Santorum = Tea Party?

[Phatscotty]

better then what bush ever did or could ever do

Yep, Obama is doing great at driving people out of the labor force and adding thousands of new regulations to the federal register. None of those have any negative effects on our economy.

If McCain had won, and survived the stress of being President that seems to have aged Obama, so we're dismissing the Palin part of his potential presidency, what do you think he would have done differently?

I never claimed McCain was a conservative. However, we wouldn't have the massive takeover of health care dragging down our economy. We hopefully would not have had the "stimulus" that only stimulated the coffers of state governments. We would have already started construction on the Keystone Pipeline and hopefully other drilling projects. We would not have handed out millions of dollars to failing solar companies. We would not have a hostile administration who uses the threat of executive orders to enact radical policies like cap and trade that Congress won't. We would not have a president who demands unending expansion of taxes on the wealthy and fostering class warfare in virtually every speech.

[Night Strike]

better then what bush ever did or could ever do

Yep, Obama is doing great at driving people out of the labor force and adding thousands of new regulations to the federal register. None of those have any negative effects on our economy.

If McCain had won, and survived the stress of being President that seems to have aged Obama, so we're dismissing the Palin part of his potential presidency, what do you think he would have done differently?

I never claimed McCain was a conservative. However, we wouldn't have the massive takeover of health care dragging down our economy. We hopefully would not have had the "stimulus" that only stimulated the coffers of state governments. We would have already started construction on the Keystone Pipeline and hopefully other drilling projects. We would not have handed out millions of dollars to failing solar companies. We would not have a hostile administration who uses the threat of executive orders to enact radical policies like cap and trade that Congress won't. We would not have a president who demands unending expansion of taxes on the wealthy and fostering class warfare in virtually every speech.

Yeah, all those low rates of taxes that Obama introduced, are somehow high rates of taxes? Nonsense. So we can strike out taxes.

We can do that and move on, right? To your other points?

Businesses aren't hiring as many people as they probably could because Obama keeps threatening to raise taxes on the wealthy and businesses. Why would they hire more people now when they're just going to have to fire those people in order to pay the higher taxes Obama wants to impose? Plus, until the health care mandate is overturned or repealed, those businesses don't want to take on the explosion of health care costs that would come with hiring new workers.

[Symmetry]

I never claimed McCain was a conservative. However, we wouldn't have the massive takeover of health care dragging down our economy. We hopefully would not have had the "stimulus" that only stimulated the coffers of state governments. We would have already started construction on the Keystone Pipeline and hopefully other drilling projects. We would not have handed out millions of dollars to failing solar companies. We would not have a hostile administration who uses the threat of executive orders to enact radical policies like cap and trade that Congress won't. We would not have a president who demands unending expansion of taxes on the wealthy and fostering class warfare in virtually every speech.

Yeah, all those low rates of taxes that Obama introduced, are somehow high rates of taxes? Nonsense. So we can strike out taxes.

We can do that and move on, right? To your other points?

Businesses aren't hiring as many people as they probably could because Obama keeps threatening to raise taxes on the wealthy and businesses. Why would they hire more people now when they're just going to have to fire those people in order to pay the higher taxes Obama wants to impose? Plus, until the health care mandate is overturned or repealed, those businesses don't want to take on the explosion of health care costs that would come with hiring new workers.

And yet he has lowered taxes. We can agree on that, right? That they're some of the lowest rates ever?

[pimpdave]

Santorum and the Tea Party, WHY HOW DARE THEY!

[Night Strike]

And yet he has lowered taxes. We can agree on that, right? That they're some of the lowest rates ever?

He lowered the amount people pay into Social Security, which just hastens its insolvency. Plus the fact that the money saved on that is having to go towards gasoline since the president has succeeded in making energy prices "necessarily skyrocket". Plus, he wants to make the price of gasoline go even higher by raising taxes on oil companies, even though the government makes more profit off a gallon of gasoline than the oil company. The total corporate taxes in the US are now the highest in the world, which provides no incentive for businesses to be here.

[Symmetry]

And yet he has lowered taxes. We can agree on that, right? That they're some of the lowest rates ever?

