Meet Barack Hussein Mugabe

[DaShi]

Apparently not.

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by DaShi


Actually, it is just between him and me. He wasn't very respectful to me, so I'm not going to kiss his ass for it.

You are free to join in as you did. You should just try to understand why I am posting to him in this way and why it makes you an ass to do what you did.



Duh, that's why I said, "too"

Ok, I did not mean to have this blow up, so please accept my apology, no, not for countering a point I viewed as questionable but for you thinking I was being disrespectful

Now, let us return to the subject at hand

[DaShi]

Thank you, Gramps. That's all I really wanted. I wasn't upset that you gave a counterargument, just that you seemed to be insulting in the way you did it. And I do like some of your pictures.

As for the trucking industry, I understand how high gas prices will affect them, which is why we need a long term solution. This is why I am against the "gax-tax holiday" because it doesn't solve the problem and will most likely make it worse.

The sad fact is that fossil fuels are a dwindling resource and industries that rely on them need to be prepared for change as the market begins to squeeze. Babying them now with tax holidays will only make it harder for them when the real crunch comes. Instead we should start looking for solutions now. Since our economy is so strongly market driven, the best solution is to give a market incentive. Hence, keeping the gas prices somewhat high, but not so unreasonable that it would cripple the industry.

[Grandpa Troll]

DaShi

You bring up a point I meant to address much earlier, anyone here including DaShi, I read about land that "could" be used one day but not quite now.

Please explain why this is?

Is there fuel there or not?

If so, what kind and what does "time" have to do with making it easier to extract or perhaps refine?

Thanks

Gramps

[Agathon]

On a lighter note, I really liked this poster, which is printed in the latest issue of MAD.

[Lancer]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


Wait, wait, wait. No candidate's proposing this now. Kucinich wanted it, but he lost.

So Obama isn't going to tax oil companies and send everyone $1000? Thats what I refering to. I'm all for it by the way, the oil cos are too far into my pocket. But...its vote buying.

[Adam Smith]

jumping in with both feet...

My position on these issues is pretty close to rah’s, but maybe a shade to the left. I will try to sketch an economic case.

Why do we in the US have government provide some goods and services but not others?
You can make an economic case on the following grounds. There are some cases in which markets do not work well. These cases include
1. Natural monopoly - market is only big enough for one firm to operate efficiently, e.g., your local electric utility. Solution: regulate it
2. Externality - one agent’s actions positively or negatively affect another’s. e.g., pollution, health care, trade. Solution: tax it or arrange side payments (Coase Theorem)
3. Public good – costs nothing to provide for one more person, but impossible to charge that person for e.g., national defense.
In any of these cases government can, in principle, make life better than it would be if markets were used to solve the problem.

BUT…
Government may not be very efficient at solving the problem either. There are several reasons for this.
1. Most US studies show that every $1 raised in taxes, chokes off about 22 cents of economic activity. This is not an argument for eliminating government spending, but it does indicate that you need to have a pretty healthy return in order for government spending to make sense.
2. Government often does not produce services efficiently. For example, a recent study by the General Accounting Office found that Medicare pays about three times more for many goods and services than you can buy them for at your local drug store. But Congress recently defeated a proposal to open these goods up to competitive bidding. Defense spending is another prime example.
3. Government spending is often captive to political interests. The Bridge to Nowhere and the Federal Helium Reserve (we might need dirigibles for defense) are good examples.

I see clear social needs to be met, but I remain a Republican (barely) because I question the ability of government to perform the tasks we have assigned to it.

p.s., The Congressional Research Service, one of Congress’ bipartisan research agencies, notes that the main effects of the excess profits tax are to transfer money from oil companies to consumers, reduce domestic production, and increase imports.

edit: grammar

[Agathon]

Re: jumping in with both feet...

Originally posted by Adam Smith
My position on these issues is pretty close to rah’s, but maybe a shade to the left. I will try to sketch an economic case.

