Careful; you're using facts and logic again. You know that always brings trouble...

Testimonial: I broke my arm, and six weeks after using oregano oil, the break was healed! I can't believe I wasted all of that money getting a doctor to set the break and put a cast on. Oregano oil was all I needed.

Kevin,

Hello, and welcome to my blog! Love the hilarious comment. Please feel free to look around and comment more.

Other than the truly rediculous, like your Oregeno and Garlic story, I'm not sure I follow. People like Obama and Pelosi and Clintion proudly proclaim that they are going to socialize "big" oil (pharmaceutical, computer, car, etc.) because these companies are too greedy. Whatever the hell that means...

So "liberals" are not for free markets at all! Rick, I agree she may be using facts, but I don't see a whole lot of logic - some, yes - alot, no.

Mark,

I hadn't heard anything about socilizing big oil.

Liberals are certainly not for "free Markets" AS YOU DEFINE THEM. Most Liberals understand that the market is not inherantly moral and that there are such things as "market failures".

Besides, conservatives are into socializing all over the place.

They privatize profits, and socialize losses. LOL!

Free Market Capiltalism: "What's mine is mine, as long as it's written in black...but when it comes to the red ink...it's all yours, American public! And if you dont like it, you hate America!"

I've heard that term alot lately (privatize profits, socialize losses) - and it is exactly what they're doing. I certainly don't agree with it anymore than you and 99% of the "real" American public. Real = people like you and me that, when talking to others, can't find a single person who thinks the bail out the right thing to do. I've heard on the radio that not bailing them out would cause the public to "run" the banks. Well, stock up on shovels and mason jars!! Apparently, my money is safer in a hole in my back yard than it is at the bank.

As far as socializing big oil - I'm very surprised to hear that you haven't heard anything about it. Pelosi actually said it out loud in the last batch of hearings with the oil executives. Hillary Clinton said numerous times that she wanted to take the profits of the oil companies and use it the way she thinks it should be used. Obama has said, numerous times as well, that he would declare the profits of the oil industry as a windfall - and tax them accordingly. What will he do with the money? Well, I'm sure you've heard this one. He will give us $1000 a piece! He is literally buying votes.

Mark,

Let me get this straight:

Ar eyou saying that Nanacy Pelosi actually said that she was going to seize the assets of the energy industry and take over operational control of the enregy industry by the government, and it got less press than when Hugo Chavez did it in Venesuela?

Are you really saying that?

It's no joke. I'll try to find a clip for you.

"Obama has said, numerous times as well, that he would declare the profits of the oil industry as a windfall - and tax them accordingly. What will he do with the money? Well, I'm sure you've heard this one. He will give us $1000 a piece! He is literally buying votes."

Tax the living fuck out of the oil companies. Hell yeah. They've been getting a free ride under the current administration by getting to write the very laws that are supposed to regulate them, and it's long past time to pull the plug. As to a direct $1000-per-person payback from the oil companies, why not? At least it's American money, rather than borrowed-from-China like the so-called "tax rebate" checks from BushCo last time around.

Ooops. Sorry, it was Maxine Waters. Here's the clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niJAkR_6tKQ

"The living fuck" is already being taxed out of the oil companies! From CNN: http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/31/news/companies/exxon_profits/?postversion=2008073109

Exxon posted a "net income of $11.68 billion on revenue of $138 billion in the second quarter."

Let's see, that means they keep 8.46 cents for every dollar that they make. Oh, but wait. They paid 10.1 billion in dividends and stock buybacks. So they REALLY only keep 1.14 cents of every dollar! hmmm...

"In addition to making hefty profits, Exxon also had a hefty tax bill. Worldwide, the company paid $10.5 billion in income taxes in the second quarter, $9.5 billion in sales taxes, and over $12 billion in what it called "other taxes."

"The company returned $10.1 billion to shareholders in the form of dividends and stock buybacks..."

Let's do some quick math:
42.68B Gross Profit
-- minus ---
10.50B in income taxes
9.50B in sales taxes
12.00B in "other" taxes (I'm too lazy to dig into what these are, but you can bet U.S. Federal taxes are a major part)
----------------------
32.00B paid in taxes
-- equals --
11.68B in profits (net income)
-- minus --
10.10B paid in dividends and stock buybacks
-- equals --
1.58B in cash reserves


So, out of 42.68 billion in gross profits, 32 billion were taken out as taxes. That equates to nearly a 75% tax rate (not really - income taxes and sales taxes are just a part of doing business). Even if you remove the income and sales taxes, it is still at 28%.

