I was listening to NPR yesterday on the way home from the airport. I got a bit furious over one of the commentators who stated that the Tea Party and the Republicans are arguing two sides of the same coin. According to the commentator, the groups want smaller government with less deficit spending yet they both want tax cuts to remain in place for all people (yes, including the "rich"). She said that this makes no sense and is mutually incompatible.
Talk about faulty logic. Is it not easy to see that you can hold both of these tenets (as I do) by reducing government spending? Spend less, much less (enough to cover continuing the tax relief) and deficits will go down. Tax cuts (continued ... not new ones) and deficit reduction. What is incompatible about this?
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Hippocracy
I am really ticked at the dems right now about one issue, the recent Supreme Court decision to allow groups (business, unions, ngo's, etc) to spend as much as they want on political commercials. The dems are screaming that this was a bad decision and that it gives unfair advantage to big business (whenever the word "big" comes out, look out - big oil, big wall street firms, big energy, big business, etc). Now they want it all turned over and want a law to fix this poor decision. Now, I would be fully in support of these "gentlemen" and their cause if they would be willing to put the kabash on lobbiests. My guess is that lobbiers have more influence on Congress (probably less on elections) and hurt the American citizens more than any political advertisement by any group - big business included. No more lobbying. That hurts all of us and makes our elected officials beholden to some special interest. Adverts, well, most folks see through them. In this case, I think the big 9 got it right, no one should be able to restrain any group from voicing their opinions in a legitimate way.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Random Walk
A lot has gone on this week. I thought I would just light on a few subjects like a butterfly and then fly away. Here are "Cheers", "Hmm's" and "Jeers" for this busy week ...
JEERS to Mr Obama for his comments at a "town hall" meeting in the midwest. There he stated that he couldn't figure out all the fuss about health care. He said, in his usual mocking tone, 'Let's see, should I want health care that is comprehensive and free or something that is no change? Huh.' I don't think Mr. Obama helps his cause by either being condescending or by misleading the public. No way that his health care is free under any plan.
CHEERS to Mr Obama for proposing the elimination of the military "don't ask, don't tell" policy. It is about time. I don't understand why we cannot do it sooner than one year, though. It is a policy that goes against everything that is the real American ideal.
HMM to Mr Obama for killing the Aries/Orion manned space program. At first I thought that this was just the continuing destruction of what was once a great space-faring nation. But I thought some more. Currently, NASA selects from one or two contractors to build their concept. Under the new proposal, bids will go out along with seed money to have private enterprise build the equipment. Not all that different, but the design will be from the outside and it does privatize the activity. It also, through the use of the seed money, will guarantee that the goals of the program will not be purely commercial (space tourism for example). We will have to wait and see.
JEERS to Mr Obama for his comments at a "town hall" meeting in the midwest. There he stated that he couldn't figure out all the fuss about health care. He said, in his usual mocking tone, 'Let's see, should I want health care that is comprehensive and free or something that is no change? Huh.' I don't think Mr. Obama helps his cause by either being condescending or by misleading the public. No way that his health care is free under any plan.
CHEERS to Mr Obama for proposing the elimination of the military "don't ask, don't tell" policy. It is about time. I don't understand why we cannot do it sooner than one year, though. It is a policy that goes against everything that is the real American ideal.
HMM to Mr Obama for killing the Aries/Orion manned space program. At first I thought that this was just the continuing destruction of what was once a great space-faring nation. But I thought some more. Currently, NASA selects from one or two contractors to build their concept. Under the new proposal, bids will go out along with seed money to have private enterprise build the equipment. Not all that different, but the design will be from the outside and it does privatize the activity. It also, through the use of the seed money, will guarantee that the goals of the program will not be purely commercial (space tourism for example). We will have to wait and see.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
A Republican in Massachusetts?
I have been following the reaction of both talking heads and politicians following last night's election of a Repulican to the Senate to represent Massachusetts. Almost to a person, the republicans seem to think this is a referendum on President Obama. On the other side, the democrats just seem to think that all they need to do is to do a better job of explaining to the American people why legislation is good for them (poor dumb Americans just don't understand). Is there any wonder we can't get anything useful done?
