229 Comments

• Digg
• Bury

garryw,You make it sounds so simple "supply and demand" and that they're just another corporation just like any other... except:Target doesnt get millions (billions?) in tax payer subsidiesIf Heinz Ketchup decided to stop selling their product... America wouldnt turn into anarchy like it would if Oil companies stopped.We didnt go to war in the middle east for more Mach 3 razors.Calling Big Oil "just another corporation" looking out for itself and simply providing a service is a gross simplification of a very complex mechanism. I understand your point, but to break it down to "ha, your dumb for treating oil differently than the fruit stand down the road" is kind of wrong.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

do you think they will hire more people if they dont need them? if the middle..lower class (majority of people) dont have the money to buy anything, the cooperations have no need to hire more people. you mean to tell me that cooperations will hire people just to sit there and do nothing just cause they got a tax break.no you need to redistubte the wealth because the poor are going to spend spend spend, giving cooperations, who are now getting a increase in buisness a need to hire more people. have the last 8 years of this not proved a thing to you people, do you not see how this trickle down idea has failed completley, yoru only happy right now if your making alot of money.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

I didn't say it didn't "work" - I said that I don't think history substantiates the claim that it serves all the people the best - emphasis on all. Capitalism has gigantic winners - because it has gigantic losers. The "free-market" capitalism of the west could never have worked without a 3rd world to provide resources, labor, land, and markets. And the choices aren't just "free-market capitalism" (by the by, if you think that is what the US/the West currently promotes you really need to enroll in some economics courses or look up the word "nepotism" in the dictionary) and "communism" (wtf does that even mean? marxism? maoism? stalinism? leninism? gramscism? etc etc etc).anyway, my point isn't to argue whether or not free-market capitalism serves the most people the best, but rather that what both parties have promoted for the past 30+ years is nothing close to true free-market capitalism

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

dbizzell, you want progress? How profound! As a conservative, I want regression! But why lecture me about change, perhaps you should contact Obama's people.ShiftgoodI say McCain getting paid to make certain policies...I say that's bulls**t. He has had that position, Obama just recently changed it, and has received over $300,000 from big oil employees, so is he getting paid for his position!? (I don't expect any consistency from you, or for you to even respond to any of my questions, a "strike 3 - followed by some name calling should suffice)!ex: I say the mid-west is republicanOh, that's all you were pointing out!? Well California is liberal, and full rich company owner geniuses. How is the state's fiscal policy doing? Yet you still support them! And no, I don't like or support Bush, nor do the majority of conservatives, as the polls suggest. Once again you are making up propaganda on the spot. At least my pointing out of Democrats' hypocrisy have statistics to back it up.ex: I say Obama breaks the cycle by taking oil money and moving it to non oil money...You are once again claiming that making people pay more and then giving them SOME of the money back is going to help alternative energy. What type of backward math is this!? I never said the money goes back to the oil companies, it goes in a circle, as you yourself said! With loss in government. Read my and your own damn statements. If I take a buck from you, and give you 70 cents, you didn't just magically gain 70 cents, you lost 30 to government employees. Who's the one wasting time here? I shouldn't have to spoon feed you my arguments, especially when they are based on your reasoning and common sense logic.ex: I say, the corporations i see arent scared of Obamas taxes..Do you want me to give examples of companies who would prefer a corporate tax break? In all seriousness (I want to gauge how much of a bubble you live in) do you honestly believe the majority of corporations would prefer NOT to have a corporate tax cut?Don't answer, make pretend I'm "not worth your time" (because you really don't have answers). Then keep repeating that to yourself when you go to sleep at night.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

