How will this affect foreign relations with our biggest Arab ally? Is there such a thing - Arab ally?

More proof we need to get away from oil as much as possible (which is hard, I know, I'm a huge proponent of oil)

Environmental benefits would be a nice perk, but not having to be involved in the ME would be fantastic.

(01-23-2015 09:30 AM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  More proof we need to get away from oil as much as possible (which is hard, I know, I'm a huge proponent of oil)

Environmental benefits would be a nice perk, but not having to be involved in the ME would be fantastic.

I am all for getting away from oil but until we can develop an cheap and efficient motor for cars, hard to do.

But if we drill safely, refine safely and transport safely, the middle east could become irrelevant.

Now our installed Yemen government has fallen. Egypt was an ally =, Mobarek is gone.

(01-23-2015 09:49 AM)klake87 Wrote:  

(01-23-2015 09:30 AM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  More proof we need to get away from oil as much as possible (which is hard, I know, I'm a huge proponent of oil)

Environmental benefits would be a nice perk, but not having to be involved in the ME would be fantastic.

I am all for getting away from oil but until we can develop an cheap and efficient motor for cars, hard to do.

But if we drill safely, refine safely and transport safely, the middle east could become irrelevant.

Now our installed Yemen government has fallen. Egypt was an ally =, Mobarek is gone.

I'm well aware we don't have a solid replacement yet, but the GOP needs to understand moving away from oil is not just an environmental thing, and there are reasons they can push for companies to research new transport technologies.

If both sides could come together (for their own motives, they don't need to agree on WHY we need to move away from oil) and get us some new nuclear plants to provide clean energy for our electric cars, and work to increase fuel efficiency in fuel burning engines, both sides get their way. The left gets a cleaner environment and the right gets to save money when the Middle East goes up in flames and save the lives of troops from not having to invade to keep the oil pumping from the ME.

(01-23-2015 09:30 AM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  More proof we need to get away from oil as much as possible (which is hard, I know, I'm a huge proponent of oil)

Environmental benefits would be a nice perk, but not having to be involved in the ME would be fantastic.

We need to get away from depending on Middle Eastern oil. We do that be drilling for our own oil. There is plenty of oil in our own country to do that, but our own government is restricting drilling or fracking for it. Our own government has screwed us over much more than Saudi Arabia or OPEC could even hope to.

If someone can invent a better vehicle than the gasoline powered one, that would be great. A better vehicle would be an affordable one that can legitimately compete in a free and open market. Not one where pinheads in the government force the issue by subsidizing it and it's fuel source while punishing others.

Right now, the market chooses gasoline, although I still like to brag about the miles per dollar I get on my TDI.

If given enough subsidy's, regulations and taxes, the government could get us all riding vehicles pulled by horses again.

(01-23-2015 09:55 AM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  

(01-23-2015 09:49 AM)klake87 Wrote:  

(01-23-2015 09:30 AM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  More proof we need to get away from oil as much as possible (which is hard, I know, I'm a huge proponent of oil)

Environmental benefits would be a nice perk, but not having to be involved in the ME would be fantastic.

I am all for getting away from oil but until we can develop an cheap and efficient motor for cars, hard to do.

But if we drill safely, refine safely and transport safely, the middle east could become irrelevant.

Now our installed Yemen government has fallen. Egypt was an ally =, Mobarek is gone.

I'm well aware we don't have a solid replacement yet, but the GOP needs to understand moving away from oil is not just an environmental thing, and there are reasons they can push for companies to research new transport technologies.

If both sides could come together (for their own motives, they don't need to agree on WHY we need to move away from oil) and get us some new nuclear plants to provide clean energy for our electric cars, and work to increase fuel efficiency in fuel burning engines, both sides get their way. The left gets a cleaner environment and the right gets to save money when the Middle East goes up in flames and save the lives of troops from not having to invade to keep the oil pumping from the ME.

The government did not have a big hand in creating google, ebay, other tech companies. If someone feels they can make money, they will invest. Raising capital gains does not create an environment for innovation. If I am going to RISK my money and then have success, then the government comes in and takes my wealth, what incentive do investors have in taking a chance?

