| « Cuban Solidarity Day: May 21 | Turn out the lights, The party's over- for both Hillary and the GOP » |
Obama participates in opposite day.
05/07/08
Even dumber than Obama saying that Republicans, whose leader didn't want anything to do with legitimate issue, Wright, play dirty politics. Even more of a stretch than Republicans being the "divisive" ("two Americas? tax breaks for the rich?) party is the idea that Democratic policies would lower the price of gasoline. It's like putting Britney Spears in charge of a youth group because the girls are too slutty. Exactly how is "going after" oil companies going to lower the price of gas? How is restricting drilling in Alaska, the gulf, and everyplace else going to lower gas prices? Truly Bizarro.
Prager has a good commentary on the speech.
Trackback address for this post
Trackback URL (right click and copy shortcut/link location)
14 comments
Comment from: chris [Visitor]
Umm.. So how does going after farm subsidies lower the price of food, while going after oil subsidies inflate the price of gas?Or is it just semantics?
05/08/08 @ 09:33
Comment from: Carlton Solomon [Visitor]
You should read a bit more accurately Chris, Nelson did not write that it would inflate the price of gas, he merely asked how would it lower the price. Snide remarks don't answer the question.
05/08/08 @ 12:37
Farm subsidies actually raise the price because they pay farmers to not grow or to destroy the crop. The whole purpose of subsidies is to maintain the price of food.
05/08/08 @ 13:17
Comment from: Chris [Visitor]
So, just to get it straight.1) We should do away with farm subsidies.
2) We should not do away with oil subsidies.
Is that the substance of your position?
05/08/08 @ 18:23
The government should remain neutral. It shouldn't subsidize anybody.
05/08/08 @ 20:11
Yes. I don't know what you mean by subsidy anyways. Don't they pay to drill? If you raised the cost of drilling, oil would be more expensive.
05/08/08 @ 21:53
Comment from: Chris [Visitor]
Ok. According to you, instead of a subsidy given away to farmers, we should just label it a tax credit instead.Then the price of food will go down.
In fact, the more we cut thier taxes (tax credit, subsidy, whatever...), the cheaper thier goods will be.
Is this your argument?
05/08/08 @ 23:28
Chris, A tax credit would lower the cost. The subsidies are designed to artificially raise the cost.
05/09/08 @ 07:44
Comment from: chris [Visitor]
So what is to stop the farmers from passing the increase in cost to consumers, raising the price of food?
05/09/08 @ 09:11
Comment from: Carlton Solomon [Visitor]
Chris, are you asking for price controls on food. is that it? Look at the end result in Argentina.
05/09/08 @ 13:31
Comment from: chris [Visitor]
No, I'm against subsidies, tax breaks, hand outs, bail outs, coorporate parachutes, no bid contracts, etc.
05/09/08 @ 18:33
Comment from: Carlton Solomon [Visitor]
Now I see, you're a Libertarian. The one thing I'm pretty much of a conservative on-or let's go ahead and say right-wing by the standard of most people-is foreign policy and defense spending. To give you an example I am terrified by the way trade with China has turned that country into a superpower. I'm not a Libertarian and I think some US producers have to be helped, or should be, but my main concern is foreign policy and defense.
05/10/08 @ 14:56
Chris,The farmer supports are designed to raise the price. If you take away the supports, the price will drop. Inefficient farmers may have to sell their farms.
Carlton,
I prefer to raise American competitiveness by lowering regulation and taxes.
05/10/08 @ 21:15
Comment from: Chris [Visitor]
I'm sorry.I thought I was talking to Friedman free market conservatives.
My bad.
05/11/08 @ 10:53
Comment feed for this post