They are all wrong. This was NOT a referendum on Obama. He is a liberal and, even in a heavily independent state like Massachusetts, there is plenty of liberal thought and, in general, I would say that most of the people there support Obama (his poll numbers are still around 50% - not bad given that he has accomplished so little ... not that this is unusual, Presidents are in the executive branch and action must come from the legislative branch, so, unless the party in power is unified or can work across the aisles or unless the President has enough personal charm to sway the electorate, there is little that can get done by a given President).
It is also not a situation where us poor dumb Americans (PDA's) don't understand the legislation. I think we do understand it and that is part of the reason for the outcome of the election.
Our legislators are the ones who don't get it. Us PDA's don't like:
They are all wrong. This was NOT a referendum on Obama. He is a liberal and, even in a heavily independent state like Massachusetts, there is plenty of liberal thought and, in general, I would say that most of the people there support Obama (his poll numbers are still around 50% - not bad given that he has accomplished so little ... not that this is unusual, Presidents are in the executive branch and action must come from the legislative branch, so, unless the party in power is unified or can work across the aisles or unless the President has enough personal charm to sway the electorate, there is little that can get done by a given President).
It is also not a situation where us poor dumb Americans (PDA's) don't understand the legislation. I think we do understand it and that is part of the reason for the outcome of the election.
Our legislators are the ones who don't get it. Us PDA's don't like:
- having legislation rammed through by one party with no input from the other
- outrageous deficit spending that lowers the value of the dollar, will lead to future inflation, and will bankrupt our children and grandchildren
- more and more taxes (especially when so many people are out of work or have not seen raises in a couple of years)
- politicians who talk down to us and take us for granted
- childish posturing and narrow-minded approaches to legislating
- inability for our politicians to practice give-and-take (neither side gives)
I could go on, but this was really a referendum on our Congress. My question to ponder is what will us PDA's do next when nothing changes?
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Why Environmentalism Scares Me
This morning I was listening to NPR as I drove into town and there were two reports that really underscored the problems I have with the current state of the environmental movement. First, I want to make it clear that I support doing things that lessen the impact that I have on the environment, but some of the draconian measures being considered will hit me and others very hard in the wallet, and with everything else going on to remove money from my wallet, I have a real concern that I will be able to afford to live, much less retire.
The first report was from the Copenhagen summit of the UN Climate Council. Thousands of protesters, most of whom have been given "lines to recite" and don't have a good, base understanding of just how complex climate is, what to do to really impact climate change, the nature of unintended consequences, etc. For the most part, these are educated people who are largely uneducated. It concerns me that they whip issues into a frenzy, idiot politicians who are also technically illiterate jump on the frenzy (to keep getting elected) and enact oppressive and expensive legislation to "fix" the problem. That is also fairly arrogant to think we can totally fix the problem, but that is for another post. Of course, there is the national posturing of different countries to make sure that they are not "unfairly" treated. I had to laugh when the Chinese representative said that the rich countries (read US and Europe) are the only ones that have to sign binding written agreements. China, as a developing country (certainly they could not be rich) was exempt from such written documents.
But then I got more worried with the follow-up story:
http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=121498033&m=121498057
This is a two-part story. Part one deals with the eco-brainwashing of elementary schools in Britain. An "inspector" from an NGO (Eco-schools) "teaches" kids the 7 steps to eco-friendliness. Next, we hear the kids recite the verse in lock step. The school has eco-reps, and eco-council and classroom monitors. Kind of reminds me of Hitler youth. On the positive side, the school has adopted some engineering controls that make sense. Sky-lighting, more efficient heaters, motion-sensing lighting, etc. These are great and sane. But the school kids are buying into the whole story. Moving on to the high school kids, this has translated into laws that prohibit anyone within 3 km (about 2 miles) from driving to school (this would include driving in an electric car or hybrid) and promote protests (organized by another NGO - People and Planet) which seem to be geared to music and partying as part of the protests, and "carbon dating" (no - not to determine something is 200,000,000 years old). The latter is part of what scares me. Carbon dating is a low-carbon version of going on a date. Examples include taking a bike ride instead of a car ride (of course, in many places you have to drive the car with the bikes aboard to get to a safe riding place) - this seems ok. Next suggestion - eat vegetarian instead of meat for a dinner date. No one can convince me that vegetarian farming, as it is practiced, has less of an impact on the environment than a non-vegetarian scenario. Next suggestion - candlelight dinner instead of standard lights. So, now, instead of electric power from a central location with a known footprint, we have folks burning chemical fats at the dinner table and emitting carbon from a much less efficient source than hydroelectric, nuclear, or even natural gas.
