The US' new energy bill just passed the House. What's their solution to our energy problems, you ask? Well, that's easy: giant tax breaks for oil companies!
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A national energy plan that would send billions of dollars in tax subsidies to energy companies passed the House on Thursday despite criticism from many lawmakers that it would do nothing to dampen high prices or lessen dependence on Middle East oil.
Supporters said the legislation would establish a framework for developing a wider mix of energy sources in coming years, including wind turbines, lower-pollution coal plants and new nuclear reactors.
Lawmakers avoided a certain fight in the Senate by leaving out one of President's Bush's top energy goals: opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil drilling. House Republicans promised to pursue that issue separately.
The White House said Bush, who had challenged Congress to end four years of stalemate over energy legislation, looked forward to signing the legislation.
The president has acknowledged the measure will have little impact on oil or gasoline prices.
White House press secretary Scott McClellan said the legislation would address root causes of high energy prices, but "we didn't get into this overnight and we're not going to get out of it overnight."
Senate vote Friday
The bill passed the House by a vote of 275-156 and was expected to be approved by the Senate by a wide margin, probably Friday.
"This bill is going to go through lickety-split," said Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, though he denounced it as a collection of giveaways to cash-rich energy companies that would fail to curb the nation's thirst for imported oil.
Seventy-five Democrats joined Republicans in moving the 1,725-page legislation through the House.
"It is not a perfect bill," said Rep. John Dingell of Michigan, the top House Democrat involved in crafting the legislation. "But it is a solid beginning to developing an energy strategy for the 21st century."
Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, who chaired the House-Senate conference that crafted the final legislation, called it a bill "for America's future."
Sponsors said it would improve the nation's electricity grid and foster energy conservation as well as production. In a move widely awaited in the Farm Belt, it also calls for doubling the use of corn-produced ethanol in gasoline to 7.5 billion gallons a year by 2012.
Extended daylight
And it would extend daylight saving time by a month -- an extra three weeks in the spring and another week in the fall -- to save energy.
The product of weeks of negotiations that meshed widely different versions approved by the House and Senate earlier this year, the legislation would provide $14.5 billion in energy tax breaks, including $2.6 billion for oil and gas industries.
"This bill is packed with royalty relief, tax breaks, loan guarantees for the wealthiest energy companies in America even as they are reporting the largest quarterly profits of any corporation in the history of the United States," complained Rep. Edward Markey, D-Massachusetts.
The bill also would direct loan guarantees and other subsidies to encourage construction of new nuclear power plants and develop carbon-capturing and other technologies to assure continued use of coal to produce electricity.
About $1.3 billion in tax breaks are earmarked for conservation and efficiency programs, including credits for buying hybrid gas-electric cars and energy efficiency improvements in homes.
"While it makes some progress on energy efficiency it ducks the nation's most important energy challenges," said Bill Prindle, deputy director of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, a private advocacy group.
The group estimated the bill's provisions would lead to little oil savings and -- largely because of new efficiency standards for commercial appliances -- reduce electricity by about 2 percent by 2020.
Other major provisions in the legislation include:
# Subsidies and tax breaks for wind, geothermal and solar industries and for technology aimed at making coal more environmentally friendly.
# New efficiency standards for commercial appliances from air conditioners to refrigerators.
# A requirement for utilities to meet federal reliability standards for the electric transmission grid, in hopes of avoiding blackouts like the one in the summer of 2003.
# Easing the way for more imports of liquefied natural gas by giving federal regulators final say over terminals.
# Spurring construction of new nuclear power reactors by offering loan guarantees and "risk insurance" against regulatory delays for the initial units to be built.
# A nationwide inventory of offshore oil and gas resources. Critics said they're concerned the inventory may lead to drilling in areas now off-limits.
A provision that had passed the Senate to require the president to find ways to reduce U.S. oil demand by 1 million barrels a year by 2025 was abandoned because of strong opposition from House Republicans and the administration.