How much more would you like them to pay? They are apparently only keeping about 10% for future company operations.

-- more digging....

Ok on this site: http://in.biz.yahoo.com/080501/129/6tayb.html
they note that "According to Securities & Exchange Commission filings, Exxon paid an effective tax rate of 34% to the U.S. government in 2007, or $5.12 billion."

34% (5.12 billion). That would mean that approximately 15 billion was earned on U.S. soil in 2007. So my casual number crunching above isn't too far off the mark.

Again, how much more would you have them pay? And if you make them pay more, do you think it will come out of the dividends paid to stockholders, or 1.14% that they actually keep? I'm pretty sure the stockholders (the American public) will being paying this bill.

Mark,

Hey, if they expect to come with hands outstretched when times are bad, then they can pay up when times are good.

Last I checked, Teresa, the oil companies haven't come with hands outstretched. I know the government provides some kind of tax incentives for them. But I don't think they should, and it's not the same thing.

Is that the best you could come up with?

Mark,

Are you really saying that you havn't heard about the royalty relief that they got when the oil business was having trouble? They are still getting it, even though they no londer need it.

JC, I'm agreeing with you! But Teresa, you're dancing on the head of pin. The "obscene" profits are all going to the stockholders. Why are you so focused on this one point?

Look, I think it's a stupid thing that we are bailing out bank after bank, and brokerages, and mortgage companies, etc. The list of stupid shit goes on forever. It took over 100 years for us to stop paying taxes on our phone bill to support the Spanish American war.

You keep telling me how much you hate this kind of thing, and then bash the one guy who had any hope of starting to put an end to it, Ron Paul. You really do need to make up your mind on what's important. There's not one person who you or I will ever agree with on everything. I haven't heard you support anyone, and I'm not sure I ever will, because there's always one topic that you deem "too important" to ignore.

On another note - what did you think about the Maxine Waters quote?

Rick, are you really saying that you don't mind if the government takes over businesses when they make "too much" money? I think they should stay out of business affairs, period! We shouldn't help them when they fail and we shouldn't "help" them when they succeed.

Government's only concern with business should be whether it's safe and fair.

"Last I checked, Teresa, the oil companies haven't come with hands outstretched."

The oil companies ushered in the Bush Administration by joining Dick Cheney for closed-door meetings where they decided what kind of legislation they would permit and how they expected it to benefit them. So I guess you're technically right; they didn't so much stretch out their hands as just shove them right into America's pockets.

"Rick, are you really saying that you don't mind if the government takes over businesses when they make "too much" money?"

What I said above was the following "Tax the living fuck out of the oil companies. Hell yeah. They've been getting a free ride under the current administration by getting to write the very laws that are supposed to regulate them, and it's long past time to pull the plug. As to a direct $1000-per-person payback from the oil companies, why not? At least it's American money, rather than borrowed-from-China like the so-called "tax rebate" checks from BushCo last time around."

If you compare that with what you ask above you'll notice that they're different. If you have any more integrity than a typical child-molester you'll argue against what I actually said rather than rewrite it into a convenient strawman. Try again.

"Government's only concern with business should be whether it's safe and fair."

Define "Fair".

Rick,

Child molestation is a deeply sensitive issue for many people, please dont bring it up gratuitiously in argument again.

Rick

You are not a child - you know what fair is. But, just for you, in case you really do have the mentality of 3 year old.

Fair is competing against other companies that sell related products without infringing upon those other companies' ability to compete with you.

That's about it. Sure, there's a lot of gray area, but that's just the way it is. There are tons of good laws on the books to cover things like monolopies, utilities, etc. to help make the gray more black-n-white.

As far as the "strawman" argument, sure - I'll try again. If you want to take legal action against "big oil" and declare that the profits they make are "obscene," then I guess that's your right. But you won't have a legal leg to stand on. There are no laws on the books that declare a maximum amount of profit that a company or individual can make. If there were, we wouldn't be living in a free country. So other than taking over "big oil" - you will not be seeing your $1000.

