Do you dislike the two party system or the strings that come with it?
......
My thinking is that Ron Paul is a genius for doing things the way he is. I think he would be far less of a factor "in changing politics" if he ran independent or a libertarian. Basically, I think he knows that in order to make any real lasting change he has the change one of the two parties (in this case the Republican party) from within. Due to that, I don't see him abandoning the party or even running as a third party candidate. I think he's been very successful in showing Americans that if you're persistent you can even take on the powerful party interests, and in doing so, can sort of change the party itself (albeit slowly). If we're honest, what he's doing is trying to revert a party that was hijacked by special interests (neocons) and bigger government and trying to return to the party's origin of small government and less special interests.
Let's say he gets elected. Let's say, as president, he changes his party support to Libertarian. America now has a third party president.. I think this opens the doorways on America's view of the two party system.. If people can start to understand the bullshit, maybe they will realize there are other ways.. Who knows. It's a step.
he won't change his party affiliation ...
either way tho - i've already committed in saying ron paul is who i would vote for ... my only point in my previous post was to see if his die hard supporters could justify his energy policies ... which i suspect they will not ...
which specific energy policies would you like to discuss?
Justify is a term that shows a bit of bias...I am not going to be able to justify Dr. Paul's beliefs and policies to you because you already seem to have the opinion that he is "wrong" on the environment...and I can understand why you would think that, believe me, he certainly doesn't sound like an environmentalist...I could talk to you about which ones I support and why, but that isn't justification, that is simply talking about my beliefs...
with how I feel about the term out of the way, here goes...In a very simple way, I guess I could tell you that the "justification" for his energy policies is the same thing that justifies any of his policies...his belief in a constitutionally limited government. If you find that his beliefs on the environment contradict that, I guess then justification would truly be necessary. But if you find that his beliefs are consistent, it would be up to you, me, or anyone who may disagree with him to either support or not support him based on those issues but also the other topics that the government deals with...and if you believe that he will do more good than harm when all the areas are taken into consideration, you have just justified your support for him...otherwise it becomes a giant muddy mess....kind of like this response.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
hahahaha wow...it is unfortunate that republicans feel this way about the only true republican left in government. This article does more to embolden those types of supporters than it ever would scare them off...let's see...in a political culture of the time that is about upsetting the apple cart and trying to break off from business as usual...are people going to have sympathy for the republican elites who are sad and crying because someone has come along that upsets that business as usual?
Cry babies...If you want someone else to win than by all means support them...but saying that one person winning would solely be because of a bastardization of the process is petty and truly undermines the man if he does win the nomination...
I am taking my caucus and I am going home
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
which specific energy policies would you like to discuss?
Justify is a term that shows a bit of bias...I am not going to be able to justify Dr. Paul's beliefs and policies to you because you already seem to have the opinion that he is "wrong" on the environment...and I can understand why you would think that, believe me, he certainly doesn't sound like an environmentalist...I could talk to you about which ones I support and why, but that isn't justification, that is simply talking about my beliefs...
with how I feel about the term out of the way, here goes...In a very simple way, I guess I could tell you that the "justification" for his energy policies is the same thing that justifies any of his policies...his belief in a constitutionally limited government. If you find that his beliefs on the environment contradict that, I guess then justification would truly be necessary. But if you find that his beliefs are consistent, it would be up to you, me, or anyone who may disagree with him to either support or not support him based on those issues but also the other topics that the government deals with...and if you believe that he will do more good than harm when all the areas are taken into consideration, you have just justified your support for him...otherwise it becomes a giant muddy mess....kind of like this response.
well ... i'd like to know why he wouldn't cut subsidies to oil companies!? ... he would be quick to cut the taxes for buying gas - but why not the "stolen" money we give to oil companies?
hahahaha wow...it is unfortunate that republicans feel this way about the only true republican left in government. This article does more to embolden those types of supporters than it ever would scare them off...let's see...in a political culture of the time that is about upsetting the apple cart and trying to break off from business as usual...are people going to have sympathy for the republican elites who are sad and crying because someone has come along that upsets that business as usual?
Cry babies...If you want someone else to win than by all means support them...but saying that one person winning would solely be because of a bastardization of the process is petty and truly undermines the man if he does win the nomination...
I am taking my caucus and I am going home
It's like saying the Super Bowl doesn't matter unless the favorites make it there. It's hysterical.
which specific energy policies would you like to discuss?
Justify is a term that shows a bit of bias...I am not going to be able to justify Dr. Paul's beliefs and policies to you because you already seem to have the opinion that he is "wrong" on the environment...and I can understand why you would think that, believe me, he certainly doesn't sound like an environmentalist...I could talk to you about which ones I support and why, but that isn't justification, that is simply talking about my beliefs...
with how I feel about the term out of the way, here goes...In a very simple way, I guess I could tell you that the "justification" for his energy policies is the same thing that justifies any of his policies...his belief in a constitutionally limited government. If you find that his beliefs on the environment contradict that, I guess then justification would truly be necessary. But if you find that his beliefs are consistent, it would be up to you, me, or anyone who may disagree with him to either support or not support him based on those issues but also the other topics that the government deals with...and if you believe that he will do more good than harm when all the areas are taken into consideration, you have just justified your support for him...otherwise it becomes a giant muddy mess....kind of like this response.
well ... i'd like to know why he wouldn't cut subsidies to oil companies!? ... he would be quick to cut the taxes for buying gas - but why not the "stolen" money we give to oil companies?