He lowered the amount people pay into Social Security, which just hastens its insolvency. Plus the fact that the money saved on that is having to go towards gasoline since the president has succeeded in making energy prices "necessarily skyrocket". Plus, he wants to make the price of gasoline go even higher by raising taxes on oil companies, even though the government makes more profit off a gallon of gasoline than the oil company. The total corporate taxes in the US are now the highest in the world, which provides no incentive for businesses to be here.

Dude, you compare apples to oranges, take a look at gas prices in the UK. So why compare gas taxes (oranges) to all corporate taxes (apples). Your first argument does not lead into your second, and none of them answered my question, dude I'd be welcome to being proven wrong. I hope you know that I'm a poster who can admit that at least.

[Night Strike]

And yet he has lowered taxes. We can agree on that, right? That they're some of the lowest rates ever?

He lowered the amount people pay into Social Security, which just hastens its insolvency. Plus the fact that the money saved on that is having to go towards gasoline since the president has succeeded in making energy prices "necessarily skyrocket". Plus, he wants to make the price of gasoline go even higher by raising taxes on oil companies, even though the government makes more profit off a gallon of gasoline than the oil company. The total corporate taxes in the US are now the highest in the world, which provides no incentive for businesses to be here.

Dude, you compare apples to oranges, take a look at gas prices in the UK. So why compare gas taxes (oranges) to all corporate taxes (apples). Your first argument does not lead into your second, and none of them answered my question, dude I'd be welcome to being proven wrong. I hope you know that I'm a poster who can admit that at least.

I wasn't comparing them to each other. I was making a statement about how Obama's policies over several different sectors are taking the wealth out of this country and turning it over to the government.

[Symmetry]

And yet he has lowered taxes. We can agree on that, right? That they're some of the lowest rates ever?

He lowered the amount people pay into Social Security, which just hastens its insolvency. Plus the fact that the money saved on that is having to go towards gasoline since the president has succeeded in making energy prices "necessarily skyrocket". Plus, he wants to make the price of gasoline go even higher by raising taxes on oil companies, even though the government makes more profit off a gallon of gasoline than the oil company. The total corporate taxes in the US are now the highest in the world, which provides no incentive for businesses to be here.

Dude, you compare apples to oranges, take a look at gas prices in the UK. So why compare gas taxes (oranges) to all corporate taxes (apples). Your first argument does not lead into your second, and none of them answered my question, dude I'd be welcome to being proven wrong. I hope you know that I'm a poster who can admit that at least.

I wasn't comparing them to each other. I was making a statement about how Obama's policies over several different sectors are taking the wealth out of this country and turning it over to the government.

The government of which country? I'm not sure I understand your reasoning. You seem to be saying that giving money to the governement of the United States is taking money away from the United States,

[Night Strike]

And yet he has lowered taxes. We can agree on that, right? That they're some of the lowest rates ever?

He lowered the amount people pay into Social Security, which just hastens its insolvency. Plus the fact that the money saved on that is having to go towards gasoline since the president has succeeded in making energy prices "necessarily skyrocket". Plus, he wants to make the price of gasoline go even higher by raising taxes on oil companies, even though the government makes more profit off a gallon of gasoline than the oil company. The total corporate taxes in the US are now the highest in the world, which provides no incentive for businesses to be here.

Dude, you compare apples to oranges, take a look at gas prices in the UK. So why compare gas taxes (oranges) to all corporate taxes (apples). Your first argument does not lead into your second, and none of them answered my question, dude I'd be welcome to being proven wrong. I hope you know that I'm a poster who can admit that at least.

I wasn't comparing them to each other. I was making a statement about how Obama's policies over several different sectors are taking the wealth out of this country and turning it over to the government.

The government of which country? I'm not sure I understand your reasoning. You seem to be saying that giving money to the governement of the United States is taking money away from the United States,

It's taking money out of the US economy and handing it over to the government to squander on lavish parties, failed solar companies, an ever-expanding bureaucracy, etc.

[Symmetry]

I wasn't comparing them to each other. I was making a statement about how Obama's policies over several different sectors are taking the wealth out of this country and turning it over to the government.

The government of which country? I'm not sure I understand your reasoning. You seem to be saying that giving money to the governement of the United States is taking money away from the United States,

It's taking money out of the US economy and handing it over to the government to squander on lavish parties, failed solar companies, an ever-expanding bureaucracy, etc.

Kind of a nutso argument, and not at all what you were originally claiming.

