• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Democrats propose further tax hike on offshore oil

I would agree to this on these conditions. 100% of the funds raised went to disaster preparedness and spill mitigation. Including funding and equipping the 1994 plan.

This tax however should only be applied to barrels produced on the gulf.

None of this tax should be used for anything else.

I'm fine for a tax on offshore drilling in the gulf. Even if it'll just trickle down to the consumer, hopefully it'll help get our country less reliant on oil as an energy source and cause us to be more effecient with it's use, and develop better public transportation infrastructure all over the country. I say go for it.
 
Actually, the economy did not fall into depression, which was a genuine threat 20 or so months ago. This threat was reflected in the Dow, which reflects the outlook of sophisticated investment, had fallen more than 60% during the last 7 months of the Bush Administration (and into the first weeks of his successor). The Dow has rebounded remarkably and has once again started trading on fundamentals. So I would say the economy has stabilized. Unfortunately unemployment is a trailing indicator of economic health, so its is not back.

That all said, we are not out of the woods. The uncertainty of a recovery or the risk for retrenching has inhibited employment recovery. Still, its hard to realistically argue that it is worse now than it was in December 2008.

If you do not argee, please offer your Monday morning response to what should have been done that wasn't.

You'll see what happens once the Bush tax cuts expire.
 
I'm fine for a tax on offshore drilling in the gulf. Even if it'll just trickle down to the consumer, hopefully it'll help get our country less reliant on oil as an energy source and cause us to be more effecient with it's use, and develop better public transportation infrastructure all over the country. I say go for it.

Unless I am missing something you are agreeing to a cut in supply not demand. How does that cause us to be less reliant on oil???
 
What gets me is washingtons backpeddling on the lability cap. The current lability cap is 75 million yet washington wants to raise that cap on BP. I dont understand how they believe they can change a law after the fact and expect people to comply.
 
What gets me is washingtons backpeddling on the lability cap. The current lability cap is 75 million yet washington wants to raise that cap on BP. I dont understand how they believe they can change a law after the fact and expect people to comply.

You may have a point. Reference: Ex post facto laws are forbidden by the constitution. If it can be proven that the original laws involved bribery of government politicians and officials then maybe the law can be proven to be tainted. Of course the supreme court believes that bribery (lobbying) is freedom of speech, so who knows?
 
You may have a point. Reference: Ex post facto laws are forbidden by the constitution. If it can be proven that the original laws involved bribery of government politicians and officials then maybe the law can be proven to be tainted. Of course the supreme court believes that bribery (lobbying) is freedom of speech, so who knows?

I think Obama who was a constitutional law professor knows what he is proposing is against the law. But most people are ignorant of the law so this is a good stunt by Obama and the democrats. If a republican speaks out about it, then they can sat, see in bed with big oil.

I guess if they could get people to believe in " change you can believe in" to get a person who speaks well but has no experience at anything meaningful nto be president. Why not go for the gusto and say and do anything you want. Most people don't know what the heck you are saying means anyway.
 
I think Obama who was a constitutional law professor knows what he is proposing is against the law. But most people are ignorant of the law so this is a good stunt by Obama and the democrats. If a republican speaks out about it, then they can sat, see in bed with big oil.

I guess if they could get people to believe in " change you can believe in" to get a person who speaks well but has no experience at anything meaningful nto be president. Why not go for the gusto and say and do anything you want. Most people don't know what the heck you are saying means anyway.

I believe that all of THEM are guilty of demagoguery , the Democrats, the Republicans, and most government officials. The politicians love the country divided because it takes the spotlight off of their corruption and unholy alliances.

The Romans had their Games, we have our internet.:(
 
I believe that all of THEM are guilty of demagoguery , the Democrats, the Republicans, and most government officials. The politicians love the country divided because it takes the spotlight off of their corruption and unholy alliances.

The Romans had their Games, we have our internet.:(

It is interesting. It seems clear that the American public has been raped by the current political system. Yet we seem to be sheep, totally passive and say what can you do. With a population like that is there any reason to be hopeful that meaningful change can happen here. If not what does that say about the long term prospects for prosperity in the U.S.
 
It is interesting. It seems clear that the American public has been raped by the current political system. Yet we seem to be sheep, totally passive and say what can you do. With a population like that is there any reason to be hopeful that meaningful change can happen here. If not what does that say about the long term prospects for prosperity in the U.S.

