. And it would make oil and gas price gouging a federal crime, with stiff penalties of up to $5 million during a presidentially declared energy emergency.

After Tuesday's defeat, Democrats did not rule out pushing the issue again.

"This was politics at its worst," complained Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo. "This was a refusal to debate the biggest problem confronting the American people. ... That takes nerve."

Nice job, Bush administration. Way to pave the way for your boy Mccain.

That makes good sense. Don't punish the oil companies that are profiting to an insane level from this price run up, punish the consumer.

36 BILLION dollars in profits in 3 MONTHS is reasonable? Why would this do "More harm than good"?

How about we windfall profit tax, then reduce the taxes consumers pay on the other end equally. The oil company doesn't profit excessively, the government doesn't profit excessively, and we get some what more of a status quo at the pumps,enabling people to go on vacations, make trips, prevent truckers from going out of business, IOW it will HELP THE ECONOMY.

Sort of like the tax rebate checks concept.

if 60-80 extra dollars in extra gas expense 'prevents' you from going on vacation. you really just don't want to go on vacation.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

Good point, Tom. Afterall, who "owns" the oil companies?

A better question would be, who "owns" the oil?

Think about that.

[_Porter_]

if 60-80 extra dollars in extra gas expense 'prevents' you from going on vacation. you really just don't want to go on vacation.

Depends on where you're going. If you're flying and have a couple of kids, it's going to cost you an extra $100 or so per ticket based on how airlines have been raising their prices pretty much across the board lately.

The real problem isn't with vacationing suburbanites though, it's the ass-raping that truckers have been getting since Jan. In this country, everything is delivered by 18-wheelers. If you think people are pissed now, wait until the Mrs. Rumps starts having to pay $6 for a box of Little Debbie's. All hell is going to break loose then!

[Mister Bushice]

If you think raising taxes on a product will reduce the price and create more of it, you are fucking moron.

You're not raising taxes on a product, shit head, you're taxing the excess profit made by the oil companies. when gas prices for the consumer shot thru the roof at an average well above the cost per barrel to the producers. And yet, Bush waived Billions of dollars in royalties from oil companies in 2006, and we're STILL fucking subsidizing these assholes with our tax money, PLUS they have tax incentives on top of that. All told they get tax breaks that range in the billions per year.

So don't give me any shit about them being allowed to "make a profit". Not when a fucking gun is being held to my wallet.

[Screw_Michigan]

I was a pricing analyst in Actuarial at a MAJOR insurance company and I can ASSURE you that taxes are passed on to the consumer. It was my job to look at past loses, calutate our expenses which included TAXES and determine the appropriate rate to charge to insure a specific profit.

Some of you may remember a blunder I made with the South Dakota Home Owners insurance where I mistakeningly increased rates 40 percent when I should have reduced rates 40 percent. We had RECORD profits that year and I was awarded "Team Player of the Year" and given a substantial raise. It's funny...I fukkked up and the company made record profits...How many people can say that?

Hey...as a side note...I was on Alan Colmes Radio Graffitti at 11:58 last night and got in a great..............


WHITE POWER 1488!


RACK ME FOR BEING ON NATIONAL RADIO AND BEING HEARD BY ABOUT 30 MILLION PEOPLE.

WHITE POWER
1488
FUKKK YOU, KNIGG3ERS!

AP, that you?

[Cuda]

If you think raising taxes on a product will reduce the price and create more of it, you are fucking moron.

You're not raising taxes on a product, shit head, you're taxing the excess profit made by the oil companies. when gas prices for the consumer shot thru the roof at an average well above the cost per barrel to the producers. And yet, Bush waived Billions of dollars in royalties from oil companies in 2006, and we're STILL fucking subsidizing these assholes with our tax money, PLUS they have tax incentives on top of that. All told they get tax breaks that range in the billions per year.

You're still a fucking moron.