[BigBallinStalin]

Santorum and the Tea Party, WHY HOW DARE THEY!

I KNOW! RIGHT>!? f*ck Y EAH, RIGHT! HOW DARE THEY?!?!

[PLAYER57832]

It's taking money out of the US economy and handing it over to the government to squander on lavish parties, failed solar companies, an ever-expanding bureaucracy, etc.

OH, you obviously mean to include Cheney's benefitting from turning a large section of the Iraq and even Afghanistan wars into profitable enterprises, often with much higher costs and poorer results on the ground. (unless, of course you consider Blackwater attacking wantonly to be "effective" and "beneficial" -- but that never applied for the food services, or the many other operations that used to be internal and that became highly profitable private enterprises at taxpayer expense).

Not to mention, I am sure you meant to include the heavy tax cuts, other benefits the patroleum industry has recieved, and not just the relatively miniscule donation to an admittedly failed company (but note that one big reason it failed was an inability to compete with heavy Chinese government subsidies.. )

[PLAYER57832]

Lately I have been seeing threads by pimpdave with the title Tea Party this or that. In a lot of cases the linked article is some obscure thing stated by Santorum with no real info. I want to know how many people think that Santorum speaks for the Tea Party or is somehow equivalent.
If you have sources go ahead and post them. From what I have heard I thought he only changed his stance to mention Tea Party to get votes. But I don't think the Tea Party ever backed him, I could be wrong what's you opinion?

Anybody can claim the tea party, since it has no real membership or limitations.

That said, even here in his more or less "home" territory, he is not garnering much tea party support, except for those who see the tea party and bringing on an extremely narrow social agenda.

[DangerBoy]

It's taking money out of the US economy and handing it over to the government to squander on lavish parties, failed solar companies, an ever-expanding bureaucracy, etc.

OH, you obviously mean to include Cheney's benefitting from turning a large section of the Iraq and even Afghanistan wars into profitable enterprises, often with much higher costs and poorer results on the ground. (unless, of course you consider Blackwater attacking wantonly to be "effective" and "beneficial" -- but that never applied for the food services, or the many other operations that used to be internal and that became highly profitable private enterprises at taxpayer expense).

Not to mention, I am sure you meant to include the heavy tax cuts, other benefits the patroleum industry has recieved, and not just the relatively miniscule donation to an admittedly failed company (but note that one big reason it failed was an inability to compete with heavy Chinese government subsidies.. )

Oh great, the Nancy Pelosi cliche generator is back

[Phatscotty]

It's taking money out of the US economy and handing it over to the government to squander on lavish parties, failed solar companies, an ever-expanding bureaucracy, etc.

OH, you obviously mean to include Cheney's benefitting from turning a large section of the Iraq and even Afghanistan wars into profitable enterprises, often with much higher costs and poorer results on the ground. (unless, of course you consider Blackwater attacking wantonly to be "effective" and "beneficial" -- but that never applied for the food services, or the many other operations that used to be internal and that became highly profitable private enterprises at taxpayer expense).

Not to mention, I am sure you meant to include the heavy tax cuts, other benefits the patroleum industry has recieved, and not just the relatively miniscule donation to an admittedly failed company (but note that one big reason it failed was an inability to compete with heavy Chinese government subsidies.. )

Oh great, the Nancy Pelosi cliche generator is back

You have to say the cliche before you can hear what's in the cliche.

[Night Strike]

It's taking money out of the US economy and handing it over to the government to squander on lavish parties, failed solar companies, an ever-expanding bureaucracy, etc.

OH, you obviously mean to include Cheney's benefitting from turning a large section of the Iraq and even Afghanistan wars into profitable enterprises, often with much higher costs and poorer results on the ground. (unless, of course you consider Blackwater attacking wantonly to be "effective" and "beneficial" -- but that never applied for the food services, or the many other operations that used to be internal and that became highly profitable private enterprises at taxpayer expense).

Not to mention, I am sure you meant to include the heavy tax cuts, other benefits the patroleum industry has recieved, and not just the relatively miniscule donation to an admittedly failed company (but note that one big reason it failed was an inability to compete with heavy Chinese government subsidies.. )

At least a successful company will be returning money to the government in the form of higher employment and more taxes. Obama's companies are simply going bankrupt with their federal money, which means we get nothing back from it.

