It must be a pretty scary proposition debating a Representative who also is a combat veteran known not for taking any prisoners! No wonder Obama, who would rather hide behind women, will not debate Allen West. Obama has no command of the issues when you compare him with West, nor does he have the belief system that backs up the Florida Tea Party supporter. West would take him apart, spit him out and make the President look like a school girl.
We have been very impressed with West as you can tell. Would he make a good Vice President if selected, you can bet on it. Would the President have to be very confident of himself to pick someone who is so good at speaking? Sure would. We need more straight talking, no BS patriots who will tell it like it is and forget the politics of the issues.
If West would run for President in 2016, that would be super!
What is your opinion?
Conservative Tom
We have been very impressed with West as you can tell. Would he make a good Vice President if selected, you can bet on it. Would the President have to be very confident of himself to pick someone who is so good at speaking? Sure would. We need more straight talking, no BS patriots who will tell it like it is and forget the politics of the issues.
If West would run for President in 2016, that would be super!
What is your opinion?
Conservative Tom
ALLEN WEST: I‘VE ’HEARD’ 80 HOUSE DEMS ARE COMMUNISTS, AND OBAMA IS ‘TOO SCARED’ TO DEBATE ME
Rep. Allen West (R-Fla) gave a characteristically energetic speech at a town hall event Tuesday evening, where he said he’s “heard” that 80 U.S. Representatives are Communist Party members.
Without identifying the 80 in question, West went on to attack President Obama as being too “scared” to have a public debate with him. The president was in Florida at the time, attending campaign events and speaking on the economy.
The Palm Beach Post reported West’s statements:
West said Obama was “scared” to have a discussion with him. He later said “he’s heard” up to 80 U.S. House Democrats are Communist Party members, but wouldn’t name names.[...]‘I really wish that, standing here before you, was Allen West and President Obama,’ West said. ‘We could have a simple discussion. But that ain’t ever gonna happen.’‘Why not?’ an audience member asked.‘Cuz he was too scared!’ West responded in a mocking voice.
A Tea Party favorite, Allen West is known for his fiery language. He is well-remembered for telling President Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi to take their message of economic dependency and enslaving the entrepreneurial will of the American people “the hell out of the United States America” back in January.
West’s political opponent Patrick Murphy responded: “The bottom line is, Allen West is trying to make it in the press with comments that don’t even make sense…He’s trying to make headlines, get a rise out of people and not get anything done.”
I'd agree with Patrick Murphy's comment about West. Maybe his asinine statement about 80 members of the House being card-carrying communists sells well in his congressional district in Florida, but it disqualifies him as ever being a credible candidate for national office.
ReplyDelete--David
So if his statements qualify him for national office, how do you explain Biden?
ReplyDeleteIf Biden had said anything that ignorant while campaigning for president in 2008, Obama would never have chosen him for VP. I 100% guarantee you that Romney will not choose West as VP. It wouldn't have happened anyway, but this statement certainly seals the deal.
ReplyDelete--David
Biden says a lot that he is known to speak first and then correct his statements. He is a blow hard! West is an educated, smart, battle proven soldier. I believe him when he says there are 80 communists.we can start with Maxine Waters.
ReplyDeleteTom, that is ridiculous. People like West throw around the word "communist" without a clue what it means. Communists would nationalize all major industries, as was done in the Soviet Union. Nobody in Congress is advocating that, and none of them are members of the communist party. Not 80. None.
ReplyDeleteI want to regulate Wall Street banks a LOT more than Dodd-Frank, especially regarding derivatives. West would say that makes me a communist. The CPC budget creates a federal budget surplus in 10 without nationalizing a single industry. That is much faster deficit reduction than the Obama or Ryan budgets. It is actually just a more aggressive version of Simpson-Bowles. Are Simpson and Bowles also "communists" because they want to raise taxes or regulate corporations?
--David
P.S. Biden is often careless with his words, but I don't recall anything he has said that is as absurd as West's statement.
David, you need to go back and view the video of Maxine Waters threatening oil executives to nationalize their industry. You, my friend, are being naive.
ReplyDeleteNot at all marks her as a "communist." This was in the context of a debate with an oil executive threatening to raise the price of gasoline so high that $5 per gallon would look cheap. I don't know where the "tipping point" is where gas prices would crash the economy the way Wall Street did in 2008, but I don't think our economy could function at all with prices at $10 a gallon. Under that circumstance the federal government could step in under Executive Order 51 national security emergency and (at least temporarily) takeover the oil companies as was done with AIG and General Motors to bring down gas prices. You just have to look at the obscene profits of Exxon-Mobil to realize that they could still be profitable at much lower price levels.
