Saturday, May 03, 2008

Good Question: These Folks Want to Be President?

Politicians want lower gas and oil prices but don't want more production to increase supply. They want oil "independence" but they've declared off limits most of the big sources of domestic oil that could replace foreign imports. They want Americans to use less oil to reduce greenhouse gases but they protest higher oil prices that reduce demand. They want more oil company investment but they want to confiscate the profits from that investment. And these folks want to be President?

~"Windfall Profits for Dummies" in today's WSJ


At 5/03/2008 8:04 PM, Blogger OBloodyHell said...

> Normally, when you tax something, you get less of it, but Mr. Obama seems to think he can repeal the laws of economics.

This is nothing new, these Marxist idiots have been trying to do that since Marx got snoogy with Engels.

At least at the turn of the last century, they could claim innocent idealism, as the theory had never been tested and the true results unknown. Now, we've seen the results of 60 years of it, as well as many smaller-scale attempts.

Two and two continue to make four in spite of the whine of the amateur for three or the cry of the critic for five.
- James H. Whistler -

At 5/04/2008 12:43 AM, Blogger randian said...

If you believe Obama and Clinton, the problem isn't the ideas but who implements them. They'll get it right. Just ask them.

At 5/04/2008 12:45 AM, Blogger bobble said...

what is needed is a federal tax on gasoline. no, not a tax on oil companies. an excise tax to raise the price about $2/gallon. this would immediately reduce gasoline demand and force a shift from Suburbans to more efficient vehicles.

the money from the tax could be used to pay for the bush budget deficit.

At 5/04/2008 6:29 AM, Blogger juandos said...

The lonely marxist bobble says: "the money from the tax could be used to pay for the bush budget deficit"...

Funny but you didn't mention anything about paying for that LBJ boondoggle called the War On Poverty, why is that?

That's the gift that keeps on giving...

Regarding the Bush and discretionary spending, I don't totally disagree with your sentiments though...

Yet consider the following from the Economist's View dated 2, 02 '08: The Myth of Runaway Federal Spending under Bush

"Never mind dollar figures, which grow because of inflation, population growth, and other normal factors. A better guide is spending as a percentage of GDP. And this has increased, from 18.5% in fiscal 2001 to 20% in fiscal 2007"...

At 5/04/2008 6:36 AM, Blogger juandos said...

Does anyone have an idea of how this is going to work?

Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Wednesday that if he wins the White House, he will invest $210 billion to create jobs in the construction and environmental sectors

Aren't these two sectors that are generally at odds with each other?

At 5/04/2008 9:33 AM, Blogger K T Cat said...

The pursuit of hypocrisy or stupidity in politicians is intellectually limiting. From an economics viewpoint, aren't politicians selling eternal childhood to a willing group of consumers? "Give me your vote and I will give you benefits without responsiblities!"

If that's the case, then why wouldn't you expect Marxism or socialism or cutting taxes to increase government revenue to be central to a politician's platform?

At 5/04/2008 3:17 PM, Blogger bobble said...

"The lonely marxist bobble"

LOL. juandos, i have voted republican for 30+ years, until bush hijacked the country. i first voted demo in 2004 and 2006.

"A better guide is spending as a percentage of GDP. And this has increased, from 18.5% in fiscal 2001 to 20% in fiscal 2007"..."

yes, i get the point. but here's another interesting chart; national debt as a percent of GDP. bush reversed a decline that began under clinton.

Debt as percent of GDP

it's interesting that reagan and bushes I and II were the only presidents in the last 50 years to increase debt(as % GDP). i forgive reagan because his defense spending bankrupted the soviet union when they tried to keep up.

but bush is just hopeless. the problem with bush economics is he thinks all you have to to is cut taxes (which i am not against) and then you can just spend whatever you want because the "miracle" of tax cuts will fix everything.

At 5/07/2008 12:30 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


You missed a big point about the tax cuts. Revenue increased under Bush two and the economy grew more than the 3 times the size of China (growth was 3x China's economy). I know it's hard for you tax and spend liberals to understand the concept, but when you reduce taxes you get more revenue. Rich people can avoid or delay paying taxes.

Also, you may have been too young to remember, it wasn't until the Republicans took over Congress that the defecit was reduced under Clinton. This was after he and his wife tried to take over the Health Care System and miserably failed and consequently his party was humiliated at the ballot box.


Post a Comment

<< Home