So we're looking at offshore oil drilling, more coal power, and huge tax breaks for some of the most profitable companies in the country, who just so happened to be the chief sponsors of the Republican party. This bill is a joke -- virtually no incentives for alternative fuel sources (except a mere pitance for hybirds and biodiesel) and huge tax breaks for oil refining and drilling industries. It'll basically cement Americans' total reliance on oil for another decade. Good job, Bush.
Four more years.
~Rico
Don't these guys make enough money already?
Y'know what? When the non-renewable fuel sources run out, a good deal of the rest of the world is going to laugh at the USA, cos it'll be their own fault that they'll be in such a sudden crisis.
Personally, I hope the UK investigates renewable energy sources more heavily soon, so as not to fall into the same trap. I hear electric cars and vehicles run on stuff like hydrogen and so forth are becoming more reliable and useful these days...
~LightStrike!
Quote:
Four more years.
Come now, it's currently only 3 years and about 6 months.
Quote:
Come now, it's currently only 3 years and about 6 months.
Ooooh... that's still FAR TOO LONG!
And did anyone notice the stuff about building new nuclear reactors? Yay! More waste being shipped to New Mexico cometh! And more plants for higher risk of contamination & mass death and overall stupidity if the operators suck and/or equipment's badly made or installed... and a nice plot device for terrorists!
GOOD IDEA!!!
This rant brought to you by Lack of Sleep - the makers of Pissed Off Voter
Come now, it's currently only 3 years and about 6 months.
Bah! Who's counting anymore? As far as anyone knows, it could be have been 15 years since Bush was prez...it certainly seems that long to me!
~Neo
Thats how the cookie crubles, and thats how we all (in the US) get screwed over...
Soooooooo...I'll comment later when I can make sense of it...though just for which oil companies is he giving a tax cut to?
Don't blame me. I voted for Fexusfan!
Hey now, that's not nice to bash our president. He's not the sole person making these decisions. It's a bummer that the president gets blamed for everything.
But wait--*rubs eyes*--are they gonna change daylight savings time?
True that ShoeHedgie.
What a lot of people don't really realize is that nuclear energy is in fact VERY safe (most of France is powered by nuclear power don't ya know). The accident at Three Mile Island was what, almost three decades ago? And technology has improved how much since then?
As for the bill itself, it actually sounds pretty good. Subsidies and tax breaks for wind, geothermal, and solar power. Offshore drilling would definitely help us get off of foriegn oil (but who's blocking the way to drilling for oil in Alaska and elsewhere around the US? Not the president). Making coal more environmentally friendly.
Also, I am getting SICK and TIRED of hearing people moaning about how the 'rich get all the tax cuts' whilst the poor get shafted.
Who benefits from the tax cut?
When you pay most of the taxes for the country, of COURSE you get the bigger tax cut. Likewise, the oil companies that provide POWER for a lot of America will ALSO get a bigger tax cut than a solar company that supplies power for a smaller faction of America.
Somebody's been sipping the right-wing crunk juice. Tell me, 007, did they teach you in school that the best way to fix a half-trillion-dollar annual deficit is to lower taxes? Tut-tut. For shame.
What a lot of people don't really realize is that nuclear energy is in fact VERY safe (most of France is powered by nuclear power don't ya know).
Never said anything was wrong with nuclear.
Subsidies and tax breaks for wind, geothermal, and solar power.
The mere pitance you call a "subsidy" that is going to environmentally-friendly power ventures is nothing compared to the tens of billions of dollars that will be saved by the USA's biggest polluters, Bush's best friends in the oil industry.
Offshore drilling would definitely help us get off of foriegn oil
Big deal. Whether it's foreign or not, we're still dependent on an unrenewable, unclean resource. If the Bush administration were really doing any good, they'd work to get the US off oil altogether
Making coal more environmentally friendly.
"Coal" and "environment" don't belong in the same sentence. Coal power generation is the single biggest air polluter in the United States. Burning coal is a leading cause of smog, acid rain, global warming, and air toxics. In an average year, a typical coal plant generates:
# 3,700,000 tons of carbon dioxide, the primary human cause of global warming--as much carbon dioxide as cutting down 161 million trees.
