Obama's new Economic Stimulus / Energy proposal - Page 2

Ladred · 08-01-2008, 02:36 PM

I believe the process works like this, and forgive the vague.

Money goes to fed through taxes,fees etc., fed gives money to states and localities through various techniques like appropriations; earmarks, pork barrels, subsidies and such. Then they use the funding as a control to ensure the states follow what the fed wants them to follow.

It is a control that is used a lot from what I've read. Its the control that kept the national speed limit at 55 mph for so long. Its the same control that keeps the legal age to drink at 21.

States can overturn these federal controls, but to do so would mean they get less money, or in an extreme situation they get no money. Education is the worst in my opinion as its a recent trend to move education control from local/state to the federal government, the most recent move in that direction was the No Child Left Behind act.

I could be wrong though, but this is how I see it in my feeble understanding.

Illuminator · 08-01-2008, 02:37 PM

It's a control that it is really time to render unconstitutional. It is totally out of line with federalism, and it is clear from the Constitution Convention that a federal government and not a national/unitary government is what was decided on.

Ladred · 08-01-2008, 02:38 PM

Quote:

From where, my pocket or borrowing?

Neither and both. They just print more money, which is in essence borrowing, but at the cost of the dollar, which in turn takes money out of your pocket.

Oopo · 08-01-2008, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Otis

Actually, that's on-topic, but I'm trying to figure out if it's a real question.

Are you not aware that the federal gov't gives the states money all the time?

Yes, I'm aware. I was more wondering what the original intent of allowing the federal government to do that was. It's usually used as a tool by the federal government to gain more power and control over the states which doesn't seem right or the best system to me.

Anyway after reading the article again, it looks like it's saying the $25 billion going to states with budget shortfalls isn't coming from the profit windfall tax. So basically he wants the nation to pay for some states' shitty ass economic policies. WONDERFUL.

Liviya · 08-01-2008, 02:47 PM

Every presidential election is the same. It's always trying to pick the lesser of the evils.

The entire government and everyone in it is fucked. I dont trust any of them.

Ladred · 08-01-2008, 02:54 PM

What gets my goat about this announcement is that he wants to tax the profits of the oil companies. Why do folks tend to penalize success and reward bad habits, mediocrity and lethargy?

In defense of oil companies - Apr. 29, 2008

Illuminator · 08-01-2008, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oopo

Yes, I'm aware. I was more wondering what the original intent of allowing the federal government to do that was. It's usually used as a tool by the federal government to gain more power and control over the states which doesn't seem right or the best system to me.

Wikipedia may shed light on this.

Taxing and Spending Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It does seem to imply that most earmarks are flatly unconstitutional.

Widem · 08-01-2008, 03:15 PM

Excise taxes are very very dangerous. Great minds throughout history understood that in certain situations there was a need for them, but very few and far between.

"The motive for the implementation of excise should be nothing more than to curb the pursuit of goods and services harmful to our health and morals" Adam Smith

"Excise - A hateful tax levied on commodities, and adjudged not by the common judges of property, but wretches hired by those to whom excise is paid." Samuel Johnson

The whole idea of this kind of tax is more closely in line with what Adam Smith is pointing out. Example - smoking causes lung cancer which ties up health care so we tax cigs in order to pay for the harm they cause, hopefully making no harm by weeding them out.

In this case we don't want to get rid of oil, at least not until we have an alternative.

Furthermore, there isn't enough money in the excise tax to pay for this. Big Oil with all their combined profits after already being taxes at just over 41% only has about 80 billion in profits.

So even if you took away every dollar they made it wouldnt be enough for this plan.

Ladred · 08-01-2008, 03:27 PM

Back tracking to the point of federal control over state policy, this was broadcast yesterday at 5:30pm. The follow-up lady misses the point of allowing the states to regulate this sort of thing instead of being forced by the hand of the fed to regulate their way.

YouTube - Ron Paul on Faux Noise 7-31-08

About the oil tax, a good point that was made at that defending big oil link I posted previously..

Quote:

The average net profit margin for the S&P Energy sector, according to figures from Thomson Baseline, is 9.7%. The average for the S&P 500 is 8.5%. So yes, energy companies are more profitable than many others...but not by an inordinate amount.
Google, for example, reported a net profit margin of 25% in its most recent quarter. Should we have an online advertising windfall profit tax?

Krontak · 08-02-2008, 01:14 AM

Here's a wacky perspective I've got on this.

Lets pretend McCain is correct in his add. He blamed Obama for the gas prices continuing to sky rocket. Well, since Obama's position has allowed for these record profits it seems the oil companies owe him BIG TIME. So honestly, the oil companies should comply and share the profits Obama's position has allowed them to rake it right?

But, now that Obama is willing to negotiate with Republicans on drilling in Florida if they are willing to support his broad changes in Energy policy, this will be a non issue possibly.

But, none of this may matter anyways if this (http://energy.senate.gov/public/_fil...nded080105.doc ) bill gets passed. Looks like the Senate is finally waking up. Thank God.