Politics in General (national, international, local, statewide)

[Endeavor305]

Originally Posted by Roark

Of course. Politicians call them loopholes when they are against it. The people that are getting stung call it interpretation of the existing law.

Duh! What is your point here?

Originally Posted by Roark

Okay, so if Wal Mart has to pay BILLLIONS of dollars of THEIR money, and they employ more people try to save some of their money I don't think it's so nefarious.

If Will, his wife, and neighbor couple went on a trip to the Bahamas, Both families make $60,000 in household income and neither family pays any Income tax in this simplification. Will bought a neckless for $5 on that vacation and came back to the USA and sold it for $20 to a local store. With the same 36% effective tax rate like WalMart has. Will has $15 profit (forget about expenses for this simpification) and has to give $5.40 to the goverment.
The government says, Will you are great American, we appreciate your thinking and eye for a good business deal...you take $9.60 for your efforts, and for all the government is doing for you we will take $5.40 of your profit.
His neighbor and the neighbors wife didn't even think to do that. Instead, they continue to work at their jobs jobs as always.
Now, Will has noticed that millions of people want these necklaces, and he goes through the effort to get a bank loan, takes a risk with his personal gaurantee, and buys one million of the necklaces. T
he government in 2008 wants $5.4 MILLION!! Will is a little pissed.
Wouldn't you be? Will still uses the same roads as his neighbors, he still only has one kid in school using up the bus and the services like his neighbors.
Meanwhile, the neighbors have not produced or provided a single thing extra to society than they did before the trip. They pay Zero, Will pays $5.4 Million.
Will has employed several College kids to help out with his extra demand in the summer. He is buying a warehouse a delivery truck. The neighbors haven't really done much but order more satellite channels so they can sit on their arses.
If will expenses a few things, and uses the current legal framework to keep some of HIS MONEY, I don't think that is bad. You see, it is Will's money. Not the government's money. Will had the idea. Will made the effort. Will executed. He should pay some, but if he works within the law should he be chastized for trying to hold on to his money?

First of all, that is one creative example. Was it Will Smith? Anyway, seriously now, I understand your point about Will having to pay $5.4 million in taxes, but you fail to mention that he is profiting $9.6 million. With that money he can buy quite a few things that his neighbors who sit on their "arse" can't. Chances are they won't be neighbors very much longer either. It has become obvious Roark that you are against the increase in taxes for the rich because of the welfare system. See one of the misconceptions of welfare is that it doesn't provide someone an extravagant life. If you want a Porsche (or any nice expensive car) you are going to have to work for it. Welfare isn't taking a rich man's money and giving it to someone else so they can pay for their Porsche, or half a million dollar home. Truth is, the people who depend on welfare have no ambition to work hard. Take them off welfare and they will resort to crime. I say give them their bread crumbs and let them stay satisfied. This is where education comes into play. For people like us who want nice things, that is all the motivation we need. Now what we need to make sure is that the money goes to where it's supposed to and not politicians or their friends pockets. We will never completely stop corruption, but we sure can reduce it if we monitor the spending better and increase the consequences.

As I've said before, I don't like the graduated tax system. I think everyone should pay the same percentage regardless of how much they make. I don't know the reason behind having a graduated tax system. Perhaps, it is necessary in order to get the amount of revenue the gov't needs. Or perhaps there is some economic class balancing reason. However, neither candidate has proposed to change this. I know Obama's tax setup is more skewed, but I think all the other factors about him outweigh McCain. I'm also going to contradict myself here, but even though I'm against the skewed tax system overall, I think during this upcoming presidential term we need this to help the middle class. Once we get things back on track, I think an even tax system would be fairest.