So you see, it's not a stawman at all. Now, if you want to move to a country with those kinds of laws, feel free. But don't try to get these types of laws started here. I like the freedom to try and make as much money as I can.

Is my argument that the profits are going to the stockholders hurting you that much, Rick? I mean really! I must be getting to you. You bash my integrity, and get all worked up without offering much in the way of a logical argument. If you want your $1000, it's very simple. Just buy some "big oil" stocks and collect the dividends.

Teresa,

I apologize, and will not use the term in such a fashion again.

Mark, I will restate myself to you - the strawman attack you used above is the same kind of childish bullshit engaged in by the likes of Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, and Rush Limbaugh and their ilk. You don't get to do that me. Ever. If you want to argue over what I actually said, then feel free to do so. If you want to stand by your blatant misrepresentation of what I said, then I invite you to meet me person and say to to my face, like a man.

Gosh, Rick.

I'm sorry that I possess the ability to see where your argument is going even though - somehow - you don't. You want to take money from the oil companies. hmmm... how is that going to be possible? It doesn't take a genious to reach the conclusion that a take over is necessary. Are you really THAT much of a bonehead?

I wouldn't dare meet you in person. You have the attitude of a brute who thinks that when an argument is lost, force will solve the issue. "...say [it] to my face, like a man" is nothing short of a threat of physical violence.

Try using words, Rick. They don't have to be big words. Just try to make a sensible argument without name calling and threats of violence.

Mark,

Ive seen Rick restrain himself from harming people under much greater provocation than you have given him here. Believe me, he just says "say it to my face like a man" because he thinks you wouldn't be able to do it. If you DID happen to meet him face-to-face, and said this to him, the worst you would suffer is haveing to see his look of contempt for what he considers infantile debate stratagies. The fact that he took some verbal low blows tells me that he doesn't consider you worth talking to on a thoughtful level, and doesn't respect you. His choice, not mine.

The obscene profits argument is mostly, from what I've seen, an illustration of how it is unecessary to keep allowing oil companies to get away with not paying the full royalties on the oil that they are taking out of the ground, and also the subsidies and tax breaks that they are afforded.

I'm amazed that conservatives continue to act as though stopping to give away money to oil companies amounts to taking money away from them.

They operate their business in the public interest. The public certainly has some say in how they operate, and the public good is a consideration in how their business is allowed to operate. (This concept seemed so easy to explain to conservatives when it was Muslim Taxi drivers in the question)

There was a time when it was in the public interest to subsidize them. Now, it is not. And they can complain about that being "socialist" as much as they want, but when it comes right down to it, if it is in the public interest to keep them afloat when times are bad, it is also in the public interest to keep them from goudging us and draining our economy into their pockets when things are going well for them. And as for the profits going to U.S. citizens...are you kidding me? Are you aware of how much of that stock is owned by foreighn interests, and even by enemies of our country?

Ron Paul isn't the answer. He's a menace who would solve a rat infestation by burning the crops.

The Maxine Waters is not very bright, and her statement was poorly crafted and easily twisted. Still, the quote was clearly hyperbole about what she thought it would take to fix the oil companies. She accused them of using the high oil prices to get into ANWAR, and asked if they would promise that gas prices would drop after they went into ANWAR. This was meant to indicate that she doesnt believe their argument, and then she said that quote...which was clearly poorly concieved and poorly executed showboating that served her opponants more than her side...

Classic Maxine Waters.

"The obscene profits argument is mostly, from what I've seen, an illustration of how it is unecessary to keep allowing oil companies to get away with not paying the full royalties on the oil that they are taking out of the ground, and also the subsidies and tax breaks that they are afforded."

-- Once again, we agree. Businesses should not get the benefit of government subsidies. If they do, it should be considered a loan and paid back with interest.

"I'm amazed that conservatives continue to act as though stopping to give away money to oil companies amounts to taking money away from them."

-- Me too. Just like some will argue that lowering a proposed increase in [topic of your choice] funding amounts to cutting said funding.

"They operate their business in the public interest. The public certainly has some say in how they operate, and the public good is a consideration in how their business is allowed to operate."

-- There is definitely some merit in that argument. Much like electricity (well, until they were deregulated) and sewage companies. However, no one is even suggesting this - which is kinda surprising, considering the "energy crisis" we currently have.