Well, I think it depends on whether you are a banker or an ordinary working citizen living from paycheck to paycheck hoping your car does not break down.
 
Well, I think it depends on whether you are a banker or an ordinary working citizen living from paycheck to paycheck hoping your car does not break down.

Not sure what you meant by that.
 
Put simply, the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer.

Simply put that is a defeatist attitiude. Less true than places like Europe for example. The opportunities are out there.
 
i really don't see how this could help, if anything, oil companies could adopt the thought of "we pay **** loads of tax, we can't afford that extra blow out preventer"
 
Maybe we will start paying for the wars, then.

You need to concern yourself more with paying for healthcare, which will soon dwarf the wars like you won't believe.
 
You need to concern yourself more with paying for healthcare, which will soon dwarf the wars like you won't believe.

We were paying for it before reform. What we need is more reform and not less.
 
You need to concern yourself more with paying for healthcare, which will soon dwarf the wars like you won't believe.

Gee, that's terrible. All people will have health care. That's really scary. Now, instead of them dying we will have to take care of them too. How dare Americans, who trust in God, to think such things.:roll:
 
Put simply, the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer.

There is a good reason for that.

Wealthy people keep doing the things that made them wealthy in the first place, while low income people keep spending their money on depreciating assets, effectively keep themselves poor.

You shouldn't be surprised.
 
You are grossly underestimating their liability concerning this disaster, which the world has never seen a worse one. It is going to become even more worse before it gets better.

I have known a lot of wealthy people in my life and one thing I have observed is that the richer you are the greedier you become.

That's not true, wealthy people by and large give more money to charities than anyone else.
Are a lot of wealthy people frugal?
You bet that's how the majority became wealthy in the first place.

You don't get rich and stay rich, by spending all your money.
 
That's not true, wealthy people by and large give more money to charities than anyone else.
Are a lot of wealthy people frugal?
You bet that's how the majority became wealthy in the first place.

You don't get rich and stay rich, by spending all your money.

Hell, let's just bring back the aristocracy.:roll:
 
There is a good reason for that.

Wealthy people keep doing the things that made them wealthy in the first place, while low income people keep spending their money on depreciating assets, effectively keep themselves poor.

You shouldn't be surprised.

AHahahaahahahaahahahhaahha.

Oh libertarians. I too once had such a simple view of the world. Then I got my first bicycle! Really? That's the reason? You don't think there are other social, political, or economic factors involved? It's just because poor people are dumber?
 
Last edited:
AHahahaahahahaahahahhaahha.

Oh libertarians. I too once had such a simple view of the world. Then I got my first bicycle! Really? That's the reason? You don't think there are other social, political, or economic factors involved? It's just because poor people are dumber?

"Poor" is a way of thinking not an income level.
"Poor" people can make 1 million a year and end up with no money in savings, it's just not as likely to happen.
Because you have to have some amount of fiscal understanding to make that much.

But I'll let this little study answer the rest of your post.

"* Income alone doesnt explain wealth disparities. Some of the lowest-earning households had managed to accumulate significant wealth.
* In fact, income differences explain just 5% of the wealth dispersion the researchers found.
* What the researchers called chance events -- inheritances, medical bills, marital status, number of children -- explained about 4% of the dispersion.
* Investment choices explained about 8% of the variations.

In other words, the vast majority of the differences in wealth had nothing to do with income, chance events or investment choices.
"

"What did explain most of the differences in wealth? Venti and Wise concluded it was this: How much the families chose to save. Those who made it a priority to save built wealth, regardless of their income level, individual circumstances or choice of investments."


An easy, 3-step wealth score - MSN Money

Oh noes! There goes the rational that poor people are just sad, hard luck cases. :lol:
 
Last edited:
Yes, like investing in Congresspeople, and even presidents. That kind of investment costs a lot, but can pay some real dividends.

That is not even remotely true for the vast majority of people who are wealthy.
This idea that someone, who has more than you, didn't earn it is a plague on humanity.
Usually driven by some kind of underlying jealousy.

Most people won't be wealthy because they don't have the patience and commitment to see it all the way through.
 
That is not even remotely true for the vast majority of people who are wealthy.
This idea that someone, who has more than you, didn't earn it is a plague on humanity.
Usually driven by some kind of underlying jealousy.

Most people won't be wealthy because they don't have the patience and commitment to see it all the way through.

Yeah, especially people like Jesus of Nazareth.
 
Back
Top Bottom