What heavy federal tax cuts has the petroleum industry received in the past and are still receiving today? Which of these are unique to the petroleum industry and are not the same tax cuts used by other industries? IF you can identify any tax cuts that are specific to the petroleum industry, then we can discuss those. Otherwise, you're just joining the Democrats in their bullying tactics of picking and choosing which industries they want to use the power of the government to punish.

And I've never understood how people could be so naive to think raising taxes on oil companies would magically lower gas prices. Gas stations make about 1-2 cents per gallon on gas while oil companies make about 7 cents per gallon on gas. Combined state and federal gasoline taxes are approximately 50 cents per gallon. So who is making out with all the money? The greedy government.

[patches70]

It's taking money out of the US economy and handing it over to the government to squander on lavish parties, failed solar companies, an ever-expanding bureaucracy, etc.

OH, you obviously mean to include Cheney's benefitting from turning a large section of the Iraq and even Afghanistan wars into profitable enterprises, often with much higher costs and poorer results on the ground. (unless, of course you consider Blackwater attacking wantonly to be "effective" and "beneficial" -- but that never applied for the food services, or the many other operations that used to be internal and that became highly profitable private enterprises at taxpayer expense).

Not to mention, I am sure you meant to include the heavy tax cuts, other benefits the patroleum industry has recieved, and not just the relatively miniscule donation to an admittedly failed company (but note that one big reason it failed was an inability to compete with heavy Chinese government subsidies.. )

And I've never understood how people could be so naive to think raising taxes on oil companies would magically lower gas prices. Gas stations make about 1-2 cents per gallon on gas while oil companies make about 7 cents per gallon on gas. Combined state and federal gasoline taxes are approximately 50 cents per gallon. So who is making out with all the money? The greedy government.

It seems that people either forget or ignore that such taxes are passed on to the end user. In terms of taxing the oil the consumer ends up paying the tax at the pump. It's like that with any industry. The idea of taxing to lower costs is quite stupid. If we really wanted to lower costs we'd stop debasing our currency. Inflation is a far more insidious tax as it destroys savings. But people all too often overlook that inflation is indeed a tax. A terrible, hidden tax that harms the most those who are least able to afford it.

Just sayin' is all.

[Night Strike]

It seems that people either forget or ignore that such taxes are passed on to the end user. In terms of taxing the oil the consumer ends up paying the tax at the pump. It's like that with any industry. The idea of taxing to lower costs is quite stupid. If we really wanted to lower costs we'd stop debasing our currency. Inflation is a far more insidious tax as it destroys savings. But people all too often overlook that inflation is indeed a tax. A terrible, hidden tax that harms the most those who are least able to afford it.

Just sayin' is all.

Yep, gas prices are actually the lowest they have been in 30 years when comparing them to gold (since gold's value stays consistent). It is the insane level of inflation that we have been experiencing and are experiencing now that has caused the skyrocketing in dollar prices of gasoline.

[patches70]

It seems that people either forget or ignore that such taxes are passed on to the end user. In terms of taxing the oil the consumer ends up paying the tax at the pump. It's like that with any industry. The idea of taxing to lower costs is quite stupid. If we really wanted to lower costs we'd stop debasing our currency. Inflation is a far more insidious tax as it destroys savings. But people all too often overlook that inflation is indeed a tax. A terrible, hidden tax that harms the most those who are least able to afford it.

Just sayin' is all.

Yep, gas prices are actually the lowest they have been in 30 years when comparing them to gold (since gold's value stays consistent). It is the insane level of inflation that we have been experiencing and are experiencing now that has caused the skyrocketing in dollar prices of gasoline.

You'll find too few people who understand that concept and too many people who use that misconception for their own political reasons.

Good posts.

[pimpdave]

There's no way Night Strike came up with that completely stupid comparison between gas and gold prices on his own, and I suspect whoever spoon fed it to him are the same types of people who were blathering on about how the real estate holds its value a few years ago.

Don't be fooled everyone, gold is definitely in a bubble right now, and when you look at gas prices, you don't compare them to precious metals, you compare them to other common commodities, like the price of bread.

What did bread cost in 1999? Cause gas was like 99 cents a gallon for regular, so...

[Night Strike]

There's no way Night Strike came up with that completely stupid comparison between gas and gold prices on his own, and I suspect whoever spoon fed it to him are the same types of people who were blathering on about how the real estate holds its value a few years ago.