Originally Posted by Roark

When I was a kid, I used to have an healthy envy for entrepenuers and people that created and produced things. They were the ones that made it. People would move from socialist countries to live the American Dream. Some people would even swim or float on makeshift rafts to live the American Dream. Taxes on small businesses...if you consider the burden that labor exacts on human resources it is no wonder that companies outsource their call center work to India. If you make "onerous and rigerous demands on" the human input to a corporate model, the business has a decision to make...if the telecomunications are the same, you look to minimize the less taxing of the input choices.
Oh you are absolutely correct! Not all...
I used to work construction in the summertime. Curb and Gutter crew, lifting metal forms and leveling the ground. Getting sunburned, dehydrated, cut and scared for 12 + hours a day.
I worked hard, much harder than any of my friends did. The next summer was the ephiphany summer. I worked hard that summer too, but what changed was my attitude.
Daytime construction, nighttime waiting tables. Meeting rich people that appreciated hard working Americans was inspirational.
Back then, hard work, drive, ambition, a grain of intelligence, and sticktoitiveness was priceless.
I don't resent my parents, I don't resent Bill Clinton, and I don't resent John McCain. You work, you produce, and that's it.
Really? I've never won any popularity contests on this forum, but that you don't think you sholuld "work your way through college" is disgusting!
Man, I hope I'm not in the minority on this one, or this Change is worse than I thought.
You have the OPPORTUNITY to go to college!!! And you are resentful that you have to work for it??? Do you want it for free? What else, free health care, free foot massages, free food, free beer, free WHAT?!?!?
Sorry to rant. It IS very important to understand taxes. Government provides services and you pay for them through the taxes you pay. What is "fair" is what the discussion is all about. Fair is subjective.
When government gets really big, it is hard to even know if you are getting what you pay for.
This post is run on a lot but Google the phrase "regressive taxation" and I'm sure their is the primer you are looking for.

What is your point here? We all know what the American dream is about. No need to tell us about your life and how you worked hard to fulfill the American dream. And the gov't isn't going to start paying for foot massages or beer. What kind of dumb thing is that to say?? This is exactly what I don't like about you man. You talk to people like you know more than they do. Well you don't. Maybe when it comes to women's clothing you do, but not on everything. The whole issue in this country is that people are losing their jobs at an alarming rate. With that comes foreclosures since people cannot pay for their homes. Then that snowballs into property values dropping. Then all of it combines into no one being able to invest or unwilling (if they are able) because of the uncertainty. We need to help the middle class and we need to help NOW so this doesn'tget much worse, which it will if we don't do something NOW. Obama gets it. He has laid out his plan and solution to the crisis much better than McCain has. McCain is more like the guy who did nothing to prevent the situation we are now in.

Edit: Anyone who can't afford college should have to work to pay for it, but I don't see anything wrong with giving a little help to someone who really needs and has earned it, if its available. What I mean by earned is they get good grades and are employed but can't afford the full price of tuition. To me money spent on that type of trying hard individual for assistance in education is money well spent.

[Roark]

Yahoo!News http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081030/earns_exxon_mobil.html
Assiociated Press
Exxon Mobil posts biggest US quarterly profit ever
Thursday October 30, 12:23 pm ET
By John Porretto, AP Business Writer
Exxon Mobil shatters own record for largest profit from operations by a US corporation.

So Exxon Mobile made $14.83 Billion in 3Q. Nowhere in the AP story do you see the record amount of taxes they paid.

Exxon Mobile Pays Biggest Quarterly Tax Bill Ever, $32,510,000.

[Endeavor305]

Originally Posted by Roark

Yahoo!News http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081030/earns_exxon_mobil.html
Assiociated Press
Exxon Mobil posts biggest US quarterly profit ever
Thursday October 30, 12:23 pm ET
By John Porretto, AP Business Writer
Exxon Mobil shatters own record for largest profit from operations by a US corporation.

So Exxon Mobile made $14.83 Billion in 3Q. Nowhere in the AP story do you see the record amount of taxes they paid.

Exxon Mobile Pays Biggest Quarterly Tax Bill Ever, $32,510,000.

That's alot of money for you, not Exxon. Thanks for making my point.

[Roark]

Originally Posted by Endeavor305

That's alot of money for you, not Exxon.

That IS a lot of money for Exxon Mobile. It is a record amount of money for Exxon Mobile, it's thousands of employees, and it's thousands of shareholders (owners).

