13 Comments Add your own

• 1. James Ullous  |  July 9th, 2008 at 3:32 am

  “If you believe you should pay more taxes, I am the wrong candidate for you. Sen. Obama is your man. The choice in this election is stark and simple. Sen. Obama will raise your taxes. I won’t.”

  Senator McCain must be talking to his base, those people that make a quarter million a year in income.
  Those people are getting their income taxes raised.

  Under Obama’s plan, there are no taxes on the first $50,000 dollars of income. That means the poor and most of what’s left of the middle-class will pay less taxes and the rich will finally pay a fair amount.
  Obama will also remove the Social Security cap limit. Today, a person making a millions of dollars of income only have to contribute to SS as if he only made $87,000. Removing this cap alone will restore SS in by the end of his first term.
  Obama will also tax companies that offshore their jobs, thus protecting the Middle Class.

  I am for high taxes. The more the better.
  Taxes redistribute wealth so the people the benefit most from this country can help those who need help, just as Jesus has taught.

• 2. Magnum Serpentine  |  July 9th, 2008 at 7:19 am

  James,

  I also find it funny that the obstructionist republic party calls the end of the rich mans tax cut a tax raise. How can you call letting a disastrous tax cut expiring a tax increase? I think the republic party needs to find out a new way to do things. Change you know? Poll after poll shows, while the citizens are fed up with congress, they much more prefer the Democratic party be in charge rather than the Republic Party.

  I am also puzzled why only the first 87000 of a persons income is taxed for social security. If someone only makes 50000 its all taxed for Social Security. But some CEO that makes billions of dollars a year, only the first 87000 is taxed for Social Security. totally unfair. It should ALL be taxed in reference to Social Security.. The Rich should stop getting away with not paying social security tax on their own income.

• 3. Cooldown  |  July 9th, 2008 at 7:50 am

  In 2001 McCain voted against Bush’s tax cuts and then again in 2003. McCain noted that it didn’t make sense to cut taxes in a time of war, especially in ways that benefited the wealthy to such a large degree. What has changed?

  Bush Jr’s FY 2009 budget leaves the next President with a $409 billion dollar deficit and the cost of two wars almost $700 billion off the books. There is no trickle down. Bush Sr was correct when he labeled Reaganmics as voodoo economics.

  This is why it is so important McCain is defeated. The neocons are sucking him in with policies that will further erode America. Neocons are like roaches, they hide in every corner of the government and act when you least expect them too. Only a Democratic President can identify them and weed them out.

• 4. Ricorun  |  July 9th, 2008 at 9:17 am

  Here’s what I don’t like about McCain’s energy plan:

  1. Lifting the federal moratorium on off-shore drilling only leaves the question to the states, most of which are unlikely to agree to drilling. Consequently it’s unlikely to have much practical effect. But McCain never talks about what he’s going to do about that, if anything. In fact, even he has conceded it would only little more than a psychological effect. And you can’t fill your gas tank with psychological effects.

  2. McCain will keep ANWR off limits. Judging from everything I’ve read, that’s the place that would provide the most bang for the buck.

  3. McCain wants to build 400 nuclear plants. According to the proposals currently on the table in Florida, Texas, and SC (all of which use the same design the French used to build almost all of theirs) the going price right now is about $7 billion apiece (not including tansmission lines). Thus at current prices (and prices are going up steeper for nuclear plants than any other type) he’s talking about an investment of 2.8 trillion dollars minimum, and that would have to include 10s of billions of dollars in federal subsidies. There’s no way around it. And yet he’s against providing any subsidies to true renewables — things like wind, solar, geothermal, etc. The irony is that there is every indication that it would be much cheaper to build the same capacity in wind and solar right now, because as they reach scale their costs will trend down, not up. Geothermal is also cheaper in some places, and the cost of geothermal is also trending down. So, even without considering waste, safety, and decommissioning issues, nuclear is no longer the most cost-effective way to go. And yet he wants true renewable technologies to try to compete without any incentives. That doesn’t strike me as the most cost-effective way to go.

  4. A $300 million battery prize is an interesting idea, but it’s not very well fleshed out. He hasn’t provided details. Moreover, he hasn’t demonstrated it would have any real incentive effect over and above the incentive that already exists. After all, a manufacturer who develops a battery with the general characteristics of what McCain is talking about (and you can’t talk in anything but general terms because McCain didn’t provide any specifics) is likely to reap hundreds of billions of dollars in revenues anyway.

  I challenge anyone to refute anything I’ve said.

• 5. neocon  |  July 9th, 2008 at 10:08 am

  1. Your assumption that the states will further oppose off shore drilling in this current enviroment is just wrong. 59% of Americans now support doestic drilling and that number is climbing daily.

  2. Currently McCain still woujld like to explore other areas before ANWR, but with pressure, he will come around. Obama? No chance.

  3. Nuclear energy is the predominant power source for most of Europe. But you assert that the US would be unable to transition because of the cost? Why do most people of the liberal persuasion cite costs as the main barrier to achieving items of which they oppose, but have to find a bloated governmental agency or wasteful entitlement program?