This kind of thinking kills me. The idea is that if we all go back to a Walden Pond kind of existence, that all will be well. The truth is that we cannot go back to a lifestyle that was, in many ways, more polluting and clearly not sustainable for a world population approaching 6 billion or city populations, like Sao Paulo and Tokyo of around 20 million.
The story moves to the second part, eco-engineering. This is great. The British Institute of Mechanical Engineers has proposed three "great" ideas to combat global warming. First, acres of artificial trees. WHAT??? I bet the artificial trees have significant components of plastics and a manufacturing footprint that more than offsets the ability to absorb carbon dioxide. Why not plant real trees? Second, grow algae on surfaces of buildings to absorb heat and carbon dioxide. Let's not forget the bacteria and molds that will feast on such systems. Not much of a health risk there, especially in densely populated regions. Third, let's put reflective surfaces on buildings to lower the heat footprint of cities. Great, let's reflect all of that light back into the atmosphere where I am sure there will be no impact on weather or temperature or ozone or the like. People seem to forget that cities replaced forests and fields. Neither of these reflected light to a great extent. They absorbed light and put it to use to grow, converting EM radiation into chemicals and some heat.
So, for this section, I worry about poorly thought out concepts that have unintended consequences.
I just don't know how we can approach such an emotional topic with such far-reaching consequences, both environmental and economic (on the federal and personal level) in an intelligent way. Eco-brainwashing, technically illiterate masses, mis-informed activists, and greedy politicians do not bode well for a sensible outcome.
The first report was from the Copenhagen summit of the UN Climate Council. Thousands of protesters, most of whom have been given "lines to recite" and don't have a good, base understanding of just how complex climate is, what to do to really impact climate change, the nature of unintended consequences, etc. For the most part, these are educated people who are largely uneducated. It concerns me that they whip issues into a frenzy, idiot politicians who are also technically illiterate jump on the frenzy (to keep getting elected) and enact oppressive and expensive legislation to "fix" the problem. That is also fairly arrogant to think we can totally fix the problem, but that is for another post. Of course, there is the national posturing of different countries to make sure that they are not "unfairly" treated. I had to laugh when the Chinese representative said that the rich countries (read US and Europe) are the only ones that have to sign binding written agreements. China, as a developing country (certainly they could not be rich) was exempt from such written documents.
But then I got more worried with the follow-up story:
http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=121498033&m=121498057
This is a two-part story. Part one deals with the eco-brainwashing of elementary schools in Britain. An "inspector" from an NGO (Eco-schools) "teaches" kids the 7 steps to eco-friendliness. Next, we hear the kids recite the verse in lock step. The school has eco-reps, and eco-council and classroom monitors. Kind of reminds me of Hitler youth. On the positive side, the school has adopted some engineering controls that make sense. Sky-lighting, more efficient heaters, motion-sensing lighting, etc. These are great and sane. But the school kids are buying into the whole story. Moving on to the high school kids, this has translated into laws that prohibit anyone within 3 km (about 2 miles) from driving to school (this would include driving in an electric car or hybrid) and promote protests (organized by another NGO - People and Planet) which seem to be geared to music and partying as part of the protests, and "carbon dating" (no - not to determine something is 200,000,000 years old). The latter is part of what scares me. Carbon dating is a low-carbon version of going on a date. Examples include taking a bike ride instead of a car ride (of course, in many places you have to drive the car with the bikes aboard to get to a safe riding place) - this seems ok. Next suggestion - eat vegetarian instead of meat for a dinner date. No one can convince me that vegetarian farming, as it is practiced, has less of an impact on the environment than a non-vegetarian scenario. Next suggestion - candlelight dinner instead of standard lights. So, now, instead of electric power from a central location with a known footprint, we have folks burning chemical fats at the dinner table and emitting carbon from a much less efficient source than hydroelectric, nuclear, or even natural gas.