(01-23-2015 10:05 AM)klake87 Wrote:  

(01-23-2015 09:55 AM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  

(01-23-2015 09:49 AM)klake87 Wrote:  

(01-23-2015 09:30 AM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  More proof we need to get away from oil as much as possible (which is hard, I know, I'm a huge proponent of oil)

Environmental benefits would be a nice perk, but not having to be involved in the ME would be fantastic.

I am all for getting away from oil but until we can develop an cheap and efficient motor for cars, hard to do.

But if we drill safely, refine safely and transport safely, the middle east could become irrelevant.

Now our installed Yemen government has fallen. Egypt was an ally =, Mobarek is gone.

I'm well aware we don't have a solid replacement yet, but the GOP needs to understand moving away from oil is not just an environmental thing, and there are reasons they can push for companies to research new transport technologies.

If both sides could come together (for their own motives, they don't need to agree on WHY we need to move away from oil) and get us some new nuclear plants to provide clean energy for our electric cars, and work to increase fuel efficiency in fuel burning engines, both sides get their way. The left gets a cleaner environment and the right gets to save money when the Middle East goes up in flames and save the lives of troops from not having to invade to keep the oil pumping from the ME.

The government did not have a big hand in creating google, ebay, other tech companies. If someone feels they can make money, they will invest. Raising capital gains does not create an environment for innovation. If I am going to RISK my money and then have success, then the government comes in and takes my wealth, what incentive do investors have in taking a chance?

No where did I speak of raising the capital gains tax....or any taxes. My idea would probably lower taxes on companies conducting energy research in fact.

The only government intrusion in anything I suggested would be fast tracking new reactors.

(01-23-2015 12:08 PM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  

(01-23-2015 10:05 AM)klake87 Wrote:  

(01-23-2015 09:55 AM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  

(01-23-2015 09:49 AM)klake87 Wrote:  

(01-23-2015 09:30 AM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  More proof we need to get away from oil as much as possible (which is hard, I know, I'm a huge proponent of oil)

Environmental benefits would be a nice perk, but not having to be involved in the ME would be fantastic.

I am all for getting away from oil but until we can develop an cheap and efficient motor for cars, hard to do.

But if we drill safely, refine safely and transport safely, the middle east could become irrelevant.

Now our installed Yemen government has fallen. Egypt was an ally =, Mobarek is gone.

I'm well aware we don't have a solid replacement yet, but the GOP needs to understand moving away from oil is not just an environmental thing, and there are reasons they can push for companies to research new transport technologies.

If both sides could come together (for their own motives, they don't need to agree on WHY we need to move away from oil) and get us some new nuclear plants to provide clean energy for our electric cars, and work to increase fuel efficiency in fuel burning engines, both sides get their way. The left gets a cleaner environment and the right gets to save money when the Middle East goes up in flames and save the lives of troops from not having to invade to keep the oil pumping from the ME.

The government did not have a big hand in creating google, ebay, other tech companies. If someone feels they can make money, they will invest. Raising capital gains does not create an environment for innovation. If I am going to RISK my money and then have success, then the government comes in and takes my wealth, what incentive do investors have in taking a chance?

No where did I speak of raising the capital gains tax....or any taxes. My idea would probably lower taxes on companies conducting energy research in fact.

The only government intrusion in anything I suggested would be fast tracking new reactors.

The capital gains tax rate changed on 1/1/15. It increased back to its old rate. If you are trying to get people with money to invest in risky propositions, you need to have the carrot out there for them. Obama does not believe that investors make good choices. So he wants to take their money.

Nuclear is the only economical non fossil source of energy on a mass scale. There will not be another for a minimum of 25 years. Technology obviously is the answer and who knows maybe we won't ever get to that real sweet spot or maybe we will. One of the nice things about out economy the marginal cost of energy to improve marginal GDP has dropped over the last.25-30 years. That also is why the drop in energy currently will not help GDP as much as it would have in previous cycles.

