For GOP only

[HuskyCaucasian]

Then to top it off, going into the other parties "only" threads to do it. That is pretty gutsy to call other people on the stuff you are doing IMO.

I am an independent. I have no political affiliation. On many issues, I indeed am lock step a republican. In others.. a democrat. This year, I happen to support Obama. I will most likely vote for some republican officials.

[southsider2k5]

In 2004 I co-hosted election night coverage on a radio station in Chicago. I went OUT OF MY WAY to stay fair and look at all the angles on all the stories. As a journalist, it was my responsibility to be fair and report all sides. Of course I was pulling for Kerry in my private life, but publicly it was fair.

 

So, dont judge unless you know the full story.

 

I am judging by what I see here, and I have seen zero effort, at all, to be fair and balanced, let alone consistant. I see everything that is disagreed with mocked and dismissed, all of the while expressing outrage when the samethings are done to someone you support. Maybe if you posted like that, it wouldn't be so easy to judge. If you really don't like that, there isn't much that I can do about it. Its kinda hard to take that post seriously when you post stuff mocking McCain and Hillary all of the time.

[Balta1701]

Windfall tax for oil companies is a really dumb idea, IMO.

Just out of curiosity, for the folks here, anyone...is there a level at which you start thinking a windfall tax makes sense? As the price of oil keeps going up, the value of the holdings of every oil company will just keep going up, and thus their profits will just keep going up and up and up. I totally get the economics issue response, that you're penalizing a set of companies for earning too much money and just on the fact of it that's a bad economic strategy, but at some point you can't just have the entire U.S. economy be "oil companies", can you?

[lostfan]

Just out of curiosity, for the folks here, anyone...is there a level at which you start thinking a windfall tax makes sense? As the price of oil keeps going up, the value of the holdings of every oil company will just keep going up, and thus their profits will just keep going up and up and up. I totally get the economics issue response, that you're penalizing a set of companies for earning too much money and just on the fact of it that's a bad economic strategy, but at some point you can't just have the entire U.S. economy be "oil companies", can you?

The oil companies have to pay for the higher-priced crude themselves, so they're really not making as much money as everybody assumes they are. Plus I tend to agree with the supply-siders when they say they'd just raise their prices more to offset the costs of the tax. Kind of simliar to why I thought the gas tax holiday idea was so dumb (demand would just reset the difference in price and all that happens is more profits for oil companies) and why I thought Hillary's interpretation of it was doubly dumb (oil companies gonna pay for the lapse in taxes, lol ok).

[HuskyCaucasian]

I am judging by what I see here, and I have seen zero effort, at all, to be fair and balanced, let alone consistant. I see everything that is disagreed with mocked and dismissed, all of the while expressing outrage when the samethings are done to someone you support. Maybe if you posted like that, it wouldn't be so easy to judge. If you really don't like that, there isn't much that I can do about it. Its kinda hard to take that post seriously when you post stuff mocking McCain and Hillary all of the time.

There is a VERY big difference between personal political beliefs and being in the "public trust" of the media. Especially when you work for a company that is "fair and balanced" Everyone is entitled to their political positions and beliefs, free speech protects . That stop at the door the moment you walk into the doors of a news media company in my opinion. People go to Fox and CNN and MSNBC and ABC to get the news, not news that is slanted to shape public opinion. I am equally annoyed with Olberman's extreme bias. He's "special comments" often make me squirm because they are so hate filled and harsh. So, I am being fair her. But at least MSNBC will roll out Scarbourgh and Buchanan. Fox... Hannity's whipping boy Allen Colmes... nice balance.

[Balta1701]

There is a VERY big difference between personal political beliefs and being in the "public trust" of the media. Especially when you work for a company that is "fair and balanced" Everyone is entitled to their political positions and beliefs, free speech protects . That stop at the door the moment you walk into the doors of a news media company in my opinion. People go to Fox and CNN and MSNBC and ABC to get the news, not news that is slanted to shape public opinion. I am equally annoyed with Olberman's extreme bias. He's "special comments" often make me squirm because they are so hate filled and harsh. So, I am being fair her. But at least MSNBC will roll out Scarbourgh and Buchanan. Fox... Hannity's whipping boy Allen Colmes... nice balance.