# 10,000 tons of sulfur dioxide, which causes acid rain that damages forests, lakes, and buildings, and forms small airborne particles that can penetrate deep into lungs.
# 500 tons of small airborne particles, which can cause chronic bronchitis, aggravated asthma, and premature death, as well as haze obstructing visibility.
# 10,200 tons of nitrogen oxide, as much as would be emitted by half a million late-model cars. NOx leads to formation of ozone (smog) which inflames the lungs, burning through lung tissue making people more susceptible to respiratory illness.
# 720 tons of carbon monoxide, which causes headaches and place additional stress on people with heart disease.
# 220 tons of hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds, which form ozone.
# 170 pounds of mercury, where just 1/70th of a teaspoon deposited on a 25-acre lake can make the fish unsafe to eat.
# 225 pounds of arsenic, which will cause cancer in one out of 100 people who drink water containing 50 parts per billion.
# 114 pounds of lead, 4 pounds of cadmium, other toxic heavy metals, and trace amounts of uranium.
Also, I am getting SICK and TIRED of hearing people moaning about how the 'rich get all the tax cuts' whilst the poor get shafted.
The link you gave assumed the tax cut was absolute, distributed across all tax brackets, which this one most certainly is not. If you make more than $300,000 a year or are involved in the energy industry, you might see quite a reduction on your taxes this year. If you don't fit that description, you'll get nothing.
Here's how it works: rich people, who can afford gigantic sprawling houses filled with expensive possessions, recieve a tax cut they don't need. In order to cover the costs of said tax cut, cash-strapped government programs, from which average people benefit, are slashed -- medicare, libraries, education. Fun for everyone.
Here's how it works: rich people, who can afford gigantic sprawling houses filled with expensive possessions, recieve a tax cut they don't need.
Not true. People who make $100,000 or more CAN'T easily afford "gigantic sprawling houses filled with expensie possessions". A lot of seemingly well-off people are actually very tight with money. A nice home doesn't come from an abundance of money in most cases; it comes from spending money well, even if there isn't a lot of it.
Well-off people DO appreciate tax cuts. Do you know how annoying it is to have to fork over a large percentage of income? Basically, you get penalized for being successful in life. And that's not cool. Upper-class people usually have more expenses because of the items used for raking in said income. For example, a farm or something. You have machinery, animals, feed. Sure, a lot of money comes in, but a lot of money goes out, too. A hefty tax upsets the balance.
And to me, welfare just makes it easier to be poor.
Um... where did welfare come into this again? I make under 20 grand a year. I don't see any tax counts. And I'm not on welfare. o.o
~Rico
And for the record Cycle, I'm IN the so-called 'rich' bracket. Not in the multimillion aspect, but part of it nonetheless. What Shoe said is true; money is quite tight around the household, due to the fact that almost HALF of the money made is sent to the government.
It's quite simple; you have a bigger income, you get a bigger break. You earn more, you get a bigger break. Simple as that.
And in my opinion, welfare is an excuse for people to live off the government. I have absolutely NO PROBLEM with people who genuinely NEED welfare, aka the sick, the disabled, and those who cannot work for themselves.
But those who basically freeload off of taxpayers to get a free ride into life have no sympathy with me. That's why I'm glad generational warefare is gone; if you can work, you WORK.
Life is not a free ride.
EDIT: And FYI Cycle, volcanoes output more pollutants than any coal plant can. Mt. St. Helens darkened a good portion of the continental US for a few days from ONE eruption. How many volcanoes have erupted in Earth's history?
Humanity can do little to the Earth that hasn't been done before. It'll last long after we're gone; this planet is virtually self-sustaining. Sure, it's not like we're going to suddenly detonate every nuclear warhead on the face of the Earth, but aside from that, there's nothing that humanity can do at the moment to harm this planet (at least not to the point of idiocy; if someone suddenly decided to dump every single bit of petroleum into the ocean, THEN we might have a problem).