Your belief that McCain basis his position on money from big oil is purely tin foil. Most, if not all Republicans support more drilling, even non-politician Republicans. Are they all on big oil's paycheck? A typical Republican would support this type of thing, it's not like McCain suddenly took some crazy stance and then received boat loads of money. I could just as easily and with just as much evidence as you (absolutely non) claim that Obama's positions are dictated to him from the rich company owners in California. Do I believe that? No, I believe that the rich company owners in California probably donate to Obama because they share similar views, then again, I'm a logical non-tin foil type of person. And if you were working for a corporation and candidate A wanted to raise your taxes and candidate B wanted to allow you sell more product and extend the life of your business, which candidate do you suppose would receive more support from said corporation? Is this really surprising to you? I don't believe it, I have to much faith in you leftists. I think you know it makes perfect sense, you just pretend to be idiots and think OMG there is a conspiracy!!!! It's all an act."Conservatism stands for a continuity in law and order...."Conservatives, in general, support smaller government with greater individual freedoms. I realize in some cases, government spending as one, the word may seem to apply in its traditional definition (and NO, I don't think Bush is a fiscal conservative) but don't confuse the traditional definition with the political, which is very hard to define in a short sentence, especially in a way all will agree on.I wasn't arguing that conservatives must be pro-regression, once again you're missing the point of my comments. I was simply displaying the absurdity of trying to wrap up a political belief in one word. Conservatives are definitely pro progress, much more so the you progressives on many issues. For example, today the United States receives almost 50% of its electricity from coal power plants, many of which are over 3 decades old! Why haven't we moved more to nuclear power as Ronald Reagan wanted or why don't we build newer much cleaner plants (some of the current plants operate at under 40% efficiency while the new ones operate up to and in some cases over 90%)? Because leftists and their anti-progress stance. I could go on with countless other examples.The one and only place where liberals are more progressive then conservatives is in social issues such as gay rights. I say liberals (not Democrats) because poll wise most Dems are still against things like gay marriage. I would consider myself probably somewhere between libertarian and conservative, but don't hold myself hostage to any particular world view, and so believe my observation on who is more pro-progress is reasonably fair."McCain's policies run up a 3 trillion dollar debt by the end of his first term, but big oil, among other corporations get a break and the 95 percent of people in the lower tax brackets have to foot the bill."Historically cutting taxes has raised tax revenue (by stimulating the economy). So I'm not sure how you would argue raising tax revenue would cause a 3 trillion dollar debt or if you are going to argue we suddenly switched back over to the left side of the Laffer curve. I don't think McCain is going to raise taxes on the middle class to help offset corporate tax cuts, in fact, I'm pretty sure he specifically said he wouldn't. And I'm not going to bother explaining how corporate tax cuts would help "the little guy" and not just the evil corporations, it's to simple to understand and again believe you are just 'playing dumb.'As far as big oil "among other corporations" LOL! Yes, among EVERY other corporation!!!! That includes the solar panel corporation (who McCain would help more then Obama!) Do you realize that Obama wants to make health care more affordable! That means he is going to make health care more affordable for big oil execs, among other people, while 95% of the lower tax bracket foot the bill!Does that statement make any sense? No, but neither does yours. This leftist propaganda is purely emotionally driven. Step back and use your brain for a second. Emotion is a huge part of being human, and I understand that, but political policy shouldn't be based off it, especially 'hate' which is the worst of the bunch. The idea that something that benefits everybody should be avoided because included in that everybody is the 'evil oil corporation' is absurd. This is the leftist adage that if someone breaks their ankle in a marathon, the fair thing to do would be to take out a baseball bat and break everyone else's ankle. If you really believe that a corporate tax cut would be bad for America for fiscal reasons, then so be it, but base your argument on that, not on the evil oil corporations, who represent a small portion of ALL corporations.There is a clear reason why you and others (such as the Obama camp in this commercial) select ONLY oil corporations, because (right now, with the price of gas) it draws a negative emotion out of people. It gets the HATE!, HATE!, HATE! nerves firing. A commercial showing how Tom's Drywall was getting a tax or Nano-Solar was getting a tax break wouldn't be nearly as effective at creating hate.Some of my immediate family is Republican, some not (I have a large family). Though as you completely avoided all my questions, I don't see how you really deserve an answer. I think I've had enough spoon feeding, Good Day Sir.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

Overall, McCain will be Bush part three

• Reply