Dow over 28K today.

Oh, the humanity.

Almost 10K rise under Trump.

And this is what the Democrats want to deliver us from?

(11-15-2019 11:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Dow over 28K today.

Oh, the humanity.

Almost 10K rise under Trump.

And this is what the Democrats want to deliver us from?

Considering the oft repeated goal of taxing wealth and wealth disparity out of existence, then I would say that yes, this *is* what the Democrats want to deliver us from.

(11-08-2019 12:52 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

Quote:Democrats have been so over the top in their opposition, why do republicans need to add to the situation?

When the Democrats stop in their absolutely ever-increasing 'over the top' (since Reagan, mind you) I might agree with you. I would put the issue in this perspective: back in my earlier 'litigation days' there was one defendant we had back-to-back-to-back-to-back litigation with. They started out as asshats, and we played by the Marquis rules in round one. They continued to get worse, even as we continued to be more FU in our treatment of them. Sometimes, there is no alternative but to do that.
Democrats for the first time ever have found a Republican party that has a spine. May not the be the best caretaker at the helm, but the fact in the first sentence in this paragraph is absolutely true. They dont like the bare knuckles politics, but to be blunt that is the bed *they* made for themselves.
Ask Merrick Garland. In another day, in another political landscape we would be talking about Associate Justice Garland. The problem is that I think, for each side, there is almost no way to return to the halcyon political climate of even 12 years ago.

I meant that comment a bit differently than you took it, but it was probably poor wording on my part. I meant that democrats are so over the top in their criticism of Orange Man Bad, why do republicans need to go after him?

I would accept criticism of republicans for backing Trump from any democrat who attacked Obama over Fast and Furious or the IRS scandal or Benghazi or any of a number of other real scandals. They circled the wagons on all of those, not to mention Clinton. For the record, I would have voted for impeaching or convicting and removing Nixon but against doing so for Clinton. There is absolutely no way I would have ever voted for making Al Gore president under any circumstances. I'd rather have President Bill Clinton going at it with Monica Lewinsky in broad daylight in the middle of Times Square, and bald faced lying about it afterwards, than have Al Gore as president for one microsecond.

I still have a hard time understanding what is so heinous about a president seeking help from a foreign government in investigating a situation where there is reasonable belief that an American citizen may have engaged in illegal or corrupt acts in that foreign country. The fact that such citizen may be the son of a potential future political opponent does not, in my mind, change anything.

As far as backbone, this is the first time in my adult lifetime that republicans have shown any. They've been milquetoast wimps who have been pushed around by democrats for at least the entirety of my adult lifetime. I wish they could have found someone I liked better than Donald Trump to lead them in this resurgence, but sometimes we have to take what we can get. Sort of like my Clinton/Gore analogy, I'd rather have Trump with all his many faults than anyone who would be trying to do any of the things on the democrat agenda.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. I wish my enemies had better enemies, but for now I'm just happy that they have some.

(11-16-2019 05:32 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I'd rather have President Bill Clinton going at it with Monica Lewinsky in broad daylight in the middle of Times Square, and bald faced lying about it afterwards,

Wasn't it Clinton that bragged he could do it in the middle of 5th Avenue and not lose any votes? I think he was right.

Oh, wait a minute...

The Dems think I should vote for whatever damn fool they nominate, because...(fill in blank here with whatever they don't like, or whatever lie they tell). I will vote for the Democrat's damn damn fool when he is a better choice than the Republican's damn fool.

(11-16-2019 01:49 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-15-2019 11:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Dow over 28K today.

Oh, the humanity.

Almost 10K rise under Trump.

And this is what the Democrats want to deliver us from?

Considering the oft repeated goal of taxing wealth and wealth disparity out of existence, then I would say that yes, this *is* what the Democrats want to deliver us from.

So they want to take wealth disparity to zero? First time I have ever heard a goal enunciated. But it does sound like Lenin, 1917.

(11-16-2019 10:26 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-16-2019 05:32 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I'd rather have President Bill Clinton going at it with Monica Lewinsky in broad daylight in the middle of Times Square, and bald faced lying about it afterwards,

Wasn't it Clinton that bragged he could do it in the middle of 5th Avenue and not lose any votes? I think he was right.

Oh, wait a minute...

The Dems think I should vote for whatever damn fool they nominate, because...(fill in blank here with whatever they don't like, or whatever lie they tell). I will vote for the Democrat's damn damn fool when he is a better choice than the Republican's damn fool.