Seems I have finally found someone who is in the same boat. Huzzah!
By the way, ditto on everything, especially the welfare part. Freeloaders do nothing but mooch off the government, never learning to work for themselves. People who are truly in need of help, I can understand, but when the freeloaders take advantage of the system... *bashes head into wall* It makes it worse for everyone else with the added taxes. I don't think people appreciate providing for someone who doesn't even appreciate it.
I've actually seen people say stuff like "I'll do that as soon as my unemployment check comes in". Ticks me off. That just shows that that person is a lazy -mfgh-.
EDIT: I'm not much of an environmentalist, so, uh, no comment on the volcano thing.
Still haven't answered why you (rich bracket) get tax breaks, and I don't. o.o
~Rico
Because apparently, you're not earning quite enough to earn an occasional reward such as a tax cut.
That comment reminds me of the public school system. One kid in the group project does most or all of the work, and the other kids in the group project reap equal rewards. This is not how the tax system should be. ><
These freeloaders you speak of include the disabled, the elderly, and the average people whose parents didn't earn enough to send them to universities and get a fancy education to get a fancy job.
Quote:
Still haven't answered why you (rich bracket) get tax breaks, and I don't. o.o
Quote:
Because apparently, you're not earning quite enough to earn an occasional reward such as a tax cut.
You answered "why does the righ bracket get tax breaks and others don't?" with "because the rich bracket gets the tax breaks and others don't.".
o.o
Quote:
That comment reminds me of the public school system. One kid in the group project does most or all of the work, and the other kids in the group project reap equal rewards. This is not how the tax system should be. ><
Also, that's implying because someone is not rich they obviously don't do hard work. That couldn't be more warped or silly.
I don't think you two understand the point I'm trying to make here. We're dependent on a dirty, expensive resource that is difficult to extract and likely to run out by 2030, half of America's power comes from the dirtiest energy source ever devised, the US government is running an annual deficit of $500 billion, and the Bush administration's solution to all this is to slash taxes and continue subsidizing oil producers, thus ensuring America's dependence on oil for the next decade. Given Bush's habit of attempting to fit square pegs into round holes (his new ambassador to Canada has never been to Canada, his new ambassador to the UN hates the UN, and his new Supreme Court justice has been a judge for like five years), this is not entirely surprising.
And FYI Cycle, volcanoes output more pollutants than any coal plant can.
That doesn't make it okay to continue using coal power. We can't shut off volcanoes, but we can shut off coal power plants and replace them with fission reactors, wind farms, and solar collectors.
Humanity can do little to the Earth that hasn't been done before. It'll last long after we're gone; this planet is virtually self-sustaining. Sure, it's not like we're going to suddenly detonate every nuclear warhead on the face of the Earth, but aside from that, there's nothing that humanity can do at the moment to harm this planet (at least not to the point of idiocy; if someone suddenly decided to dump every single bit of petroleum into the ocean, THEN we might have a problem).
Based on trends recorded over the last twenty years, every living system on this planet is in decline; every life support system is in decline. There is not a single peer-reviewed, scientific paper that disputes this fact. Read "The Ecology of Commerce" by Paul Hawken, and come back when you have a real opinion, one that gives due attention to fact.
The earth is going down the tubes already and it's nothing by our hand. The world ages, it gets worse, just like the universe...
That is literally the stupidest and most arbitrary statement I have ever read on this subject. People like you deserve to have their keyboards confiscated.
That's just too bad then...
Quote:
These freeloaders you speak of include the disabled, the elderly, and the average people whose parents didn't earn enough to send them to universities and get a fancy education to get a fancy job.
You DO know that I specifically mentioned I have no problem with the above people being on welfare, correct?
And Cycle, let me point out the links below.
Is the world about to run out of oil?
How long before we run out of oil?