Take a look at the once great State of Michigan if you want a glimpse of what happens when you increase the already enormous tax burden on businesses. Businesses leave the taxed jurisdiction and the middle class lose their jobs.
Conversely, if you are a state that courts business with lower tax burdens, you will have more business migration, more job creation and a better deal for all Americans. Creating opportunity for all people, rather than welfare for more people.
The Luxury Tax idea gives further guidance. We can tax those rich people 14% on their yachts, airplanes, and Bentley's.
We tried it. The rich stopped buying yachts and such, and the painter in the boatyard lost his job.
Despite what has been said in the past, and despite what the politician mantra of the day is, raising tax rates doesn't help the middle class.
Lowering taxes allows for business expansion, job creation, and more opportunity for all. That is the idea that McCain is standing by.

Obama is for a Welfare state where a big government takes care of it's babies, and administers every facet of their lives so that people are dependent on the government for everything.
McCain is for a Capitalist state where government allows for individuals success while helping those that truly can't help themselves. Whether McCain can shrink the size of the government monster remains to be seen, but at least he hasn't hung his hat on expanding the Welfare state.

[Endeavor305]

Originally Posted by Roark

That IS a lot of money for Exxon Mobile. It is a record amount of money for Exxon Mobile, it's thousands of employees, and it's thousands of shareholders (owners).

What do you mean it's alot of money for it's employess and shareholders? Are you talking about the tax or revenue? And that is not alot of money for Exxon. $14.3 billion versus $32 million. Come on Roark, I know you're smarter than this.

Originally Posted by Roark

Take a look at the once great State of Michigan if you want a glimpse of what happens when you increase the already enormous tax burden on businesses. Businesses leave the taxed jurisdiction and the middle class lose their jobs.
Conversely, if you are a state that courts business with lower tax burdens, you will have more business migration, more job creation and a better deal for all Americans. Creating opportunity for all people, rather than welfare for more people.

First, it's a little different when you talk about from state to state migration as opposed to leaving the USA. Secondly, Obama's plan calls for tax breaks and incentives for creating jobs here and penalties for outsourcing. Thirdly, we have already discussed how the middle class will benefit and be able to purchase the necessary products these large corp.'s produce and how the large corp's will most likely pass the cost on to the consumer anyway. What they don't pass on they will get it back by exploiting new loopholes. Think of all the work accountants will now have!

Going back to state to state migration...did you know Wyoming has some of the best incentives to move there. They will even help pay for your mortgage. You know why? Because who the hell wants to live in Wyoming?!! You can apply this same principle to countries.

Originally Posted by Roark

The Luxury Tax idea gives further guidance. We can tax those rich people 14% on their yachts, airplanes, and Bentley's.
We tried it. The rich stopped buying yachts and such, and the painter in the boatyard lost his job.

HAAA! What a laugher that was. The rich will never stop buying their expensive little toys because of taxes...trust me. That was a nice little story however. What was the painter in the boat yards name btw? Was it Joe also?

Originally Posted by Roark

Despite what has been said in the past, and despite what the politician mantra of the day is, raising tax rates doesn't help the middle class.
Lowering taxes allows for business expansion, job creation, and more opportunity for all. That is the idea that McCain is standing by.

No despites here buddy. We can't conveniently forget what has been said or done in the past. What has happened in the last 8 years has FAILED. We've had failed policies that were based on tax cuts for big companies and the rich. We need to shift this back the other way, at least for the time being.

Originally Posted by Roark

Obama is for a Welfare state where a big government takes care of it's babies, and administers every facet of their lives so that people are dependent on the government for everything.

Are you saying the government wants to baby sit? Again, any one who wants something nice has to work for it just like they have had to under any other president. And tax relief for the lower-middle class by way of eliminating the 8 years of tax breaks on the rich, will help stimulate the economy and small business.

Originally Posted by Roark

McCain is for a Capitalist state where government allows for individuals success while helping those that truly can't help themselves. Whether McCain can shrink the size of the government monster remains to be seen, but at least he hasn't hung his hat on expanding the Welfare state.

"Government monster"...Funny you should call it that since its been under Bush the last 8 years. News flash: McCain is more of Bush. By the way, you haven't spoken about the budget deficit. Why don't you address that issue Roark? Do you think McCain's policy will reduce this growing figure? If so, why and do you think more than Obama's policy? Keep in mind McCain wants to continue spending $10B a month in Iraq. BTW, that's more than double Exxon's record quarterly revenue.