Speaking of damn fools...

Warren's tax plan

"Economists generally think taxes on profits, capital gains and dividends discourage investment and hurt economic growth." Yep, that is one reason Warren scares me. But the people supporting her seem to want economic collapse.

(11-16-2019 10:52 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-16-2019 10:26 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-16-2019 05:32 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I'd rather have President Bill Clinton going at it with Monica Lewinsky in broad daylight in the middle of Times Square, and bald faced lying about it afterwards,

Wasn't it Clinton that bragged he could do it in the middle of 5th Avenue and not lose any votes? I think he was right.
Oh, wait a minute...
The Dems think I should vote for whatever damn fool they nominate, because...(fill in blank here with whatever they don't like, or whatever lie they tell). I will vote for the Democrat's damn damn fool when he is a better choice than the Republican's damn fool.

Speaking of damn fools...
Warren's tax plan
"Economists generally think taxes on profits, capital gains and dividends discourage investment and hurt economic growth." Yep, that is one reason Warren scares me. But the people supporting her seem to want economic collapse.

Corporations won't collapse. They'll just GTFO and stay TFO. Our economy will collapse, but the corporations will be fine. I would bet they already have plans in place to get out as quickly and cheaply as possible. I have a friend who is a tax lawyer (and leans pretty far left politically, incidentally) who has already been putting plans together for clients. I mentioned this once before in a public forum, and he got pissed off at me for quoting him, so I will leave him anonymous for now. All he will say now is that he plans to make plenty of money if she gets in. There is a one-time penalty for just up and leaving, so many will try to do some kind of inversion merger. But those take time to put together, and I'm guessing some will just bite the bullet and go. If Warren gets her way, the payback period will be pretty short.

How many will leave? I don't know, but it will be substantially more than zero. Would it be something like 400 of the Fortune 500? I doubt that many, but it will be enough to put a severe dent in the economy. The good news for republicans is that they would be able to run against Warren for 50-100 years, the way democrats ran against Hoover.

And that's just on the threat. If she actually gets something like the wealth tax through, Katy bar the door.

If I were CEO of a multinational, I would have my very best people--in complete secrecy, under penalty of firing--working on a plan to get us out of the US, and I would tell them that if Warren or Bernie wins on November 3, 2020, to execute that plan starting on November 4, with the goal of being one by Inauguration Day.

Meanwhile, you have story after story like this.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/...nt=event25

(FedEx goes from a $1.5 billion tax bill to 0 after Trump tax cuts).

Disclaimer - the tax cuts are great for my wife's business. But our deficit continues to climb and climb and climb. I'm not really sure how that's any better than the doom and gloom all of you are worried about with Warren.

(11-17-2019 08:51 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Meanwhile, you have story after story like this.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/...nt=event25

(FedEx goes from a $1.5 billion tax bill to 0 after Trump tax cuts).

Disclaimer - the tax cuts are great for my wife's business. But our deficit continues to climb and climb and climb. I'm not really sure how that's any better than the doom and gloom all of you are worried about with Warren.

I think the first sentence of your disclaimer is the key. Every cut that leaves money in somebody’s pocket is good for somebody’s business, and good for the economy.

I am sure that FedEx did not bury the $1.5B in a coffee can in the backyard,as liberals think rich people are wont to do. I am sure the money is spent on expansion (jobs), new equipment (jobs, taxable profits), or dividends (disposable, taxable income).

Perhaps the deficit could better be attacked by reducing spending.

Paid $2.02.9 at the pump yesterday. The anti-oil policies of the Democratic field will take us back to $4.00+, apparently an outcome that will please their leadership.

(11-17-2019 08:51 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Meanwhile, you have story after story like this.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/...nt=event25
(FedEx goes from a $1.5 billion tax bill to 0 after Trump tax cuts).
Disclaimer - the tax cuts are great for my wife's business. But our deficit continues to climb and climb and climb. I'm not really sure how that's any better than the doom and gloom all of you are worried about with Warren.

Let me try to explain a bit of tax accounting to you non-accountants. The primary factor reducing their total tax provision in 2018 was $1.354 billion (or 90% of the reduction) in remeasurement of deferred taxes. This has absolutely nothing to do with their 2018 tax bill or actual taxes paid.

