39% !!!!!!!????????? classic...ya'll texans should be proud!!! NOT!!!hahaha

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
I'm not sure why, but you have incredible difficulty understanding the situation in Iraq RIGHT NOW is the product of Bush's decisions.

Um, no, I understand that Bush's decisions have played a big role in the situation in Iraq right now. I also understand that, despite your vitriolic assertions to the contrary and despite the mistakes that Bush has made, the situation in Iraq ISN'T a complete failure. In fact, in many ways it is a rousing success. If we stay the course, history will look back on it quite favorably.

As far as what I believe should be done differently today, there really are few choices. The US cannot just leave

Bingo. We can't just leave, and you can't identify anything you would have Bush do differently at this point.

You're old enough, Mavdog, that I think you would have a bit more historical perspective than you do. In spite of all the whining about mistakes Bush has made in Iraq (and I readily admit, mistakes have been made), the campaign has, overall, been a rousing success. The "quagmire" is only in the minds of those who oppose the war.

oh, is this a thread about other Presidents?
Clinton proposed a energy consumption tax to reduce demand, as well as support for ethanol (both tax credits for production and at POS).
What has Bush done? anything? well... he has given us higher prices for the energy, but guess who is getting the added dollars? the producers.

What a pathetic duck and weave. The subject was petroleum, and you're talking about ethanol.

Based upon your inability to respond, I take it you agree with me that the same generic criticism about reducing reliance on petroleum could be lodged against any President in the past 30 years.

gee, quoting the trade org that virtually wrote the bill? that's comparable to asking the fox if the henhouse was safe.
The assertions are not facts, the power plants do not need to switch they would need to install "scrubbers" to stop the emissions.

You're wrong. The Department of Energy has said as recently as March 2005 that there currently is no technology in existence to do what you're talking about. As such, the power plants WOULD have to switch. That gets us back to whether it's smart to jack the cost of energy up even further than it has gone.

Ironic that you would use the trade orgs assertions about "an increase in electricity prices for home heating" when that is exactly what is happening TODAY!

How is it ironic? I only used one quote from the EPRI, but the fact that energy prices are increasing doesn't mean they wouldn't increase even that much FURTHER if you instituted the environmental regulations you're talking about.

Mother nature strongly disagrees with you and remember, Mother Nature doesn't like to get messed with. It always comes back to hurt us humans in the end.

I'll just agree to disagree with you on that one.

no, that is incorrect and ALWAYS not the case if the tax is not levied on all producers, the market will not allow for only some of the producers to raise their prices when other producers don't have the same tax. In this case, the polluters themselves would pay the tax. Those who don't pollute don't pay.

The one who's not polluting is going to inevitably have a product that costs more, so if you design the tax so that it basically mimics the cost of complying with environmental regulations, then perhaps you have a point here.

It IS in the best interests of our country to help the poor, large unintended families are a burden. We clearly disagree about how the state can aid society, you wish that it not work to help the poor and I do.

Wrong. I have no problem with the government helping the poor, but there's a big difference between that and practicing population control. This isn't friggin' China.

The upper incomes were given more tax reductions than the other economic classes, they also were given relief on capital gains in addition to the tax cuts. They recieved more when they need it less. The higher income houdeholds now have a greater share of the nation's wealth than they did before the tax cut. That increase in wealth is pushing the US into a starker divide in classes, a trend that is not healthy for our society. The tax policies have NOT made the "poor richer" and HAVE made the rich richer. The tax code should NOT be used to accomplish the rich getting richer. period.

You and I just have a philosophical difference here. You view it as the government's money. I view it as the individual's money.

I repeat: The real problem is that the tax cuts weren't coupled with spending cuts.

look around the world. In Asia, American styles dominate. In Europe, American styles dominate. The world loves Americana, they just don't like our current leadership. No, we don't need their consent, but as we live on the same planet, have economic and cultural integrations, we should work with other countries to acheive common goals. Today, we aren't. that is a bad situation, period.

Says you, not reality. We work with other countries to achieve common goals all the time. They may not be the goals you want the U.S. to pursue, but I don't really view that as a bad thing.