Get ready to see your gas prices rising significantly

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by dogfaceman
http:///forum/post/2924278
well because our country is in a huge economic crises right now, and our country needs to raise money, and the poor dont have money so we raise the tax on the rich.
so the government can more efficiently handle money than "the rich"? You think taking money away from americans will help the economy?
 

dogfaceman

Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2924285
so the government can more efficiently handle money than "the rich"? You think taking money away from americans will help the economy?
well let me think about, DO you think the TRICKLE DOWN THEORY works? no so why did bush reinstate it, i mean our 2nd worst president ever used it and it didnt work, so why did bush use it, all Obama wants to do is set the tax policy back to what it was when our economy was doing pretty decent(clinton years, i mean it would have been better if he didnt have to clean up after those two huligans, Bush uno, and Reagan,)
 

darthtang aw

Active Member
Originally Posted by dogfaceman
http:///forum/post/2924293
well let me think about, DO you think the TRICKLE DOWN THEORY works? no so why did bush reinstate it, i mean our 2nd worst president ever used it and it didnt work, so why did bush use it, all Obama wants to do is set the tax policy back to what it was when our economy was doing pretty decent(clinton years, i mean it would have been better if he didnt have to clean up after those two huligans, Bush uno, and Reagan,)
Explain how Reagan was bad. The reason the economy tanked under the first Bush is exactly what is being proposed to do now. The tax on the rich was increased drastically.
 

dogfaceman

Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/2924299
Explain how Reagan was bad. The reason the economy tanked under the first Bush is exactly what is being proposed to do now. The tax on the rich was increased drastically.
explain how reagan was bad? hahaha
nice one dumby
 

darthtang aw

Active Member
Originally Posted by dogfaceman
http:///forum/post/2924301
explain how reagan was bad? hahaha
nice one dumby

Yet you can't explain it, and I am the dumby. (who uses this word anyway. My 4th grade daughter has even evolved to using more sophisticated insults).
 

dogfaceman

Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/2924308
Yet you can't explain it, and I am the dumby. (who uses this word anyway. My 4th grade daughter has even evolved to using more sophisticated insults).
i mean did you not read what i posted, THE TRICKLE DOWN THEORY, cmon man, that response you had might make me die from laughter
 

darthtang aw

Active Member
Originally Posted by dogfaceman
http:///forum/post/2924311
i mean did you not read what i posted, THE TRICKLE DOWN THEORY, cmon man, that response you had might make me die from laughter

Yet unemployment lowered dramatically when he started it. It didn't get out of control again until Bush took over and significantly raised the taxes on the rich as I have pointed out. So this does not show me how he was bad, as it worked under Reagan.
In Reagans first year it continued to go up, then after everything took effect it went down steadily for the next 7 years....
 

dogfaceman

Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/2924317
Yet unemployment lowered dramatically when he started it. It didn't get out of control again until Bush took over and significantly raised the taxes on the rich as I have pointed out. So this does not show me how he was bad, as it worked under Reagan.
In Reagans first year it continued to go up, then after everything took effect it went down steadily for the next 7 years....
here i will give it to you, trading weapons with IRAN, he appointed Antonin Scalia to the supreme court, he raised the deficit dramatically, he screwed the middle and lower classes, he gave weapons to the Taliban who now is controlled by Al Quaida, he gave chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein. he lowered taxes for the rich thinking it would trickle down to the poor, which didnt happen all it did was give the rich more money and drive the US economy into the ground. he also cut spending o socialized services and sent mentally ill people out into the streets.
 

jdl

Member
actually one big cause of the economic crisis we are in was caused by the dems golden boy, Mr. Clinton. He allowed the housing tax to be raised so people were flipping houses and paying ZERO in taxes.
all cars should just be made electric. we have the technology, i would love to see obama try and make all cars electric, and get us out of Iraq ( most important to me, i dont see why we attacked them in the first place?), and it would be nice if he raises taxes for the rich and lowers them for the poor
all cars should be electirc? You do realize the reason why certain cars cant be electric?
we attacked Iraq because CONGRESS voted for it.
 

darthtang aw

Active Member
Originally Posted by dogfaceman
http:///forum/post/2924329
here i will give it to you, trading weapons with IRAN, he appointed Antonin Scalia to the supreme court, he raised the deficit dramatically, he screwed the middle and lower classes, he gave weapons to the Taliban who now is controlled by Al Quaida, he gave chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein. he lowered taxes for the rich thinking it would trickle down to the poor, which didnt happen all it did was give the rich more money and drive the US economy into the ground. he also cut spending o socialized services and sent mentally ill people out into the streets.
Scalia was bad how?
The unemployment rate went down so thus more lower and middle class people were employed, not exactly screwing them in my opinion. What happened to Afghanistan is the direct result to congress at the time as they did not want to help afghanistan after fighting of the soviet union. No rebuild nothing. So this allowed the warlords to take control. Congress never let any proposals to rebuild afghanistan even get out of committee for a floor vote. So the result of the Taliban is Congresses fault as the President can not just gtive out money with out approval from congress.
When he lowered taxes on the rich they invested in their companies and created jobs (thus the steady decline of unempl;oment during that time.)
 

dogfaceman

Member
Originally Posted by JDL
http:///forum/post/2924342
actually one big cause of the economic crisis we are in was caused by the dems golden boy, Mr. Clinton. He allowed the housing tax to be raised so people were flipping houses and paying ZERO in taxes.
all cars should be electirc? You do realize the reason why certain cars cant be electric?
we attacked Iraq because CONGRESS voted for it.
yeah i dont care who voted for it, we shouldnt have been in there, when Kennedy was president the congress wanted him to bomb cuba, but kennedy was smart and didnt. thats why he is one of the greatest presidents ever.
no and I dont know why they shouldn't be all electric?
 