The first link is a bit old, but the info is still relevant. The third one also makes a note to say that although we are NOT in danger of running out of oil, more wells will have to be drilled (which I have no doubt there will be, with advancing technology and whatnot). The fourth article is actually part of a thread on another message board, with some good comments mixed in with all the replies.
I'm not saying we should NEVER switch away from oil; there's no doubt that we'll eventually move on to other fuel sources. But as things are, we are currently too dependent on oil, and other methods of energy usage aren't developed enough yet to be truly far-reaching in their effects (aka the fuel cell).
Quote:
GOOOOOOOOO BUSH!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I can't beleive people like Shoe and 007 are actually
saying this is a GOOD idea. When you can't step out of your house without coughing up a lung because of the US's dependence on fossil fuels, then tell me how good these breaks are. I don't know what's worse- Shoe's 'rich people are better and deserve more than you peons' or 007's 'I'm going to avoid the issue at hand by talking about something completely different and saying that the whole argument is pointless because contrary to all evidence the earth and its ecosystems are completely INVINCIBLE!'
[Sorry to anyone I offended on this. but really, if you do, it's your problem to deal with.]
First of all, no one in this topic said the quote you mentioned. Contrary to what you may think that I think, Bush is not a perfect president. But then again, has there ever been a PERFECT president?
And unless you live right next door to a coal plant, I think you're overexaggerating about 'coughing up a lung'. Also, we ARE working on alternative sources, but it's not like they'll be here immediately. Be patient.
Also, Shoe's point is that 'those who pay more taxes deserve a bigger break'. Completely sensible, given that most taxes ARE paid by those in the bracket of the 'rich'. And WHEN did Shoe say that those who were poorer were peons? Don't twist his words, OR MINE for that matter.
Speaking of my words, I'm NOT ignoring or avoiding the issue. As I continued to debate with Cycle, both he and I moved on to different points.
And FYI, did I ever say Earth's systems were completely invincible? I said that what humankind does to the Earth is relatively NOTHING in comparison to what the Earth can do to itself. Also, do you remember the 1970s? Back then, all the rage was global cooling. Now it's global warming. If you look at temperature data from this century, then it looks like temperature IS rising.
But if you string it out even further, you'll find that the Earth's temperature constantly changes. The ecosystem and climate changes consistently. Although the Earth is not invulnerable, it is certainly strong enough to handle anything humanity can dish out.
rich people are better and deserve more than you peons
Hey, I didn't imply that at all! What I meant with the public school analogy is that the people who don't earn as much shouldn't expect to get the same tax break! Let's refrain from name-calling, shall we?
I really hate how middle-class-down people label the upper-class "rich". Notice how I've done my best to refrain from using that word. "Rich" should be reserved for the people who really can throw around money. A lot of the time, the upper-class person has around the same amount of spending money as a normal person. Please quit calling them "rich", because it's usually not true.
People become poorer because they throw around money, imitating what they think "rich" people do. In reality, money is freaking tight for an upper-class household. Tax breaks are muchly appreciated, since it loosens up the budget a bit. Expenses for a more upper-class household might include a swimming pool, a much larger electric bill, more gasoline, and maintenance charges. Luxuries come with a literal price that most other people don't have to deal with. I really hate how y'all are shooting the "rich" people down. You're simply misinformed.
And Cycle, let me point out the links below.
Opinionated drivel from scientifically-inept, right-wing pseudo-intellectuals. I have yet to find a peer-reviewed, scientifically-meritable document that agrees with them.
Hey, didn't I say no name-calling? 
You might have. What's your point?
You know, there's a thing called supply and demand. When supply does not meet demand, problems happen.
We are consuming oil at an accelerating rate. Oil can't be replenished very easily OR very quickly (the stuff we drill now if HOW old again? I think like seven-digits at LEAST), as it takes a long, LONG time to form. The same can be said for coal. Both were good when they were the only options, yes. Not anymore, our demand is outpacing the supply. At this rate, we'll run out before we know it. We can't ignore the fact that they're detrimental to everything around them. And as to blocking drillage in Alaska...that's to preserve the ecosystem. Yes, believe it or not, we still need such an archaic thing as an ecosystem to live.