This kind of thinking kills me. The idea is that if we all go back to a Walden Pond kind of existence, that all will be well. The truth is that we cannot go back to a lifestyle that was, in many ways, more polluting and clearly not sustainable for a world population approaching 6 billion or city populations, like Sao Paulo and Tokyo of around 20 million.
The story moves to the second part, eco-engineering. This is great. The British Institute of Mechanical Engineers has proposed three "great" ideas to combat global warming. First, acres of artificial trees. WHAT??? I bet the artificial trees have significant components of plastics and a manufacturing footprint that more than offsets the ability to absorb carbon dioxide. Why not plant real trees? Second, grow algae on surfaces of buildings to absorb heat and carbon dioxide. Let's not forget the bacteria and molds that will feast on such systems. Not much of a health risk there, especially in densely populated regions. Third, let's put reflective surfaces on buildings to lower the heat footprint of cities. Great, let's reflect all of that light back into the atmosphere where I am sure there will be no impact on weather or temperature or ozone or the like. People seem to forget that cities replaced forests and fields. Neither of these reflected light to a great extent. They absorbed light and put it to use to grow, converting EM radiation into chemicals and some heat.
So, for this section, I worry about poorly thought out concepts that have unintended consequences.
I just don't know how we can approach such an emotional topic with such far-reaching consequences, both environmental and economic (on the federal and personal level) in an intelligent way. Eco-brainwashing, technically illiterate masses, mis-informed activists, and greedy politicians do not bode well for a sensible outcome.
Friday, March 6, 2009
We're not in Kansas anymore
Well, it just does not get better.The prez rolls out a budget plan and has a health care symposium and the market tanks further. It is hard for the private sector capitalists to think that they have a future when the government is planning to take over health care. It is hard for the private sector capitalists to infuse money into any manufacturing businesses when the cap-and-trade is proposed that will effectively tax these manufacturing operations. It is hard for the private sector to invest in banks when the government continues to take them over rather than work with the industry to remove bad assets that continue to drag the banks down.
I found out yesterday that the big "middle class tax cut" will be paid for with money from the carbon cap-and-trade program. Interestingly, if we implement cap-and-trade, that is effectively a tax on business. That tax will be passed on to consumers (otherwise the companies do not make profits, which is why they exist). It turns out that the amount of the "tax cut" for the "middle class" is only 80% of the amount of dollars that the cap-and-trade tax will consist of. If all of the manufacturing tax is passed on to consumers, there is a net increase in taxes on the middle class. What a deal.
Socialism. Gateway to mediocrity. Regulated, free markets can give solutions. Tax cuts will spur development. One man and his team of lackeys doesn't have a chance.
I found out yesterday that the big "middle class tax cut" will be paid for with money from the carbon cap-and-trade program. Interestingly, if we implement cap-and-trade, that is effectively a tax on business. That tax will be passed on to consumers (otherwise the companies do not make profits, which is why they exist). It turns out that the amount of the "tax cut" for the "middle class" is only 80% of the amount of dollars that the cap-and-trade tax will consist of. If all of the manufacturing tax is passed on to consumers, there is a net increase in taxes on the middle class. What a deal.
Socialism. Gateway to mediocrity. Regulated, free markets can give solutions. Tax cuts will spur development. One man and his team of lackeys doesn't have a chance.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Kan u spell "kronyizm"?