How do the oil subsidies work? I've mentioned that our government subsidizes the oil industry to several people before but they have appeared astonished and indicated that the government does not subsidize oil. I don't buy that but I also don't have anything to back myself up. Kind of off topic a bit but I would appreciate it if you could explain it to me or direct me to a place that does.
which specific energy policies would you like to discuss?
Justify is a term that shows a bit of bias...I am not going to be able to justify Dr. Paul's beliefs and policies to you because you already seem to have the opinion that he is "wrong" on the environment...and I can understand why you would think that, believe me, he certainly doesn't sound like an environmentalist...I could talk to you about which ones I support and why, but that isn't justification, that is simply talking about my beliefs...
with how I feel about the term out of the way, here goes...In a very simple way, I guess I could tell you that the "justification" for his energy policies is the same thing that justifies any of his policies...his belief in a constitutionally limited government. If you find that his beliefs on the environment contradict that, I guess then justification would truly be necessary. But if you find that his beliefs are consistent, it would be up to you, me, or anyone who may disagree with him to either support or not support him based on those issues but also the other topics that the government deals with...and if you believe that he will do more good than harm when all the areas are taken into consideration, you have just justified your support for him...otherwise it becomes a giant muddy mess....kind of like this response.
well ... i'd like to know why he wouldn't cut subsidies to oil companies!? ... he would be quick to cut the taxes for buying gas - but why not the "stolen" money we give to oil companies?
I am sure there is something better written out there than this...but I believe, and correct me if I am wrong, you are referring to tax incentives for the oil industry...am I right there? it is a bit of a misnomer to call it a subsidy when it really is tax incentives...So to vote against removing tax incentives is akin to voting against raising taxes.
it isn't money we give them, it is money we don't take.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
How do the oil subsidies work? I've mentioned that our government subsidizes the oil industry to several people before but they have appeared astonished and indicated that the government does not subsidize oil. I don't buy that but I also don't have anything to back myself up. Kind of off topic a bit but I would appreciate it if you could explain it to me or direct me to a place that does.
yikes ... it's a bit hard to explain because it isn't like the gov't hands out one cheque to the oil companies ... the subsidies accumulate through a plethora of measures:
* tax credits
* corporate welfare
* exemptions
* spending (such as patrolling the shipping lanes)
basically - any kind of measure that lowers the cost of production for the fuel companies ultimately is a form of subsidy ... one can argue that the iraq/afghanistan wars are part of that subsidy because it was done to control supply and access ... but even if you didn't want to get into that argument with someone - there are literally thousands of actions done to lower the cost of production ... the biggest subsidy to me which is never discussed is simply the cost of production in terms of pollutants and greenhouse gases ... the oil and gas companies do not pay for the consequences of their production ... we, the public, who have to pay for asthma medication, droughts, etc.. are the ones thus ultimately making it a subsidy ...
if you do a simple google search on oil subsidies - you will get a foundation of what they are ...
I am sure there is something better written out there than this...but I believe, and correct me if I am wrong, you are referring to tax incentives for the oil industry...am I right there? it is a bit of a misnomer to call it a subsidy when it really is tax incentives...So to vote against removing tax incentives is akin to voting against raising taxes.
it isn't money we give them, it is money we don't take.
any measure that lowers the cost of production is a subsidy ... so, sending warships to patrol oil shipping lanes is a subsidy ... they come in many forms, not just tax breaks ...
I am sure there is something better written out there than this...but I believe, and correct me if I am wrong, you are referring to tax incentives for the oil industry...am I right there? it is a bit of a misnomer to call it a subsidy when it really is tax incentives...So to vote against removing tax incentives is akin to voting against raising taxes.
it isn't money we give them, it is money we don't take.
any measure that lowers the cost of production is a subsidy ... so, sending warships to patrol oil shipping lanes is a subsidy ... they come in many forms, not just tax breaks ...
technically speaking, subsidies are money that is given. Tax incentives aren't subsidies. They are tax incentives...Whether you consider them one I suppose is up to you, but technically they aren't subsidies...Paying money to farmers is a subsidy...Do you consider the dependent care tax credit a subsidy for having children? How about the earned income tax credit? If the tax credits that energy producers receive are subsidies, then we all receive subsidies everyday. When you refer to subsidies and discuss tax incentives I feel like you are being disingenuous...they aren't the same thing. Do you really wonder why someone with small government as a platform would vote no against a bill that, among other things, cuts tax incentives to businesses? Consequently, I believe he would also vote no to paying them cash directly or bailing them out if they fail...
You may disagree with his position on it, but that seems fairly consistent to me...
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
technically speaking, subsidies are money that is given. Tax incentives aren't subsidies. They are tax incentives...Whether you consider them one I suppose is up to you, but technically they aren't subsidies...Paying money to farmers is a subsidy...Do you consider the dependent care tax credit a subsidy for having children? How about the earned income tax credit? If the tax credits that energy producers receive are subsidies, then we all receive subsidies everyday. When you refer to subsidies and discuss tax incentives I feel like you are being disingenuous...they aren't the same thing. Do you really wonder why someone with small government as a platform would vote no against a bill that, among other things, cuts tax incentives to businesses? Consequently, I believe he would also vote no to paying them cash directly or bailing them out if they fail...
