Another Socialist/Marxist Idea being pushed by the Dems

#101
#101
BigPapaVol said:
great point, but since it has no bearing on anything let's talk about socialism relative to capitalism. Socialism is the EXACT opposite economic system and every single little slide toward socialism can do nothing but hurt a capitalist system.

I understand why people with no discernable skill for which they should be paid hate capitalism, but what's you're excuse?
Click to expand...
Socialism > Corporatism
 
#102
#102
OWB said:
Socialism > Corporatism
Click to expand...
since when? At least the corporates that make money are competent and provide value to someone paying for it by their own choice. Moreover, the corps pay taxes on it again and employ people in producing. It's actually a neat little economic cycle idea.

The gov't steals it, uses it inefficiently and puts it in place where it's sure to simply float off into the abyss never to venture into the economy again.
 
#103
#103
jamesd1628 said:
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I'm reading this to mean that the reason the cost of gas is so high is because of the greed of the oil companies. If that's what you're suggesting, it is wholly false. Gas is so expensive because the government interfered with the law of supply in demand twenty some-odd years ago by outlawing domestic exploration and extraction of oil. I.e., they shut down a major source of supply. We are suffering the consequences of that now in the form of high prices.

As for the general consumer not understanding supply and demand, you are probably right, but so what? It applies whether people understand it or not. Not many people understand gravity, either, but they still fall when they jump off a building.
Click to expand...

The government has always interfered with the law of supply and demand with regards to oil. As compared to every other country in the world our gas prices have been artificially low for decades -- in fact, up until the turn of the century our gas price increases stayed below inflation. I find that interesting considering we get our oil from the Middle East and the cost to ship it to us should be higher than European countries.

Our fossil fuel addiction has always been manipulated to keep us consuming the cheap oil. Why drill when we can buy it cheaper somewhere else?
 
#104
#104
VolByBirth said:
The government has always interfered with the law of supply and demand with regards to oil. As compared to every other country in the world our gas prices have been artificially low for decades -- in fact, up until the turn of the century our gas price increases stayed below inflation. I find that interesting considering we get our oil from the Middle East and the cost to ship it to us should be higher than European countries.

Our fossil fuel addiction has always been manipulated to keep us consuming the cheap oil. Why drill when we can buy it cheaper somewhere else?
Click to expand...
just how did our gov't keep the price artificially low? Especially in the periods when oil companies and ME economies were getting crushed by the cheap oil.
 
#105
#105
BigPapaVol said:
just how did our gov't keep the price artificially low? Especially in the periods when oil companies and ME economies were getting crushed by the cheap oil.
Click to expand...

One way is through tax breaks for the oil companies. Lower taxes means lower prices. I'll quote directly.

"Government directly subsidizes oil consumption through preferential treatment in tax codes. A multitude of federal corporate income tax credits and deductions results in an effective income tax rate of 11% for the oil industry, compared to the non-oil industry average of 18%. If the oil industry paid the industrywide average tax rate (including oil) of 17%, they would have paid an additional $2.0 billion in 1991. Our results are consistent with a report by the Alliance to Save Energy that estimated the benefits of individual federal corporate income tax provisions. Their results showed that in 1989 preferential treatment yielded $1.8 billion to $4.6 billion in individual income tax benefits to the oil industry (Koplow, 1993).

At the state and local levels, sales taxes for general revenues on petroleum products are lower than the average sales tax rates, and consequently, motorists underpay for general government services. (Sales taxes are charges on petroleum products above user fees [highway fuel taxes, tolls, and fees earmarked for infrastructure and services] that are used for general revenues.) Another study by the Alliance to Save Energy found that state and local governments taxed gasoline at about half the rate as other goods -- approximately 3% versus 6% (Loper, 1994) -- resulting in an estimated $2.7 billion revenue loss from gasoline sales alone in 1991. When home, industry, and office petroleum products are included, the total state and local revenue loss sums to $4.1 billion."