Bush isn't a perfect president, I wholeheartedly agree. Far from it...Clinton did better. Unfortunately, as Rico pointed out, we still have to put up with four more years of spending and tax cuts. Yay Reaganomics(sp?). I can hardly wait to see out national debt in 2008. WE NEED THESE TAXES TO FUEL OUR INSANE SPENDING, GOVERNMENT-TYPE OFFICIAL-Y PEOPLE! *erhem* But I digress. Where was this rant going...?
As to the tax thingie, I have to side with the left side on this one. I haven't seen a break on mine, either. The rich get breaks. The rest of us have to bear the burden, plain and simple. And for the record, I feel no sympathy for you upper class having to pay half your income, as 007 put it, in taxes. That's still more than most people make in a year.
As to the welfare issue, true. Welfare I imagine was created for handicapped, elderly and others who could not take care of themselves. However, it has degenerated, and the moochers of this system need to get to work. Unfortunately, the economy's not great ATM, and jobs are few and far between. There WAS a wonderful system in the 30s New Deal, the Civilian Conservation Corp, which helped people onto their feet. Too bad that's gone now.
Oh yes. SA, you DO know that more nuclear waste comes from medical devices than from power plants, right?
Quote:
We are consuming oil at an accelerating rate. Oil can't be replenished very easily OR very quickly (the stuff we drill now if HOW old again? I think like seven-digits at LEAST), as it takes a long, LONG time to form
Although it's been said that oil is formed over millions of years, the above link showcases how crude oil suddenly is recreated in very short periods of time. As a matter of fact, old oil wells that had once been thought tapped are suddenly refilling again.
Quote:
And as to blocking drillage in Alaska...that's to preserve the ecosystem. Yes, believe it or not, we still need such an archaic thing as an ecosystem to live.
And as for Alaska, I'm all for preserving the ecosystem. It would be relatively simple to ensure that oil drilling in the region wouldn't harm the ecosystem as a whole (also note that the oil and natural gas industry spends over 10 billion dollars a year on environmental protection, which is more than what they spend on searching for new wells in the US). Also, since the region is undoubtedly sensitive, there's no doubt in my mind that extra precautions would be taken to ensure the ecosystem's safety.
Quote:
And for the record, I feel no sympathy for you upper class having to pay half your income, as 007 put it, in taxes. That's still more than most people make in a year.
That's the point! The upper class having a higher income is the same reasonw why they deserve a bigger break. To get to the upper class, you have to work your butt off to get there. Do you think the people of the upper class like having an good portion of their hard-earned money being taken away? Instead of pinning the blame on the 'rich' (and Bush) for the tax cuts, how about instead lobbying for tax reform (Lord knows that we need it; a national sales tax would work wonders. Being taxed on what you buy; simple, yet it would be EXTREMELY effective. No income tax, no property tax, etcetera).
Quote:
GOVERNMENT-TYPE OFFICIAL-Y PEOPLE!
AKA, politicians.
Quote:
You know, there's a thing called supply and demand. When supply does not meet demand, problems happen.
Tell that to your politicians with the largely unpatrolled borders that allow hundreds of illegals into the country...okay so that is only one reason why demand is going high...darnit, I once wrote an article on how to deal with this issue (From the right point of view of course...) but of course I don't have the paper...yes we do need to wean ourself off the oil but come on, that just isn't going to happen in the next hundred years...it might take that long to change our glutonous attitude at times...so until we can teach ourselves to conserve or to use alternate energy sources, we'll have to go for more oil.
Besides some of the alternate energy sources have their HUGE GAPING AND EXPENSIVE flaws as well...darnit now I really need to find that paper...
Quote:
Tell that to your politicians with the largely unpatrolled borders that allow hundreds of illegals into the country...
Now THAT is something that the current administration needs to be called out on. A successful War on Terror requires secure borders.