Don't be fooled everyone, gold is definitely in a bubble right now, and when you look at gas prices, you don't compare them to precious metals, you compare them to other common commodities, like the price of bread.

What did bread cost in 1999? Cause gas was like 99 cents a gallon for regular, so...

No, I didn't come up with the stats myself, but did you refute them? In what way is gold a bubble? Compared to the dollar that is worth whatever the government claims it's worth? And you get to pick and choose which commodity to compare gas to? Bread is man-made while both oil and gold are natural resources, so based on that alone, gold would be a much better comparison. And regardless, you're making this "common commodities" up out of thin air. Where in the trade industry is this used? As far as I know, everything has always been compared to gold because gold has been a valued commodity for centuries (even millenia).

[patches70]

There's no way Night Strike came up with that completely stupid comparison between gas and gold prices on his own, and I suspect whoever spoon fed it to him are the same types of people who were blathering on about how the real estate holds its value a few years ago.

Don't be fooled everyone, gold is definitely in a bubble right now, and when you look at gas prices, you don't compare them to precious metals, you compare them to other common commodities, like the price of bread.

What did bread cost in 1999? Cause gas was like 99 cents a gallon for regular, so...

Har. 100 years ago an ounce of gold would buy you 140 loaves of bread. Today an ounce of gold would buy you over 430 loaves of bread.

Now consider the dollar. 100 years ago a single dollar would buy you 10 loaves of bread. Today a single dollar won't even buy you a single loaf of bread.

Where fiat currencies have come and gone throughout history, gold has always been valuable. In ancient Rome, an ounce of gold would buy you a very nice toga. Today an ounce of gold will buy you a very nice suit.

The biggest net buyers of gold today are the Central Banks who print the money we use.
Each piece of paper they print or create out of digital thin air devalues that which is already in circulation. Yet gold retains her value since even before the days of Alexander the Great precisely because it can't just be created out of thin air.

Voyager I launched in 1977 and is today the furthest man made object from the Earth. In both Voyager I and II that have been sent from Earth both contain a remarkable item. A gold plated disc that contains information about Earth in the event that one day some intelligent being may find one of them. The disc contains information about Earth, her life, her people, her languages, the sounds of nature and music from the great masters such as Mozart and even Chuck Berry.
The reason they used gold? Because it is timeless. It does not rot, it does not fade, it is durable, unaffected by the harsh conditions of space, guaranteed to survive it's journey if the probes do not happen into a star.

And gold has intrinsic value as well. Stealth bombers wouldn't be stealthy without that layer of gold that covers the cockpit. Gold is used in medicine, computers, jet engines, satellites, astronaut helmets, reflects electromagnetic radiation, industry, finance, jewelry, electronics and chemistry.

And gas, you can get gas for 25 cents a gallon if you wanted using quarters minted before 1965 as they were 90% silver. That silver in those quarters is worth in dollars what it would cost you to purchase a gallon of gas. Even cheaper if you were to trade your gold coins in for dollars, a single gold dollar is worth around $27-$28 dollars today. You could buy between 7-9 gallons of gas with that single gold dollar (minted between 1849 to 1889).



Gold is a great way to preserve wealth because it never falls to worthless.

[Phatscotty]

Don't be fooled everyone, gold is definitely in a bubble right now, and when you look at gas prices, you don't compare them to precious metals, you compare them to other common commodities, like the price of bread.

What did bread cost in 1999? Cause gas was like 99 cents a gallon for regular, so...

LMAO! And you say you studied economics?

Hey, isn't gold a commodity???
And if you speak commodities and bread....don't you mean......wheat???

Why did you lie and say you know economics?

Tell you people what, the day you see the government get the deficits under control, the day you see the geopolitical scene more chill than imminent invasion of Iran, the day you see the federal reserve reduce the creation of money......then you can call a top in gold. Obviously, none of this will happen with Obama

When Obama loses the election, I promise you that gold will take a dip based purely on the reality that a Republican will be taking the White House, and at least they aren't as bad as a Democrat (concerning the specific issues cited)

[PLAYER57832]

It's taking money out of the US economy and handing it over to the government to squander on lavish parties, failed solar companies, an ever-expanding bureaucracy, etc.