Chicago machine politics ... why am I surprised that Obama has chosen the head of the Chicago public school system for his Education secretary. I had no idea that Chicago was the progressive capital of thinking regarding innovative approaches to education.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
When a stimulus isn't
Well, seems Uncle Sam wants to give away a few billion more dollars to the "taxpayers" (at least a select few) to stimulate the economy. Short term thinking does not fix the problem. Government cannot generate wealth. Only people can do that. People starting businesses, producing goods or services. It is that simple. NOTHING government can do will generate wealth. Government can make the business climate more supportive of growth and new business development, but generate wealth, never. They can only take from one group and give to another, either now (tax redistribution) or in the future (government loans in the form of long-term debt). It is a quicksand mentality and needs to stop. No stimuli; no more "bailouts"; let it ride, because it will ride anyway and there is no need to make it worse.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Misleading Politics
I really get frustrated with the way the various political factions distort the truth. My current angst is aimed at the commercials that say ... this candidate (insert name here) "voted to give tax cuts to companies that ship jobs overseas!" There are stupid folks who will take this at face value. The reality is that manufacturing jobs are much cheaper to have almost anywhere other than the US. We have a high standard of living. So, if you are in a situation where shipping costs are outweighed by labor costs related to manufacturing, and you are in a competitive market, you will try to lower manufacturing costs. It is unfortunate, but necessary in order to keep the low prices that the market demands. So, what do good politicians do? Well, they offer incentives, tax breaks, to companies in an effort to offset some of the manufacturing cost so that the jobs might stay here. I just hope that there is a tie-in that requires the tax benefits to go away if the jobs do. More likely, though, the tax cuts will stay so that the company will keep whatever other local jobs it has from moving away as well.
Bottom line is that the commercials try to say the politicians offer tax cuts to companies as a reward for shipping out jobs, whereas the reality is that they are trying to do just the opposite. The commercial must work, though, as there are at least as many versions of the commercial as there are candidates trying to protect their legislative careers.
Bottom line is that the commercials try to say the politicians offer tax cuts to companies as a reward for shipping out jobs, whereas the reality is that they are trying to do just the opposite. The commercial must work, though, as there are at least as many versions of the commercial as there are candidates trying to protect their legislative careers.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Anyone need a loan?
I guess, like many folks, I need to vent a bit about this "mortgage crisis". I have contacted my representatives and insisted that they oppose the current bill. Instead of giving money away and buying up bad debt (euphemistically termed "toxic paper"), how about the following? 1. Insure the mortgages. The default rate is really pretty low, so the payout from the taxpayers will be pennies on the dollar. 2. Infuse cash into the "system" for lending only and make it available only for lending (ie. it MUST be used for that purpose) to free up the credit markets a bit. Require repayment. So this would be a lending loan. 3. If the money is taken by an institution, then the standard employee severance applies to all personnel. 4. Require lending be no more than 90% of the market value of an asset. Everyone must put at least 10% down. This will take a lot of the risk out of future loans.
Most of the media coverage has it at least partly wrong. While there may be many who want revenge on big companies on Wall Street or their CEO's with the parachutes, that is not my concern nor that of many I have spoken with. My real concern is that we are throwing, probably, a trillion dollars at a problem to make life easier today. The main thing I heard at first was credit seizing up. Fair enough. That will slow the economy. However, one can still get loans. You must have better credit ratings (above 700) and a downpayment or face higher interest rates and more of a downpayment. Great. That is the way it should be. We should not get loans so easily as that is what caused this mess. It sounds cold, but not everyone should own a home. Some folks should rent and put money aside for downpayments. Not everyone should own an expensive car. You see my point. Let credit be a little tight. Let companies spend their equity to some extent to fuel growth. It will take a lot of risk out of the system. This trillion dollars will have to be borrowed by the government (us) and paid back over a long time. I think this borrowing will have an impact on the value of the dollar as well. With the current plan I see no upsides and tons of downsides.
Let's think this thing through.
Thank you.
Jim Robinson
Most of the media coverage has it at least partly wrong. While there may be many who want revenge on big companies on Wall Street or their CEO's with the parachutes, that is not my concern nor that of many I have spoken with. My real concern is that we are throwing, probably, a trillion dollars at a problem to make life easier today. The main thing I heard at first was credit seizing up. Fair enough. That will slow the economy. However, one can still get loans. You must have better credit ratings (above 700) and a downpayment or face higher interest rates and more of a downpayment. Great. That is the way it should be. We should not get loans so easily as that is what caused this mess. It sounds cold, but not everyone should own a home. Some folks should rent and put money aside for downpayments. Not everyone should own an expensive car. You see my point. Let credit be a little tight. Let companies spend their equity to some extent to fuel growth. It will take a lot of risk out of the system. This trillion dollars will have to be borrowed by the government (us) and paid back over a long time. I think this borrowing will have an impact on the value of the dollar as well. With the current plan I see no upsides and tons of downsides.