What happens is that tax laws allow certain deductions to be taken quicker for taxes than for GAAP accounting. Say they were able to take $200 million in depreciation under accelerated provisions for tax purposes but only $100 million for more conservative GAAP accounting purposes. For GAAP accounting, you provide deferred taxes at the statutory rate for such timing differences. At the old 35% rate, you would have provided $35 million in deferred taxes, to reflect tat at some point such timing differences turn around. Under the 2017 law, that rate dropped to 22%, so you had a $13 million reduction in deferred taxes. Fedex has a lot of airplanes, so it has a lot of deferred taxes. The recalculation of deferred taxes accounted for the difference in tax provision, but had zero to do with Fedex's actual tax bill or payments. You can see this very clearly at:

https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/viewer?actio...rl_type=v#

Go to the menu in the left hand column, select "Notes to Financial Statements," and from the drop-down menu select "Income taxes."

By the way, the SEC EDGAR page is a good place to go to get information about the financial condition of any public company.

(11-17-2019 09:06 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Paid $2.02.9 at the pump yesterday. The anti-oil policies of the Democratic field will take us back to $4.00+, apparently an outcome that will please their leadership.

Very little issue with increasing gas prices, as I generally feel like the positives from actions that would increase costs are more worthwhile. We could better fund infrastructure changes and upgrades if gas taxes increased, and potentially reduce fuel consumption if that money is spent making more robust investments in public transportation.

It’s not a zero sum game where all cost increases are automatically bad, without thinking about what are the positives of the actions leading to those cost increases.

(11-17-2019 11:57 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-17-2019 09:06 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Paid $2.02.9 at the pump yesterday. The anti-oil policies of the Democratic field will take us back to $4.00+, apparently an outcome that will please their leadership.

Very little issue with increasing gas prices, as I generally feel like the positives from actions that would increase costs are more worthwhile. We could better fund infrastructure changes and upgrades if gas taxes increased, and potentially reduce fuel consumption if that money is spent making more robust investments in public transportation.
It’s not a zero sum game where all cost increases are automatically bad, without thinking about what are the positives of the actions leading to those cost increases.

The problem with the anti-oil policies of virtually all the democrat field is not the impact of cost so much as the impact of availability. Significantly reduce domestic production, and you significantly reduce availability of things like chemical feedstocks, and that has a major negative impact on the economy as a whole. The economic growth of the past decade is almost entirely attributable to cheap energy made available by fracking.

I have no problem with increasing price. I frankly think that we would make good use of current low gasoline prices by increasing the tax, in order both to raise some revenues to reduce the deficit and to encourage behaviors toward more efficient automobiles or alternative fuels.

But the solution is not to impose the kinds of draconian limitations being proposed by the like of the democrat left. Those things have unintended and unanticipated (by them, at least) consequences which would do major harm to the lives of hundreds of millions.

Part of me kind of thinks, hey, let Bernie or Fauxcohontas win in 2020 and start to impose their reckless agenda. Let the economy start reacting, and then at least we can hope that those clamoring for those sorts of solutions will be shut up for decades. Hell, republicans might be able to run against Bernie or Fauxcohontas for 50-100 years, the way democrats ran against Herbert Hoover. If only I thought republicans had any good ideas, I'd be okay with that.

(11-17-2019 11:57 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-17-2019 09:06 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Paid $2.02.9 at the pump yesterday. The anti-oil policies of the Democratic field will take us back to $4.00+, apparently an outcome that will please their leadership.

Very little issue with increasing gas prices, as I generally feel like the positives from actions that would increase costs are more worthwhile. We could better fund infrastructure changes and upgrades if gas taxes increased, and potentially reduce fuel consumption if that money is spent making more robust investments in public transportation.

It’s not a zero sum game where all cost increases are automatically bad, without thinking about what are the positives of the actions leading to those cost increases.

Once again Lad helps me out by demonstrating left-side thinking - we(Democrats) don't care if the lower and middle class have to shoulder a burden as long as it helps us to save the world.

No, it is not a zero sum game. But transportation costs are a major cost to most small businesses. Let gas double, and what do you think Jerry and Bob's Air Conditioning Repair will do to cover their increased costs? Raise prices, of course!!! How about the tens of thousands of truckers and truck lines and delivery services? It is a base cost in the economy.

Of course, for those concerned about tax revenues falling, remember, the (increased) gas costs are deductible, leading to lower income taxes paid.