You may disagree with his position on it, but that seems fairly consistent to me...
are you making this discussion about semantics!? ... by all accounts - anything that lowers the cost of production is a subsidy - they can come in many forms ... and even if you were to take away the tax incentives - there are still many measures by which oil and gas industry is subsidized ... take a step back here and explain how a gallon of oil is cheaper than a gallon of coke? ... the only way that is possible is thru subsidies ...
and i think you are being slightly disingenuous by not responding to my primary point that the consequences of said production are never accounted for in the costing which ultimately is a subsidy because the gov't often has to pay out those consequences ...
if we paid the true cost of oil and gas - it would price itself out of the market ... something i assumed ron paul was supportive of ... but it appears that dr. paul has no interest in letting the market decide that fate for oil and gas ...
technically speaking, subsidies are money that is given. Tax incentives aren't subsidies. They are tax incentives...Whether you consider them one I suppose is up to you, but technically they aren't subsidies...Paying money to farmers is a subsidy...Do you consider the dependent care tax credit a subsidy for having children? How about the earned income tax credit? If the tax credits that energy producers receive are subsidies, then we all receive subsidies everyday. When you refer to subsidies and discuss tax incentives I feel like you are being disingenuous...they aren't the same thing. Do you really wonder why someone with small government as a platform would vote no against a bill that, among other things, cuts tax incentives to businesses? Consequently, I believe he would also vote no to paying them cash directly or bailing them out if they fail...
You may disagree with his position on it, but that seems fairly consistent to me...
are you making this discussion about semantics!? ... by all accounts - anything that lowers the cost of production is a subsidy - they can come in many forms ... and even if you were to take away the tax incentives - there are still many measures by which oil and gas industry is subsidized ... take a step back here and explain how a gallon of oil is cheaper than a gallon of coke? ... the only way that is possible is thru subsidies ...
and i think you are being slightly disingenuous by not responding to my primary point that the consequences of said production are never accounted for in the costing which ultimately is a subsidy because the gov't often has to pay out those consequences ...
if we paid the true cost of oil and gas - it would price itself out of the market ... something i assumed ron paul was supportive of ... but it appears that dr. paul has no interest in letting the market decide that fate for oil and gas ...
I cannot answer your question specifically about why oil costs less than coke. I don't know.
back to the other discussion. More specifically, a subsidy is a cash payment. It isn't semantics it is the definition. I wouldn't call a tax incentive a cash payment...so I shouldn't call a tax incentive a subsidy either.
If we call everything the government does a subsidy the definition of the word loses all meaning and it confuses conversations
I am not being disingenuous at all. I responded to the question posed to me. you never mentioned any hidden costs in your discussion with me, so I will respond now that I understand that is your point. I don't consider every government action a subsidy. I certainly don't agree that the war in Iraq is an oil subsidy...I don't want to turn this into a discussion about the validity of the word subsidy however, so for the sake of converstation can we simply use the dictionary definition. It doesn't change your point.
If we cannot agree on definitions it will be nearly impossible to have a conversation that makes any sense.
I will let Ron Paul defend his position himself. starts at 2:15
You did ignore my question however...
Do you really wonder why someone with small government as a platform would vote against a bill that, among other things, cuts tax incentives to businesses? Do you consider the earned income tax credit a subsidy?
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I cannot answer your question specifically about why oil costs less than coke. I don't know.
back to the other discussion. More specifically, a subsidy is a cash payment. It isn't semantics it is the definition. I wouldn't call a tax incentive a cash payment...so I shouldn't call a tax incentive a subsidy either.
If we call everything the government does a subsidy the definition of the word loses all meaning and it confuses conversations
I am not being disingenuous at all. I responded to the question posed to me. you never mentioned any hidden costs in your discussion with me, so I will respond now that I understand that is your point. I don't consider every government action a subsidy. I certainly don't agree that the war in Iraq is an oil subsidy...I don't want to turn this into a discussion about the validity of the word subsidy however, so for the sake of converstation can we simply use the dictionary definition. It doesn't change your point.
If we cannot agree on definitions it will be nearly impossible to have a conversation that makes any sense.
I will let Ron Paul defend his position himself. starts at 2:15
You did ignore my question however...
Do you really wonder why someone with small government as a platform would vote against a bill that, among other things, cuts tax incentives to businesses? Do you consider the earned income tax credit a subsidy?
good grief ... so, you are making it a discussion on semantics ... :( ... it's like the debate over whether taxing someone is stealing all over again ... it's the major unfortunate aspect of dealing with ron paul folks ... if you google oil subsidies - they will include tax breaks ... almost all articles written about it will include tax incentives but seeing as the definition of the word is apparently a bigger priority to you in this discussion - i already conceded to you for the sake of moving the discussion forward that subsidies come in many forms - not just tax breaks ... and that if you don't want to include the tax breaks - so, be it ...
i take back the thing on the true cost of production as i replied to sludge and assumed you read it before responding to me ...
in any case - if you truly don't know - i am saying that a gallon of oil is cheaper than a gallon of coke because of subsidies ...
and i didn't answer your question simply because i didn't want the discussion to be about semantics ... but i get it ... tax breaks aren't subsidies ... fine ... i really don't want to get into whether or not every item on the tax code is or isn't a subsidy or its implications to the economy ...
it boils down to this ... we are not paying the true cost of extraction, production and use of oil and gas ... and seeing as ron paul used to be in favour of cutting those subsidies - i want to know why the change of heart and how it is consistent with his position on free markets ...