Let's think this thing through.
Thank you.
Jim Robinson
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
The Edge of Rights
I was listening to an NPR program today where they were discussing individual vs social rights. At one point, the commentator, I believe it was former Carter administration fellow Brezhinski, was talking about social rights. In essence, we legislate rights on the use of arms for the social good. Hence, we cannot randomly shoot someone. OK. I can buy that. Then he talks about further social rights restrictions such as seat belt laws. The idea is that society needs us as functioning human beings, healthy, and all of that, so laws are passed to protect our well being; hence, seat belt laws, motorcycle helmet laws, child seat laws, etc. This is where it gets a bit fuzzy to me. How much further of a step is it to: smoking bans to protect the "social" health, bans on drinking (we already have drugs) for the same reason, bans on eating certain foods, bans on driving certain vehicles, bans on motorized devices for sport ... you see where I am going. This is a fine line and I think we must always remain vigilant to make sure we do not give away too much. I am already of the mind that we give away too much in the name of national security. That is why I refuse to give over to the government all of these personal documents that they want to, perhaps, take my name off the "no fly" list.
I would love to discuss this one with my sons ... it is always good to get the opinion of young peole on such issues. At the end of the day, I don't want to abandon quite so many of my rights.l
I would love to discuss this one with my sons ... it is always good to get the opinion of young peole on such issues. At the end of the day, I don't want to abandon quite so many of my rights.l
Monday, August 25, 2008
Uniforms and Youth
George Carlin said it best when he noted that uniforms in public schools reminded him of the Hitler Youth. This is flat out wrong. I had this opinion 5 years ago when they instituted uniforms in my son's middle school and my concern flared up again today when I heard on the radio that yet another North Carolina school has instituted uniforms. They use the same, tired arguements that it avoids distractions and minimizes differences in socioeconomic classes. I have never met a teenager who did not know who was richer or poorer than they were. Clothes are only a part of class status. One cannot cover up other traits that separate those who have from those who haven't.
This is just another case of government trampling on citizens rights. The citizens fund the public schools but are rarely given options to voice opinions about how these schools are run. Edicts show up and must be followed. What we are doing is demolishing the individualism that has made this a great country and society. It is but one step in that direction, but it is a big step and cannot easily be reversed.
This is just another case of government trampling on citizens rights. The citizens fund the public schools but are rarely given options to voice opinions about how these schools are run. Edicts show up and must be followed. What we are doing is demolishing the individualism that has made this a great country and society. It is but one step in that direction, but it is a big step and cannot easily be reversed.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Govt INC
It seems that my local representative in the House in Washington wants to have Uncle Sam (Govt INC) take charge of yet something else. Her proposal is to have Washington regulate the public colleges and universities of North Carolina (everything from UNC to community colleges) in such a way as to prevent the education of illegal immigrants. I can't stand this. The federal government has NO BUSINESS regulating these institutions. They are state institutions and should be controlled by the state government and the people of North Carolina. We regulate enough from Washington.
For those who think that state regulation of their university system could lead to some failure of that system, remember, the civil rights laws apply to everyone. Thus the state cannot regulate the Universities in any way that interferes with applicable federal laws. As to quality of education, I hope Govt INC never tries "no scholar left behind". The current system of accreditation and the competition to take in more and better quality students will regulate academics much better than the government. It is up to the state and the people who fund the state to determine if illegal immigrants belong in these institutions.
For those who think that state regulation of their university system could lead to some failure of that system, remember, the civil rights laws apply to everyone. Thus the state cannot regulate the Universities in any way that interferes with applicable federal laws. As to quality of education, I hope Govt INC never tries "no scholar left behind". The current system of accreditation and the competition to take in more and better quality students will regulate academics much better than the government. It is up to the state and the people who fund the state to determine if illegal immigrants belong in these institutions.