[AddictedToSpace]

Roark do you approve of windfall profit taxes?

[brickell]

Don't take the bait. It's a red herring the size of a goliath grouper. That tax bill was under a business friendly administration. Roark now seems to be advocating for no taxes at all. It also ignores the subsidizes that the US govt puts out to make that profit possible. But corporate welfare seems to just fine to many of these "free marketers".

[Roark]

Originally Posted by Endeavor305

What do you mean it's alot of money for it's employess and shareholders? Are you talking about the tax or revenue? And that is not alot of money for Exxon. $14.3 billion versus $32 million. Come on Roark, I know you're smarter than this.

Is it too much to ask that you stick to ideas rather than make direct personal comments and challenges?
It's great that you want to single me out and spend so much of your energy thinking about me, but really, my girlfriend gets jealous when people get so interested in me personally.
I'd rather keep the conversation intellectual and continue a dialouge with the ideas and comments by Florida Will.

But if you are really having a hard time grasping the concept, let me try to clarify so that you can understand the record profits and taxes idea.
Yes. It is a record amount of both. Record amount of profit, and record amount of taxes for Exxon Mobile and it's Shareholders. Record amount. The highest amount on record.
Let it sink in boy genius. Record amount. Meaning an amount that they have never achieved before. Not littlest amount, but the biggest amount of profit and biggest amount of taxes. Not a little money, "alot" of money.
Did it sink in? If it doesn't, then you will never get it.
Sorry to talk to you like you have a double digit IQ...you seem very sensitive about that, but I don't know how to make the point with someone as intelligent as you are.

Originally Posted by Endeavor305

HAAA! What a laugher that was. The rich will never stop buying their expensive little toys because of taxes...trust me. That was a nice little story however. What was the painter in the boat yards name btw? Was it Joe also?

Trust you? Instead of learning history?
I'm sorry again to hurt your feelings, but read this, it's title is Rising Tide: Kwame Holman looks at how a 1990 budget concession has failed to produce revenue, because a luxury tax it instituted, back fired
It is a nice little story. A transcript of a PBS show actually. Easy, quick read. Here are some excerpts:

KWAME HOLMAN: The theory behind the luxury tax sounded simple enough. Congress believed anyone willing to spend $100,000 or more on a new boat surely would be willing to pay an additional 10 percent to the federal government. But that didn't happen. Rather than pay the tax, many people in the market to buy a boat either didn't buy one, or bought one overseas. As a result, the luxury tax didn't bring in much money at all, and the customers' reluctance to buy put the boat-building business, particularly here in Rhode Island, out of business. We first visited Rhode Island in June of 1992. The luxury tax had been in effect for 18 months. Tens of thousands of jobs had been lost across the country, thousands in Rhode Island alone.

Are you still laughtering Endeavor? Trust you?

KWAME HOLMAN: When we talked with Dave MacFarlane in 1992, Alden Yachts had no new boats on order. MacFarlane had been forced to lay off dozens of skilled workers and at the time concluded the luxury tax was costing the government more money than it was collecting.
DAVE MacFARLANE: (1992) If you look at approximately say 35 or so people laid off at about say two hundred and sixty-five to three hundred and ten dollars a week in unemployment, if you add that up, you know, it comes to about $1/2 million.
KWAME HOLMAN: Some members of Congress realized almost immediately they made a mistake in levying the luxury tax.

[Roark]

Originally Posted by brickell

Roark now seems to be advocating for no taxes at all.

That is incorrect. Not sure how you jumped to that conclusion.

Raising taxes on ANYONE when there are two wars on foreign soil and a recession is bad government policy. I advocate to NOT raise taxes on ANYONE and to extend the Bush Tax Cuts.
Simple. Straightforward.

[Endeavor305]

Originally Posted by Roark

Is it too much to ask that you stick to ideas rather than make direct personal comments and challenges?
It's great that you want to single me out and spend so much of your energy thinking about me, but really, my girlfriend gets jealous when people get so interested in me personally.
I'd rather keep the conversation intellectual and continue a dialouge with the ideas and comments by Florida Will.

