Who will be the next president of the US?

FredHayek wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote:

LOL wrote: And the energy industry is booming in spite of Obama and the EPA, and could do even better if they fast tracked permits and we had a national energy policy to promote natural gas instead of failed solar companies. And pipelines and refineries! Good paying jobs.

Further, the energy companies while setting record profits are receiving billions in tax breaks over the next few years, at time when the GOP wants to increase the tax burden on the average American.

Dog,
Your talking points are easily refuted time and time again.
Tax breaks? Actually they are capital investment credits. Non oil companies get them too.
Record profits? So according to you the oil companies are getting record profits under Obama. I thought the record profits came under "W". And how much are these record profits as a percentage of sales? Big Pharma and many other companies have a much higher profit rate than oil which is under 10%.
Increase taxes on Americans? Actually taxes would be decreased to 10% on most Americans under the Ryan plan.
Wheras Obamacare does increase regressive taxes on Americans including tanning beds and medical equipment sales.

Actually energy companies are getting tax breaks above and beyond "capital investment credits", to the tune of $4.4 billion per year.l For example, oil companies get to shelter 6% of their profits through the domestic manufacturing deduction. That other companies who actually manufacture products are able to claim this deduction does not make it correct. ($1.8 billion annually for oil companies) Foreign tax credits. Oil companies are able to claim royalties paid to foreign countries as "taxes", thus get a break of about $850 million per year. claiming exploration and labor costs as R&D expenses, $1.25 billion per year. Depreciation deduction, $1.1 billion per year.

Not quite the investment credit that you are claiming.

Under the Ryan plan, which is ridiculous when you run the numbers, the home mortgage deduction - eliminated, out of pocket insurance premiums would rise about $6500 per year per individual, and per an analysis of the Ryan plan, taxes will rise on most American, while the wealthiest would get a $300,000 tax break.


The House Republican budget for the 2013 fiscal year, passed by the House in June, would raise taxes by $1,358 for jointly-filing households earning between $50,000 and $100,000, assuming the additional income is taxed at a 10 percent rate, according to a report published earlier this summer by the Joint Economic Committee of Congress, authored by its chairman, Casey.


Households with incomes between $100,000 and $200,000 would see their taxes increase by $2,681, the Joint Economic Committee said.

Rep. Ryan's office did not return a request for comment.

The committee reported Ryan's budget plan would give the richest Americans -- those who make over $1 million -- a tax break of about $300,000.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/paul-rya ... d=16994803
Once you actually get the truth, not so easy to refute.

RenegadeCJ wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote:

LOL wrote: And the energy industry is booming in spite of Obama and the EPA, and could do even better if they fast tracked permits and we had a national energy policy to promote natural gas instead of failed solar companies. And pipelines and refineries! Good paying jobs.

The energy companies are sitting on thousands if not millions of acres of permitted leases which they are not acting on. It is a conservative lie that "fast tracking" permits would lead to more jobs. The number of rigs actively drilling has QUADRUPLED under the Obama administration and for the first time, the US has become a net fuel exporter.


Further, the energy companies while setting record profits are receiving billions in tax breaks over the next few years, at time when the GOP wants to increase the tax burden on the average American.

Ah, but that is where you are only telling a half truth. Rigs have quadrupled IN SPITE OF the Obama administration because of drilling on private land where the federal govt has no say.

Care to provide a source for that claim? According to a report by the Interior department, up to 72% of federally permitted offshore acreage is sitting idle, while 56% of federally permitted onshore acreage is sitting idle. So much for the claim that permitting is holding back drilling. The industry currently is sitting on over 7000 permits that they have ont acted on.
http://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/l ... eid=296238

FredHayek wrote:

homeagain wrote: HERE'S what's pi---- me off.......this PARTISAN BULLS

---

. THIS FUBAR WE ARE IN IS THE RESULT OF BOTH PARTIES STUPIDITY
AND GREED......and it is NOT going away. The state of the world/us economy/YOUR life will NOT be better under Romeny....if you
believe that fact YOU need to do more research and TRULY understand the economic global and local "off the cliff" crisis. The R's do
NOT have the answers anymore than the D's have the answers, it is going to take a catastrophic occurrence for this crisis to turn
around and even then it will be MANY MORE years of the same sh**.....JMO, BUT I do alot of research to make this post and it would
be "refreshing" if some of you would do the same thing. JMO

Wow, I thought I was a pessimist. There are certain trends in America that look bad, an aging population, public debt rising too fast, but I think the US can still dig out of things.

Parties can't fix things? There is a lot of greed and fraud in the system, but we have climbed out of the ditch before under both parties. I just think Romney understands better than Obama how to right the ship.