Oil Companies pay more in corporate income taxes than the bottom 50% of all personal income tax payers. Additionally, the people who own the oil companies- The Stockholders (those assholes you refer to)- pay a tax on dividends, and when they sell the stock, they pay a capital gains tax. All on profit margins that are substantially lower than just about every other sector of the economy.

So don't give me any shit about them being allowed to "make a profit". Not when a fucking gun is being held to my wallet.

Nobody is forcing you to buy gas for the shitbox you drive. Why don't you just ride a fucking bike like Onogga says you should do?

[Mister Bushice]

Oh? So lets say I make a product. I make X amount of dollars from producing it and I pay taxes on that. Fine so far.

Government then comes in and says "We NEED this product, so we're going to make sure you keep providing it. We're subsidizing your costs, AND we're going to cut your tax rate". Even better for me, cause the price hasn't dropped.

Product then gets so popular, people start speculating on the future costs of said product, driving the prices up well past what it costs me to produce, resulting in immense profits, even higher than before, and yet I pay no additional taxes on those profits, because I'm subsidized up the ass, and on top of that I'm getting huge tax breaks.

and you still think the actual product is the thing that I'm talking about taxing here?

[indyfrisco]

There is no "supply" issue anywhere I know of that you cannot get gas. It is demand that is driving up the price. Why would gas companies compete with each other when they can collude with one another?

Americans, and people through the rest of the world, just need to accept the fact we are going to get buttfucked in the mouth by the oil companies for the rest of our lives as long as our reliance on oil is where it is at and continuing to grow. My family's company is making record profits too in the name of oil and we sell food products (not my BBQ sauce, btw). We figured, because everyone else is doing it...why not us?

Capitilism is great. It just sucks for some.

[Terry in Crapchester]

if 60-80 extra dollars in extra gas expense 'prevents' you from going on vacation. you really just don't want to go on vacation.

There's more to it than that, and you know it.

I spend about $70 a week on gas, strictly for the purpose of work-related driving. And that's after cutting back on driving as much as I was able. Gas runs around $4.10 a gallon here right now. When Smirky McFlightsuit took office, gas was, what, $1.41 a gallon sound about right?

I'll tell you what, let's do a simple math problem here. I'll even give your boy the benefit of the doubt, and call the price of gas $1.50 a gallon when he came in. And I'll adjust the price upward at the current official rate of inflation, 2.5% per year. By my calculations, that would bring gas to about $1.81 a gallon.

At $1.81 a gallon as compared to $4.10 a gallon, I'd be saving $39 a week on gas. That's over $2,000 a year. And I haven't even figured in my wife's commuting expenses, driving on weekends, etc.

So yeah, the price of gas is enough to change vacation plans, at least it is for me.

[BSmack]

Riddle me this mv. If there is a supply issue, why are there no 70s style gas lines, no stations running out of gas and no rationing?

This latest price hike has nothing to do with supply and everything to do with traders and oil companies gaming the markets.

[Tom In VA]

Riddle me this mv. If there is a supply issue, why are there no 70s style gas lines, no stations running out of gas and no rationing?

This latest price hike has nothing to do with supply and everything to do with traders and oil companies gaming the markets.

I think you're both right. I think the traders and oil companies are "gaming" the markets based on a perceived supply issue. OPEC has stalled production, on purpose, whether "Peak Oil" is a myth or not it is being used to create fear and caution as it pertains to the supply side of the equation. Saudis suggesting they're reluctant to increase supply because they want to make sure future generations of Saudis have something to sell and the most serious talk of our lifetime that we will aggressively pursue alternatives are creating this - "Get while the getting is good, and make as much money as possible" atmosphere.


Perception and intangibles have as much to do with the market as hard facts and figures. It's just human nature.

[_Porter_]

This latest price hike has nothing to do with supply and everything to do with traders and oil companies gaming the markets.

For every dope I've heard crying about $200 oil on the horizon, there's 3 or 4 saying that this is a speculative bubble that's going to burst. Most likely this will occur when the dollar begins to rebound and everyone cashes in on their oil futures profits in favor of the currency markets.