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by dogfaceman
http:///forum/post/2924293
well let me think about, DO you think the TRICKLE DOWN THEORY works? no so why did bush reinstate it, i mean our 2nd worst president ever used it and it didnt work, so why did bush use it, all Obama wants to do is set the tax policy back to what it was when our economy was doing pretty decent(clinton years, i mean it would have been better if he didnt have to clean up after those two huligans, Bush uno, and Reagan,)
umm wow you really believe that? Seriously? This is insane.
 

sickboy

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2924063
Explain to me what I said that was inaccurate? Where did I say this action was going to raise prices short term.
If you'd bother to read the end of my post after explaining how the govt can and has influenced price. I offered a caveat, I didn't think it would have (and let me clarify) short term effects since no one was drilling yet anyway. Unless possibly people (the commodities market) foresees a future shortage and start buying up oil...
But I'll go fix the post.
There was nothing you said that was inaccurate, but the price increase we saw had nothing to do with Supply and Demand, Supply stayed constant and Demand actually decreased (we know now, not at the time). Yes, the option of drilling (even though it was only an executive ban lift and not actual permission was it?) did drop the price, but while wall street was refusing to see that the world economy was going to collapse, they were using false expectation of supply and demand and thus caused the manipulation that helped drive our economy even further into the ground.
I was just offering another perspective, not trying to say that anything you said was wrong per se.
 

sickboy

Active Member
Hey, I'm just curious how you guys (especially stdreb and darthtang) expect us to pay for social security in the coming years? I understand that at points in time decreased taxes correlate with increased tax revenue, but not all of the time, so how do we set our tax structure to take care of it? And getting rid of SS is not an option. Wouldn't setting the rates slightly higher now help build a surplus to lessen a drastic increase later on?
 

zman1

Active Member
Originally Posted by dogfaceman
http:///forum/post/2924346
no and I dont know why they shouldn't be all electric?

Never fear DFM -- You have seen the BP commercials, they are working diligently at perfecting the next generation of high tech storage batteries!
So they can patent them and shelve the technology for at least 10 years.
 

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/2924366
There was nothing you said that was inaccurate, but the price increase we saw had nothing to do with Supply and Demand, Supply stayed constant and Demand actually decreased (we know now, not at the time). Yes, the option of drilling (even though it was only an executive ban lift and not actual permission was it?) did drop the price, but while wall street was refusing to see that the world economy was going to collapse, they were using false expectation of supply and demand and thus caused the manipulation that helped drive our economy even further into the ground.
I was just offering another perspective, not trying to say that anything you said was wrong per se.
Well if you want to be really exact. Supply increased too, but demand outpaced it. With the speed of the fall, I do think a lot of the price was based off of perceptions rather than actual market conditions. Kind of like a self fulfilling prophecy.
I also think Bush's announcement kind of was the pin the popped the bubble.
The bans were two fold, one was executive, and the other by congress.
Both had to expire before it would open up the area. Bush lifted his, and congress didn't come to new terms, so the legislation was sun-setted, and thus lifting their ban.
But the actual mechanics of selling the leases, then pre dilling research really hadn't started.
Obama creating a new ban, or congress, won't actually change the supply. However it might create a perception of a shortage. Which possibly could increase prices. Depending on the play it recieves, if (and when imo) it happens.
Just like if you know there is a sale on the same product tomorrow you'll wait for tomorrow, or if you know the price is going to go up when the sale ends, you'll buy it before the sale goes off.
 

darthtang aw

Active Member
Originally Posted by sickboy
http:///forum/post/2924374
Hey, I'm just curious how you guys (especially stdreb and darthtang) expect us to pay for social security in the coming years? I understand that at points in time decreased taxes correlate with increased tax revenue, but not all of the time, so how do we set our tax structure to take care of it? And getting rid of SS is not an option. Wouldn't setting the rates slightly higher now help build a surplus to lessen a drastic increase later on?
I do not view social securtity as a tax personally. I view it as taking care of my parents and grandparents. Here is what I know and How I think it should be fixed. 1st. Government can not dip into social security fund for any reason anymore. This law needs passed. as this is how it originally began to get in this mess in the first place. Second, each month our social security has a 25% defecit roughly.(I am going off memory so my nukmbers may be off). To Offset this we simply just need to double the dollar amount withheld from each individual. If their total dollar amount per paycheck is 30 dollars then 60 gets with held. This would turn the deficit in to a 50% (roughly) increase. Once a person hits the age of 45, this increase goes away.
This is a simple way to fix the problem, probably the only way from what I see. and if the American people could view it as taking care of their parents and themselves it might be swallowed s just that, since the government would have no legal right to take from this fund and all the money would be allocated out to the people regardless. so it isn't a tax used by the government. However I have a feeling which ever party proposed it, the other party would call it a tax.
 
Top