I cannot answer your question specifically about why oil costs less than coke. I don't know.
back to the other discussion. More specifically, a subsidy is a cash payment. It isn't semantics it is the definition. I wouldn't call a tax incentive a cash payment...so I shouldn't call a tax incentive a subsidy either.
If we call everything the government does a subsidy the definition of the word loses all meaning and it confuses conversations
I am not being disingenuous at all. I responded to the question posed to me. you never mentioned any hidden costs in your discussion with me, so I will respond now that I understand that is your point. I don't consider every government action a subsidy. I certainly don't agree that the war in Iraq is an oil subsidy...I don't want to turn this into a discussion about the validity of the word subsidy however, so for the sake of converstation can we simply use the dictionary definition. It doesn't change your point.
If we cannot agree on definitions it will be nearly impossible to have a conversation that makes any sense.
I will let Ron Paul defend his position himself. starts at 2:15
You did ignore my question however...
Do you really wonder why someone with small government as a platform would vote against a bill that, among other things, cuts tax incentives to businesses? Do you consider the earned income tax credit a subsidy?
good grief ... so, you are making it a discussion on semantics ... :( ... it's like the debate over whether taxing someone is stealing all over again ... it's the major unfortunate aspect of dealing with ron paul folks ... if you google oil subsidies - they will include tax breaks ... almost all articles written about it will include tax incentives but seeing as the definition of the word is apparently a bigger priority to you in this discussion - i already conceded to you for the sake of moving the discussion forward that subsidies come in many forms - not just tax breaks ... and that if you don't want to include the tax breaks - so, be it ...
i take back the thing on the true cost of production as i replied to sludge and assumed you read it before responding to me ...
in any case - if you truly don't know - i am saying that a gallon of oil is cheaper than a gallon of coke because of subsidies ...
and i didn't answer your question simply because i didn't want the discussion to be about semantics ... but i get it ... tax breaks aren't subsidies ... fine ... i really don't want to get into whether or not every item on the tax code is or isn't a subsidy or its implications to the economy ...
it boils down to this ... we are not paying the true cost of extraction, production and use of oil and gas ... and seeing as ron paul used to be in favour of cutting those subsidies - i want to know why the change of heart and how it is consistent with his position on free markets ...
I guess the discussion has to be about semantics because you keep interchanging two different things. I guess when talking about someone's positions on the issues, you better make sure what that person thinks a subsidy is...He looks at tax credits and incentives as tax cuts not subsidies. He says as much in the clip I put on there, among other things. If you look at tax incentives as giving tax cuts, is it really inconsistent? Also, I think if he had his way, there would be no subsidies, but in a system as it is, he will always support less rather than more taxes.
I said in the beginning I wasn't here to justify his positions, if you disagree with it that is fine, but he clearly says that he voted against a bill that would remove tax incentives because he looks at that as the same things as raising taxes, which he isn't willing to do.
As far as the free market goes, I think you aren't really telling the whole story. If we take away incentives on the oil industry...in order to create a truly free market on energy wouldn't we also have to take them away from other sources of energy? otherwise you cannot refer to the market as a free market. If all were equal, I still think the oil industry would win out based on cost...and if we want to free the market place of all government incentive and help, I certainly think Paul would be on board with that bill.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I guess the discussion has to be about semantics because you keep interchanging two different things. I guess when talking about someone's positions on the issues, you better make sure what that person thinks a subsidy is...He looks at tax credits and incentives as tax cuts not subsidies. He says as much in the clip I put on there, among other things. If you look at tax incentives as giving tax cuts, is it really inconsistent? Also, I think if he had his way, there would be no subsidies, but in a system as it is, he will always support less rather than more taxes.
I said in the beginning I wasn't here to justify his positions, if you disagree with it that is fine, but he clearly says that he voted against a bill that would remove tax incentives because he looks at that as the same things as raising taxes, which he isn't willing to do.
As far as the free market goes, I think you aren't really telling the whole story. If we take away incentives on the oil industry...in order to create a truly free market on energy wouldn't we also have to take them away from other sources of energy? otherwise you cannot refer to the market as a free market. If all were equal, I still think the oil industry would win out based on cost...and if we want to free the market place of all government incentive and help, I certainly think Paul would be on board with that bill.
again for the sake of NOT making it a discussion on semantics ... i will AGAIN concede to you that tax breaks are not subsidies in order for us to move on ...
if we took away all incentives ... there is no way in heck we would use oil ... especially when you factor in the contribution to public health and global warming ... but you would have to believe in global warming which from what i gather - ron paul sides with alex jones in that it is a big conspiracy ... :oops:
I guess the discussion has to be about semantics because you keep interchanging two different things. I guess when talking about someone's positions on the issues, you better make sure what that person thinks a subsidy is...He looks at tax credits and incentives as tax cuts not subsidies. He says as much in the clip I put on there, among other things. If you look at tax incentives as giving tax cuts, is it really inconsistent? Also, I think if he had his way, there would be no subsidies, but in a system as it is, he will always support less rather than more taxes.
I said in the beginning I wasn't here to justify his positions, if you disagree with it that is fine, but he clearly says that he voted against a bill that would remove tax incentives because he looks at that as the same things as raising taxes, which he isn't willing to do.
