Which party will support this effort?

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Post Reply
Roger
Posts: 788
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:03 am
Location: Metro NY

Post by Roger »

Dave, dont you find it interesting that the republicans are criticizing the Dems and Obama for Use it or lose it, When Palin is actually suing 3 oil companies on the same principle.......

AS far as the \shutdown of the TAP, it was found to be leaking

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/20 ... _alas.html

No conspiracy there, they got caught deferring maintenance. Google is your friend.
I like the p-B11 resonance peak at 50 KV acceleration. In2 years we'll know.

djolds1
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:03 am

Post by djolds1 »

Roger wrote:Positions.

1) Shut down all nukes now.
2) Continue running what we have now.
3) Build some new nukes.

What we may be seeing is a percent or 2 shifting towards #3, from #1.
Ok. That's essentially what I was trying to say in my followups.
Roger wrote:Duane, the site is searchable, I've called for restraint from day one.
Sensible. I did perhaps dive in with a bit :) too much cynicism. The "Position 1" crowd can be very vocal & attention-getting. Pax?

Duane
Vae Victis

Roger
Posts: 788
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:03 am
Location: Metro NY

Post by Roger »

ravingdave

Clinton had a 39% top tax rate, Obama wants to put it back to 39%. Obama has 3 different tax breaks for small business. McCAin wants to extend 10 billion in tax breaks to corporations.



From the depression to 1981 it was between 91% and 70%. IN WW2 which we won, it was 91%.

Obama wants to do what Clinton did, which did work.
I like the p-B11 resonance peak at 50 KV acceleration. In2 years we'll know.

ravingdave
Posts: 650
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:41 am

Post by ravingdave »

Josh Cryer wrote:
ravingdave wrote:The so called "facts" statement does not disprove Sarah Palin's Statement. She has protected taxpayers from wasteful spending and she did tell Congress "Thanks but No Thanks" for that Bridge to Nowhere.

What is not true ?
The relevant part of her quote when she claimed that she'd "championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending." While at the same time having the highest *by far, of any city or state in the country* per capita pork ever.?
Okay, i'm not wanting to be difficult, but the thesis statement you are defending is not supported by the evidence you provide.


Just because Alaska has the highest pork per capita doesn't prove she didn't fight against it.


Here is a neutral example.

I fought against a bear. The bear killed me.


Your reasoning seems to be that because the bear killed me, I didn't fight against it.


To reiterate. JIM KUHNHENN's "facts" don't disprove her statement.

This is in fact what is classically known as the "Straw Man Tactic." It is also an example of the "Fallacy of false equivilancy."

Jim would have us believe his "Fact" (which may be true) MUST contradict her statement, therefore making her statement false.
In fact, it is possible for both statements to be true, as in the example of the bear. (they are not mutually contradictory)



Josh Cryer wrote: I would respond to the rest of what you wrote but seeing as how you missed that bit I think you already have formed your conclusion and it would just be a waste of my time. (I honestly didn't even read past this part.)

I don't like reading long winded messages either, but I'm having a hard time seeing what I missed. You're a logical guy. Show me how the one thing disproves the other.


David

ps
(besides, Pork is a function of Federal Largess. I dare say it can be awarded in spite of a Govenor's whishes. Most of them don't object though )

Roger
Posts: 788
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:03 am
Location: Metro NY

Post by Roger »

djolds1 wrote:
Sensible. I did perhaps dive in with a bit :) too much cynicism. The "Position 1" crowd can be very vocal & attention-getting. Pax?

Duane
Gracious.


Dont I know it , I have a lot of friends in the #1 crowd, they have learned to STFU around me.

Pax. yes, see my other post in General, the whole board needs to take a step back & just fookin chill.

I would ask you to join me in calling for restraint from all members.

Or we can go back to kicking the crap out of each other and end up doing damage to talk polywell.

Pax and a plan to move forward in a positive manner with a sense of common purpose and community.

Whadiya think Duane, doable ?
I like the p-B11 resonance peak at 50 KV acceleration. In2 years we'll know.

TallDave
Posts: 3114
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Post by TallDave »

Roger,

That was a specific instance in which oil companies wanted to wait until there was more natural gas infrastructure, because with natural gas as well as oil they could make more. It was never in question whether they would develop them, only how quickly.

OK, maybe they're in violation. Great, take them to court. All well and good.

But now we get Pelosi/Reid/Obama going on TV and saying things like "80% of oil leases aren't being exploited" as though this means we could be pumping four times as much if not for the Evil Greedy Big Oil Companies (cue scary music), and we're going to magically fix everything by voiding their leases. It's an absolute red herring that will make essentially zero difference to our oil supplies.

If they can enforce more existing leases a la Palin, great. Passing new laws that violate the original terms of the lease is both wrong and useless.

It's not so much a bad idea as an irrelevant idea.

It's the same deal with the "windfall profits tax." Who gets that profit? Not "the oil companies" because there's no such person. The oil companies are owned by people like you and I and our families, perhaps via Grandpa's pension fund. Why are we taking Grandpa's money? He's probably not even rich.

These are just shell games designed to fool the gullible.
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...

djolds1
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:03 am

Post by djolds1 »

Roger wrote:Gracious.