I'm quite surprised to hear you have a girlfriend. Is it that four-eyed girl from high school? She must have a double digit IQ.

The conversation has always been intellectual, you just get frustrated everytime you are proven wrong.

Originally Posted by Roark

But if you are really having a hard time grasping the concept, let me try to clarify so that you can understand the record profits and taxes idea.
Yes. It is a record amount of both. Record amount of profit, and record amount of taxes for Exxon Mobile and it's Shareholders. Record amount. The highest amount on record.
Let it sink in boy genius. Record amount. Meaning an amount that they have never achieved before. Not littlest amount, but the biggest amount of profit and biggest amount of taxes. Not a little money, "alot" of money.
Did it sink in? If it doesn't, then you will never get the point.

Dude, are you kidding? Of course I know the definition of record thank you. What I don't understand is how you make it seem like it's an ungodly amount to pay when the revenue was also a record! Guess what, I understand the concept so well that I bet you next time they post record earnings they will also have a new record tax bill. Woopdeedo what is your point?

Originally Posted by Roark

Sorry to talk to you like you have a double digit IQ...you seem very sensitive about that, but I don't know how to make the point with someone as intelligent as you are.

Don't be sorry. You could never offend me no matter how hard you try. Besides, I've already gotten used to your arrogance.

Originally Posted by Roark

Trust you? Instead of learning history?
I'm sorry again to hurt your feelings, but read this, it's title is Rising Tide: Kwame Holman looks at how a 1990 budget concession has failed to produce revenue, because a luxury tax it instituted, back fired
It is a nice little story. A transcript of a PBS show actually. Easy, quick read. Here are some excerpts:
Are you still laughtering Endeavor? Trust you?

Thank you for being so nice, but really don't worry about the feelings. You know I could pull many more references (and videos) on what has worked and what hasn't worked from much more recently (like over the last 8 years). Again, you googling a 1996 transcript is what I call fishing for covenient sources. Please provide something more recent and substantial and maybe I'll take it serious.

You should trust me, you should also listen to me...you might learn something.

[Roark]

Originally Posted by Endeavor305

Dude, are you kidding? Of course I know the definition of record thank you.

From you posts, you seemed very confused.Your EXACT quote was,
"That's alot of money for you, not Exxon."
I posted that is IS a lot of money for Exxon Mobile, it IS a record amount of money.
You still seemed to confused and disagreed. So confused you asked, "What do you mean it's alot of money for it's employess and shareholders? Are you talking about the tax or revenue?"
You asked what I mean, and I walked you through it. NOW do you know what I mean.

Originally Posted by Endeavor305

What I don't understand is how you make it seem like it's an ungodly amount to pay when the revenue was also a record! Guess what, I understand the concept so well that I bet you next time they post record earnings they will also have a new record tax bill. Woopdeedo what is your point?

Great! So you DIDN'T understand the point at all from the begininng?

This is ponderous. RECALL that Florida Will said that he wasn't happy that he paid taxes and Walmart didn't. You follow?
Carefully, now, this is going to get tricky.
MY POINT was that in the entire Associated Press article, they only talk about the RECORD PROFITS and they make no mention of the record tax payments. Do you get it?
Woopeedo, what's your point he says. Make sure you understand the point before you go off.

Wow, Endeavor, if you can't follow, and you don't understand sarcasm, then don't get all worked up. It's okay, we should engage in these types of conversations.

Originally Posted by Endeavor305

Again, you googling a 1996 transcript is what I call fishing for covenient sources.

Oh, that is what YOU call it. Some would call it concrete evidence that what you said is dead wrong.
Not slightly wrong, but dead wrong.
Originally Posted by Endeavor305
HAAA! What a laugher that was. The rich will never stop buying their expensive little toys because of taxes...trust me. That was a nice little story however. What was the painter in the boat yards name btw? Was it Joe also? Trust me. What a laughter.

[AddictedToSpace]

Hello?

[Endeavor305]

Originally Posted by Roark

From you posts, you seemed very confused.Your EXACT quote was,
"That's alot of money for you, not Exxon."
I posted that is IS a lot of money for Exxon Mobile, it IS a record amount of money.
You still seemed to confused and disagreed.