As far as the free market goes, I think you aren't really telling the whole story. If we take away incentives on the oil industry...in order to create a truly free market on energy wouldn't we also have to take them away from other sources of energy? otherwise you cannot refer to the market as a free market. If all were equal, I still think the oil industry would win out based on cost...and if we want to free the market place of all government incentive and help, I certainly think Paul would be on board with that bill.
again for the sake of NOT making it a discussion on semantics ... i will AGAIN concede to you that tax breaks are not subsidies in order for us to move on ...
if we took away all incentives ... there is no way in heck we would use oil ... especially when you factor in the contribution to public health and global warming ... but you would have to believe in global warming which from what i gather - ron paul sides with alex jones in that it is a big conspiracy ... :oops:
It isn't really a concession, it is a very important distinction when discussing why someone would or wouldn't support something.
as to the stuff in bold, people could factor that in now if they wanted to...but it just doesn't affect some people like it does others...environmental costs aside,
By your definition, the government subsidizes the shit out of the renewable energy industry
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
It isn't really a concession, it is a very important distinction when discussing why someone would or wouldn't support something.
as to the stuff in bold, people could factor that in now if they wanted to...but it just doesn't affect some people like it does others...environmental costs aside,
By your definition, the government subsidizes the shit out of the renewable energy industry
i am at a complete and utter loss as to why you continue to bark up that tree!?? ... ok - TAX BREAKS ARE NOT SUBSIDIES!! ... what more do you want? ... why do you persist on it? ... i get it ... ron paul doesn't believe in taxing so if it means cutting taxes - he will support that ... AGAIN, I will repeat myself - subsidies come in many forms not just tax breaks ... good grief! ... why do i suspect i will get a response that yet again does not take into consideration the words i'm actually typing ... ??
as for renewables - yes, they are subsidized but not nearly at the rate of oil and gas ... not even close ... i believe in subsidies when the interests of the people are being taken into consideration ... and in approaching a matter holistically ... at the very least - i would want oil and gas to be on the same level playing field with renewables ... and that the costs and its consequences are factored in including expenditures on war ...
I think Ron Paul's libertarianism is naive, despite how wise he is on some issues, particularly in military policy, but even in terms of 'bringing all the troops home', incl from Germany, Korea, etc, his policy seems naive and maybe unwise. I'm glad he wants to reverse our centuries old policy of imperialism, but I think he'd take it too far in the other direction toward hermitism. He also sounds like a religious zealot when he talks about the Constitution.
It isn't really a concession, it is a very important distinction when discussing why someone would or wouldn't support something.
as to the stuff in bold, people could factor that in now if they wanted to...but it just doesn't affect some people like it does others...environmental costs aside,
By your definition, the government subsidizes the shit out of the renewable energy industry
i am at a complete and utter loss as to why you continue to bark up that tree!?? ... ok - TAX BREAKS ARE NOT SUBSIDIES!! ... what more do you want? ... why do you persist on it? ... i get it ... ron paul doesn't believe in taxing so if it means cutting taxes - he will support that ... AGAIN, I will repeat myself - subsidies come in many forms not just tax breaks ... good grief! ... why do i suspect i will get a response that yet again does not take into consideration the words i'm actually typing ... ??
as for renewables - yes, they are subsidized but not nearly at the rate of oil and gas ... not even close ... i believe in subsidies when the interests of the people are being taken into consideration ... and in approaching a matter holistically ... at the very least - i would want oil and gas to be on the same level playing field with renewables ... and that the costs and its consequences are factored in including expenditures on war ...
I take them into consideration, I am just telling you that interchanging words that may mean different things to two people can be confusing, so it is an important distinction if you are calling someone out for supporting subsidies. You didn't really have to freak out. Why not call it government assistance, or better yet, corporate welfare...i am all for those terms that cover everything. The words we choose, no matter how insignificant the difference may seem to us, can have very different meanings for people and it is always important to understand the definitions.
I would love for it to be a completely free market on energy to be honest. The best technology would win out. I don't think the government should be in the business of picking and choosing winners and losers. That being said, it certainly is a sticky wicket when you discuss cutting tax incentives. I think they should be cut, I think the entire tax code should be simplified.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I take them into consideration, I am just telling you that interchanging words that may mean different things to two people can be confusing, so it is an important distinction if you are calling someone out for supporting subsidies. You didn't really have to freak out. Why not call it government assistance, or better yet, corporate welfare...i am all for those terms that cover everything. The words we choose, no matter how insignificant the difference may seem to us, can have very different meanings for people and it is always important to understand the definitions.
I would love for it to be a completely free market on energy to be honest. The best technology would win out. I don't think the government should be in the business of picking and choosing winners and losers. That being said, it certainly is a sticky wicket when you discuss cutting tax incentives. I think they should be cut, I think the entire tax code should be simplified.
I think Ron Paul would get killed by Obama in the general but I would love to see the one on one debates and I would love to see so many of the issues Ron Paul cares about to be brought undeniably to the nation's attention. I hope he runs independent if he doesn't get the nomination. I just want the "system" to keep being hacked away at.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win ."
I think Ron Paul's libertarianism is naive, despite how wise he is on some issues, particularly in military policy, but even in terms of 'bringing all the troops home', incl from Germany, Korea, etc, his policy seems naive and maybe unwise. I'm glad he wants to reverse our centuries old policy of imperialism, but I think he'd take it too far in the other direction toward hermitism. He also sounds like a religious zealot when he talks about the Constitution.