You know what? I simply disagree with this and I think Fox news and Olbermann show why. On cable, you basically have the right to serve the market. There's very little regulation, especially on news channels, requiring anything in terms of content. And frankly, I think that a setup where you have 1 channel that leans to the left, one channel that leans to the right, and one channel that tries to be the "Hard news" network is an entirely reasonable setup. It's serving what the market seems to want. There's clearly a market appearing for left-leaning commentary on the air (Olbermann is now passing O'Reilly in the 25-49 demographics), there's been a market for right wing commentary for years (See; the Fox News ratings), and quite frankly when there's something happening in the world that I simply want to know "WTF happened", I still turn to CNN.

 

Over the public airwaves, there's a different standard that needs to be applied, because getting access to the public airwaves, like NBC, ABC, CBS, and Fox have, requires that those channels are doing something to serve the public good. So there certainly needs to be added focus on them and on keeping some measure of balance across them, while at the same time still trying to get across the facts. But on cable, the thing that annoyed me was that for about 5 years, because the network execs wanted to be patriotic, I had no market that was serving people like me. Ditto talk radio for like 20 years.

[HuskyCaucasian]

You know what? I simply disagree with this and I think Fox news and Olbermann show why. On cable, you basically have the right to serve the market. There's very little regulation, especially on news channels, requiring anything in terms of content. And frankly, I think that a setup where you have 1 channel that leans to the left, one channel that leans to the right, and one channel that tries to be the "Hard news" network is an entirely reasonable setup. It's serving what the market seems to want. There's clearly a market appearing for left-leaning commentary on the air (Olbermann is now passing O'Reilly in the 25-49 demographics), there's been a market for right wing commentary for years (See; the Fox News ratings), and quite frankly when there's something happening in the world that I simply want to know "WTF happened", I still turn to CNN.

 

Over the public airwaves, there's a different standard that needs to be applied, because getting access to the public airwaves, like NBC, ABC, CBS, and Fox have, requires that those channels are doing something to serve the public good. So there certainly needs to be added focus on them and on keeping some measure of balance across them, while at the same time still trying to get across the facts. But on cable, the thing that annoyed me was that for about 5 years, because the network execs wanted to be patriotic, I had no market that was serving people like me. Ditto talk radio for like 20 years.

 

actually. I think you have a valid argument there. I think you may have a convert

 

I'm done arguing. lol

Edited June 12, 2008 by Athomeboy_2000

[StrangeSox]

Just out of curiosity, for the folks here, anyone...is there a level at which you start thinking a windfall tax makes sense? As the price of oil keeps going up, the value of the holdings of every oil company will just keep going up, and thus their profits will just keep going up and up and up. I totally get the economics issue response, that you're penalizing a set of companies for earning too much money and just on the fact of it that's a bad economic strategy, but at some point you can't just have the entire U.S. economy be "oil companies", can you?

No. You don't tax success and give that money to other people, period.

 

These companies are making their profit on the sheer volume of product they sell, not some outrageous margins. Their margins are actually pretty damn small.

 

When you get the government meddling in the economy in such a clear-cut anti-capitalistic way, things usually (or always) turn out bad.

Edited June 12, 2008 by StrangeSox

[NorthSideSox72]

Windfall tax for oil companies is a really dumb idea, IMO.

Agree, and there is a big reason why that I don't even see GOP opponents getting into yet.

 

Think this through. The tax law goes to be signed. I can guaran-damn-tee you that the oil companies will do the only smart thing in response - lower profits. How, you might ask? Simple - put the cash in places where it isn't profit... pay down debt, invest in hard assets and infrastructure, hold inventories longer... anything they can to keep the value outside of true profits from a balance sheet perspective. So guess what happens then? The net tax revenue received from these companies doesn't go up at all. The tax is thus rendered pointless.