  Let’s let the oil companies use their excessive profits to continue explore the solar, hydro, hydrogen etc. alternatives as they currently are, and the government can subsidize the more expensive nuclear option. That seems to make sense, right?

  4. And obviously, you don’t believe in making the competition interesting do you? Or incentivizing someone, above and beyond the accolades and monetary rewards that will eventually follow.

  I guess I just don’t understand your opposition to that. Where’s the downside?

• 6. Tractatus  |  July 9th, 2008 at 11:14 am

  Deleted - off topic.

• 7. Ricorun  |  July 9th, 2008 at 11:46 am

  neocon,
  1. Maybe you’re right. But the issue is what the people in the affected states think. I understand that there’s a majority of people in Florida now support drilling — as long as it’s more than 100 miles off the coast.
  2. Never say never, I guess.
  3. It’s not that I oppose nuclear power. And you’re right, some places in Europe do have a lot of it. But those are already built — back when it was much cheaper and there were less alternatives to consider. And like here, there is renewed interest in building more in some places. However, when the practicalities are considered, reality hits.

  However, it still can make sense if no other more cost-effective options are available. But if there are, it doesn’t. In countries where wind, sun, waves and/or hot rocks are readily and reliably availale, that’s what they emphasize. The US has some of the best wind and sun resources of anywhere in the world. Geothermal resources as well. But not all locations are equally blessed. While it’s the case that several studies have indicated those resources alone could power the entire country, it would require an extensive transmission upgrade. And that’s probably impractical in the short term because of regulatory, right of way issues, etc., not to mention the expense. But if those weren’t issues it would still almost certainly be cheaper to go that route.

  You talk about “bloated governmental agencies or wasteful entitlement programs”, and that’s the real irony. What do you think nuclear will entail? Show me a nuclear plant that has ever been built without significant governmental subsidies.

• 8. Ricorun  |  July 9th, 2008 at 11:52 am

  4. Let me ask you a question, neocon: should taxpayers reward you for getting up in the morning, especially if you were going to get up anyway, and at the same time? Said in another way, are you in favor of spending $300 million of the taxpayers’ money for something that will happen anyway in the same amount of time? Before I get on board with this prize (however it is ultimately designed) I want some reasonable indication that it will in fact incentivize what it’s supposed to incentivize. Otherwise it’s a waste of money. That’s the downside. It would also be nice if there was some indication that it was the most effective way to spend the money. And by the way, would you be okay if the prize went to a foreign company?

  Personally, I think he’d be better off with a properly designed prize for algal biofuels. The incentive value in that area is more obvious, at least on the face of it.

• 9. neocon  |  July 9th, 2008 at 7:40 pm

  Rico,

  Nuclear power can be achieved despite the potentially high costs. My earlier comment re: entitlements was not properly written, I meant to say that people that always cite the high cost of something to impede it’s progress, are usually the same people that never challenge the waste in government.

  I guarantee that we could eliminate enough fluff from the government budget to more than pay for our nuclear needs.

• 10. Ricorun  |  July 9th, 2008 at 8:37 pm

  neocon: Nuclear power can be achieved despite the potentially high costs.

  I don’t question our ability. I question the practicality, given the other options that are becoming available.

  I meant to say that people that always cite the high cost of something to impede it’s progress, are usually the same people that never challenge the waste in government.

  Thank you for clarifying. Now, could you please clarify your clarification? On the face of it, your explanation seems counter-intuitive.

  I guarantee that we could eliminate enough fluff from the government budget to more than pay for our nuclear needs.

  Thank you for that too. But it would seem more sensible to make that guarantee on the back of options that are certainly cleaner, and almost certainly cheaper in the long run, if they aren’t already? Wouldn’t failing to do that be fluff? Wouldn’t that be wasteful? Either way, I duly note your guarantee, and I will file it along with the rest of them.

• 11. Jeremiah  |  July 9th, 2008 at 9:59 pm

  I find the non-sequitur to be in the liberal argument against drilling. They would use the monies of taxpayers as a deception, saying they will become “energy independent” although at the mercy of enviro-whackos consent. Thus, in the end it would fuel suppression of important jobs that deal with access to, and using renewable resources at our benefit, and at the same time hindering transition to nuclear energy, which is the cleanest form of energy that you can have.

  In summary, Democrats want to fuel money into hype and rhetoric at a higher price tage than the current energy crisis to line their pockets with green - summed in one word - Socialism.

• 12. kjstrouble  |  July 10th, 2008 at 3:38 am

  I love it. Liberals often tout Europe, especially Germany and France, as wonderful places, with strong environmental understanding. Yet the idea of following Europe’s lead and build more nuclear power plants here - no way, that would be bad. You really cannot have it both ways guys - if Europe is so good, then so should their nuclear power plants.

• 13. Ricorun  |  July 10th, 2008 at 1:19 pm

  Kstrouble: if Europe is so good, then so should their nuclear power plants.

  Are you saying that if nuclear power is so good, then so is Europe? You lib-lover you. Lol!

Leave a Comment

Please report any inappropriate or abusive comments to abuse@blogsforvictory.com. Please include the blog entry title and the comment number.

Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed

Matt Margolis on Twitter