I just don't get how leaving other people alone and minding your own business is equated to being a hermit. We would still trade with these other countries.
I think Ron Paul's libertarianism is naive, despite how wise he is on some issues, particularly in military policy, but even in terms of 'bringing all the troops home', incl from Germany, Korea, etc, his policy seems naive and maybe unwise. I'm glad he wants to reverse our centuries old policy of imperialism, but I think he'd take it too far in the other direction toward hermitism. He also sounds like a religious zealot when he talks about the Constitution.
I just don't get how leaving other people alone and minding your own business is equated to being a hermit. We would still trade with these other countries.
But we are a part of NATO and other alliances around the world, and most nations have a favorable partnership with us and don't want us to leave as we have the technology and resources they may need. As the world changes, they may no longer want us around, but until they do, I don't think we should necessarily withdraw. It's a case by case type thing. What's more important is what the White House chooses to do with our military.
I think Ron Paul's libertarianism is naive, despite how wise he is on some issues, particularly in military policy, but even in terms of 'bringing all the troops home', incl from Germany, Korea, etc, his policy seems naive and maybe unwise. I'm glad he wants to reverse our centuries old policy of imperialism, but I think he'd take it too far in the other direction toward hermitism. He also sounds like a religious zealot when he talks about the Constitution.
I just don't get how leaving other people alone and minding your own business is equated to being a hermit. We would still trade with these other countries.
But we are a part of NATO and other alliances around the world, and most nations have a favorable partnership with us and don't want us to leave as we have the technology and resources they may need. As the world changes, they may no longer want us around, but until they do, I don't think we should necessarily withdraw. It's a case by case type thing. What's more important is what the White House chooses to do with our military.
I want a million dollars, doesn't mean I am going to get it...especially from someone who is broke. So even if they want us there, we can no longer afford to help...you wouldn't give millions to charity if your house was in foreclosure...
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I think Ron Paul's libertarianism is naive, despite how wise he is on some issues, particularly in military policy, but even in terms of 'bringing all the troops home', incl from Germany, Korea, etc, his policy seems naive and maybe unwise. I'm glad he wants to reverse our centuries old policy of imperialism, but I think he'd take it too far in the other direction toward hermitism. He also sounds like a religious zealot when he talks about the Constitution.
I just don't get how leaving other people alone and minding your own business is equated to being a hermit. We would still trade with these other countries.
But we are a part of NATO and other alliances around the world, and most nations have a favorable partnership with us and don't want us to leave as we have the technology and resources they may need. As the world changes, they may no longer want us around, but until they do, I don't think we should necessarily withdraw. It's a case by case type thing. What's more important is what the White House chooses to do with our military.
Entangling alliances with other nations is what lead up to the World Wars. So you are advocating for mainting more entangling alliances? Seems folly to me. Essentially we have an alliance where if enough of the member states decide it, they can wage war on a non-member whether it is just or not. I'd prefer to not be a part of something that can further obligate US troops for more military operations abroad, especially when many times it is oppressive and done simply because the bureaucrats that run this country think they know best and that we need to police the world.
What is more isolationist/hermetic? Being part of an exclusive club that may or may not sanction you if they don't like you or trading with those who would do trade with you regardless of their allegiance ?
Tonight (Dec 21) around 8PM CNN is showing an interview they did with Ron Paul. I saw a short clip earlier, Ron Paul took off his mic and walked away after the reporter kept on pushing that 'newsletter racist' thing.
Then If I remember correctly she asked him a question about Israel before he left, Ron Paul looked a bit annoyed with the question. Anyone else see the video on CNN earlier? Maybe it's an old interview? I'm not sure, but it looked new.
Comments
Do you dislike the two party system or the strings that come with it?
......
My thinking is that Ron Paul is a genius for doing things the way he is. I think he would be far less of a factor "in changing politics" if he ran independent or a libertarian. Basically, I think he knows that in order to make any real lasting change he has the change one of the two parties (in this case the Republican party) from within. Due to that, I don't see him abandoning the party or even running as a third party candidate. I think he's been very successful in showing Americans that if you're persistent you can even take on the powerful party interests, and in doing so, can sort of change the party itself (albeit slowly). If we're honest, what he's doing is trying to revert a party that was hijacked by special interests (neocons) and bigger government and trying to return to the party's origin of small government and less special interests.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70674.html
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
which specific energy policies would you like to discuss?
Justify is a term that shows a bit of bias...I am not going to be able to justify Dr. Paul's beliefs and policies to you because you already seem to have the opinion that he is "wrong" on the environment...and I can understand why you would think that, believe me, he certainly doesn't sound like an environmentalist...I could talk to you about which ones I support and why, but that isn't justification, that is simply talking about my beliefs...
with how I feel about the term out of the way, here goes...In a very simple way, I guess I could tell you that the "justification" for his energy policies is the same thing that justifies any of his policies...his belief in a constitutionally limited government. If you find that his beliefs on the environment contradict that, I guess then justification would truly be necessary. But if you find that his beliefs are consistent, it would be up to you, me, or anyone who may disagree with him to either support or not support him based on those issues but also the other topics that the government deals with...and if you believe that he will do more good than harm when all the areas are taken into consideration, you have just justified your support for him...otherwise it becomes a giant muddy mess....kind of like this response.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
hahahaha wow...it is unfortunate that republicans feel this way about the only true republican left in government. This article does more to embolden those types of supporters than it ever would scare them off...let's see...in a political culture of the time that is about upsetting the apple cart and trying to break off from business as usual...are people going to have sympathy for the republican elites who are sad and crying because someone has come along that upsets that business as usual?