Here is an article before the recent rise about our gas prices being amazing low - though no reason is given.

USATODAY.com - Gas prices too high? Not by historical standards
 
#106
#106
the amounts you're talking about wouldn't have made a dent in the fuel prices over the period and are way more than offset by the gov't taxes at the pump. Think about 2 billion in 1991 relative to gross revenues and profits of the oil producers.

I suspect that's why you didn't see those likely enviro whackos trying to translate the dollars into per gallon values. Had it been meaningful, they'd have done it and printed it in bright red. The BILLIOn handle supported their point of view better.
 
#107
#107
BigPapaVol said:
I really don't hear the uber capitalists bitching about the supply and demand side. I hear bitching about over regulating the market and limiting drilling, but not the fundamental economics.
Click to expand...

I am only saying you see people bitching about high gas prices who consider themselves staunch capitalists, and it seems a bit hypocritical to me
 
#108
#108
emainvol said:
I am only saying you see people bitching about high gas prices who consider themselves staunch capitalists, and it seems a bit hypocritical to me
Click to expand...
probably is. Hoever, don't forget that true capitalism has never been at play in the energy markets. The gov't is all up in the middle of it and the futures world is artificially generating enormous demand.

Regardless, I can understand the bitching because these prices change lifestyles and force this faux inflation through the economy. That impacts everyone from every angle.
 
#111
#111
emainvol said:
I am only saying you see people bitching about high gas prices who consider themselves staunch capitalists, and it seems a bit hypocritical to me
Click to expand...

you absolutely wrong. the whole point of capitalism is competition. this drives prices down. if the government doesn't let these companies drill for oil, to be competitive, then it isn't capitalism. you mightwant to read up on capitalism 101
 
#113
#113
joevol320 said:
you absolutely wrong. the whole point of capitalism is competition. this drives prices down. if the government doesn't let these companies drill for oil, to be competitive, then it isn't capitalism. you mightwant to read up on capitalism 101
Click to expand...
You might want to stop being so one sided.522211555_bc9ba688ea.jpg
 
#114
#114
emainvol said:
I am only saying you see people bitching about high gas prices who consider themselves staunch capitalists, and it seems a bit hypocritical to me
Click to expand...

It's all about supply and demand. We have stifled our ability to add supply to this new greater demand. As Americans we have always pulled our weight in the world. In this case we are using much while supplying very little. We need to do everything we can to get oil to market and in the end this will drive the speculators to back off some. The market will work itself out until we can come up with a viable (affordable) alternative to fuel.
 
#118
#118
joevol320 said:
you absolutely wrong. the whole point of capitalism is competition. this drives prices down. if the government doesn't let these companies drill for oil, to be competitive, then it isn't capitalism. you mightwant to read up on capitalism 101
Click to expand...

Dude, do me a favor and put me on ignore so you don't feel the need to respond to my posts. In no way did you respond to anything I said, you just started spouting off about something else entirely.
 
#120
#120
emainvol said:
You can make the argument that the country has been on decline since the current administration took over.
Click to expand...

OrangeEmpire said:
I would argue the past 50 years.....
Click to expand...

OrangeEmpire said:
FDR for all of his socialist programs at least got it and got us through WWII. Truman was a bafoon and Ike was well...... a good administrator.

