I know we're not suppose to top post about others, but Mr. 2wit's post below

[ya-ta-hey]

outlines the logical divide between conservatives and liberals.

to wit (sorry, my friend, couldn't help it) he posted that the Schedule M is no longer available, ergo, the government is taking from him.

The first point, only a liberal would reason that someone not giving him a handout is stealing from him. Conservatives understand that only someone taking something you have in hand is stealing from you.

But the big divide comes when you actually look at what that Schedule M handout actually was.

The main purpose of that give away was supposedly stimulate the economy by putting more money in the hands of consumers. I was extended to 2010 because the government felt they needed to stimulate the economy again (actually, Democrats in congress incorrectly reasoned that giving handouts to their core constituancy, i.e. the dependent class would win them the 2010 midterm congressional elections.) Supposedly, the economy in on the mend so the Government feels there no need to give out handouts again.

And there's the divide. Conservative know that when a program is no longer needed it should be eliminated. Liberal feel that once a program it is establish, it is now a right, and should go on into perpetuity.

Sometimes things become so clear.

 

[Figjam]

"And there's the divide. Conservative know that when a program is no longer needed it should be eliminated. Liberal feel that once a program it is establish, it is now a right, and should go on into perpetuity."

...is that right you say Mr. Ya...

...so the conservatives that support oil and agra-business subsidies that are no longer needed, just what do you call those? Libservatives or just in the pocket of oil and agra-business?

 

[Friday13]

so the conservatives that support oil and agra-business subsidies that are no longer needed, just what do you call those? Libservatives or just in the pocket of oil and agra-business?

star 4 U

 

[Figjam]

...I guess it is all in the way one defines "program" ;-)

 

[gabriel]

bingo

 

[PACE]

Cripocites, as in crippled.

Regards
Pace

 

[888888]

outlines the logical divide between conservatives and liberals.

to wit (sorry, my friend, couldn't help it) he posted that the Schedule M is no longer available, ergo, the government is taking from him.

The first point, only a liberal would reason that someone not giving him a handout is stealing from him. Conservatives understand that only someone taking something you have in hand is stealing from you.

But the big divide comes when you actually look at what that Schedule M handout actually was.

The main purpose of that give away was supposedly stimulate the economy by putting more money in the hands of consumers. I was extended to 2010 because the government felt they needed to stimulate the economy again (actually, Democrats in congress incorrectly reasoned that giving handouts to their core constituancy, i.e. the dependent class would win them the 2010 midterm congressional elections.) Supposedly, the economy in on the mend so the Government feels there no need to give out handouts again.

And there's the divide. Conservative know that when a program is no longer needed it should be eliminated. Liberal feel that once a program it is establish, it is now a right, and should go on into perpetuity.

Sometimes things become so clear.

And republicans feel if you force starvation by not collecting enough food to feed your population, what will happen is that the need will vanish and all will be well after that.

 

[Bruce]

outlines the logical divide between conservatives and liberals.

to wit (sorry, my friend, couldn't help it) he posted that the Schedule M is no longer available, ergo, the government is taking from him.

The first point, only a liberal would reason that someone not giving him a handout is stealing from him. Conservatives understand that only someone taking something you have in hand is stealing from you.

But the big divide comes when you actually look at what that Schedule M handout actually was.

The main purpose of that give away was supposedly stimulate the economy by putting more money in the hands of consumers. I was extended to 2010 because the government felt they needed to stimulate the economy again (actually, Democrats in congress incorrectly reasoned that giving handouts to their core constituancy, i.e. the dependent class would win them the 2010 midterm congressional elections.) Supposedly, the economy in on the mend so the Government feels there no need to give out handouts again.

And there's the divide. Conservative know that when a program is no longer needed it should be eliminated. Liberal feel that once a program it is establish, it is now a right, and should go on into perpetuity.

Sometimes things become so clear.

Yes, they really become clear if you know what you're talking about and consider other factor's.

When the Deepwater Horizon drilling platform set off the worst oil spill at sea in American history, it was flying the flag of the Marshall Islands. Registering there allowed the rig’s owner to significantly reduce its American taxes.

The owner, Transocean, moved its corporate headquarters from Houston to the Cayman Islands in 1999 and then to Switzerland in 2008, maneuvers that also helped it avoid taxes.