(01-23-2015 12:54 PM)klake87 Wrote:  

(01-23-2015 12:08 PM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  

(01-23-2015 10:05 AM)klake87 Wrote:  

(01-23-2015 09:55 AM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  

(01-23-2015 09:49 AM)klake87 Wrote:  I am all for getting away from oil but until we can develop an cheap and efficient motor for cars, hard to do.

But if we drill safely, refine safely and transport safely, the middle east could become irrelevant.

Now our installed Yemen government has fallen. Egypt was an ally =, Mobarek is gone.

I'm well aware we don't have a solid replacement yet, but the GOP needs to understand moving away from oil is not just an environmental thing, and there are reasons they can push for companies to research new transport technologies.

If both sides could come together (for their own motives, they don't need to agree on WHY we need to move away from oil) and get us some new nuclear plants to provide clean energy for our electric cars, and work to increase fuel efficiency in fuel burning engines, both sides get their way. The left gets a cleaner environment and the right gets to save money when the Middle East goes up in flames and save the lives of troops from not having to invade to keep the oil pumping from the ME.

The government did not have a big hand in creating google, ebay, other tech companies. If someone feels they can make money, they will invest. Raising capital gains does not create an environment for innovation. If I am going to RISK my money and then have success, then the government comes in and takes my wealth, what incentive do investors have in taking a chance?

No where did I speak of raising the capital gains tax....or any taxes. My idea would probably lower taxes on companies conducting energy research in fact.

The only government intrusion in anything I suggested would be fast tracking new reactors.

The capital gains tax rate changed on 1/1/15. It increased back to its old rate. If you are trying to get people with money to invest in risky propositions, you need to have the carrot out there for them. Obama does not believe that investors make good choices. So he wants to take their money.

Irrelevant to my argument lolz. If you want to have a discussion on tax policy and this nation's failed attempts at it, yes let's do it. However, people in this country are still going to gamble on start ups, even at this new tax rate. It's part of the fabric of this country, we are all just temporarily disgraced millionaires. People are going to take risks.

*still think we need tax reform and that taxes and spending are too high, just saying where we are at now, is not going to keep people from gambling on new things.

Yeah, obviously we want to encourage investing but its also BAD for the economy when large sums of money aren't being circulated in the economy. Thats the risk with having a handful of people controlling much of the wealth. That money isn't being spent on goods. Its being saved.

One of the reasons to raise the capital gains tax is to encourage putting that money into the economy. Yes, investing is good, but without consumers to buy products and services from companies there is nothing to invest in.

To me its a similar argument to the benefits of inflation and the risks of deflation. Deflation encourages saving and not spending which hurts the economy. Modest inflation is good because there is a cost to saving which encourages spending which helps the economy.

Last, the very wealthy, by the nature of being very wealthy, get a tax cut because their income (investments) are taxed at a lower rate than middle class. There is a morality component to this as well as practical. So, as the top few percent of society gain more and more wealth more the state loses more and more tax revenue. Its just not a sustainable model.

NIU GUY -

Yeah, obviously we want to encourage investing but its also BAD for the economy when large sums of money aren't being circulated in the economy. Thats the risk with having a handful of people controlling much of the wealth. That money isn't being spent on goods. Its being saved.


WOW - do you have any,any idea on how capitalism works? The above statement would be an automatic FAIL in Econ 101. Savings/Capital is what what makes the American employee/individual different than a 3rd world employee. Classic case is a farmer. Both have seeds to plant one guy walks his field and plants and the other plants with satellite assistance and drops his with a Case IH tractor. Both are farmers. Both are good,solid hard working individuals. One produces 400 x the other. Not because he works harder or is smarter, but he has capital. THAT IS SAVINGS. THAT IS WHAT SAVINGS GO.

One of the reasons to raise the capital gains tax is to encourage putting that money into the economy. Yes, investing is good, but without consumers to buy products and services from companies there is nothing to invest in.

