First, your link didn’t work for me. It’s my understanding that the GI bill isn’t much to brag about today. It’s more of a savings plan than anything else. But I was in when it was really good. If it were not for the GI bill I probably would never have gone to college. It paid almost as much 35 years ago as what I get for Social Security today. 
Warren Mumpower said:Try http://www.pbs.org/newshour/ and scroll down a bit to find the article.
First, your link didn't work for me. It's my understanding that the GI bill isn't much to brag about today. It's more of a savings plan than anything else. But I was in when it was really good. If it were not for the GI bill I probably would never have gone to college. It paid almost as much 35 years ago as what I get for Social Security today. :/
What you’ve said tallies with the NewsHour’s piece. It looks like Virginia’s newly-elected Sen. Webb is keen to see the program restored to something more along the lines of what you experienced.
mark Dash.... said:You've evidently never heard of Isreal.Steve Featherkile said:Only country that I know that does that is Mexico - everyone serves the military except those that are chosen in a lottery. - After that their jobless and run to this country!
I'll take it a step further, if'n y'all don't mind. I think that someone should be a veteren of some sort of public service before (s)he can vote or run for office. Put another way, being a Vet should be the basic requirement for full citizenship.
Quote:Personally I'd rather fight them in THEIR backyard than mine.
I would gladly fight the enemy of the US if the US is invaded, however, I would never fight in something like Iraq.
I’ve heard of Isreal, I just don’t spend my life looking at the politics and requirements of every country on the planet, have better things to do…
As for fighting, minding ones own besiness and not getting envolved in religious politics keeps you outta most fights
Interesting video here on Canada’s Health Care System that the Democrats want to adopt here in the USA.
Warren Mumpower said:So I pay my taxes, be they income, property, gas, whatever, but I don't have the right to vote my opinion on how that money is spent? Seems to me there used to be a phrase for that...mark Dash.... said:Citizenship in this country should not be for sale..!!
any tax paying person in this country is serving their country!!!
What was it?
Oh, yeah–“Taxation without representation.”
Seems that concept caused quite a stir 232 years ago.
If you want to tell me that because I’ve never served in the military or in a civil service capacity that I should forfeit my right to vote, prepare to do the anatomically impossible. Next time you take your Social Security check to the bank, recognize whose paycheck those funds are coming from. I’ll gladly stop paying it–believe me, I can invest that 6% of my salary far more effectively than the government can–but see how quickly those checks stop showing up in your mailbox.
Every single one of us who pays our taxes works for the government. Ironically, it’s the big businesses who get HUGE tax breaks (i.e, don’t pay taxes) that have the most influence over it.
As for retirement? Consider yourself lucky. You get a Social Security check. Social Security isn’t going to be there when I’ll be able to retire, so I have to fend for myself. But don’t worry, the government will take its bite out of my own resourcefulness, too. “Not able to vote unless…” How about “Not able to take any more money from my flippin’ paycheck unless they guarantee me that I’ll actually see that money again.” Until the government can do that, you bet your @$$ I’m going to the polls every chance I get.
Later,
K
One more thought…
When I turned 18, I received two cards to fill out.
- Voter registration
- Draft registration
Only one was mandatory.
Later,
K
Taxation: Every time oil companies report strong earnings they seem to tap into a gusher of resentment on the left. One of these days the critics might look at what these businesses are contributing besides vital energy.
Related Topics: Budget & Tax Policy | Energy
When Exxon Mobil recently released its 2007 results, Democratic Rep. Ed Markey complained that the “oil companies are turning the American consumer upside down at the pump, shaking out every last cent.”
A year ago he called the company’s record 2006 profit “outlandish.” Fellow Democrat Rep. Maurice Hinchey of New York called last year’s profit “obscene” and said “the way that Exxon Mobil has crossed the moral threshold is completely unacceptable.”
Consider the magnitude of the contributions from Exxon alone.
On those “outlandish” 2006 profits, the company paid federal income taxes of $27.9 billion, leaving it with $39.5 billion in after-tax income. That $27.9 billion was more than was collected from half of individual taxpayers in 2004.