It could be as much as a year before this happens, but it'll happen. A bubble caused by non-supply and demand issues is gonna pop eventually, especially when it's in the futures market.

[indyfrisco]

At $1.81 a gallon as compared to $4.10 a gallon, I'd be saving $39 a week on gas. That's over $2,000 a year. And I haven't even figured in my wife's commuting expenses, driving on weekends, etc.

Tell her if she quit taking the long route home to yell at guys standing outside strip clubs you may be able to save some money. Then again, she may just come home and yell at you instead.

[War Wagon]

Since we're exchanging riddles here, go ahead and walk me through the scenario where windfall profits tax on the oil industry results in lower prices at the pump.

Dems aren't concerned with the consequences of a windfall profits tax, they just want to punish somebody for having the temerity to make a profit.

[Bizzarofelice]

I haven't seen any of the supporters of this bill actually say where the tax will help the public directly with gas. Can't tell if its a vague notion of punishing those who are cornholing the American public, or if there is an unspoken plan to take windfall tax money and use it to offset taxes lost when people started purchasing less gas.

Just seems like more problems heaped upon already existing ones.

[PSUFAN]

Obama must be on to something good. The Hannity Cadre's been mighty antsy of late.

By the way, you're a GREAT American.

[Cuda]

Since we're exchanging riddles here, go ahead and walk me through the scenario where windfall profits tax on the oil industry results in lower prices at the pump.

Well it just WOULD!!!!!

Fuck you, YOU ASS!!!!!!

-sin

Babshice,
B-Monica,
& PUSFAN

[titlover]

Riddle me this mv. If there is a supply issue, why are there no 70s style gas lines, no stations running out of gas and no rationing?

This latest price hike has nothing to do with supply and everything to do with traders and oil companies gaming the markets.

cuz there isn't a retard peanut farmer in the White house to slap a price control on gas? you want long lines and rationing again? go ahead and put a cap on gas prices. this country would be fucked.

[BSmack]

Riddle me this mv. If there is a supply issue, why are there no 70s style gas lines, no stations running out of gas and no rationing?

This latest price hike has nothing to do with supply and everything to do with traders and oil companies gaming the markets.

cuz there isn't a retard peanut farmer in the White house to slap a price control on gas? you want long lines and rationing again? go ahead and put a cap on gas prices. this country would be fucked.

We had gas lines in 73-74 as well. Well before the peanut farmer.

[_Porter_]

I haven't seen any of the supporters of this bill actually say where the tax will help the public directly with gas. Can't tell if its a vague notion of punishing those who are cornholing the American public, or if there is an unspoken plan to take windfall tax money and use it to offset taxes lost when people started purchasing less gas.

Just seems like more problems heaped upon already existing ones.

Probably the best, most-concise, non-partisan explanation I've heard of the situation yet. Doesn't that get you a two-week ban from this place?

[Dinsdale]

While I'm OK with "punishing" companies that have reaped the rewards of being "national infrastructure" but have behaved irresponsibly, I do have some reservations...


Like, anyone wanna remind me the last time any problem was solved by putting it into the hands of the federal government?

Anyone?

[PSUFAN]

FEMA seems pretty much on top of things.

[huh?]

All of these things, and many others, have made the US military not only look vulnerable, but ultimately beatable in a long-term war.

We performed well enough in the war. It's this damned occupation and nation building "stuff" that has made us look foolish.

[Bizzarofelice]

I haven't seen any of the supporters of this bill actually say where the tax will help the public directly with gas. Can't tell if its a vague notion of punishing those who are cornholing the American public, or if there is an unspoken plan to take windfall tax money and use it to offset taxes lost when people started purchasing less gas.

Just seems like more problems heaped upon already existing ones.

Probably the best, most-concise, non-partisan explanation I've heard of the situation yet. Doesn't that get you a two-week ban from this place?

No - that's Fag7 that does that.

Mag7 1
Buttshots 0