But if those are worth it to you to be able to say we are saving the environment, go right ahead.

Now, I must admit, I have a 14 month old car with 27K+ on it, so gas prices are something I notice. But I see a lot of people benefiting from the lower cost, not just the rich, and those same people will be directly and adversely impacted by higher prices. Lad et al thinks that could be a good thing in context of infrastructure work and forcing people to drive less.

(11-17-2019 12:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-17-2019 11:57 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-17-2019 09:06 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Paid $2.02.9 at the pump yesterday. The anti-oil policies of the Democratic field will take us back to $4.00+, apparently an outcome that will please their leadership.

Very little issue with increasing gas prices, as I generally feel like the positives from actions that would increase costs are more worthwhile. We could better fund infrastructure changes and upgrades if gas taxes increased, and potentially reduce fuel consumption if that money is spent making more robust investments in public transportation.
It’s not a zero sum game where all cost increases are automatically bad, without thinking about what are the positives of the actions leading to those cost increases.

The problem with the anti-oil policies of virtually all the democrat field is not the impact of cost so much as the impact of availability. Significantly reduce domestic production, and you significantly reduce availability of things like chemical feedstocks, and that has a major negative impact on the economy as a whole. The economic growth of the past decade is almost entirely attributable to cheap energy made available by fracking.

I have no problem with increasing price. I frankly think that we would make good use of current low gasoline prices by increasing the tax, in order both to raise some revenues to reduce the deficit and to encourage behaviors toward more efficient automobiles or alternative fuels.

But the solution is not to impose the kinds of draconian limitations being proposed by the like of the democrat left. Those things have unintended and unanticipated (by them, at least) consequences which would do major harm to the lives of hundreds of millions.

Part of me kind of thinks, hey, let Bernie or Fauxcohontas win in 2020 and start to impose their reckless agenda. Let the economy start reacting, and then at least we can hope that those clamoring for those sorts of solutions will be shut up for decades. Hell, republicans might be able to run against Bernie or Fauxcohontas for 50-100 years, the way democrats ran against Herbert Hoover. If only I thought republicans had any good ideas, I'd be okay with that.

Pretty much completely on board with this; especially your comment about taking advantage of the low price of fuel to do some good with increased tax revenues.

I've stated before that, similar to you, I do not like the idea of draconian bans across the board for production. I am OK with certain limitations in place, and protecting sensitive lands, but I know some Dems have gone much further than that, which is not advised.

I would argue that they are not representative of the entirety of the democratic party on the left regarding O&G exploration/production. But I do think that many on the left are too quick to point to O&G as a great evil, without having a realistic view of their importance (especially outside of the energy industry).

(11-17-2019 12:46 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I would argue that they are not representative of the entirety of the democratic party on the left regarding O&G exploration/production. But I do think that many on the left are too quick to point to O&G as a great evil, without having a realistic view of their importance (especially outside of the energy industry).

True. But if they are voting for or supporting candidates who do think oil is the great Evil, it doesn't matter what they think at home, it matters who they put in Washington.

I think a lot of leftists are supporting this when they champion Warren, Sanders, the GND, and most all of the minor candidates.

(11-17-2019 12:51 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-17-2019 12:46 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I would argue that they are not representative of the entirety of the democratic party on the left regarding O&G exploration/production. But I do think that many on the left are too quick to point to O&G as a great evil, without having a realistic view of their importance (especially outside of the energy industry).

True. But if they are voting for or supporting candidates who do think oil is the great Evil, it doesn't matter what they think at home, it matters who they put in Washington.

I think a lot of leftists are supporting this when they champion Warren, Sanders, the GND, and most all of the minor candidates.

To be frank, I'd rather vote in someone who had that view, than the opposite, which is more pervasive in the Republican party. Republicans are far too backwards looking with respect to energy production and environmental protections.

Go ahead and try and beat the drum about ignoring lower and middle classes, but you're ignoring that increasing funding for infrastructure or public transit improvements likely saves everyone money in reduction in maintenance due to poor infrastructure, or the ability to get around without owning a car. And then there is the point Owl#s said about companies producing more energy efficient vehicles that use less gas, which also reduces air pollution and increases better health outcomes.

(11-17-2019 12:46 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I would argue that they are not representative of the entirety of the democratic party on the left regarding O&G exploration/production. But I do think that many on the left are too quick to point to O&G as a great evil, without having a realistic view of their importance (especially outside of the energy industry).