OH, you obviously mean to include Cheney's benefitting from turning a large section of the Iraq and even Afghanistan wars into profitable enterprises, often with much higher costs and poorer results on the ground. (unless, of course you consider Blackwater attacking wantonly to be "effective" and "beneficial" -- but that never applied for the food services, or the many other operations that used to be internal and that became highly profitable private enterprises at taxpayer expense).

Not to mention, I am sure you meant to include the heavy tax cuts, other benefits the patroleum industry has recieved, and not just the relatively miniscule donation to an admittedly failed company (but note that one big reason it failed was an inability to compete with heavy Chinese government subsidies.. )

At least a successful company will be returning money to the government in the form of higher employment and more taxes. Obama's companies are simply going bankrupt with their federal money, which means we get nothing back from it.

You only believe the oil companies represent a net gain because you have been taught to utterly ignore enviromental impacts and health impacts. You have also never bothered to consider that other alternatives ARE out there, but are being suppressed --either directly (oil companies buying up patents) or indirectly (artificially keeping oil competetive, making alternatives less competetive, particularly in initial stages of research).

In short-- you have never truly considered what a world without oil would be or even thought it possible. Until folks like you do... we will be stuck in the downward slide of using a resource that is more and more limited and blaming anyone who you wish to believe is "impeding" oil "progress".

What heavy federal tax cuts has the petroleum industry received in the past and are still receiving today? Which of these are unique to the petroleum industry and are not the same tax cuts used by other industries? IF you can identify any tax cuts that are specific to the petroleum industry, then we can discuss those. Otherwise, you're just joining the Democrats in their bullying tactics of picking and choosing which industries they want to use the power of the government to punish.

We have been through all this many times before. As long as you start with the world view that nothing can change.. it won't.

And I've never understood how people could be so naive to think raising taxes on oil companies would magically lower gas prices.

"Naive" only an idiot would think that would be true... or that I stated or inferred any such thing. Oil is incredibly cheap for the damage it causes us and our children, but becuase no one is forced to accept those costs as "real", becuase they can simply push aside things like a Gulf of Mexico that is permanently damages (no, not the tourism and not every last fishery, but it HAS been damages in ways you won't every truly understand... becuase it would take a lifetime of study to even begin to get at it and you simply "cannot be bothered" to even read "too long" posts, never mind do real research into whether all your claims are valid or not.

Far easier to just dismiss anyone who disagrees with the top ten "Google" (or whatever search engine you use) finds than to bother to actually decipher real information and research. That is, IF its even available on the internet.. and often its not because posting costs time and money that raw researchers without agendas simply do not have

Gas stations make about 1-2 cents per gallon on gas while oil companies make about 7 cents per gallon on gas. Combined state and federal gasoline taxes are approximately 50 cents per gallon. So who is making out with all the money? The greedy government.

Definitely not the gas stations. Nor do grocers make much money from just selling food. Basic retail economics... thought that was supposed to be your field?

There is plenty of money made, but since you seem to have descended into inanity (which claiming that the money being discussed here is about gas station profits is...)...

[Night Strike]

What heavy federal tax cuts has the petroleum industry received in the past and are still receiving today? Which of these are unique to the petroleum industry and are not the same tax cuts used by other industries? IF you can identify any tax cuts that are specific to the petroleum industry, then we can discuss those. Otherwise, you're just joining the Democrats in their bullying tactics of picking and choosing which industries they want to use the power of the government to punish.

We have been through all this many times before. As long as you start with the world view that nothing can change.. it won't.

So are you planning to answer the question? You join the Democrats in calling for ending tax breaks for oil companies, so exactly which federal tax breaks are in place for oil companies that are not available to other industrial companies?

Gas stations make about 1-2 cents per gallon on gas while oil companies make about 7 cents per gallon on gas. Combined state and federal gasoline taxes are approximately 50 cents per gallon. So who is making out with all the money? The greedy government.

Definitely not the gas stations. Nor do grocers make much money from just selling food. Basic retail economics... thought that was supposed to be your field?

There is plenty of money made, but since you seem to have descended into inanity (which claiming that the money being discussed here is about gas station profits is...)...

I'm just throwing out facts that you don't want to debate. The government makes more money off a gallon of gas than either gas stations or oil companies. So why do you want to raise taxes on the oil companies when the government is already making the most off a gallon of gas?