Dont I know it , I have a lot of friends in the #1 crowd, they have learned to STFU around me.
Technerds of the world unite! :D
Roger wrote:Pax. yes, see my other post in General, the whole board needs to take a step back & just fookin chill.

I would ask you to join me in calling for restraint from all members.
Ditto.

Political conversations can be interesting, informative, and productive. But the air conditioning needs to be turned on with those at odd intervals.
Roger wrote:Or we can go back to kicking the crap out of each other
I still think my paintball idea has merit. :twisted:
Roger wrote:and end up doing damage to talk polywell.
THAT would just be pointless. :(
Roger wrote:Pax and a plan to move forward in a positive manner with a sense of common purpose and community.

Whadiya think Duane, doable ?
Entirely. :)

Duane
Vae Victis

TallDave
Posts: 3114
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Post by TallDave »

McCAin wants to extend 10 billion in tax breaks to corporations.
The U.S. has the second-highest corporate taxes in the world. We're losing business because of this.

And again, who are these evil corporations (cue scary music again)? They're a legal fiction that pass their profits on to the shareholders. So once again, you're taxing Grandpa.
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...

Chuck Connors
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2008 11:23 pm

Post by Chuck Connors »

Roger wrote:Clinton had a 39% top tax rate, Obama wants to put it back to 39%. Obama has 3 different tax breaks for small business. McCAin wants to extend 10 billion in tax breaks to corporations.

Obama wants to do what Clinton did, which did work.
Roger,

Are you just a Politician or do you work for a living? Tax breaks for small business? The kinds of small business Obama speaks of are Very Small Businesses....with maybe a few employees and no corporation. These breaks are fine with me.

It's doing away with the larger tax breaks that I'm worried about. Everyone complains that these breaks are only are for huge corporations. That is a bunch of dung. A majority of much smaller corporations also gain from these tax breaks. These are the real 'Small Businesses' in America I'm worried about.

It is these small corporations that will suffer when the taxes go up. As a farmer, we are already getting killed by the min. wage (in my state...highest in the nation). Taking away the tax breaks are just another nail in the coffin.

"Obama wants to do what Clinton did...and it did work"

Huh? This is generalization that has no support behind it whatsoever. When Clinton was in office, I paid higher taxes...and so did our Business. We suffered...so I'm not sure what the heck you are referring to.

Roger
Posts: 788
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:03 am
Location: Metro NY

Post by Roger »

TallDave wrote:
Anyways, it's a huge red herring. There are no exploitable resources being ignored.
Ahh, no, see my comment on Pt Thompson, Alaska. 30 yrs is long enough.
I like the p-B11 resonance peak at 50 KV acceleration. In2 years we'll know.

TallDave
Posts: 3114
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Post by TallDave »

From the depression to 1981 it was between 91% and 70%. IN WW2 which we won, it was 91%.

Obama wants to do what Clinton did, which did work.
Specious reasoning. One could just as easily argue that from the depression to 1981, people were on average much poorer than today, so the higher taxes must have been bad.

The tech boom of the 1990s was the result of a DARPA project from the 1980s, just as we hope the energy boom of the 2010s will.

If you listen to economists like Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek, they explain the many and sundry reasons why taxes should be as low as possible, allowing the free market to make us all richer as fast as possible.
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...

TallDave
Posts: 3114
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Post by TallDave »

Roger wrote:
TallDave wrote:
Anyways, it's a huge red herring. There are no exploitable resources being ignored.
Ahh, no, see my comment on Pt Thompson, Alaska. 30 yrs is long enough.
Pt Thomson has not been ignored for 30 years by some evil conspiracy by oil companies to reduce their own output for some unexplained reason (apparently the working theory is that it's just because they're evil). The article is from 2008, says the review was recent, and clearly states the economics could not work in past decades.
That company is seeking a state license for the mega-project, which has been envisioned since the 1970s but to date has been hindered by poor economics.
...
They argue that the extremely high pressure reservoir conditions at Point Thomson make development there especially challenging, but that they have worked diligently over the years to bring the field on line.
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...

Roger
Posts: 788
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:03 am
Location: Metro NY

Post by Roger »

TallDave wrote:
McCAin wants to extend 10 billion in tax breaks to corporations.
The U.S. has the second-highest corporate taxes in the world. We're losing business because of this.
You want to compare some 3rd world country corporations, to ours ? so your point is what?
How about looking at the 8 top industrialized nations corporate tax rates..

I have no clue why you want to compare US Corp. tax rates to Eastern Marrieunta corp tax rates.... WHat do you take me for anyway ?

Plus when we had even higher corporate tax rates American corpration weree the envy of the business world.

SO let me get this straight, as we lower corporate tax rates over 28 yrs, american corporations lose their standing in the international market.

WE won WW2 with higher tax rates, we created the largest middle class the world has ever seen


When tax rates were high

A Middle class is a rare thing, occurring only 3 times thru-out history. The first rising of a middle class occurred as a result of the Black Plague. The Black Plague killed about 30% of the worlds population, creating a labor shortage. This allowed that Trades & Craftsman to command a higher wage, which trickled down to the common yeoman, much as the unionization of US labor in the middle 1900's allowed non union labor to command wages akin to union labor. Some have written that the renaissance, without a middle class that had the liesure time to even consider art & music, let alone the time to paint, sculpt, write & perform music, would have never occurred.

