CT Programmer

Houston to Obama: Smell the Oil

If the two-party system is broken, that must mean the single party system in China and the former USSR worked wonders, plus the "everyone gets their own party" system in Europe works miracles as well. As an old History professor of mine said, the two-party system is actually the most efficient and is one of the reasons why America has gotten so much done in its short 200 year history. And if you look at the differences between Dems and Reps in the US, they pale compared to Europe, Africa or the Middle East. You range all the way from Fascists to Communists and everything in between there. My cousin loves to go on about how everything is always deadlocked in Italy. I'll take the two party system any day.

Now what doesn't help is having someone in charge that is only looking out for his half, and that can apply to both sides of the aisle. George W put his unchecked political cronies in place and we've seen the fallout ever since, from Rumsfeld to Cheney, to "Good Job" Brownie to that HR chick that was just testifying before Congress about asking all the stupid conservative questions during DOJ interviews. Remember that Bush ran as a "uniter, not a divider". Yet he has continued a trend of virulently dividing this country and its politics. And all these fringe groups --- right and left --- and all the hard-core obviously-biased political pundits don't help get things done. They just fuel the flames. And its all the people in the middle that get screwed. I can't stand Sean Hannity, but who the hell is that Combs guy? He doesn't represent me as a Democrat. And what grave did they dig him up from? He's a stereotypical "liberal" to cater to their largely reactionary audience. My guess is most typical Republicans don't like half of what Hannity says. And I requested removal from MoveOn.org. I used to support them, but they have moved so far to the left that it turns my stomach to be affiliated with them. Whether you agree with the war or not, calling a General a traitor because he's doing his job is pathetic.

If you go through all the comments from all the people on this blog, what you consistently see is a bunch of people --- Dems, Reps and otherwise --- screaming that our politicians aren't listening, and that this country is on a crash course to disaster as far as energy is concerned. I hope Obama and McCain are reading this, but they're likely not. Maybe some staffer is and will relay the message: STOP THE CRAP AND GIVE US A REAL, WORKING ENERGY POLICY THAT WILL INCORPORATE ALL REALISTIC OPTIONS AVAILABLE AND MOVE THIS COUNTRY TOWARD ENERGY INDEPENDENCE!

PS: Sorry for the obsessive posts today. I usually have a self-imposed limit of no more than 2 posts on any given article, but it's been a good conversation with y'all.

Houston to Obama: Smell the Oil

Mmarrkk: "With expenditure cuts" is a big asterisk on your statement. The problem is there weren't any. In fact, George W. has outspent any Democratic president that I can remember. Ron Paul said that Reps have become the tax and spend party, not the Dems. But I also don't have rose-colored glasses on for any Democratic candidate. I am not crazy about many of the economic policies of Dems. And AlexS is 100% correct when he says that special interests have their hands out, but that's not just Dems. That's both Dems and Reps. Old people get a lot of pandering to because --- guess what --- they vote. And they vote by the busload.

But speaking strictly economics, the war in Iraq is costing us more than any tax hike could. We have bled billions of dollars there for 5 years. Do I think Obama will pull us out? Yes! I honestly do. The Democratic party is sick and tired of this war and have had enough. We are pissed off at the current Dem Congress for not pushing the issue (Pelosi and Reid). The Dem base wants us out, and the leadership has shied away from it because they haven't had enough to block a filibuster in the Senate. Many say they should have still tried. McCain has promised to stay the course in Iraq. I equate McCain with a third term for Bush. Pure and simple. This economic issue far overshadows any other domestic economy or social issue in my mind. Even being a life-long Democrat, if McCain was the one saying we'd pull out and Obama the one saying we'd stay, I'd be voting for McCain. I'd vote for Ron Paul in a heartbeat if he were the Republican nominee, because he's so vocal about the stupidity of this war and maintaining it that I'm 100% sure he'd pull out and quick.