FDR and his New Deal are the worst things that ever happened to this country. That's when the federal government shifted from one of limited, delineated powers (as intended by the founding fathers) to one that can regulate anything it wants. This was accomplished by the total bastardization of the Commerce Clause, which gives the federal government to power to regulate commerce “among the several states.” Before FDR, that clause was narrowly interpreted and rarely used. FDR interpreted it to mean that the federal government can do whatever it wants. Lest we should forget, much of FDR’s New Deal federal legislation was originally declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court because the federal government lacked any Constitutional authority to enact such legislation. In other words, the Supreme Court initially said that the Commerce Clause does not extend to the type of legislation that FDR tried to enact. What was FDR’s response? He threatened to introduce federal legislation that would expand the size of the Supreme Court and pack the Court full of Justices who would agree with his grossly expanded interpretation of the Commerce Clause. Under the threat of that legislation (and Lord only knows what other pressure), two Justices who previously interpreted the Commerce Clause narrowly suddenly expanded their interpretation to agree with FDR. Now, virtually every socialistic federal government program and invasive legislation we have is based on this gross expansion the Commerce Clause. That would include things like Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid programs, any and all gun regulations, Civil Rights Act of 1964, affirmative action legislation, National Labor Relations Act, Securities and Exchange Act, Fair Labor Standards Act, and the list goes on and on. Thanks, FDR, for the giant step toward Socialism in the USA.
Click to expand...
 
#121
#121
jamesd1628 said:
OrangeEmpire said:
FDR for all of his socialist programs at least got it and got us through WWII. Truman was a bafoon and Ike was well...... a good administrator.

FDR and his New Deal are the worst things that ever happened to this country. That's when the federal government shifted from one of limited, delineated powers (as intended by the founding fathers) to one that can regulate anything it wants. This was accomplished by the total bastardization of the Commerce Clause, which gives the federal government to power to regulate commerce “among the several states.” Before FDR, that clause was narrowly interpreted and rarely used. FDR interpreted it to mean that the federal government can do whatever it wants. Lest we should forget, much of FDR’s New Deal federal legislation was originally declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court because the federal government lacked any Constitutional authority to enact such legislation. In other words, the Supreme Court initially said that the Commerce Clause does not extend to the type of legislation that FDR tried to enact. What was FDR’s response? He threatened to introduce federal legislation that would expand the size of the Supreme Court and pack the Court full of Justices who would agree with his grossly expanded interpretation of the Commerce Clause. Under the threat of that legislation (and Lord only knows what other pressure), two Justices who previously interpreted the Commerce Clause narrowly suddenly expanded their interpretation to agree with FDR. Now, virtually every socialistic federal government program and invasive legislation we have is based on this gross expansion the Commerce Clause. That would include things like Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid programs, any and all gun regulations, Civil Rights Act of 1964, affirmative action legislation, National Labor Relations Act, Securities and Exchange Act, Fair Labor Standards Act, and the list goes on and on. Thanks, FDR, for the giant step toward Socialism in the USA.
Click to expand...

I sense some hostility towards Socialism. Understandable. That being said (and I really can't read every post in all these threads to find out) -- are you anti-government or anti-Democrat or neither? I would gather with the platform that Obama is a socialist you are anti-Obama? I get the sense you would love Ron Paul -- which isn't an insult. He's just pretty much a straight up Constitutionalist.
Click to expand...
 
#123
#123
emainvol said:
So the fact that FDR ended the Great Depression wasn't a good thing?
Click to expand...

A very common misconception. Do a little research and you will discover that there is a great deal of debate and disagreement on that topic. Half of the historical economists asked about that issue indicated that FDR's New Deal legislation actually hindered the country's recovery from the Great Depression.
 
#124
#124
VolByBirth said:
jamesd1628 said:
I sense some hostility towards Socialism. Understandable. That being said (and I really can't read every post in all these threads to find out) -- are you anti-government or anti-Democrat or neither? I would gather with the platform that Obama is a socialist you are anti-Obama? I get the sense you would love Ron Paul -- which isn't an insult. He's just pretty much a straight up Constitutionalist.
Click to expand...

Hostility toward Socialism: yes.

Anti-government: no, provided it's a limited government as originally intended.

Ron Paul: I would say I'm generally libertarian on most issues, but Ron Paul just doesn't present himself very well and comes across as a bit of a kook.

Obama: yes, he's a Socialist, as is McCain (perhaps to a slightly lesser degree), as are most other members of our federal government, Dems and Repubs alike. And I don't like any of them.
Click to expand...
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top