And I don't want the 'immigrants take jobs Americans don't want' excuse. That's a load of crap.
I can't say much about the tax break because I don't specifically what the money will be used for.
but..
Quote:
That's the point! The upper class having a higher income is the same reasonw why they deserve a bigger break. To get to the upper class, you have to work your butt off to get there.
Ah, yes, the myth of the self-made man. It is not necessarily true that the rich are hard-working and that the poor are lazy.
People who are rich are rich because they are wise investors. Where do the majority of rich businessmen earn their money, for example? If they are shareholders in a company, they earn dividends on stock. If they loan out money, they make money on interest. Rich people invest in commodities futures and foreign exchange rates. Rich people make money through real estate and intellectual property. I'm not saying that rich people are lazy fat cats, but the fact is, it isn't necessary to work hard to succeed.
"Now Troophead!" you say, "I'm rich! Not all rich people are like that!"
Okay, but think of this. When you're paying money for a college education, that's a capital investment in labor. Same with vocational training. Or even, at the simplest, if your parents live modestly well, you don't have to drop out of high school when you're 16 to flip burgers... that's an investment. When you buy a house in a good neighborhood, that's an investment in not having to deal with crime and fearing for the lives of your family each day. Not to malign rich people, but everything that helps rich people become rich is part of an investment.
If you're poor, you stay poor not because you're lazy, you stay poor because you're living hand to mouth and simply don't have the resources to invest in your future.
And that's the truth.
A successful War on Terror requires secure borders.
Yeah, because as we all know, the 9/11 hijackers, the Oklahoma City bomber, the Madrid bombers, and the London bombers were all illegal migrants.
People who are rich are rich because they are wise investors.
Or they were born into a well-connected family with wealthy parents who are quite happy to pour money into ensuring a comfortable future for them, whether they're George W Bush or our friend Ultra, who recently revealed to us that he himself is neither rich nor hardworking, but really works in a burger joint and is likely to see a grand total of zero dollars in savings due to Bush's wonderful tax cut. Way to self-destruct your argument there, dude.
Then you obviously don't know how much trouble illegals have been causing the country...
Quote:
Ah, yes, the myth of the self-made man. It is not necessarily true that the rich are hard-working and that the poor are lazy.
Where did I say that the poor are lazy?
Quote:
People who are rich are rich because they are wise investors. Where do the majority of rich businessmen earn their money, for example? If they are shareholders in a company, they earn dividends on stock. If they loan out money, they make money on interest. Rich people invest in commodities futures and foreign exchange rates. Rich people make money through real estate and intellectual property. I'm not saying that rich people are lazy fat cats, but the fact is, it isn't necessary to work hard to succeed.
Quite true. It IS true that some of the upper class workers in this country get rich by sheer stroke of luck or good insight. But that's how a capitalistic society is.
Nevertheless, there's just as good a chance for their stocks to heavily decrease in value should the company they invest shares with fails or does poorly. Only the higher echelon of the upper class would be able to take that without being affected adversely.
Quote:
If you're poor, you stay poor not because you're lazy, you stay poor because you're living hand to mouth and simply don't have the resources to invest in your future.
Unfortunately, that's true. A majority of the poor simply can't access the resources to move on. That's what welfare is for, but one has to wonder how many are content to live on welfare or to use it as a springboard. Oh well. That's a question for another day.
Quote:
Yeah, because as we all know, the 9/11 hijackers, the Oklahoma City bomber, the Madrid bombers, and the London bombers were all illegal migrants.
Now THAT is a stupid statement, IMO. Illegal immigrants are a problem simply because they ARE illegal (a fact that many in Washington don't seem to get). With our border as porous as it is, it's apparent that sooner or later, Al Queda will infiltrate and strike from within, using our southern border as an entry point.