ReplyDeleteWhether you agree it or not, her comment does not mean that she is a communist, or a member of the communist party, or that 79 other members of congress are members of the communist party. It was a dumb statement, and Romney would not select anybody who makes such statements as his VP running mate in 2012.
David, do you find 25% profits obscene? If so, why are you so against oil companies which get a return of less than 10% on invested assets while Apple gets 25%?
ReplyDeleteYour comments are indicative of someone very comfortable with the government taking over private companies at a whim. That is very scary. The US government should not be in the position of picking winners by taking them over and losers who they do not.
The government took over the banks, are we better off or should we have let them fail. I believe the latter would have been much better.
If you think that GM or Chrysler will be long term winners because they are making money now, I have a bridge for sale! Both companies are making money, because they have no debt! How long will that continue? How long will the owners (the government and the unions) continue to accept lower salaries and now that they have their union bosses in charge of their pay, it won't be long!
West makes sense and he speaks the truth. Some people are not willing to step back and see the truth.
Romney will not pick him, however, in 2016 (should there be elections) he will be in the mix.
Check this...
ReplyDelete"Exxon Mobil, the most profitable of the big five oil companies, made $41.1 billion in profits last year. Although Exxon made 35 percent more profits since 2010, its estimated effective tax rate actually dropped. Citizens for Tax Justice reported Exxon paid only 17.6 percent taxes in 2010, lower than the average American, and a Reuters analysis using the same criteria estimates that Exxon will pay only 13 percent in effective taxes for 2011. Exxon paid zero taxes to the federal government in 2009.
Reuters compares the 45 percent tax rate Exxon claims it pays to the effective rate estimated by Citizens for Tax Justice — a rate that’s even lower than Mitt Romney’s tax rate. Chevron, which made $26.9 billion profit in 2011, paid 19 percent:
Citizens for Tax Justice considers U.S. profits and U.S. taxes paid only. By that measure, Exxon Mobil paid 13 percent of its U.S. income in taxes after deductions and benefits in 2011, according to a Reuters calculation of securities filings.
It is a far cry from the 35 percent top corporate tax rate."
-------
I don't want to nationalize them. But I don't want to give oil companies billions in subsidies at tax-payer expense, either. I was only making two points:
1. Oil companies could significantly cut prices on gasoline and still be very profitable. It is the core of our economy. Apple iPhone and iPads are luxuries. Gasoline is not. That's the difference.
2. Nationalizing them would be a last resort only in the situation where they crash the national economy as the banks did in 2008. It could happen. I thought I made that point clear enough...apparently not.
West will never be a factor in presidential politics.
--David
So, they made a lot of money but when you compare it to the billions/trillions they have invested, it is not outrageous.
ReplyDeleteAs far as rates, companies SHOULD NOT pay any taxes, however, they should have to disgorge a certain percentage of before tax profits in the form of dividends which would go to the owners of the company and would be taxed at the owner's tax rate.
What tax payer subsidies do they get? Depreciation of their plant and equipment like all other business, depletion allowances on their oil well?
You want to make the oil companies villans even though they pay less on invested assets than Apple--where is the level playing field?
If you nationalize the oil companies, you will get underperforming, non-tax producing entities that will only cripple the economy worse. Ever seen what the oil business was like in Russia under Soviet rule. It was decrepit, poorly run. Is that what you want?
David, read the following post: Oil and gas ranked 114 out of 215. You have been sold a bill of goods by the media and your President.
ReplyDeletehttp://mjperry.blogspot.com/2011/05/oil-profit-margin-ranks-114-out-215.html
David, here is an article from Forbes.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.forbes.com/2011/05/10/oil-company-earnings.html
Neither of those articles disprove my point. If a company has $41 billion in profits, they could have $40 billion less in profits and still be profitable. How many gallons of gasoline can be bought for $40 billion? I am NOT saying that Exxon-Mobil should be nationalized for this purpose UNLESS the country is facing $10 gallon gasoline and the economy crashes as the banks did to us in 2008. Would the oil companies be willing to accept a little less profit to prevent an economic disaster (say a war between Iran and Saudi Arabia)? I doubt it. I don't think they are anymore patriotic than Wall Street when it comes to maximizing profits. That is what I am talking about. These other industries and companies like Apple are not in position of Wall Street or the oil companies to ruin the entire economy, so that is not a valid comparison for purposes of this discussion.
ReplyDeleteThey should not be getting any tax-payer subsidies. They are obviously rolling in money, and our tax dollars are much better spent of other things.
I don't get your point about corporate taxes. Are you saying you want to force Exxon-Mobil to distribute x % of revenue to shareholders as dividends and then tax the dividends as regular income instead of 15%? No way that would ever get passed in the current Congress.
--David