Research? Obama detailed the cuts and raises last debate.Thats why I questioned UB,He must not watch the debates.

Thanks for an intelligent answer Blue.
And Loos as well.
Loos, I believe your/ours 401K is heavily invested in "Big Oil".
Do you want to see those profits reduced ?

I watched the debates Sparce.
Move on with your smart nass.

Are you than playing people here by playing dumb?
than strike like a viper with some poison?

Lets talk about Obama tax cuts for those making less than 250K.
I posted some questions for Obama supporters.
Educate me.

why are we still talking about McCane...its McOver...time to move on

I guess that is one fundamental difference I have with the the Democratic party. It shouldn't be about class war-fare.

The opportunity for each and every one of us to be weathly is right there. Who wants to take the plunge?
Nope, let's just take advantage of those who have.

I have a couple of serious questions for all of the tax the [PoorWordUsage] out of the big oil crowd. I do not know the answer to these, so please help me out.

What is the profit margin that big oil works under? Four billion is a lot of money, but what are the actual percentages? How much do they have invested in people, equipment, leases and exploration?

How much of big oil's profit comes from domestic, US sales, and how much is international sales?

If it is fair to increase the tax on big oil, which is something that we need, then shouldn't we really raise the tax rates on "luxury items," like boats, atvs and snowmobiles? Shouldn't we raise taxes on any business that has the same or greater profit margin than big oil?

Loos, you said your father is a small business owner. I wish him well, as I am starting my own business and know the hard work and time involved. Should your dad have to pay the same tax rates as Exxon-Mobil if his profit margin is equal to or greater than theirs?

That doesn't matter.....they're rich. LOL

Your way off base duckcall, your using logic.....ROTFL

DTRO, it is all about class warefare. Putting your head in the sand and saying it ain't so don't make it true. I'm fine with entrepreneurship on the surface. But the truth is, lots of the folks that I know that have serious money got it from either wagering, taking advantage of a social construct in the free market (prohibition, mandates, incentives) or flat out resource use (and abuse?) If not one of these, they inherited it from someone who did. Yes there are exceptions, but few and far between, economic chains are a complex web with extraction at one end and consumption on the other.

If we could set a base of existence in society (food, shelter, health care and base entertainment) for those that don't want to drink from the free market well with such fervor, I would support your notion and would let those that want to be players be players to the full extent that they decide. There are social costs. Saying business should just flourish and grow because they are good for society is only part of the story. Society takes lots of energy and resources to keep upright, that is a fundamental law of the universe.

Has McCain given us any indication how he plans on paying for any of his plans? According to all of the fact check articles/sources I could find including Fox News all have agreed on atleast one point. McCains plan that is laid out will increase the deficit by far more then Obamas. I believe the numbers are McCain will increase the deficit by $5 trillion and Obama would increase it by $3 trillion. I can't remember the exact total but those are close estimates. So you are worried about how Obama is going to pay for his plans? I think you should worry more about how McCain's going to pay for his plans since he's an extra $2 Trillion in the hole.

Bill, I'm young and my 401k is more like a 2.1 k...and now its more like .12K (stole that from Colbert)
This is a philosophical difference. I believe that the richer you are, the more you should have to be responsible for the welfare of the society you reside in. It takes more than 1 person to get rich. It takes a society to make people rich. We talk about taxing oil. But we also don't talk about how Obama has tax credits to small busines up to 3k for each job they open up. Or tax incentives to keep jobs in the US. I'm not an economic expert, or a tax expert.
I also do not know my dad's operation, but HE supports Obama's plan. I unfortunlly can not ask him details becuase my Chinese isn't that great. He gets his info from MN newspaper thats printed in Chinese.
As to the taxing oil companies specificly, I may be wrong. I've done a search and looks like oil profit margins are way behind other fortune 500 companies.

Is a vote for a third party candidate a 'wasted vote'? The following is by Chuck Baldwin, Constitution Party Candidate...


When asked why they will not vote for a third party candidate, many people will respond by saying something like, "He cannot win." Or, "I don't want to waste my vote." It is true: America has not elected a third party candidate since 1860. Does that automatically mean, however, that every vote cast for one of the two major party candidates is not a wasted vote? I don't think so.

In the first place, a wasted vote is a vote for someone you know does not represent your own beliefs and principles. A wasted vote is a vote for someone you know will not lead the country in the way it should go. A wasted vote is a vote for the "lesser of two evils." Or, in the case of John McCain and Barack Obama, what we have is a choice between the "evil of two lessers."
Albert Einstein is credited with saying that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result. For years now, Republicans and Democrats have been leading the country in the same basic direction: toward bigger and bigger government; more and more socialism, globalism, corporatism, and foreign interventionism; and the dismantling of constitutional liberties. Yet, voters continue to think that they are voting for "change" when they vote for a Republican or Democrat. This is truly insane!
Take a look at the recent $700 billion Wall Street bailout: both John McCain and Barack Obama endorsed and lobbied for it. Both McCain and Obama will continue to bail out these international banksters on the backs of the American taxpayers. Both McCain and Obama support giving illegal aliens amnesty and a path to citizenship. In the debate this past Tuesday night, both McCain and Obama expressed support for sending U.S. forces around the world for "peacekeeping" purposes. They also expressed support for sending combat forces against foreign countries even if those countries do not pose a threat to the United States. Neither Obama nor McCain will do anything to stem the tide of a burgeoning police state or a mushrooming New World Order. Both Obama and McCain support NAFTA and similar "free trade" deals. Both Obama and McCain support the United Nations. So, pray tell, how is a vote for either McCain or Obama not a wasted vote?

Nofish,
I asked about Obama plans.
Not McCain.

Do you really believe this stuff you post? There is just to much spew in the above I don't even know what to say. I would really like to hear from the people out there who would actually back up what is stated above.

I'll never buy into the fact that because you worked to get a head in life you should owe more to those that choose not to work their tails off. Sorry, just can't do it. You want bigger and better things, work, get another job. Find something you're good at and find a way to make a living doing it. Find some side jobs. I've done all several times. I've made some poor investments that didn't get me ahead and lost money. Lesson learned. I've made some that are doing OK. I continually try to find something that will take off or get me to stay afloat for a long period of time. Should I be penalized for that? I've lost thousands trying to get a head, now if I find something that gets me a head, I should pay more? Makes no sense to me.