see what i mean why should the government not invest in alternative fuel if that is seen as beneficial 1. to consumers2. to the enviroment
its time to shake off these stereotypical libertarian arguments that hinder us from making real progress

Of course not. That's why you voted for Bush, who presided over the exponential increase in energy costs.


Right, we should invest in Oil Companies. They're really doing us a favor by reaping maximum profits and keeping us addicted.

It needs to raise taxes and cut spending to balance the budget, but that's beside the point.

Why should it essentially subsidize one business, that just happens to be the most profitable ever?

Do you support that?

I understand: you're against taxes, and that's just adorable.


But do you support artificially boosting oil companies?

Do you not see how higher prices encourage investment in renewable, sustainable, fuels?

Sorry, but didn't vote for him, don't support him or his policies.

You act like there is a monopoly in the market.

Perhaps, but that doesn't mean that they can continue with taxation that is more than what is necessary after they have made up for their previous failures.

Tax breaks =/= subsidies

I see how what you are saying would work, but until the market sees investments in alternative energy as economically viable when compared to the price of oil, it shouldn't happen.

__________________

"I am in favor of Free Trade"

--Karl Marx

Some great points here and what you need to realize that all of your viewpoints here base in your no taxes and oil subsidizing government which has no basis in fact what i mean there is your points about taxes its all just your own opinion we are backed up in this case by Harry REid for Pres!

Where did I say that oil subsidizes government?

Harry Reid obviously doesn't know the meaning of the term, "tax burden"

And for future reference, everything you just said is only an opinion.

__________________

"I am in favor of Free Trade"

--Karl Marx

I agree that everything i say is an opinion but its not just an opinion its something that is backed by policy makers in Washington as we have seen Harry Reid right here your opinions however seemed to be supported by only you i understand everything i say isnt backed up by prominent politicians but the policy of Reids im defending does for instance and the tax policies are made by policy makers=p

Convenient.


No, I point out that it is not in the interest of a company reaping the biggest profits ever to change their business.d


Your perspective of "necessary" is obviously extremely narrow.


When they're directed only at one industry: there is no difference.

Think: if oil companies don't pay taxes at the same rate as your business, they are being subsidized.

When the price of Oil is artificially inflated by Taxbreaks and subsidies, that only delays the timeframe of economic viability.

We need to end these breaks, and put that money into development, tackling oil dependence with both market forces, and new technology.

Last time I checked, our nation's universities weren't run by corporations.

So is the kool-aid really that good? Really, you're saying that, so long as someone in the government supports something, so should you. And that my opinion, because you don't know any politicians who support it, is invalid. I haven't really heard a more fallicitous argument for quite some time.

And there are organizations in policy research that support my opinions, such as the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research and the Cato Institute. Both are highly respected.

GOP to Big Oil: Keep your record breaking profits! You deserve them!

You're right that not all businesses pay the same tax rates, and they should. But the amount that they should pay is lower. The solution is not to end tax breaks for the oil companies, but to lower taxes for other businesses as well.

__________________

"I am in favor of Free Trade"

--Karl Marx

[quote=White Fox;571773] So is the kool-aid really that good? Really, you're saying that, so long as someone in the government supports something, so should you. And that my opinion, because you don't know any politicians who support it, is invalid. I haven't really heard a more fallicitous argument for quite some time.

First of all no i dont believe that just cause my opinion is backed up its right. What im saying is that ia have an opinion which i have voiced and there are those much more qualified than ither you or me who support it. Those institutes which you mention while they are more conservative leaning libertarian than i would like do not take your views to the extent that you take them they dont believe that there should be no taxes and i would guess many of them probably agree with the 16th though im not sure. But i also dont agree with them but my main point is that they dont take these opinions as far as you are

The qualifications of a person making an argument does not reflect upon the argument itself.

I believe there should be the minimum amount of tax necessary, not no taxes whatsoever. I would definitely not say that I'm more extreme than either of those institutes.

Here are their thoughts.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6297
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9060
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj19n2/cj19n2-8.pdf
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj14n3/cj14n3-1.pdf
http://www.aei.org/events/filter.,ev...transcript.asp

As you can see, I agree with pretty much everything they say. They are not "no tax" anarchists, and neither am I. Strawmen mean nothing.

__________________

"I am in favor of Free Trade"

--Karl Marx