In that year, 65 million returns — which represent far more than 65 million taxpayers because of joint returns — paid $27.4 billion in federal income taxes. And those taxes were paid on adjusted gross income of $922 billion, according to IRS data, yielding an average tax rate of 2.97%.
This year, according to Mark Perry, the economist who made this striking observation on the Seeking Alpha Web site, Exxon will pay $30 billion in taxes, at a 42% rate, leaving $40.6 billion in profit.
That profit, so loathed by the left, actually plays an important role. No, it’s not used to light the fat cigars Exxon Mobil executives smoke to celebrate the successful squeezing of consumers.
Rather, the money is plowed back into research, development, exploration and drilling to keep the oil flowing, and distributed to stockholders who have risked their capital to build an enterprise that provides an essential good — the lifeblood of our economy.
By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, February 12, 2008 4:20 PM PT
(for the whole article…)
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287712499994936
I’m glad I don’t get those kinds of tax breaks…
Ken Brunt said:Let me pull one quote from the editorial...
Taxation: Every time oil companies report strong earnings they seem to tap into a gusher of resentment on the left. One of these days the critics might look at what these businesses are contributing besides vital energy.
“Rather, the money is plowed back into research, development, exploration and drilling to keep the oil flowing, and distributed to stockholders who have risked their capital to build an enterprise that provides an essential good — the lifeblood of our economy.”
I have no trouble with companies plowing money into research or rewarding shareholders. I own energy stocks myself, and I live in an energy-rich state, so I do benefit (though my returns have yet to offset pump price increases). I agree that oil is the “lifeblood” of our economy. Therein lies the heart of the issue. There has to be a balance. Fuel prices have easily doubled over the past 10 years. That increase is being passed directly to the consumer in every aspect of life. Beyond the increased price we pay at the pump, we’re paying more for everything, because everything we buy is in one way impacted by the cost of fuel and oil. That leaves less money in our pockets, which ultimately can be traced to the top of the oil companies revenue charts.
As a result of the consumer having less money, extraneous travel and other purchases are curtailed. It’s a domino effect. Consumer has less money to spend, so a business has less revenue. Because this business has less revenue–and higher expenses itself due to fuel prices (heating the building, higher costs to them for goods, etc.) they have less money to spend on things like advertising, and/or they’re forced to cut jobs. This person who is now jobless doesn’t have money to buy gas or travel. If the business doesn’t advertise, the media outlets don’t have as much revenue, and because their heating/cooling costs have increased as well, they are likewise forced to lay people off or cut back on expenses; more jobs lost down the line. So as a result of higher fuel prices, you’ve reduced the economic driving force of any economy–the consumer–because they no longer have jobs or can afford to feed the machine. When the machine isn’t fed, it slows down as we’re seeing today.
If the oil companies were amenable to cutting their prices by just a bit, that would do more to feed the economy than any tax rebate the government could dole out. People could fill their tanks for a weekend getaway once a month. That extra tank of gas would put more money back in the oil companies’ coffers in very short order, offsetting the impact of the price decrease. The money that family spends on that weekend getaway would add to those businesses’ bottom lines, allowing them to expand.
Unfortunately, the mentality of not only business, but government and even the consumer is very self-centered. We’ll take what we can get while we can get it with no thought on how that might actually be detrimental to things outside our own little universe. Businesses put profit first, government spends money like there’s no tomorrow, and the average household is no better, racking up credit card debt at an alarming rate–likewise with no thought given to how to pay it back. So, in many ways we rail against big business and government misconduct, but we’re no different ourselves. The question is, who’s the chicken, who’s the egg?
Later,
K
Gee Kevin, don’t beat around the bush. Just come out and say what you mean! 
Why should the oil companies lower their profit margin? Why not the government lessen their tax load? Why not the government lift their ban on drilling oil wells in this country? Why not the government lift the ban on building more refineries in this country? Why not the government lift the ban on nuclear energy? Seems to me most of these high oil prices are the result of too much government… not corporate greed. If they have to pay $100 or more for a barrel of oil from OPEC, why not put the blame where it belongs? I mean, it’s the politicians who do most of the screaming about “windfall profits” and “corporate gluttony”. Oh, I forgot. That’s how they get a good “sound bite”…
Ken Brunt said:For the same reason health insurance companies need to get their hands off of health care and let doctors make decisions--because it's the right thing to do. Put people before profit.