Cry babies...If you want someone else to win than by all means support them...but saying that one person winning would solely be because of a bastardization of the process is petty and truly undermines the man if he does win the nomination...
I am taking my caucus and I am going home
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
well ... i'd like to know why he wouldn't cut subsidies to oil companies!? ... he would be quick to cut the taxes for buying gas - but why not the "stolen" money we give to oil companies?
It's like saying the Super Bowl doesn't matter unless the favorites make it there. It's hysterical.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
I am sure there is something better written out there than this...but I believe, and correct me if I am wrong, you are referring to tax incentives for the oil industry...am I right there? it is a bit of a misnomer to call it a subsidy when it really is tax incentives...So to vote against removing tax incentives is akin to voting against raising taxes.
it isn't money we give them, it is money we don't take.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
yikes ... it's a bit hard to explain because it isn't like the gov't hands out one cheque to the oil companies ... the subsidies accumulate through a plethora of measures:
* tax credits
* corporate welfare
* exemptions
* spending (such as patrolling the shipping lanes)
basically - any kind of measure that lowers the cost of production for the fuel companies ultimately is a form of subsidy ... one can argue that the iraq/afghanistan wars are part of that subsidy because it was done to control supply and access ... but even if you didn't want to get into that argument with someone - there are literally thousands of actions done to lower the cost of production ... the biggest subsidy to me which is never discussed is simply the cost of production in terms of pollutants and greenhouse gases ... the oil and gas companies do not pay for the consequences of their production ... we, the public, who have to pay for asthma medication, droughts, etc.. are the ones thus ultimately making it a subsidy ...
if you do a simple google search on oil subsidies - you will get a foundation of what they are ...
hopefully - this makes sense ...
any measure that lowers the cost of production is a subsidy ... so, sending warships to patrol oil shipping lanes is a subsidy ... they come in many forms, not just tax breaks ...
http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/
technically speaking, subsidies are money that is given. Tax incentives aren't subsidies. They are tax incentives...Whether you consider them one I suppose is up to you, but technically they aren't subsidies...Paying money to farmers is a subsidy...Do you consider the dependent care tax credit a subsidy for having children? How about the earned income tax credit? If the tax credits that energy producers receive are subsidies, then we all receive subsidies everyday. When you refer to subsidies and discuss tax incentives I feel like you are being disingenuous...they aren't the same thing. Do you really wonder why someone with small government as a platform would vote no against a bill that, among other things, cuts tax incentives to businesses? Consequently, I believe he would also vote no to paying them cash directly or bailing them out if they fail...
You may disagree with his position on it, but that seems fairly consistent to me...
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
are you making this discussion about semantics!? ... by all accounts - anything that lowers the cost of production is a subsidy - they can come in many forms ... and even if you were to take away the tax incentives - there are still many measures by which oil and gas industry is subsidized ... take a step back here and explain how a gallon of oil is cheaper than a gallon of coke? ... the only way that is possible is thru subsidies ...
and i think you are being slightly disingenuous by not responding to my primary point that the consequences of said production are never accounted for in the costing which ultimately is a subsidy because the gov't often has to pay out those consequences ...
if we paid the true cost of oil and gas - it would price itself out of the market ... something i assumed ron paul was supportive of ... but it appears that dr. paul has no interest in letting the market decide that fate for oil and gas ...
http://news.yahoo.com/iowa-gop-worried-hacker-threat-caucus-vote-081533481.html
it isn't by all accounts
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subsidy
I cannot answer your question specifically about why oil costs less than coke. I don't know.
back to the other discussion. More specifically, a subsidy is a cash payment. It isn't semantics it is the definition. I wouldn't call a tax incentive a cash payment...so I shouldn't call a tax incentive a subsidy either.
If we call everything the government does a subsidy the definition of the word loses all meaning and it confuses conversations
I am not being disingenuous at all. I responded to the question posed to me. you never mentioned any hidden costs in your discussion with me, so I will respond now that I understand that is your point. I don't consider every government action a subsidy. I certainly don't agree that the war in Iraq is an oil subsidy...I don't want to turn this into a discussion about the validity of the word subsidy however, so for the sake of converstation can we simply use the dictionary definition. It doesn't change your point.
If we cannot agree on definitions it will be nearly impossible to have a conversation that makes any sense.
Here you go,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5m1J32wABiI#t=2m40s
I will let Ron Paul defend his position himself. starts at 2:15
You did ignore my question however...
Do you really wonder why someone with small government as a platform would vote against a bill that, among other things, cuts tax incentives to businesses?
Do you consider the earned income tax credit a subsidy?
