|
Gay Marriage Based On Religious Freedom Must Be Consistent A "Christian Nation" -- Impossible Even By Religious Right's Criteria The Only Gay Marriage Argument You'll Ever Need My Thoughts on the In God We Trust Scare A Spooky (And True) Story of Precognition World's 3rd Richest Man Says Taxes on the Rich Are Too Low New Right's War on the Constitution: The Under-Reported Truth Religious Right Group's Belief in Religious Freedom Does Not Extend to Others Take The Time To Fight Phishing Creationist Betrays True Motives (Again) July 06 August 06 September 06 October 06 November 06 December 06 January 07 February 07 March 07 April 07 May 07 June 07 July 07 August 07 September 07 October 07 November 07 December 07 January 08 February 08 March 08 April 08 May 08 June 08 July 08 August 08 September 08 October 08 November 08 December 08 January 09 News, views, and professional iconoclasm from the green side of libertarianism. About the graphic: Created by Yours Truly using Ray Dream Studio. - Take The Time To Fight Phishing
RSS 2.0![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Share! |
|
|
Senior "Liberal Media" producer says oil price drop isnt political
In my ongoing hunt for the "liberal media," I ran across this:
. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id... "Is pump price drop tied to Nov. elections?" "COMMENTARY By John W. Schoen
Senior Producer
MSNBC"
. "Does anybody but myself wonder why oil prices have begun a rather precipitous drop just as the November elections approach? Just a coincidence? L.C. – Williamsburg, Va. No, a lot of readers have the same question. And there may be an answer out there in the blogosphere somewhere that will confirm these suspicions. But there’s no evidence we can find to suggest that anyone in the White House or Congress is manipulating oil or gasoline prices to make for an easier trip on this fall's campaign trail. There’s a lot of evidence to suggest that they couldn’t if they wanted to. In April, for example, after President Bush announced a four-point plan to rein in the pain at the pump, gasoline prices soared. " "A Tiger in GOP's Tank" 58 comments from 10 users
posted by
randomfactor
on Sep 20, 2006 at 11:40 AM
. If Bush goes through with his "October Surprise" attacks on Iran, though, you'll fondly wish for those cheap $3.50-a-gallon days right quick. posted by
robbwillis
on Sep 20, 2006 at 12:14 PM
posted by
ProgressivePete2
on Sep 20, 2006 at 12:18 PM
posted by
TomW
on Sep 20, 2006 at 12:22 PM
Robb, sometimes the Congressional investigations do go somewhere. The Republicans have refused to put the oil companies under oath for testimony, so it's all a dog and pony show. posted by
TomW
on Sep 20, 2006 at 12:25 PM
posted by
anonymous
on Sep 20, 2006 at 12:28 PM
No its not political, but since you mention it he did get a 4 point boost at the polls this week. Republikans will tell you that is coincidental, but so will the price hikes be accidental after the election. Lets face it when 3% of the people have 97 percant of the wealth, how difficult is it to move the number around to protect this republikan created killer minority
Osama in October will only be a short lived bonanza for Bush as like the capture of Saddam and the toasting of Zarqawi it will be a non-issue in this religious war.You can kill off all those you label as bad people but untill you can villify the Prophet Mumhummad enough, the conflicts will continue, and that is not a finite number of years. Incidentally, hang on to that big box SUV, it will be worth some real money in the future, maybe it amy even become the newest in mobile homes. posted by
randomfactor
on Sep 20, 2006 at 12:30 PM
posted by
ProgressivePete2
on Sep 20, 2006 at 12:31 PM
posted by
randomfactor
on Sep 20, 2006 at 12:34 PM
. Pete, what makes you think they *WANT* to talk about anything else? posted by
robbwillis
on Sep 20, 2006 at 12:39 PM
posted by
ProgressivePete2
on Sep 20, 2006 at 12:48 PM
posted by
TomW
on Sep 20, 2006 at 01:01 PM
posted by
robbwillis
on Sep 20, 2006 at 01:11 PM
posted by
TomW
on Sep 20, 2006 at 01:29 PM
posted by
anonymous
on Sep 20, 2006 at 01:30 PM
Mucus,Mucus Muscus, "It's called "market forces", morons........guess they didn't teach you that in "Liberalism 101" in your Commie indoctrination camp (AKA public schools and colleges
Mucus, Mucus, Mucus, "It's called "market forces", morons........guess they didn't teach you that in "Liberalism 101" in your Commie indoctrination camp (AKA public schools and colleges)......." Didn't they teach you at fascist Bobby Jones U , genius, it is history 101, it iis CALLED Market FORCES and those who control the forces control the markets (top3 %) , you can take that to Oral Roberts, or just take it oral it's your choice Klan guy. ' posted by
dusty1215
on Sep 20, 2006 at 02:10 PM
Gotta get out of this chair for awhile. Good writeup Hardliner. posted by
anonymous
on Sep 20, 2006 at 07:55 PM
House prices went up over 30% the last year or so. Now they are going back down. Obviously, the homebuilders are in cahoots with Bush, and are now dropping the price of homes so that it will help Republicans in the elections. Once the elections are over, the evil home builders will start raising prices.... Is that how it works??
