"The Trucker" <mikcob@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:pan.2008.05.03.18.00.39.877478@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Sat, 03 May 2008 03:06:30 -0400, CB wrote:
>
>>
>> "The Trucker" <mikcob@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2008.05.03.01.44.39.934190@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> On Fri, 02 May 2008 17:52:49 -0400, CB wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> But as most Libs, you whine "no fay'uh" if someone does better than
>>>> you.
>>>
>>> When people seek justice they always encounter the rightard and his
>>> "envy
>>> pony", and then the next display is the "commie" crap. Sometimes the
>>> order is reversed.
>>
>> Are you Left of Commi?
>
> You are the far side of Idiot.
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Create a business friendly atmosphere here (end cor****ate taxes on
>>>>>> inanimate
>>>>>> objects) and industry will come home.
>>>>>
>>>>> No thanks. I am not in search of "business". I am in search of
>>>>> prosperity.
>>>>
>>>> ...from others success, as in leech, not from your own hard work.
>>>
>>> I have earned what I have and have no wish to take what anyone else
has
>>> earned. UNLESS, that is, he is so damned stupid to think that ha gets
>>> government services like property rights enforcement free of charge.
>>
>> Say what?
>
> The primary role of government is the enforcement of property rights.
It
> is probably quite fitting that this service would be finance by a tax on
> property.
Didn't the USSC just pave the way (2 yrs ago) for stealing
personal/private
property through 'Imminent Domain'?
Yes it did.
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hillary threatens the fuel industry with windfall taxes. What's
to
>>>>>>>> prevent
>>>>>>>> them mean oil companies to say "the Hell with that" and move to
>>>>>>>> Dubi,
>>>>>>>> where
>>>>>>>> business is welcome?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!! Can I go to the docks and
throw
>>>>>>> flowers as these rip off artists move their offices to Dubai? Are
>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>> going to take the oil with them?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Libs always eat the goose that lays the golden egg
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The only "golden egg" is the oil itself.
>>>>
>>>> And you curse the people who exploit it for the consumer, their
>>>> investors
>>>> and for them selves.
>>>
>>> That is, at least, partially true. I curse those who exploit common
>>> resources to extract unearned economic rent.
>>
>> So you'd like to see America's natural resources nationalized, as in
>> Chavez/Venezuela?
>
> I am not well enough acquainted with the owner****p rules in Venezuela to
> draw that association. But yes, I believe that the people of the
> sovereignty have an equal right to the benefits of all _natural_
> resources of the sovereignty.
That's what we have today! The gubment has over 300 million acres which it
leases out for profit. On top of gubment leases it then taxes the product
produced from mining natural resources.
>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, just another 100,000 jobs, investments and future plant assets
>>>>>> which
>>>>>> could have benefited Americans.
>>>>>
>>>>> How so?
>>>>> Wait.... Let me get some popcorn and my seat belt.
>>>>
>>>> Your solution for the successful 'is' to further yoke them under
higher
>>>> progressive taxes and restrict freedom to pursue happiness in
America.
>>>> The
>>>> entrepreneur's solution is to pull up stakes and move where bidniz be
>>>> welcome, given tax incentives to invest and place no yoke in the form
>>>> of
>>>> redundant cor****ate taxes.
>>>
>>> Please answer the question I asked as opposed to trotting out another
>>> platitude. You were asked why seeing the oil as being owned by all
>>> Americans equally will have harmed investment and jobs.
>>
>> America's natural resources nationalized, as in Chavez/Venezuela?
>
> More posturing. Answer the question, please.
There goes any motovation for private bidniz to invest.
>
>> You seem to claim
>>> that "100,000 jobs, investments and future plant assets which could
have
>>> benefited Americans" will have been lost because the oil companies
will
>>> be
>>> moving their headquarters offshore. That is hose**** but I want to
see
>>> you explain why you are stupid enough to believe it.
>>
>> Because Speaker Pelosi and Hitlery would seek windfall taxes from big
>> oil.
>> Who needs that?
>
> That has nothing to do with the question I asked.
>
>> It's that economic rent/rape horse**** you talk about that threatens to
>> steal profits. Is it no wonder why so many companies move to avoid
>> gubment
>> greed?
>
> Now we are back to the actual question: If the oil companies move their
> offices to Dubai then how does that effect jobs (other than management)
> here in the USA?
There are many other 'cottage industry' jobs related to big oil that'll
move
too or suppliers will be contracted closer to base operations.
You mentioned: "100,000 jobs, investments and future
> plant assets which could have benefited Americans" will have been lost
> because the oil companies will be moving their headquarters offshore.
You
> have been asked to describe these loses. And you fail to do so because
> those loses will not occur.
It's the sup****t companies dummy!!!