Why should the oil companies lower their profit margin?
Ken Brunt said:Er, they are. These corporate tax cuts aren't figments of politicians' imaginations. The money they're using to supplement these tax cuts may be, though. The oil companies don't gain a whole lot of sympathy when they tout record profits, either. That's like walking through Central Park waving a wad of $100 bills.
Why not the government lessen their tax load?
Ken Brunt said:Spend any time in northwest Colorado? What "ban" on drilling? The economy of every inch of land that's not a ski resort in this state is dependent on oil and gas exploration. But we are doing things (more or less) smartly. We're mandating environmental safeguards, and making sure some of those "record profits" being extracted from our state's natural resources are funneled back into the state. It's not a "take what you want and give nothing back" situation--and it shouldn't be. The oil companies don't exactly have the best history in this regard.
Why not the government lift their ban on drilling oil wells in this country?
Ken Brunt said:THAT, we agree on! Not having a new refinery in 30+ years (or expanded capacity in the ones we do have) is absurd.
Why not the government lift the ban on building more refineries in this country?
Ken Brunt said:If you think the oil and gas industry is pushing for a switch to clean nuclear energy, stay away from the Kool-Aid. They stand to lose a TON of money if we switch to nuclear energy, and their lobbyists know that. We won't see a change until Chevron, Exxon, etc. can figure out a way to get their hands into that pie.
Why not the government lift the ban on nuclear energy?
Ken Brunt said:We'll have to agree to disagree. If the government had the will, they could step in and regulate oil prices the same way they regulate electricity and other public utilities. THAT would be too much government. The business community as a whole, and especially those with such significant impact on the economy, need to realize that their actions have more effect than any tax rebate or interest rate cut the government might initiate.
Seems to me most of these high oil prices are the result of too much government............. not corporate greed.
Ken Brunt said:But that's all they do, scream. They don't [i]do[/i] anything. They know the minute they put any real limits on Big Oil, their campaign contributions dry up. It's a broken system to be sure, and yes, the politicians do deserve their fair share of the blame. But if we want less government, we need to shift the mantle of civic responsibility back onto the businesses who drive the country's economy and hold them accountable for their impact.
If they have to pay $100 or more for a barrel of oil from OPEC, why not put the blame where it belongs? I mean, it's the politicians who do most of the screaming about "windfall profits" and "corporate gluttony". Oh, I forgot. That's how they get a good "sound bite"...............;)
Later,
K
Also, recall that the argument for oil companies lowering prices ultimately raises their profit as expenses fall for shipping, etc., thus produced goods can be sold cheaper, leaving more money in people’s pockets so they can buy more gas and travel. Lower prices don’t equate to lower profit, just ask Sam Walton.
K
There’s also a basic market place force at work here, too. Supply and demand. In this case a increasing demand and a decreasing supply. It’s easy to jump on the bandwagon and cry about obscene profits. What’s really obscene is the tax burdens these companies have to put up with. One third of their yearly tax revenue goes to keeping the Internal Revenue service in business. That’s obscene!!
Quote:
Ken Brunt wrote:Why should the oil companies lower their profit margin?For the same reason health insurance companies need to get their hands off of health care and let doctors make decisions–because it’s the right thing to do. Put people before profit.
That I partly agree with you on. It’s not the health insurance companies that need to get their hands off it, it’s their corporate lawyers and bean counters and the government meddling in it that creates the problem. As an example: In a classic case of deception by projection, politicians blame health insurers for the rising costs of health insurance. Yet, the Council for Affordable Health Insurance has counted 1,961 legislatively required “mandates” added to these costs since the early days of the Clinton administration, only 15 years ago. These “mandates” expand insurance coverage to procedures that typically are not medically necessary, because legislators have cozied up with sellers of the products and services. Sellers profit from increased business, and users of the products and services enjoy lower out-of-pocket costs.