"...Are you aware of how much of that stock is owned by foreighn interests, and even by enemies of our country?"

-- I am. The fact remains, however, that they are public companies. As such, the vast majority of their profits go to the stockholders. We could control who is allowed to purchase stock in "public interest" companies, but that is another topic.

"Ron Paul isn't the answer. He's a menace who would solve a rat infestation by burning the crops."

-- LOL. Good line. But my point remains solid. You have a problem supporting anyone at all because there is always something that's too important to ignore.

As far as Rick goes, I still haven't heard a valid argument for grabbing money from companies in the manner he (and Obama and Clinton) proposed. He comes off as an angry person just wanting to get even instead of actually fixing the problem. Stop the subsidies and tax breaks? Absolutely. They should never have gotten them in the first place. Grab their money just because they have some? Hell no. That just opens the door for more stupid decisions later.

Hello, Mark. If you don’t want you integrity bashed, then demonstrate that you actually have some. Teresa nailed the intent of my invitation, and I’m actually surprised that you didn’t, since I named names: I was contrasting you with the talking heads of Faux News, who at least have the guts to have people in their studios and say gratuitously stupid things to their face; bad as they are, they’re demonstrably better than you. But if you are so small and petty and dickless to feel threatened by that, that’s your problem.

But you did give me good idea, Mark. Your comments about “the mentality of a 3 year old” and not using “big words” got me to thinking: How would I explain the current political situation to a small child? Say, my daughter when she was three? Granted, it’s not a fair comparison, since my daughter at age three was vastly more intelligent and articulate than you are now, but if you get someone to read this to you, maybe then you’ll have a bit more understanding of exactly where people like Teresa and I are actually coming from, as opposed to the dysfunctions that you desperately project. It’s worth a try, at least, so here goes.

-------------

Hi Mark! Gosh it’s fun to write to you. How have you been? I am fine. As you asked, I am going to talk about how you are wrong without using Big Words.

But it’s going to take a lot of very small words. I’m sorry I don’t have any pictures to go along with the words, but I don’t have any crayons. Maybe I can use yours next time.

A few years ago there was a man named George who convinced a lot of people to give him a Very Big Job. You would think that someone would be very smart and grown-up to have this Very Big Job, but George was actually pretty dumb and a brat. He got the job because some other people wanted to put someone in the Very Big Job who would let them get their way, and they were very good at saying a lot of stuff very loud over and over again and get a lot of other people to believe it. Even so, another man named Al got more votes, but the people who were trying to put George in the Very Big Job just got some judges to say that the votes didn’t matter.

And so George got the Very Big Job. He had a friend named Dick (stop giggling, Mark) who came along to help him with the Very Big Job. Well, actually, Dick sort of took over the job and so George spent a lot of time taking naps and going on vacation. One of the things Dick did was bring over a bunch of his other friends who were Very Greedy People. They had a Secret Club were they talked about things that would affect all the other people in the country, but they said that the people weren’t allowed to know what they said or did. A lot of people pointed out that it was Against The Rules to do that, but the Secret Club said that they didn’t care about the rules and had decided to make their own rules, and didn’t care if anyone else didn’t like it.

So nobody found out much about the Secret Club at first. Then some Very Bad People made some buildings blow up and everybody got very scared. George and Dick didn’t say anything for a while and then they suddenly said that there was a Very Mean Man far away who made the buildings blow up. Everybody agreed that George and Dick should send soldiers to catch the Very Mean Man.

But while that was happening, George and Dick said that there was someone else, a Very Scary Man, who helped the Very Mean Man and was going to do a lot of things that were much worse. They said that it was more important to go after the Very Scary Man so everyone could be safe. Some people who had been paying attention said that they didn’t understand how the Very Scary Man could have anything to do with what happened or be able to make other bad things happen, and George and Dick got very mad. So did all the people who made sure that George and Dick got the Very Big Job. George and Dick and their friends went on TV and said that anyone who asked them questions they didn’t like or said they shouldn’t do everything they wanted was a Bad Person. Maybe even as Bad as the Very Mean Man and the Very Scary Man. They asked if anyone wanted to be thought of as being that bad, and most people said no. But some people said that they still wanted proof of what George and Dick were saying. But Dick winked at his friends from the Secret Club and said that the proof was secret and they couldn’t show it to anybody.