Houston to Obama: Smell the Oil

Mmarrkk: There's a lot of aspects of modern society that you won't find in the Constitution. The Constitution is not designed to regulate every aspect of everyone's life, including taxation. It's not law. It's the BASIS of our law-making system. The Constitution set up the three branches of government, which then get to decide all the aspects of modern life for you and the rules that everyone plays by, and leave recourse to correct it (i.e.; vote) when the people don't agree. I hear you on taxes. I am in that "one percent" that George Bush gave the tax breaks to and Al Gore, John Kerry and the Dems were railing against giving a tax break to. About a third of my family's income is in the highest tax bracket. So, when you rail about taxes and spending, I have twice as much right as you to rail. Even though I won't be voting for McCain, he was right in saying that he didn't support the tax cuts originally without corresponding spending cuts. But McCain is willing to spend us into bankruptcy because the surge is working. Yes, government spends too much. There is a ton of pork, but even that is a phrase that is bandied about too much with a negative connotation. Something that benefits one state is called "pork" in the 49 other states. But the last time I checked, my taxes were paying for not only the military, but highways, bridges, ports, police, fire, etc., etc.. It's called civilization, and if I wanted rock-bottom taxes I'd go live in a shack with a tin roof in Venezuela and Hugo Chavez can take care of me. It's easy to go on about "them politicians spending all my money", and again, I have more right than anyone to complain (did you know that the top 10% of income earners in this country pay 40% of the actual taxes?). But taxes are necessary, and even though it hurts my bottom line, George W.'s tax cuts were misguided and will bankrupt us (even without bleeding cash in Iraq). We pay far less taxes than countries in Europe, so I wouldn't characterize us as "closer to socialism than you think" as you stipulate. I agree the stimulus check (which even though George W. came up with the Dem congress approved) was a waste. And guess how much of that $1500 my family got? You guessed it. Zip. Was it $1500 or $1200. I can't remember --- BECAUSE I DIDN'T GET ANY OF IT!

Houston to Obama: Smell the Oil

I am a life-long Democrat, and proud of it for many reasons. Democrats are not against capitalism, and nor are Republicans the poster-children for it. We are not a true capitalist society. We were close to it at the turn of the century when factory owners could employ children in dangerous working environments... that's true capitalism. We're not there. Nor are we socialists where everything is distributed evenly and the government controls the economy. We're somewhere in between. Despite the radical left and reactionary right, most Dems and Reps are somewhere in the middle, and so is our Republic. We just want to go to work, have a chance for a good life, and raise our kids the best we can.

As a Democrat, I do have problems with Obama's windfall tax idea. The problem is that big oil is labeled as some huge, inhuman machine that somehow is against society in general. It's not. It's you, me, and half of America via their IRA's and pensions. When big oil makes a ton of money, everyone that had the sense to put XOM, COP or the like in their portfolio makes money. And there are years when they aren't making huge profits. By my calculations, Obama's $1000 "energy credit" would cost upwards of $100 billion. That's 1/4 of all of XOM's revenue and more than half of their gross profit. All it amounts to is a tax on the investors in these companies.

One of the roles of government is to re-distribute wealth. If you don't believe that, then look at the progressive tax codes. The more you make, the higher % you pay. That's not a Democratic idea. That has evolved from all of the prior Democratic and Republican politicians since the 40's. The problem is that this $1000 energy credit is just pandering to the masses. We're taking money from the "rich guys" and giving it to the "working Joe's". That's all fine and dandy to some extent, but this won't help the economy nor will it help us long-term in weaning ourselves from foreign oil. As a Democrat, I agree with Norman Lepoff that taxing success is ludicrous. I personally believe the income tax should be scrapped in favor of consumption taxes. We need to increase the incentive to work hard and save. However, I wouldn't hold my breath for anything like that in the near future from either party. Ross Perot and Steve Forbes proposed just such a thing and they were marginal candidates only --- and we all know that even if elected they'd be stone-walled by BOTH parties in Congress.

Without overhauling the entire system, which I think most people realistically don't expect to happen, the logical choice is to increase taxes somewhere to subsidize industry that will wean us off foreign oil. We don't have enough domestic oil to do it, so that means replacing oil with something else: natural gas, solar, nuclear, wind, bio-fuel, clean coal (if ever economically feasible), all of the above and then some. It won't be one thing. But if you're going to put a windfall tax on big oil, don't just squander it with a rebate that won't do anything for the economy long-term (just like W's stimulus plan). It's not worth it to raise GDP by one-tenth of a percentage point. We've got a huge federal deficit, huge debt load, and a war that's costing us more than the federal budget. And an economy that's addicted to oil worse than a junkie to heroin.