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
good grief ... so, you are making it a discussion on semantics ... :( ... it's like the debate over whether taxing someone is stealing all over again ... it's the major unfortunate aspect of dealing with ron paul folks ... if you google oil subsidies - they will include tax breaks ... almost all articles written about it will include tax incentives but seeing as the definition of the word is apparently a bigger priority to you in this discussion - i already conceded to you for the sake of moving the discussion forward that subsidies come in many forms - not just tax breaks ... and that if you don't want to include the tax breaks - so, be it ...
i take back the thing on the true cost of production as i replied to sludge and assumed you read it before responding to me ...
in any case - if you truly don't know - i am saying that a gallon of oil is cheaper than a gallon of coke because of subsidies ...
and i didn't answer your question simply because i didn't want the discussion to be about semantics ... but i get it ... tax breaks aren't subsidies ... fine ... i really don't want to get into whether or not every item on the tax code is or isn't a subsidy or its implications to the economy ...
it boils down to this ... we are not paying the true cost of extraction, production and use of oil and gas ... and seeing as ron paul used to be in favour of cutting those subsidies - i want to know why the change of heart and how it is consistent with his position on free markets ...
Seems like good news to me. The Iowa caucus should be irrelevant.
I guess the discussion has to be about semantics because you keep interchanging two different things. I guess when talking about someone's positions on the issues, you better make sure what that person thinks a subsidy is...He looks at tax credits and incentives as tax cuts not subsidies. He says as much in the clip I put on there, among other things. If you look at tax incentives as giving tax cuts, is it really inconsistent? Also, I think if he had his way, there would be no subsidies, but in a system as it is, he will always support less rather than more taxes.
I said in the beginning I wasn't here to justify his positions, if you disagree with it that is fine, but he clearly says that he voted against a bill that would remove tax incentives because he looks at that as the same things as raising taxes, which he isn't willing to do.
As far as the free market goes, I think you aren't really telling the whole story. If we take away incentives on the oil industry...in order to create a truly free market on energy wouldn't we also have to take them away from other sources of energy? otherwise you cannot refer to the market as a free market. If all were equal, I still think the oil industry would win out based on cost...and if we want to free the market place of all government incentive and help, I certainly think Paul would be on board with that bill.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
again for the sake of NOT making it a discussion on semantics ... i will AGAIN concede to you that tax breaks are not subsidies in order for us to move on ...
if we took away all incentives ... there is no way in heck we would use oil ... especially when you factor in the contribution to public health and global warming ... but you would have to believe in global warming which from what i gather - ron paul sides with alex jones in that it is a big conspiracy ... :oops:
It isn't really a concession, it is a very important distinction when discussing why someone would or wouldn't support something.
as to the stuff in bold, people could factor that in now if they wanted to...but it just doesn't affect some people like it does others...environmental costs aside,
By your definition, the government subsidizes the shit out of the renewable energy industry
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
i am at a complete and utter loss as to why you continue to bark up that tree!?? ... ok - TAX BREAKS ARE NOT SUBSIDIES!! ... what more do you want? ... why do you persist on it? ... i get it ... ron paul doesn't believe in taxing so if it means cutting taxes - he will support that ... AGAIN, I will repeat myself - subsidies come in many forms not just tax breaks ... good grief! ... why do i suspect i will get a response that yet again does not take into consideration the words i'm actually typing ... ??
as for renewables - yes, they are subsidized but not nearly at the rate of oil and gas ... not even close ... i believe in subsidies when the interests of the people are being taken into consideration ... and in approaching a matter holistically ... at the very least - i would want oil and gas to be on the same level playing field with renewables ... and that the costs and its consequences are factored in including expenditures on war ...
I take them into consideration, I am just telling you that interchanging words that may mean different things to two people can be confusing, so it is an important distinction if you are calling someone out for supporting subsidies. You didn't really have to freak out. Why not call it government assistance, or better yet, corporate welfare...i am all for those terms that cover everything. The words we choose, no matter how insignificant the difference may seem to us, can have very different meanings for people and it is always important to understand the definitions.
I would love for it to be a completely free market on energy to be honest. The best technology would win out. I don't think the government should be in the business of picking and choosing winners and losers. That being said, it certainly is a sticky wicket when you discuss cutting tax incentives. I think they should be cut, I think the entire tax code should be simplified.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
"With our thoughts we make the world"
I just don't get how leaving other people alone and minding your own business is equated to being a hermit. We would still trade with these other countries.
But we are a part of NATO and other alliances around the world, and most nations have a favorable partnership with us and don't want us to leave as we have the technology and resources they may need. As the world changes, they may no longer want us around, but until they do, I don't think we should necessarily withdraw. It's a case by case type thing. What's more important is what the White House chooses to do with our military.
I want a million dollars, doesn't mean I am going to get it...especially from someone who is broke. So even if they want us there, we can no longer afford to help...you wouldn't give millions to charity if your house was in foreclosure...
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Entangling alliances with other nations is what lead up to the World Wars. So you are advocating for mainting more entangling alliances? Seems folly to me. Essentially we have an alliance where if enough of the member states decide it, they can wage war on a non-member whether it is just or not. I'd prefer to not be a part of something that can further obligate US troops for more military operations abroad, especially when many times it is oppressive and done simply because the bureaucrats that run this country think they know best and that we need to police the world.
What is more isolationist/hermetic? Being part of an exclusive club that may or may not sanction you if they don't like you or trading with those who would do trade with you regardless of their allegiance ?
Then If I remember correctly she asked him a question about Israel before he left, Ron Paul looked a bit annoyed with the question. Anyone else see the video on CNN earlier? Maybe it's an old interview? I'm not sure, but it looked new.