Now some other people started getting mad at George and Dick and said that they had to show proof because it was in the rules! So George and Dick got their friends to say bad things about the people who wanted proof while they went away for while. Then they came back with some drawings and some letters and said that they were proof. Some people said that the drawings and the letters weren’t enough because they could just be made up. Those people got called lots of bad names by George and Dick’s friends and George and Dick said that everyone had to let them go after the Very Scary Man or more bad things would happen. Some people still said that George and Dick weren’t following the rules and were probably lying, but most people were still scared about the Very Mean Man and now even more scared about the Very Scary Man, so they said George and Dick could do whatever they wanted. George smiled, and Dick went back to the Secret Club in a hurry. Both of them said that taking care of the Very Scary Man would be easy and would be over very soon.

Taking care of the Very Scary Man wasn’t easy and it wasn’t over soon. There were a lot of people who lived in the same place as the Very Scary Man, and they didn’t like him at all, but what they didn’t like even more was a bunch of people that they had never hurt coming to their homes with guns and hurting them. So they fought back against the people that George and Dick sent to hurt them. And once the Very Scary Man wasn’t in charge anymore they also started hurting each other because they had been mad at each other for a long time over some other things. George and Dick were surprised by this, and then they got really mad when some other people pointed out that they had been told this would probably happen. So they fired those people. They had fired a lot of other people before who told them that things wouldn’t work out the way they said, and every time they fired someone they hired one of their friends in that place. They hired them just because they were their friends, even if those friends couldn’t do the job that the person they fired did.

Things went really bad in the place where the Very Scary Man used to be in charge. But George and Dick and their friends didn’t like it when people said so. If anyone said so, George and Dick and their friends said that the person saying so was just like the Very Mean Man and the Very Scary Man. They especially got mad whenever anyone noticed that they weren’t doing anything to get the Very Mean Man who blew up the buildings. But all of Dick’s friends in the Secret Club were smiling all the time now.

While all this was happening, some people started to find out some of the things that the Secret Club did in the meetings that no one was allowed into. It turned out that they were talking about the place that the Very Scary Man had been in charge of. They were talking about taking it over because it had stuff they wanted. It also turned out that a lot of the Very Greedy People in the Secret Club and a lot of their friends had talked about it before when they had another club that wasn’t as secret as the Secret Club. It was called the Project, and they wrote letters to the man who had the Very Big Job before George and Dick telling him that he should do all the things that George and Dick were doing now so that the Very Greedy People in the Secret Club could take what they wanted from the place where the Very Scary Man had been in charge. They even put the letters on the Internet, but then when more people started to notice and to say that it looked like they were planning this all along they took down the letters and said that everyone who said anything bad about them were liars and Bad Persons. The Very Greedy People in the Secret Club were making a lot of money now that George and Dick were doing what they were doing, and they were very happy and didn’t want it to stop. Not only had they gotten a lot of stuff, they had gotten the rules changed so that they were the kind of rules they wanted.

And then it came to be time for George and Dick to go, because the rules say that they could only have the Very Big Job for a certain time. Maybe they’ll change those rules, too. Anyway, now some people are arguing about who should have the Very Big Job next. One man who wants to have the Very Big Job wants to change everything that George and Dick did and try to put things back the way they were before, at least as much as he can. The other man says he wants to change things too, but his idea of change is to keep doing everything George and Dick were doing. That doesn’t make very much sense.

One of the arguments people are having is about what to do about the Secret Club. They’re not so secret anymore, but they still have things going their way. The man who wants to keep things the way George and Dick made them think that the Secret Club should keep having their way. The man who wants to change things thinks that the Secret Club shouldn’t get their way anymore. He thinks that the rules should go back to what they used to be and that the Secret Club owes something to everyone else because of how they got the rules changed in the first place.

Many people think that this is a good idea. They aren’t sure how to go about it yet, but are happy that at least someone is talking about it and willing to work something out. There are other people who think it’s a bad idea, even some people who don’t like the man who wants to be just like George and Dick. Some of them think that it doesn’t matter how the Secret Club got what they did. They think that making the Secret Club go back to the old rules is bad. They think that if the Secret Club had to give up some of what they got by changing the rules, it’s somehow the same thing as taking everything away from them that they’ve ever gained or ever built, even the good things.