At the same time, BP was reaping sizable tax benefits from leasing the rig. According to a letter sent in June to the Senate Finance Committee, the company used a tax break for the oil industry to write off 70 percent of the rent for Deepwater Horizon — a deduction of more than $225,000 a day since the lease began.

With federal officials now considering a new tax on petroleum production to pay for the cleanup, the industry is fighting the measure, warning that it will lead to job losses and higher gasoline prices, as well as an increased dependence on foreign oil.

But an examination of the American tax code indicates that oil production is among the most heavily subsidized businesses, with tax breaks available at virtually every stage of the exploration and extraction process.

 

[ya-ta-hey]

Yes, they really become clear if you know what you're talking about and consider other factor's.

When the Deepwater Horizon drilling platform set off the worst oil spill at sea in American history, it was flying the flag of the Marshall Islands. Registering there allowed the rig’s owner to significantly reduce its American taxes.

The owner, Transocean, moved its corporate headquarters from Houston to the Cayman Islands in 1999 and then to Switzerland in 2008, maneuvers that also helped it avoid taxes.

At the same time, BP was reaping sizable tax benefits from leasing the rig. According to a letter sent in June to the Senate Finance Committee, the company used a tax break for the oil industry to write off 70 percent of the rent for Deepwater Horizon — a deduction of more than $225,000 a day since the lease began.

With federal officials now considering a new tax on petroleum production to pay for the cleanup, the industry is fighting the measure, warning that it will lead to job losses and higher gasoline prices, as well as an increased dependence on foreign oil.

But an examination of the American tax code indicates that oil production is among the most heavily subsidized businesses, with tax breaks available at virtually every stage of the exploration and extraction process.

Mr. Bruce,

I fear you posted to the wrong thread. That has nothing to do with my top post.

 

[ya-ta-hey]

"And there's the divide. Conservative know that when a program is no longer needed it should be eliminated. Liberal feel that once a program it is establish, it is now a right, and should go on into perpetuity."

...is that right you say Mr. Ya...

...so the conservatives that support oil and agra-business subsidies that are no longer needed, just what do you call those? Libservatives or just in the pocket of oil and agra-business?

Mr. Fig,

Why the non sequitur. I understand my logic is so sound, you rarely can come up with a counter debate, but if you want to change the subject, please do it as your own top post.

 

[Days]

Only in your mind. Any observer can see his connection, but if you need more help, just read your very fist reply (by Figjam)

 

[Days]

but if the buggers are getting obstinate about wanting to live ... there's always chemtrails to shorten their lives.

 

[ya-ta-hey]

Only in your mind. Any observer can see his connection, but if you need more help, just read your very fist reply (by Figjam)

Mr. Days,

There is no connection, it is a seperate issue. There are arguments on both sides about whether susidies are still need. The debate is if they are or not. My post was that once liberals get a handout, and suddenly it is taken away, they don't argue the validity of it, but rather, say it was their right to get something because they got it before.

Hope a bit of logic helps.

 

[Figjam]

...Mr. Ya, I clearly rebutted your point - your point being some nonsense about only "liberals" maintaining programs which have outlived their usefulness. Quite clearly that is NOT the case, as you know conservatives strongly support continued government programs that distort market prices and essential subsidize oil and agra-business...

 

[OldGaffer]

...Mr. Ya, I clearly rebutted your point - your point being some nonsense about only "liberals" maintaining programs which have outlived their usefulness. Quite clearly that is NOT the case, as you know conservatives strongly support continued government programs that distort market prices and essential subsidize oil and agra-business...

Sorry, fig, thats different, that is just supporting the "job creators" so any subsidies they get is entirely justified.

 

[ya-ta-hey]

...Mr. Ya, I clearly rebutted your point - your point being some nonsense about only "liberals" maintaining programs which have outlived their usefulness. Quite clearly that is NOT the case, as you know conservatives strongly support continued government programs that distort market prices and essential subsidize oil and agra-business...

Mr. Fig,

A non sequitur is not a rebuttal, but rather, an attempt to diverted the argument rather than address my top post.

And your contentions are unsupported. Not just conservatives support subsidies, but support is clear across the political divide. True, the do distort market prices, but that is the intention. And every business in the United States is subsidized by the Federal, State, and Local Government, so your point is moot.

But what are your feelings about my top post?