If I remember correctly you said Exxon's tax bill for Q3 was $32+/-M, correct? That is not alot of money for Exxon. Their quarter revenue was $13.4B, and that's just one quarter. I'm pretty sure they have enough capital saved from previous quarters to pay the tax bill 100's of times over. That's what I mean by it's not alot of money for Exxon. I find it hard for me to believe you didn't understand me. I think the issue with you is that you refuse to acknowledge this for I don't know what reason. Perhaps you feel like you must win or something. And if it's cause you don't understand what I'm saying, then you are really slow. I bet if I polled everyone here, they would say they understand me. So do you understand me Roark?

Originally Posted by Roark

So confused you asked, "What do you mean it's alot of money for it's employess and shareholders? Are you talking about the tax or revenue?"

That's called sarcasm. Ever heard of it? That's why I put the smiley face after the question mark which you took out when quoting me.

Originally Posted by Roark

Great! So you DIDN'T understand the point at all from the begininng?

This is ponderous. RECALL that Florida Will said that he wasn't happy that he paid taxes and Walmart didn't. You follow?
Carefully, now, this is going to get tricky.
MY POINT was that in the entire Associated Press article, they only talk about the RECORD PROFITS and they make no mention of the record tax payments. Do you get it?
Woopeedo, what's your point he says. Make sure you understand the point before you go off.

No no no, now look what you done. You confused yourself now. What did your mom tell you about thinking so hard...

My point was that the record profit heavily outweighs the tax burden. These companies don't need that much money. Do you know what they do with all that extra money? I can tell you it doesn't go to shareholders, otherwise all of Exxon's shareholders (myself included) would be multi-millionaires. The execs figure out a way to distribute it amongst themselves and all their friends. That's why you see CEO's and CFO's all the way down the line getting 10's of millions dollar bonuses. They also get extravagant paid vacations and gifts.

There are tons of ways to mask the money. Enron for example was found to have phony contracts with other companies for supplies and "infrastructure upgrades". What was really going on is the execs where siphoning the money into their pockets. That's why one of them commited suicide when it came out. The one oil companies love to use is they redistribute the money back into the company as "R&D". If you don't know what I'm talking about here is a link on the senate hearings from earlier this year. Do you think it's fair these execs get 10's of millions (in some cases 100's of millions) when the middle class struggles to pay for gas and groceries? I don't think it is fair no matter how you try and sugarcoat it. Answer that question Roark. Like Senator Durbin asked' "where's their corporate conscience?".

[AddictedToSpace]

Ahem.. Mr. Roark. Do you approve of windfall profit taxes?

[floridian-will]

Originally Posted by Roark

Of .
Really? I've never won any popularity contests on this forum, but that you don't think you sholuld "work your way through college" is disgusting!
Man, I hope I'm not in the minority on this one, or this Change is worse than I thought.
You have the OPPORTUNITY to go to college!!! And you are resentful that you have to work for it??? Do you want it for free? What else, free health care, free foot massages, free food, free beer, free WHAT?!?!?

I dont dissagree with anything you said much except I think you missunderstood me here. I dont care about working my way through college, I was just making the point of how little pitty I have for Joe the B.S. Plumber.
In fact I always wanted a job anyways, I have never had anything handed to me so I dont want you to think that is the kind of guy that I am.

My dad is a plumber. He owned a multi million dollar plumbing business that he worked his ass off for, not anymore. A lot has happened with the economy that takes things out of your hands no matter how hard you work.

[AddictedToSpace]

Still waiting...

How can people want to look up to Joe the Plumber? He owes back taxes, lied about his ability to purchase a company that does not even make the money he said it did and he is working illegally, not licensed, as a plumber. There is nothing to look up to him about. On top of that he has become a device of hate and lies of the GOP as displayed by his press conferences including the one that he claimed that a vote for Barack Obama equaled the death of Israel.

The problem in this country is, as John Mccain did with his VP choice, many do not want to do their due diligence. Some want to turn on the TV and have CNN tell them who they should vote for and why. They rely on commercials and other devices. When instead they should be doing research on voting records, past affiliations and views. Hell learn how to call Bull Shit when you hear it.