Obviously, it’s not. But they say it is. Some of them say that the only man who could fix things is the Very Cranky Man who kept saying that the Constitution is all about God even though that word never shows up in the Constitution. He would do a couple of important things differently than George and Dick did, but he said he would do everything else the same. The Very Cranky Man, and the people who like him, not only think that the Very Greedy People in the Secret Club should keep doing the same things that George and Dick let them do, they think that the Secret Club should have even less rules that they have to follow. They say that if they have less rules to follow, everyone will be better off because the Very Greedy People will treat everyone better. The people who believe this aren’t able to point to any time in history where this has ever been true, but they believe it anyway.

The people who don’t agree with the people who like the Very Cranky Man get annoyed with them sometimes. Once someone even lost his temper and used bad words. But mostly they just ask the people of the Very Cranky Man to stick to the facts, and are puzzled when they refuse to. The people who agree with the man who wants to change things like him for a lot of reasons, but partly because he’s not like the people who don’t want things to change. The people who don’t want things to change say that that isn’t a good enough reason, and so they should support the man who doesn’t want to change anything, or support the Very Cranky Man. That doesn’t make any sense either, but they pretend it does.

Once upon a time there was a man named Thomas. Thomas was one of the first men to have the Very Big Job, and he said that part of the reason for government was to protect the ordinary people from the Very Greedy People. The Very Greedy People, like the ones in the Secret Club, and other people who like the Very Greedy People, don’t like it when people tell what Thomas said, or when they agree with him. They say that it’s the same thing as being like a man who was named Karl, who was born after Thomas had the Very Big Job.

There was once another man named Teddy. Teddy was another man who had the Very Big Job a long time ago, and he said that he didn’t mind if the Very Greedy People got to have a lot of money, but that they had to understand that it was all the other people who made it possible for them to have all their money and the Very Greedy People owed the people for their wealth. He also said that the Very Greedy People shouldn’t be allowed to have Secret Clubs and should have more and more taxes for more and more money. He said that the government should have lots of rules for the Very Greedy People to follow and that the government should “supervise and control” them if they got out of hand.

The Very Greedy People in Teddy’s time didn’t like Teddy. They didn’t like him at all. They said he was big and mean and scary. They said that anyone who agreed with him was also being like the man named Karl. The people today who like George and Dick and the Very Cranky Man also say that people who agree with Thomas and Teddy are being just like Karl. They say that because they hope that people who don’t want to be compared to Karl will stop saying that they agree with Thomas and Teddy. That way, they can make people forget that Thomas and Teddy said these things. And then they can get their way, just like the Secret Club.

A lot of people don’t like Secret Clubs. They think that clubs that affect everybody else should have their meetings in the open so that the people can see exactly how they will be affected. The man who wants to change things wants to have all the clubs meet out in the open. And that’s why the people who agree with him support him instead of supporting the man who doesn’t want to change things or the Very Cranky Man.

The End.

Mark,

Politically, lowering a proposed increase DOES amount to cutting funding if it is part of an increase that takes into account the increases in the cost of providing the service or meeting the increase in demands placed on a service. There are established accounting practices that is used to determine such things, which produce the proposed number. these practices are not unique to government. Doing away with that number and establishing a lower one is, effectivly, a cut. It reduces the outcome possible.

If you say you will educate the children of citizens, for instance, and the number of kids continues to increase, and the cost of heating the building increases, and the cost of paying the teachers increases...and you refuse to increase the budget to accomidate it, it most certainly amounts to an effective cut.

You can argue semantics about it if you would like...but the fact remains that the service is being reduced.

Rick - McCain is an idiot and Palin is a religious nutcase. On some level, Obama is a racist. I haven't decided if that's bad or good. But I have to say that there is NO evidence at all that Obama will bring about any of the changes you want. Good story, though. I woke up feeling refresh and ready to go through the rest of my day. I'm glad you like Obama. I'm sure he'll do wonders for the country, just like Bill Clinton. Does Obama have any bad habits we could spend 4 or 8 years talking about. Something petty and harmless like a sex addiction would be great. It causes so much gridlock that nothing gets accomplished. And when the federal government gets nothing accomplished, that is a very good outcome for us all.

I vote for gridlock. And no, I'm not joking.

Nice talking with you, Rick. You really need to work on your attitude, though. You DID start the name calling, and the sarcasm never stopped. And I thought I was good at sarcasm... Now piss off.