Monday, August 4, 2008
The New Math
I am continually amused by ignorant politicians. Our genius American presidential candidate, Barack Obama, today proposed the tired, liberal suggestion to tax "windfall profits" of oil companies to give Americans (the one's he considers worthy of getting something) 1000 dollars to stimulate the economy and help offset their rising energy costs.
This is supposed to be a regulated, but relatively free market. I thought that the whole reason to be in business was to increase profits. Further, companies that deal in commodity products such as oil often go through cycles of high profitability and moderate loss. The good times keep things floating during the bad times.
Why not have a windfall tax on other areas that are profitable? What else is benefiting from windfall profits? Corn farmers. Let's steal their profits. How about hybrid battery manufacturers? Let's steal their profits too. How about Honda? They were smart enough to see things coming and converted to smaller car production and are making a lot of money. They should be punished.
This hurts ordinary Americans as well. I would say that 50% or more of Americans have money in pension plans and 401 k's that include oil companies. Currently, these 401 k funds are getting hammered by the drop in stock prices and would be further hurt if the oil companies, that we all own part of and are doing well, were gouged.
The idea of a company is to generate wealth for share holders. If I happen to own something that goes up in value, why punish me? The land I own has gone up. The house. What about the gold jewelry we buy. It is all worth more by no direct action that we have done other than to possess it.
Ok, so the math transfers money to some tax payers to help with energy costs. Now, the oil companies have less money, which, by all rights, they would plow back into building the company and creating more jobs (this really is done ... no company will continue to exist if it does not grow) to invest in itself, alternate energy, the local community, etc.
I get tired of this type of thinking. The oil companies are currently making lots of money (not huge percentage profits, just lots of money ... but they are worth much more). When oil was 40$ a barrel I don't remember anyone going to bat to give them more money to make sure their profits were ok. Leave the companies alone. With the higher oil price and the profits, they can finally think about getting at shale oil.
Politicians should focus, instead, on removing barriers to exploration and acquisition of oil to stabilize pricing while we move to nuclear and hydrogen feedstocks.
Oh, but the environmental groups will not let us drill off the coast or in Alaska. It is ok, though, to pay high fuel prices based on removing oil from someone else's back yard. It is only our environment that we cannot tap in to.
This kind of thinking by our politicians just tires me out.
This is supposed to be a regulated, but relatively free market. I thought that the whole reason to be in business was to increase profits. Further, companies that deal in commodity products such as oil often go through cycles of high profitability and moderate loss. The good times keep things floating during the bad times.
Why not have a windfall tax on other areas that are profitable? What else is benefiting from windfall profits? Corn farmers. Let's steal their profits. How about hybrid battery manufacturers? Let's steal their profits too. How about Honda? They were smart enough to see things coming and converted to smaller car production and are making a lot of money. They should be punished.
This hurts ordinary Americans as well. I would say that 50% or more of Americans have money in pension plans and 401 k's that include oil companies. Currently, these 401 k funds are getting hammered by the drop in stock prices and would be further hurt if the oil companies, that we all own part of and are doing well, were gouged.
The idea of a company is to generate wealth for share holders. If I happen to own something that goes up in value, why punish me? The land I own has gone up. The house. What about the gold jewelry we buy. It is all worth more by no direct action that we have done other than to possess it.
Ok, so the math transfers money to some tax payers to help with energy costs. Now, the oil companies have less money, which, by all rights, they would plow back into building the company and creating more jobs (this really is done ... no company will continue to exist if it does not grow) to invest in itself, alternate energy, the local community, etc.
I get tired of this type of thinking. The oil companies are currently making lots of money (not huge percentage profits, just lots of money ... but they are worth much more). When oil was 40$ a barrel I don't remember anyone going to bat to give them more money to make sure their profits were ok. Leave the companies alone. With the higher oil price and the profits, they can finally think about getting at shale oil.
Politicians should focus, instead, on removing barriers to exploration and acquisition of oil to stabilize pricing while we move to nuclear and hydrogen feedstocks.
Oh, but the environmental groups will not let us drill off the coast or in Alaska. It is ok, though, to pay high fuel prices based on removing oil from someone else's back yard. It is only our environment that we cannot tap in to.
This kind of thinking by our politicians just tires me out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