Why do we in the US have government provide some goods and services but not others?
You can make an economic case on the following grounds. There are some cases in which markets do not work well. These cases include
1. Natural monopoly - market is only big enough for one firm to operate efficiently, e.g., your local electric utility. Solution: regulate it
2. Externality - one agent’s actions positively or negatively affect another’s. e.g., pollution, health care, trade. Solution: tax it or arrange side payments (Coase Theorem)
3. Public good – costs nothing to provide for one more person, but impossible to charge that person for e.g., national defense.
In any of these cases government can, in principle, make life better than it would be if markets were used to solve the problem.

BUT…
Government may not be very efficient at solving the problem either. There are several reasons for this.
1. Most US studies show that every $1 raised in taxes, chokes off about 22 cents of economic activity. This is not an argument for eliminating government spending, but it does indicate that you need to have a pretty healthy return in order for government spending to make sense.
2. Government often does not produce services efficiently. For example, a recent study by the General Accounting Office found that Medicare pays about three times more for many goods and services than you can buy them for at your local drug store. But Congress recently defeated a proposal to open these goods up to competitive bidding. Defense spending is another prime example.
3. Government spending is often captive to political interests. The Bridge to Nowhere and the Federal Helium Reserve (we might need dirigibles for defense) are good examples.

I see clear social needs to be met, but I remain a Republican (barely) because I question the ability of government to perform the tasks we have assigned to it.

p.s., The Congressional Research Service, one of Congress’ bipartisan research agencies, notes that the main effects of the excess profits tax are to transfer money from oil companies to consumers, reduce domestic production, and increase imports.

edit: grammar

This is the best you can do? Jesus...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yes, let us just ignore the economist putting forward a comprehensive and well thought out list for his position on the role of government.

This is why no one listens to you, Aggie.

[Ninot]

I like that Aggie commented about how he doesn't debate many posters because of their baiting replies, and then he comes up with that gem.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Yes, let us just ignore the economist putting forward a comprehensive and well thought out list for his position on the role of government.

You mean he's a "real" economist and not some I-post-tired-old-right-wing-talking-points dude? You gotta be kiddin me.

This is a joke, right?

This is why no one listens to you, Aggie.

Couldn't care less what you think. The only reason you aren't on ignore is that someone in a fit of error made you a mod.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ninot
I like that Aggie commented about how he doesn't debate many posters because of their baiting replies, and then he comes up with that gem.

That's not what I said. Can't you read?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ninot
I like that Aggie commented about how he doesn't debate many posters because of their baiting replies, and then he comes up with that gem.

And yes, Adam Smith is a real economist, AFAIK (and not just someone who got their undergrad degree in economics - who can also be called economists on some level). And he's far more sane and well thought out in his posts than Aggie and has been since day 1.

[rah]

Originally posted by Agathon


Do you care about your children? The money you took in tax cuts is essentially a loan that they will have to repay, probably to the Chinese.

Now ask yourself, would you have taken a bank loan in the same amount as the tax cuts you received, which your children would have to pay back?

PS. I heard you now own Mexico money.

That's essentially what you did, because Bush wouldn't balance his budget.

Is this the best you got. Ok, let's look at reality. The tax cuts helped pay for my daughter's college education. Quite a worthy investment in my book. And all the other positives in my financial situation will mean that she won't have to worry about how screwed up SS is when she gets older because I will have taken care of it personally.

I don't see a down side there for me or my child.


And you're assuming the Dems would have balanced the budget. Quite an assumption.

[C0ckney]

it's hard to believe that people see our NHS as something for other countries to aspire to when you see stuff like this

The cleanliness of most NHS hospitals in England is threatened by frequent invasions of rats, fleas, bedbugs, flies and cockroaches, a report claims.

Figures released by the Conservatives show that 70% of NHS Trusts brought in the pest controllers at least 50 times between January 2006 and March 2008.

Vermin were found in wards, clinics and even operating theatres. A patients' group said the situation was revolting.

But health chiefs played down fears the infestations could lead to disease.

The figures were obtained by the Conservatives under the Freedom of Information Act, with every hospital asked to reveal how often pest controllers had visited over the two-year period in question.