NOT a pessimist,but a REALIST because we are NO longer an "island unto ourselves",but rather part of a GLOBAL economy that
is at mass critical. Ever hear of "contagion"? You MIGHT try reading some websites like IMPLODE/EXPLODE or Nouriel Roubini,who is
an economist and the former is a site that tracks housing/banking/finance/economy. The R's will be dealing with contagion,just like
the D's are NOW......the ECB is struggling to maintain status quo,but the PIGS (and other countries) are toppling like dominoes and
YOU think we are going to escape the fallout???? Get REAL, this fubar is wide spread and NOT even at containment,let alone resolved and when the proverbial shit hits the fan......who ever is president will NOT be able to do much but sit back and watch
the ship hit the iceberg and HOPE that there are enough life jackets/boats to save what little of OUR economy will be floating......
DO THE RESEARCH.....and quit assuming that all is well.......just like the passengers on the Titanic......UNTIL the water reached
the top deck.....JMO

Something the Dog Said wrote: Care to provide a source for that claim? According to a report by the Interior department, up to 72% of federally permitted offshore acreage is sitting idle, while 56% of federally permitted onshore acreage is sitting idle. So much for the claim that permitting is holding back drilling. The industry currently is sitting on over 7000 permits that they have ont acted on.
http://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/l ... eid=296238

Are you trying to tell us that the BOEM has approved exploratory or development plans on all of this land Dog? In addition to that question, is a fair portion of that acreage (such as the land leased off of the Pacific and Alaskan coasts) sitting idle due to environmental litigation? Are the million acres plus that were awarded leases in December of last year for the Gulf of Mexico included in those figures? One would have a difficult time getting plans approved in less than 9 months given the level of regulation after all. It would seem a bit, shall we say, disingenuous to be including those acres in the figures you use, wouldn't it?

PrintSmith wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: Care to provide a source for that claim? According to a report by the Interior department, up to 72% of federally permitted offshore acreage is sitting idle, while 56% of federally permitted onshore acreage is sitting idle. So much for the claim that permitting is holding back drilling. The industry currently is sitting on over 7000 permits that they have ont acted on.
http://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/l ... eid=296238

Are you trying to tell us that the BOEM has approved exploratory or development plans on all of this land Dog? In addition to that question, is a fair portion of that acreage (such as the land leased off of the Pacific and Alaskan coasts) sitting idle due to environmental litigation? Are the million acres plus that were awarded leases in December of last year for the Gulf of Mexico included in those figures? One would have a difficult time getting plans approved in less than 9 months given the level of regulation after all. It would seem a bit, shall we say, disingenuous to be including those acres in the figures you use, wouldn't it?

The methodology is described in the link. Are you claiming that all of these millions of acres were released since December?

Not at all, simply that about 75% of the acreage in Alaska that is included in that total is not able to be developed because of litigation. There hasn't been any new leases for acreage off the Pacific coastline since Ronald Reagan was running for reelection and the acreage that has been leased is likewise prohibited from being placed into production by laws and litigation. What I am saying is that, once again, we are allowing liars to use figures in an attempt to forward some theory that they wish to establish. Either you are too lazy to find out what the figures include in your haste to regurgitate a talking point or you are not honest enough to draw attention to the exclusions you are well aware of and make the necessary alterations to your argument to account for them. I don't know which it is and frankly I'm not inclined to care.

PrintSmith wrote: Not at all, simply that about 75% of the acreage in Alaska that is included in that total is not able to be developed because of litigation. There hasn't been any new leases for acreage off the Pacific coastline since Ronald Reagan was running for reelection and the acreage that has been leased is likewise prohibited from being placed into production by laws and litigation. What I am saying is that, once again, we are allowing liars to use figures in an attempt to forward some theory that they wish to establish. Either you are too lazy to find out what the figures include in your haste to regurgitate a talking point or you are not honest enough to draw attention to the exclusions you are well aware of and make the necessary alterations to your argument to account for them. I don't know which it is and frankly I'm not inclined to care.

So you are upset that I will not do your research for you and resort to name calling and temper tantrums. Again, the information is provided in the link. Once again you are resorting to deflections without facts. The vast number of acreage that has been permitted and not developed is available for development. If you can prove me wrong, do so, but your name calling and temper tantrums do not pass as facts. I simply do not choose to be available to do your readily accessible research on your behalf.

FredHayek wrote:

CritiKalBill wrote: Obama's new "shared prosperity" rant is designed to draw in more people who want to share in the profits of others. That's a great strategy and it will work to a point... he really should consider offering people free IPads or gas cards because that's something his followers can feel and touch.

My hope is that there are more people out there who care more about the future of their children and grandchildren than they do about their own. I think there is still a good chance of that and Romney/Ryan may very well upset the Panderer in Chief.

I am suprised that Obama hasn't pushed for a $1000 check for American families.
He would rather give out stimulus to green companies. In like news, Vestas will be laying off more people because they don't know if Barack will win and continue the corporate welfare of tax credits for buyers.

You know, Bush DID give out checks and look what that did to us. President Obama won't be going back to the failed policies of the past.

FredHayek wrote: Colorado state goverment has more tax receipts this year not because they increased sales tax, but because sales increased.

Wow, proof the Obama plan to turn the economy around is working! Thanks, Fred.

Raees wrote:

FredHayek wrote: Colorado state goverment has more tax receipts this year not because they increased sales tax, but because sales increased.

Wow, proof the Obama plan to turn the economy around is working! Thanks, Fred.

That is great of Fred to acknowledge that the economy is driven by putting more money in the hands of the consumer and not by giving tax breaks to the wealthy.