Teresa - Point taken.

Mark,

"On some level, Obama is a racist."

Whaaa...?

"But I have to say that there is NO evidence at all that Obama will bring about any of the changes you want."

There's evidence that he'll at least try, which is more than can be said for the alternatives.

"I'm sure he'll do wonders for the country, just like Bill Clinton."

Eight years of Bush-Cheney have given me an appreciation for Clinton that I previously lacked while he was in office. I don't think he did "wonders" but he was competent, intelligent, and NOT batshit-insane.

"I vote for gridlock. And no, I'm not joking."

I believe you; see previous comment about "small and petty and dickless".

"You really need to work on your attitude, though."

My attitude is cheerful and sunny. Pity about yours.

"You DID start the name calling, and the sarcasm never stopped. "

And?

There were previous threads where you were rude, abrasive, sarcastic, and engaged in name-calling and all I did was get a bit frosty. Me finally indulging in a bit of name calling is a surprising change; I guess it shouldn't be surprising that you pout when someone other than you engages in such behavior (however briefly).

"Now piss off."

Right backatcha, dude.

Rick

You are misreading nearly everything I say. If I'm misreading you as badly as you are me, then we're just not going to get anywhere.

If you read any of my comments here for a while, you'll know that I don't like Bush/Cheney at all. Not a bit. But you must admit that through all gridlock of the Clinton years, we did ok as a country. You said, "Eight years of Bush-Cheney have given me an appreciation for Clinton that I previously lacked while he was in office." woot! You got that right! Boy what I wouldn't give...

If your attitude is cheerful and sunny, the least you could do is show it in your posts. That your cheerful and sunny and posting like this lends more insight into your other posts where you thought you were just a bit "frosty."

We're actually in agreement on many things, just not about your approach to taking money from the oil industry.

Mark,

"You are misreading nearly everything I say. If I'm misreading you as badly as you are me, then we're just not going to get anywhere."

I agree with the second statement. But I disagree with the first.

"If you read any of my comments here for a while, you'll know that I don't like Bush/Cheney at all. Not a bit."

I'm clear on that... which is why I find it wildly incongruous that you simultaneously espouse an anti-Jeffersonian "Monied Interests Uber Alles" theme. Granted, it's more watered-down coming from you than from Bush-Cheney-McCain-Palin, but the difference is one of degree only.

"But you must admit that through all gridlock of the Clinton years, we did ok as a country."

Are you implying that the gridlock was the reason the nation did reasonably well in that time?

"If your attitude is cheerful and sunny, the least you could do is show it in your posts. That your cheerful and sunny and posting like this lends more insight into your other posts where you thought you were just a bit "frosty." "

You misunderstand. My comments here have not been driven by my attitude.

"We're actually in agreement on many things, just not about your approach to taking money from the oil industry."

I don't see how it could be more clear. Two oil men take the White House, invite over their other buddies from the oil industry, mark up a map of Iraq behind closed doors and then, after a long and venomous propaganda campaign in which people, like myself, who demand proof and accountability and adherence to the rule of law are reviled as traitors, go invade Iraq. Conspiracy theorists may argue rightly or wrongly about how much of a hand Bush and Cheney's oil buddies had in the push for war, but what is undeniable is that they are AT LEAST accessories in the affair and that their record profits are arguably war profiteering. Which is illegal. And THAT'S my problem here.

Originally, corporations in the United States were chartered *by the government* and had to demonstrate their contribution to the public good to get their charters renewed. The specifics of their charters may in some cases be quaint nineteenth-century notions for a twenty-first century economy, but it is undeniable that they have sought and gained rights, privileges, and power to enrich themselves at the expense of the American People and therefore amply demonstrate the convictions of the Founders and of previous Presidents that they be *kept on a leash*.

That means having a transparent and accountable government of, by, and for the people (you know, like the Constitution describes) that wields sufficient power to keep them in check, and to assess what might be termed "punitive damages", which is where I suspect Obama is going with his suggestion about the oil companies. I have no personal interest in getting a check cut in my name, but I have no problem with seeing the proverbial pound of flesh carved from their hides.