WOW again.... You are raising the cost of business and expecting more people to purchase. That is irrational. In economics you want LOWER CAPITAL gains tax to MOVE money from old industries to new. Example= lets say we have an energy investor (oil) he has been invested in this energy company a long time, he now has a yield 8% on his original investment - Would he be more likely to sell his investment to invest in the solar company if his tax was 40% or 15% on his gain? Is he more willing to move from an "old" idea to a "new" idea at 40% or 15%?

As for your morality comment....Really? You are using "morality to raise taxes? Really? That is so...70's...

We need to invite one of these sheiks to speak at a commencement and put his son or daughter on a golf or tennis scholarship so that there's a reason for their family to donate $87 million toward a new football stadium.

(01-23-2015 11:13 PM)uiniu57 Wrote:  We need to invite one of these sheiks to speak at a commencement and put his son or daughter on a golf or tennis scholarship so that there's a reason for their family to donate $87 million toward a new football stadium.

Their economic development pres. has an undergraduate and doctorate from SMU

(01-23-2015 09:31 PM)NIU05 Wrote:  WOW - do you have any,any idea on how capitalism works? The above statement would be an automatic FAIL in Econ 101. Savings/Capital is what what makes the American employee/individual different than a 3rd world employee. Classic case is a farmer. Both have seeds to plant one guy walks his field and plants and the other plants with satellite assistance and drops his with a Case IH tractor. Both are farmers. Both are good,solid hard working individuals. One produces 400 x the other. Not because he works harder or is smarter, but he has capital. THAT IS SAVINGS. THAT IS WHAT SAVINGS GO.

Hmm.

Well, first of all, the United States has a low savings rate compared to most of the world...especially Asia. In fact, one of China's major goals is to reduce their savings rate and try to develop more of its own consumer economy to reduce its dependence on the world economy.

Second, I never said savings was bad. I think you got confused. I said TOO MUCH money (on a macro level) sitting in savings is bad. The logic is simple. The very wealthy save more and spend a much lower % of their income on anything. So, yes, that person can invest into start ups, which is great. The problem isn't that there are billionaires. There have always been and always will be and thats great. The problem is when too much wealth is controlled by too few people thats more and more money not floating around being spent at home depot, not being spent on clothes, not being spent on new dishwashers.

Depending on what petroleum prices are when they debut in 17; the Tesla Gen III and Chevy Bolt (provided they are priced in the range of ICE vehicles) could be the beginning of electric vehicles significantly impacting the amount of petroleum products used by consumers

http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspecula...t-a-tesla/

Both vehicles have a 200 mile per charge range which makes them much more practical than any of the current electric offerings.

Oil prices MUST rebound or the US will fall into a recession again. Layoffs have already started with oil dropping to present levels.

(01-25-2015 12:20 AM)prairiedawg Wrote:  Oil prices MUST rebound or the US will fall into a recession again. Layoffs have already started with oil dropping to present levels.

Hmmmm, this world economy is a tricky thing... I like the lower prices for my pocketbook. And the prices of goods and services should drop with the cheaper gas. Will the layoffs you mentioned be offset by other businesses expanding and more $ in people's pockets to start spending more?

(01-25-2015 12:20 AM)prairiedawg Wrote:  Oil prices MUST rebound or the US will fall into a recession again. Layoffs have already started with oil dropping to present levels.

I disagree, the drop in oil prices has put big $ in everyone's pocket's you will see a rebound in consumer spending this year like you haven't seen in years. That will have a ripple effect of creating jobs in myriad industries not just oil and gas

(01-25-2015 04:02 PM)Policiious Wrote:  

(01-25-2015 12:20 AM)prairiedawg Wrote:  Oil prices MUST rebound or the US will fall into a recession again. Layoffs have already started with oil dropping to present levels.

I disagree, the drop in oil prices has put big $ in everyone's pocket's you will see a rebound in consumer spending this year like you haven't seen in years. That will have a ripple effect of creating jobs in myriad industries not just oil and gas

I am not an economist but the $100/month a person may save on fuel wouldn't seem like a greater influence on the economy compared to a damaged oil industry. Here is a good article/opinion on the cons of too cheap oil.

http://ourfiniteworld.com/2014/12/07/ten...a-problem/