I think they are pretty representative of the entirety of those democrats who make it to Washington. And they don't really give a rat's ass what their constituents think, or whether what they do is good for the country or not.

That is a big difference that I see between now and 2008. I was terrified by the prospect that Barack Obama would, with the aid of supermajorities in both houses, simply ram through a radical socialist agenda that would ultimately ruin the country if not reversed. He couldn't, because 1) he couldn't get the blue dogs onboard in the first two years, 2) in the last 6 years he had a republican majority in at least the House, and 3) he was too much of a arrogant, narcissistic a-hole to be able to cross the aisle and get people to work with him.

Part of the problem I see is that the fact of creating that republican majority in the house pretty much wiped out the blue dogs, just as the blue dogs had pretty much wiped out moderate republicans two election cycles previously, so now pretty much what we've got is radicals on both sides. The only two people on either side who really come across as moderates are Joe Manchin and Susan Collins, and Collins may be in trouble in the next election cycle.

I said repeatedly, on here and elsewhere, in 2010 and 2011 that I thought the first thing the republicans should do upon retaking the house would be to pass 1) French Bismarck health care (at the time, I had just recently had an experience dealing with the French health care system, and it was simply marvelous) and 2) some version of Bowles-Simpson or Domenici-Rivlin or a combination of best practices from both (would not have been hard to do the latter, since they both said basically the same thing). I thought something like that would seize the high ground on two key issues of the day, and would give Harry Reid and Obama a couple of very hot potatoes to juggle. But they didn't. Boehner couldn't lead and his caucus wouldn't follow.

About all I can say for republicans today is that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. I wish my enemies had better enemies, but they don't. So I'm torn. I can't agree with Donald Trump on at least two of his primary issues--immigration and tariffs. But I simply can't possibly vote for any democrat. I can't agree with democrats on anything. Every single democrat in the presidential field currently has at least three issue positions that are drop-dead show-stoppers for me. I would see the election of any of them as reason to consider fully retiring and heading somewhere overseas--except the choices there aren't great either.

I just see a lot of really bad choices in front of us. I have never felt that the choices were this bad, nor have I felt as unhappy when those previous choices went against me. But I just don't see much hope now.

(11-17-2019 12:58 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-17-2019 12:51 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-17-2019 12:46 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I would argue that they are not representative of the entirety of the democratic party on the left regarding O&G exploration/production. But I do think that many on the left are too quick to point to O&G as a great evil, without having a realistic view of their importance (especially outside of the energy industry).

True. But if they are voting for or supporting candidates who do think oil is the great Evil, it doesn't matter what they think at home, it matters who they put in Washington.

I think a lot of leftists are supporting this when they champion Warren, Sanders, the GND, and most all of the minor candidates.

To be frank, I'd rather vote in someone who had that view, than the opposite, which is more pervasive in the Republican party. Republicans are far too backwards looking with respect to energy production and environmental protections.

Go ahead and try and beat the drum about ignoring lower and middle classes, but you're ignoring that increasing funding for infrastructure or public transit improvements likely saves everyone money in reduction in maintenance due to poor infrastructure, or the ability to get around without owning a car. And then there is the point Owl#s said about companies producing more energy efficient vehicles that use less gas, which also reduces air pollution and increases better health outcomes.

Let's divorce the simple act of increasing highway taxes from the not-so-simple act of restricting exploration and development. I can support adding some to the current highway taxes, although I expect most of the money would go into bureaucratic pockets instead of actual highway improvements.

But the coercive measures you advocate, which boil down to "let's make gas so expensive that the people will clamor for alternative energy" is just not in my ken, although it appears it is in your wheelhouse. Maybe this is a long vs. short term thing. I think you are telling Mr. Joe Averageguy "I may hurt you now, but in 20 or 30 years you will be thanking us for saving the world".

But that kind of thinking won't help Juan Garcia when he is filling up his pickup truck at $60/tank. It won't help any of us who pay for our own gas. The only people who won't be affected will be the rich and the government officials who get driven around at taxpayer expense.

Not everybody lives in a big city like you. I guess you can bike to work and take the bus t your social engagements. But a lot of us cannot, and that include nearly entire states.

Doubling the cost of gas will have very little effect on people's health. That is just an excuse. But if it is such a boon, why not set $20/gal as a floor? Think of all the good effects of that!!!!

But thanks again for illustrating the leftthink.