You have to do your homework. The candidate is the one getting hired. When you go to a job interview, does the employer go by your resume and cover page alone? No. An employer does their homework, ie. criminal background checks, credit checks, AN INTERVIEW longer than 15 minutes.

[FIDEL CASTRO]

Right now I really wish to be a moderator.

[Roark]

Originally Posted by AddictedToSpace

Ahem.. Mr. Roark. Do you approve of windfall profit taxes?

Me personally? What difference does it make if I approve of something or not personally? And why do you care.
The question should be would raising taxes, on anyone, or anything, be good for the United States in wartime and with a recession on the horizon.
But I'll humour you, even though it is obvious and predictable that you will want to change the conversation from what IDEAS are good for country to what they told you about Sarah Palin.
Gee Space, which ones are you asking about specifically?
If you mean the Excise Taxes that they called Windfall Profit Taxes on domestic oil producer that were enacted in Carter Administration during tough economic times. Recession time, is definitely the wrong time to raise taxes. Enacting those taxes proved to have unintended consequences (like most tax increases do) and they were repealed.
The government taxed domestic oil, and domestic oil companies stopped pumping domestic oil, they just imported foreign oil.
The phrase "Windfall Profit Tax" can be used to mislead people into thinking that corporations "make to much money" don't "pay their share of taxes".

Again, it should be clear, I don't like big government. I don't like Welfare, corporate or otherwise. And increasing taxes with two wars going on and a recession looming IS NOT a good change.

[Roark]

Great post Space.

Originally Posted by AddictedToSpace

How can people want to look up to Joe the Plumber? He owes back taxes, lied about his ability to purchase a company that does not even make the money he said it did and he is working illegally, not licensed, as a plumber.

I don't know the guy personally, so I don't know the answer to your question on why people would look up to him.
But I know this. This guy is a private citizen. Why would a political party investigate a private citizen (in the United States I mean, I know why they do it in Cuba, and in communists countries).
Sad politics. Personally, I don't watch much television and haven't follow the whole thing, but it is probably a bad idea for the Obama Campaign and their supporters to use Government computers to hit this guy. Whatever happened to human decency.

Originally Posted by AddictedToSpace

The problem in this country is, as John Mccain did with his VP choice, many do not want to do their due diligence. Some want to turn on the TV and have CNN tell them who they should vote for and why. They rely on commercials and other devices. When instead they should be doing research on voting records, past affiliations and views. Hell learn how to call Bull Shit when you hear it.

Yep, exactly. Voting records, Military records, views on the Constitiution, executive experience, maybe even if the candidate spent 20 years in the KKK or in a radical hateful church. Also important to some would be the candidates motivation for achieving the job, is he going to do what is best for the organization, or manipulated the organization for his own personal interest. These types of things may be important to voters and employers.

The sad reality Space, is that many people will vote on emotion not logic, and they will vote however their friends vote because of their desparate need to find belonging in a group. When every warm body votes, this is what we get.

[spellbound]

Hang on a sec. It was McCain himself who chose to inject 'Joe the Plumber' into the national spotlight. When you do that, it stands to reason that anyone plucked from obscurity and made a household word in the span of 24 hours will receive attention from the press. The fact is the guy was revealed to be not quite what McCain presented him as. He is NOT a business owner (as McCain initially told the public during the last debate)...he does NOT make anything close to the $200,000 threshold to see his taxes raised (as McCain had implied by congratulating him on 'being rich' during the same debate) and, in fact, he is not even a licensed plumber and his owing of back taxes is a matter of public record. 'Joe' has also eagerly made himself available for numerous TV interviews---where he has expressed a variety of opinions (including his opposition to Social Security) that would be in the fringes of American political thought.

I agree the guy is hardly 'Satan Incarnate' and shouldn't be an important part of any serious political debate---nor should he be dragged through the mud---but it is the McCain camp that picked him to be a celebrity---and continues to campaign with him as recently as yesterday. You can't do that without expecting added attention---and nothing that has been revealed about 'Joe' is false. In fact, this notion that he is being demonized is a wholly calculated response that is purely political itself. That's how the game is played.