Corporations are sociopathic. I do not mean that in a derogatory fashion; it is merely an accurate name for the way they are designed to operate. Having a government that reins these entities in with a choke collar and a stick is necessary; naturally, it never works out in practice as well as it should in principle, but that's simply the nature of the inherent complexities involved. An alternative would be to simply not have corporations at all, but that naiveté belies the practical reasons why they exist.

As to the alternative proposed by many conservatives/Republicans/Libertarians - getting government out of the way of business as much as possible - history is replete with examples of how bad that turns out for ordinary people and bereft of any examples of it working out to their benefit. We aren't talking about small businesses in small towns, we're talking about economic (and in some cases, military - i.e., Blackwater) forces that dwarf many nations. A weakened government is functionally identical to one that is strengthened by their cronies and shills for their interests - and inevitably becomes precisely that.

I am the son and father of enlisted men of the United States Armed Services. I am a husband. I have been a Scout leader. I am a writer, a swordsman, a lover and a fighter, a geek, and an atheist; I've been both student and teacher, I am a man. I am a citizen and a patriot. And this country belongs to me, my parents, my wife and friends, and my children. And even to you, no matter that I often find you a pompous arrogant child in a man's body. And my country has a government, one that I do NOT pathologically crave to whittle down to its smallest possible size, nor lazily allow to bloat to whatever maximum size it can possibly attain (nor have I ever known ANYONE who wanted such a thing; that characterization of “liburels” is a paranoid conservative fantasy) – I want my government to work for all our interests in a fashion that is transparent and accountable. I want “the Rights of Englishmen” for all, and not merely privilege for a few.

And I fear that the damage done in the last eight years may be so severe as to eventually prove fatal to the Republic. I truly, deeply fear that.

But. I will. NOT. Write off the Great Experiment and idly watch it decay into the corporate feudalism that would be the inevitable result of failing “to guard against the Excesses of the Monied Interests” as Jefferson wisely recognized, any more than to the equally feudalistic religious forces that hunger for power over all our lives. All that has America has been, and may yet become, means too much to me for that.

Do you finally understand, Mark? Do you get what I’m saying? Does everything – or, hell, ANYTHING – I’ve said now or previously on Teresa’s blog make sense to you now? Do you hear what I’m actually saying, rather than what you’d like to imagine I say? I hope so, because I’m really tired of having this conversation with you. You either get it, or you don’t. If you do, then I’m sure we can go forward whether we agree on anything or not. If not, then I’ll simply try not to engage you whenever I encounter you in these pages again. Either way, good night.

Rick,

It's long been my thought that the scant quotes that modern "libertarians" drag out of Jefferson to support their push for more privilages and fewer restrictions on large corporations came more from a southern argarian mentality...that is, from a man whose ideal model was the economically "independant" plantation (independant from government and the larger economy...dependant on slavery)

Ironically, the quotes that involved the control of the monied interests and such were due to his distrust of yankee businessmen and their tendancy to consolodate wealth that they obtained from the Columbian exchange...most of which products were comeing from or going to the south...siphoning off a dispropotionate amount of the wealth that they themselves did little to create.

It is strange to hear people claim to be the ideological descendents of an agrarian idealist, but use his words to support the very thing he cautioned the future against.

Teresa,

I remember back about fifteen or twenty years ago when all the Fundagelicals were invoking the name of Thomas Jefferson when they argued for a proto-theocracy. When I told them that Jefferson despised religion and wanted it nowhere near government they earnestly said that wasn't true. When I held out Jefferson's writings to them and invited them to see for themselves... they wouldn't even look. Which told me a lot about their convictions.

Another note on TJ: In the days of the Continental Congress, when the US was briefly organized around the Articles of Confederation before the finalization of the Constitution, Jefferson introduced legislation to phase out slavery. It was not an outright ban, but it obviously failed... and Jefferson kept reintroducing variations of that bill. He knew that slavery was part of the US economy, but he clearly envisioned a time when it would not be and sought to hasten that day even though he himself profited from that economy. A pragmatist and idealist simultaneously - he was a complex and remarkable man. We will not see his like again.

Rick

Yes. I "get it." Your last lengthy post was a very good explanation of your stance - and a very strong argument. I'm not willing to say I'm wrong on everything just yet. But I may have to "bend" some of my thinking a little.

Thanks for the education, if not the beating. For now I'll just sign off with the moniker "a little thick skulled, but working on it..."