I work for a steel fabricating company who contracts with at least 20
other
companies for labor, erecting companies, suppliers of hardware, fuel,
trans****tation, ect. If we should relocate we'd be looking for local
sup****t, not from where we just moved from. Get it now?
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The tax system is the key to all the problems. Income tax is not
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> best
>>>>>>> way to tax though it has many advantages when properly
implemented.
>>>>>>> Repatriation taxes and resource rents are much more appropriate in
a
>>>>>>> global economy. But most people (and especially conservatives and
>>>>>>> Republicans) are so brainwashed by the current income tax system
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>> can conceive of no other world. Hell, they can't even understand
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> actual rationale behind progressive income taxation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're correct. Where you want TAKE money away from people in
>>>>>> progressive
>>>>>> taxes, those who are taxed the most just charge more at the pump or
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> duh
>>>>>> stoe (trickle-down economics) keeping their profit margins as they
>>>>>> were
>>>>>> before. The unintended consequences of progressive taxes (along
with
>>>>>> unions
>>>>>> and over regulation) on the wealthy has driven them offshore to
>>>>>> countries
>>>>>> who welcome them with little to no taxes or regulation. So when you
>>>>>> say
>>>>>> "Repatriation taxes", what you really mean is "your not welcome
>>>>>> here...but
>>>>>> we'll let you stay if you gib me money".
>>>>>
>>>>> All spoken like a mantra. No real thought. No real understanding
of
>>>>> economics. Just an example of what I have said: No understanding
of
>>>>> how
>>>>> progressive taxation can work rather well across the board. It is a
>>>>> blunt
>>>>> instrument. But when used by competent government it can be quite
>>>>> effective.
>>>>
>>>> LOL...he said "competent government"...LOL.
>>>
>>> Yes. That would totally disqualify the Republican kiss my ass regime
>>> that
>>> puts an Arabian Horse Show manager in as the head of FEMA and then
>>> nominates his own council for the Supreme court and then grooms yet
>>> another council for the job of attorney general. Competence for Bush
is
>>> measured in the ability to tell him what he wants to hear and the
amount
>>> of funds you can bring in to sup****t the Republican party.
>>>
>>>> The word, "progressive" means always moving. With Socialists the word
>>>> means
>>>> ones taxes will always go up, even in a recession
>>>
>>> I am neither a Socialist or a Progressive so I take no offense.
>>>
>>>> The underlying benefit is that it taxes primarily economic
>>>>> rents as opposed to production. The result is more and better
>>>>> productivity.
>>>>
>>>> Redundant taxes no doubt.
>>>
>>> Can you define "redundant taxes" in the current glut of deficit
>>> spending created and institutionalized by the Republican party?
>>
>> Control spending...you know what redundant taxes are.
>
> I agree. Quit burning money in an Iraq occupation.
A foothold in the ME is what the doctor ordered for future stibility of
oil
supplies.
Iraq has never been a
> threat to this nation and is no threat now.
Men are threats, not counties. Saddamn was an Evil man who gave material
aid
to terrorists had the potentual for handing off his known but well hid
WMD.
>
>>>
>>>>>> Before you say it, American entrepreneurs have always been the best
>>>>>> stewards
>>>>>> of 'industrial' mother Earth. American technology has reduced
carbon
>>>>>> emissions 75% from 50 years ago and leads the world in
conservation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Freedom comes from limiting govenment, not from feeding it other
>>>>>> peoples
>>>>>> money.
>>>>>
>>>>> A tax on economic rent is a recovery of money that is unearned and
>>>>> simply appropriated from the society in the first place. It is the
>>>>> recovery of stolen goods :)
>>>>
>>>> So you're a Communist then. One who believes society has no right to
>>>> earn money. It all belongs to duh state and what benevolence the
state
>>>> deems we
>>>> peasants deserve will be doled out as needed, right commi?
>>>
>>> You really are stupid. I am not anywhere near being anything like a
>>> commie. The fact is that I am more of a Libertarian than you will
ever
>>> be. I am _NOT_ a Libertarian, but much closer than you.
>>
>> Good for you, now go put up a Ron Paul sign
>
> I caucused for Ron Paul here in Wa****ngton State
Gee...how did I know dat?
and I am proud to see
> that Ron Paul prefers Obama over McCain as the lesser of evils. I may
not
> agree with EVERYTHING Ron Paul has to say or EVERYTHING that Obama has
to
> say, but there is damned little that McCain has to say that I agree
with.
Putting the security of his countrymen before the popularity of
personality.
Character counts, not personality.
--
CB
While Hillary righteously lectures the candidates about mudslinging, her
boys in the back room are readying the dirt to leak when she's not doing
too
well.
|