 

[Balta1701]

Agree, and there is a big reason why that I don't even see GOP opponents getting into yet.

 

Think this through. The tax law goes to be signed. I can guaran-damn-tee you that the oil companies will do the only smart thing in response - lower profits. How, you might ask? Simple - put the cash in places where it isn't profit... pay down debt, invest in hard assets and infrastructure, hold inventories longer... anything they can to keep the value outside of true profits from a balance sheet perspective. So guess what happens then? The net tax revenue received from these companies doesn't go up at all. The tax is thus rendered pointless.

Please for God's sake yes.

[NorthSideSox72]

Please for God's sake yes.

I figured that would be pointed out. And some of that is fine, but ultimately, I think it does only a little good. It might widen the pipe a bit, get more refining going - but all that does is help bring down the price of gas by a small amount. The only way that ends up being truly good news is if they invest in non-fossil fuel infrastructure. Which they might do, but if that's your aim, then do a re-structered tax bracketing to encourage THAT.

 

[southsider2k5]

Agree, and there is a big reason why that I don't even see GOP opponents getting into yet.

 

Think this through. The tax law goes to be signed. I can guaran-damn-tee you that the oil companies will do the only smart thing in response - lower profits. How, you might ask? Simple - put the cash in places where it isn't profit... pay down debt, invest in hard assets and infrastructure, hold inventories longer... anything they can to keep the value outside of true profits from a balance sheet perspective. So guess what happens then? The net tax revenue received from these companies doesn't go up at all. The tax is thus rendered pointless.

 

I posted an article a while back about how this sounds good in theory, but in practice it doesn't really work. Oil companies are having a hard time finding things to invest in. Its not like there are a ton of oil fields to go explore anymore. There isn't the incentive to build things like new refinaries, because of the costs of legal fights and alternative energies making the investments possibly obsolete.

 

All a windfall profits tax will do is result in higher prices to consumers. Even if they try to hit them, they will pass it on another way.

[Balta1701]

I posted an article a while back about how this sounds good in theory, but in practice it doesn't really work. Oil companies are having a hard time finding things to invest in. Its not like there are a ton of oil fields to go explore anymore. There isn't the incentive to build things like new refinaries, because of the costs of legal fights and alternative energies making the investments possibly obsolete.

 

All a windfall profits tax will do is result in higher prices to consumers. Even if they try to hit them, they will pass it on another way.

But the problem with that concept is...why then do they not, um...act like energy companies and start investing in alternative energy technologies, research, construction, etc. so that they can survive for the future? If they want to invest that money in something, spend $20 billion building solar thermal energy plants out in the Mojave. The technology is already there, dumping significant amounts of money in to it will only drive the cost per watt down, and suddenly they'll have a competitive industry for the next 20 years instead of holding out as the valueof their oil reserves screams upwards.

[southsider2k5]

But the problem with that concept is...why then do they not, um...act like energy companies and start investing in alternative energy technologies, research, construction, etc. so that they can survive for the future? If they want to invest that money in something, spend $20 billion building solar thermal energy plants out in the Mojave. The technology is already there, dumping significant amounts of money in to it will only drive the cost per watt down, and suddenly they'll have a competitive industry for the next 20 years instead of holding out as the valueof their oil reserves screams upwards.

 

The other side of that coin is, why should they have to? Its their profits, they can spend it how they want. If this other stuff really is this profitable, there will be plenty of private equity dollars flying at these projects. No one is forcing any other groups to do specific things when they have record profits. In the end, they will do what is most profitable, which is exactly how business should behave in the United States.

[kapkomet]

The other side of that coin is, why should they have to? Its their profits, they can spend it how they want. If this other stuff really is this profitable, there will be plenty of private equity dollars flying at these projects. No one is forcing any other groups to do specific things when they have record profits. In the end, they will do what is most profitable, which is exactly how business should behave in the United States.