Quote:
Or they were born into a well-connected family with wealthy parents who are quite happy to pour money into ensuring a comfortable future for them, whether they're George W Bush or our friend Ultra, who recently revealed to us that he himself is neither rich nor hardworking, but really works in a burger joint and is likely to see a grand total of zero dollars in savings due to Bush's wonderful tax cut. Way to self-destruct your argument there, dude.
I said I'm part of the upper class bracket. I never said I was the one providing the income. Nevertheless, I know how hard it is (my dad works long hours, takes numerous plane trips, and is a bit shaky on the physical side from working too hard at times) for some of the upper class people to earn their income. Despite what you may think Cycle, just because I'm not the one earning the income doesn't mean I don't understand how things are.
Now THAT is a stupid statement, IMO. Illegal immigrants are a problem simply because they ARE illegal (a fact that many in Washington don't seem to get). With our border as porous as it is, it's apparent that sooner or later, Al Queda will infiltrate and strike from within, using our southern border as an entry point.
I can't think of a single terrorist attack on US soil that wasn't comitted by a citizen or landed immigrant of the United States. There is no reason to believe any of this.
Quote:
I can't think of a single terrorist attack on US soil that wasn't comitted by a citizen or landed immigrant of the United States. There is no reason to believe any of this.
Center for Immigration Studies report
What I want to point out is one of the passages in the text.
Quote:
At the time they committed their crimes, 16, or one-third, of the 48 terrorists in the study were on temporary visas (primarily tourist visas), another 17 were Lawful Permanent Residents or naturalized U.S. citizens, 12, or one-fourth, were illegal aliens, and three of the 48 had applications for asylum pending.
No reason you say? If it happened before, it will happen again. That is, unless something is done about the border.
People can make up statistics to prove anything they want. 71% of all people know this.
But oil isn't just used for fuel. It makes many things of plastic as well, which are not biodegradable, and a whole lot of uses that I can't think of right now.
And the maximum amount that an oil company can be fined for polluting is $25,000 a day. Once upon a time this was a lot of money, but now these people are making $10 million a day. When it costs more money to carefully dispose of waste products than it does to dump it in the sea, it's only good business to keep on doing it.
The renewable and cleaner and cheaper energy sources that are available, like cars that run on water, and solar and wind power, are not being researched sufficiently to replace the oil barons.
And this is because the politicians get a lot more kickbacks from expensive oil than they do from paying to research these energy sources.
At the rate we're using it, oil WILL run out in 20 - 50 years. It is NOT a renewable source; it IS going to run out, whether the politicians say so or not.
This topic cracks me up because it can basically be broken down into "Ohhhh, my friend jumped over a cliff, I better go do it too" and "only me, myself, and I matter."
Everyone needs tax cuts equally. It has nothing to do with "deserving" them or however some of you are putting it. In order for anyone to maintain the lifestyle they are accustomed to they will need tax cuts and pay increases and all that lovely jazz to keep up with the rising prices of everything.
If it gets you flustered so much that someone who "works less" than you gets equal tax cuts or whatever, seek therapy or stop working so hard.
Is it fair for a "poor" person and a "rich" person to get the same amount of money back, when they paid different tax rates?
Everyone needs tax cuts equally. I thought it was clearer that meant proportionately.
You put "rich" in quotes but not "poor". o.0
You put "rich" in quotes but not "poor". o.0
Funny thing, that.
Agh, meh, that was a mistake. I fixed it. 
Proportionate tax cuts are fine and dandy, as long as they're proportionate to how much income there was in the first place. I wish there was a flat tax rate so people wouldn't have to have these wonderfully interesting debates. I do love debates. Spices up life a bit.
What? Earlier you were saying people with higher income needed more tax cuts than people with lower income. Unless of course this was always meant to mean the fixed amount of money opposed to the percent of them... ending up meaning the same thing as "proportional" but taking a lot longer to say and was also much more tedious.
Oh and thank you for putting "poor" in quotes... since you left it out by accident last time...
It looked so odd just sitting there without quotes next to "rich" almost implying you use the word "poor" freely while feeling the need to assure us you're skeptical of the existence of rich people.
o.o