Like each raindrop that doesn’t believe it is responsible for the flood, legislators have continued to act as if health insurance is their personal social experiment because someone else always pays the bill and takes the blame. While the cost of most government mandates adds between one and three percent to the cost of coverage, their cumulative costs are the main force driving up premiums. These mandates include covering slacker “children” up to age 30, as well as wigs, massages and obesity treatments.
Quote:
Ken Brunt wrote:Why not the government lift their ban on drilling oil wells in this country?Spend any time in northwest Colorado? What “ban” on drilling? The economy of every inch of land that’s not a ski resort in this state is dependent on oil and gas exploration. But we are doing things (more or less) smartly. We’re mandating environmental safeguards, and making sure some of those “record profits” being extracted from our state’s natural resources are funneled back into the state. It’s not a “take what you want and give nothing back” situation–and it shouldn’t be. The oil companies don’t exactly have the best history in this regard.
Northwest Colorado isn’t the only place oil companies can drill for oil. They just happen to have, or have purchasesed, the “rights” to drill there. They’re are lots of other places in this country that have oil and gas reserves that they aren’t allowed to get too. And most of it is the “NIMBY” syndrome. And true, they don’t have the best history of environmental care, but applying today’s standards to what happened 50-100 years ago isn’t fair either. We know a lot more about the impact than we did then.
Quote:
Ken Brunt wrote:Why not the government lift the ban on nuclear energy?If you think the oil and gas industry is pushing for a switch to clean nuclear energy, stay away from the Kool-Aid. They stand to lose a TON of money if we switch to nuclear energy, and their lobbyists know that. We won’t see a change until Chevron, Exxon, etc. can figure out a way to get their hands into that pie.
I don’t think their that stupid. They have invested in that “pie” before. Oil companies aren’t the ones who banned the use of nuclear energy to begin with. We’ve come a long way in the past 30 or so years with the technology to make Nuclear Energy safer and more efficient.
Quote:
Ken Brunt wrote:Seems to me most of these high oil prices are the result of too much government............. not corporate greed.We’ll have to agree to disagree. If the government had the will, they could step in and regulate oil prices the same way they regulate electricity and other public utilities. THAT would be too much government. The business community as a whole, and especially those with such significant impact on the economy, need to realize that their actions have more effect than any tax rebate or interest rate cut the government might initiate.
I guess you’re too young to remember the last time they did that. What a disaster that was.
More and more state governments are getting away from regulating electricity and other utilities. There is more competition between electric, gas and telecommunications providers in the last 30 years than ever. And most utilities like sewer, water and gas are government and municipal run utilities. Which they should be.
Holding businesses accountable is what the cash register is for. And since you brought up Wal-Mart, I’ve been on both the distribution and consumer sides of that place. I’m not one to knock a big corporation, but that’s one place that has zero respect for their employees. And I don’t consider that very “people friendly”. But that’s another story.
Another thing to recall is that 45% tax bite the government takes out of their hide every year, not to mention all the other state and excise taxes that get tacked on. Oil companies don’t “tout” their profits, but they are a public record. Most of the “touting” I hear comes from the politicians via the MSM…
How come we didn’t hear about this…
What happens when the world’s largest publicly traded oil company takes on one of the world’s most notorious dictators? Exxon Mobil decided to find out. After Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez seized Exxon’s stake in two ventures in the country, including one 42.5-percent stake worth at least $4 billion, Exxon took Chavez to international court, targeting the assets of the country’s state-run oil company, Petroleos de Venezuela, SA, in U.S., British and Dutch courts. Last week, a British court sided with Exxon, issuing an injunction to freeze $12 billion in assets. A U.S. court also backed the company, freezing $315 million in Venezuelan cash.
These are the kinds of people oil companies have to deal with…loosing 4 billion in assets is a good chunk a change.
All I’m trying to say here is, if you’re gonna start pointing fingers, make sure their pointed in all the right directions. Then again, you may run out of fingers…