And to me, that's the farce. Alternative energy is NOT profitable. That's why no one has invested in it.

[BearSox]

Take the challenge and watch 24 hours. I dont think there is a "left of far right" host on the network. Heck, most of them are smug righties who lack any ability to see past their own nose.

 

For the record, I am a central independant and even I see that Fox is far from fair.

 

On a scale of 1 to 10, 1 being far left....

MSNBC is a 3 or 3.5

CNN is probably a 5.6 or 6

Fox News is a 9.5.

lol, yeah keep drinking that koolaid.

Edited June 12, 2008 by BearSox

[lostfan]

lol, yeah keep drinking that koolaid.

That was an intelligent, well-thought out response with significant value

[BearSox]

That was an intelligent, well-thought out response with significant value

Do I actually have to give an intelligent, well-thought out respone with significant value to a person who actually thinks MSNBC is anywhere near un-baised?

[lostfan]

Do I actually have to give an intelligent, well-thought out respone with significant value to a person who actually thinks MSNBC is anywhere near un-baised?

lmao, he didn't even say MSNBC is unbiased, you're just making stuff up. If you read the post you quoted he said on a scale of 1-10 (implying that 5 was balanced) he said it was a 3 or a 3.5 (biased left). Later he went on to say more or less the same thing in another post, except a little more forcefully.

[Balta1701]

Do I actually have to give an intelligent, well-thought out respone with significant value to a person who actually thinks MSNBC is anywhere near un-baised?

How in the world does putting MSNBC at 3 to 3.5 when 5 is defined as the middle qualify as calling MSNBC "Un-Biased"?

[NorthSideSox72]

And to me, that's the farce. Alternative energy is NOT profitable. That's why no one has invested in it.

No new technology is profitable straight away. Its always an investment for future profits. But in this case, with these companies making gobs of money on oil, why should they bother investing for a good future when they have an excellent present?

 

This is why the gov't need to incentivize the smaller and non-oil companies into taking the leap.

 

[southsider2k5]

No new technology is profitable straight away. Its always an investment for future profits. But in this case, with these companies making gobs of money on oil, why should they bother investing for a good future when they have an excellent present?

 

This is why the gov't need to incentivize the smaller and non-oil companies into taking the leap.

 

I have a lot less of a problem with this. I just have never really agreed with forcing people and companies to do things for moral reasons. Using that same kind of logic, I could make an arguement for compulsory military service. Does anyone really want to see that? I know I don't, and it is for the same consitutional reasons that we can't force it.

[lostfan]

I have a lot less of a problem with this. I just have never really agreed with forcing people and companies to do things for moral reasons. Using that same kind of logic, I could make an arguement for compulsory military service. Does anyone really want to see that? I know I don't, and it is for the same consitutional reasons that we can't force it.

Sort of a catch-22, because in a perfect world the businesses would take these initiatives on their own. My thinking is this though, if the companies are thinking ahead about their long-term viability, why WOULDN'T they?

[Balta1701]

I have a lot less of a problem with this. I just have never really agreed with forcing people and companies to do things for moral reasons. Using that same kind of logic, I could make an arguement for compulsory military service. Does anyone really want to see that? I know I don't, and it is for the same consitutional reasons that we can't force it.

IF we're going to wind up invading a couple more countries, then yes, I'd want to see it, because otherwise it'd be guaranteeing even worse military disasters than the Iraq occupation simply from a lack of manpower. Of course, I'm hoping we don't launch more silly wars for that reason. But if you're stuck in a position where it's a necessity...

[southsider2k5]

Sort of a catch-22, because in a perfect world the businesses would take these initiatives on their own. My thinking is this though, if the companies are thinking ahead about their long-term viability, why WOULDN'T they?

 

The answer is obvious to me, there isn't enough money in it. Forcing them to do so would be akin to me saying to you that you have to quit your $100k a year job doing what you want to do, to a minimum wage job working at the soup kitchen, with the possibility of being able to make money later if it is profitable.