The second rising of a middle class occurred in the US colonies in the middle 1700's. Once a few Indians were driven away from an area, there was free land available for farming. In an agrarian society this was a big deal in that you could own your own land, grow & sell your own crops & keep the profits, much as a family owned business does today.

The third rising of a middle class occurred during the Great Republican Depression of the early 1930's. FDR's New Deal brought forward tax progressivity, as well as labor rights earned thru the union movement, such as the Child Labor laws passed in 1937 & 1938, (Kids do belong in school afterall). But I've gotten ahead of myself, let me backtrack a bit.

According to the US Treasury,

"the entry of the United States into World War I greatly increased the need for revenue and Congress responded by passing the 1916 Revenue Act. The 1916 Act raised the lowest tax rate from 1 percent to 2 percent and raised the top rate to 15 percent. Another revenue act was passed in 1918, which hiked tax rates once again, this time raising the bottom rate to 6 percent and the top rate to 77 percent."


After WW1 tax rates dropped during the "Roaring Twenties" as income disparity increased until the Stock Market crash of 1929, the start of the Depression. Under the guidance of Franklin D. Roosevelt, tax progressivity returned, and the top tax rates went up, programs like Social Security and Unemployment relief got started, the CCC & the WPA put people back to work creating infrastructure thats still in use to this day.

My Parents got thru the Depression with a progressive income tax, we won WW2 with a progressive income tax. The 12 million men & woman that served in the military in WW2 came home, the GI Bill sent vets to college, and they started families. This created the largest, most vigorous and the best educated middle class, in the history of the planet. Labor unions were at the zenith of their power, our eductaional institutions were the envy of the world, corporations made money, the wealthiest made money. The American Dream was born.

But the real events of the 1930s and 1940s that set the stage for a second American Middle Class were primarily the Wagner Act, the G.I. Bill, and tax changes ranging from raising the top rate on the most rich to 91 percent to offering an emerging middle class home interest tax deductions."



But as president, Reagan cut the top tax rate for billionaires from 70 percent to 28 percent, while effectively raising taxes on working people via the payroll tax and using inflation against a non-indexed tax system. It was another hit to the already-beginning-to-shrink middle class, to be followed by more "tax cut" bludgeons during the first three years of the W. Bush administration."


The real point is not producing more tax revenues, the point is having a large and vigorous middle class that can participate as citizen legislators, send its kids to college, so those kids can invent lots of cool stuff for the corporations to make money off of. Consider kids as assets. How do you make best use of those assets? Educate those assets of course.

I thought it mildly interesting that the Great Republican Depression starting with the Crash of '29, and the 2 year recession in '89 to '90, were peroids of low tax rates on the wealthy, and occurred during Republican Administrations.
I like the p-B11 resonance peak at 50 KV acceleration. In2 years we'll know.

Roger
Posts: 788
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:03 am
Location: Metro NY

Post by Roger »

TallDave wrote:Milton Friedman
Hes got you fooled too....

Oh well.

See ya.
I like the p-B11 resonance peak at 50 KV acceleration. In2 years we'll know.

TallDave
Posts: 3114
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm
Contact:

Post by TallDave »

You want to compare some 3rd world country corporations, to ours ? so your point is what?
How about looking at the 8 top industrialized nations corporate tax rates..
Uh. Those are part of "the world."
Under the guidance of Franklin D. Roosevelt, tax progressivity returned, and the top tax rates went up, programs like Social Security and Unemployment relief got started, the CCC & the WPA put people back to work creating infrastructure thats still in use to this day.
And so we started the world's biggest Ponzi scheme, which has gotten worse and worse, and will eventually bankrupt us at current trends.

The CCC and WPA were even worse. FDR was a guy who thought Stalin's economic ideas were just dandy (and why not? Duranty got a Pulitzer Prize for reporting how rosy things were in the Ukraine during the forced famines). We should all be thankful he died before making his dictator status official (dictator was not the dirty word then it is now; many wanted him to do so).
My Parents got thru the Depression with a progressive income tax, we won WW2 with a progressive income tax. The 12 million men & woman that served in the military in WW2 came home, the GI Bill sent vets to college, and they started families. This created the largest, most vigorous and the best educated middle class, in the history of the planet.
Wars are one of the few legitimate reasons for taxes. Again, the boom was largely because all the bombs they were making fell in Europe and Japan rather than here. The European and Japanese economies didn't do so well.

The truth is, your parents wouldn't have had a Great Depression if not for "progressive" protectionist trade policies, would have had a better life if every guy who started a successful business didn't have to give 90% of the profits to Uncle Sam for several decades, and would have gotten a better education from private schools funded through a voucher program.
Last edited by TallDave on Sat Sep 06, 2008 4:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
n*kBolt*Te = B**2/(2*mu0) and B^.25 loss scaling? Or not so much? Hopefully we'll know soon...

Post Reply