posted by
tonyh
on Sep 20, 2006 at 08:41 PM
There's no way that the big oil companies can control crude oil prices that accurately. posted by
tonyh
on Sep 20, 2006 at 08:46 PM
I didn't think you believed in God.................... Guys, A global market is bigger than anything a few U.S. companies can control. Enron wasn't playing in a global market. It's Apples and Oranges. posted by
TomW
on Sep 20, 2006 at 09:38 PM
posted by
randomfactor
on Sep 21, 2006 at 08:01 AM
posted by
TomW
on Sep 21, 2006 at 08:07 AM
posted by
robbwillis
on Sep 21, 2006 at 09:37 AM
Another reason why oil prices dropped is the Jack No 2 well in the Gulf of Mexico. It might be a bigger find than Prudhoe Bay, which could double the US reserves. By the way, what is the incentive for oil companies to do the illegal things they're always getting investigated for when the market speculators, hurricanes, ME whackos, etc, etc, etc do it for them free of charge? Would you risk jail time when you know your BOD cronies have given you a $400 million retirement package that you'll never need? posted by
mattloch
on Sep 21, 2006 at 10:45 AM
posted by
anonymous
on Sep 21, 2006 at 12:02 PM
There was no proof that the government was manipulating the intelligence on Iraq, same government different matter, same result, need we say more?
posted by
anonymous
on Sep 21, 2006 at 12:23 PM
Why would the oil companies want to keep the Republicans in power?? Wouldn't they make more profit with Democrats?? Just think. No oil production in Alaska, no new offshore production. Increased regulation and lack of access to new oilfields. That spells higher prices and profits...
It is really sad that so many americans know so little about supply and demand...
posted by
randomfactor
on Sep 21, 2006 at 12:33 PM
posted by
anonymous
on Sep 21, 2006 at 06:53 PM
Random, nice drive by shooting. Why don't you try to engage in some intelligent debate??
Here are some Democrat policies regarding oil companies, and their effect: Restrict access to drilling. Reduces supply, raises prices, increases profits.... Increased regulation. Reduces supply, raises prices, increases profits... Increased taxes.. Reduces exploration and thus supply, raises prices, increases profits... Now can you tell me why Democrats call for lower prices, yet their policies do nothing to reduce prices?? posted by
randomfactor
on Sep 21, 2006 at 07:08 PM
Well, perhaps because the Republicans own Congress? Perhaps because that's where they put their money? posted by
anonymous
on Sep 22, 2006 at 07:40 AM
Wow, Republicans are asleep at the wheel and can make gas prices go down?? Amazing. Need to keep them in power.
Unemployment... at an all time low with Repubs asleep at the wheel. More people own houses than at anytime in our history.... Stock market at an all time high... Dems have nothing to offer. They say they have a new direction, but where?? Higher unemployment?? Unaffordable housing?? They want to make sure no oil is drilled in the US so we have to go overseas for it. They want to make sure WalMart workers can make a lucrative career by working there, even though Walmart gets 6 applicants for every job opening. They want to raise taxes, even though the tax cuts (which went to everyone) has resulted in the LARGEST INFLUX OF TAX DOLLARS IN THE HISTORY OF THE US. posted by
randomfactor
on Sep 22, 2006 at 08:06 AM
Yes, Republicans pushed this country off the top of a tall building. As we pass the third floor, headed downards, Republicans chant in unison "Wow! Look how *FAST* we're going!" Bush passed the largest tax increase in history, eclipsing the one Reagan put in place. . Gas prices are only "down" compared to how high Republicans and their policies pushed them. Unemployment is "down" if you don't count the people who've given up looking for work. Home ownership is not at record levels--unless you count all those homes the banks own, with their tenants paying "interest-only mortgages." The stock market has recovered to where Bill Clinton left it when he left office. . And we've lost jobs in this country every single year of Bush's disaster. posted by
TomW
on Sep 22, 2006 at 08:28 AM
Unemployment at an all time low? No. Unemployment numbers are lower than the number of jobless people. Here's an explaination from a few years back. This also doesn't account for people who are working part time while they look for full time work. The "official" unemployment rate in the United States is 5.5 percent (July 2004), a contradiction to the actual number of unemployed men and women in the United States, which stands at 16,265,736. The United States government only keeps you "unemployed" for six months, whether or not you find a job. The Labor Department (BLS) reports that an additional 300,000 workers fell out of the labor pool (an average monthly share throughout 2003.) Some 6,700,000 professionals have fallen off their unemployment benefits without finding a new job. Employers added no hope, creating only 32,000 jobs in July 2004. Those who have filed for unemployment, allow benefits to run the course without finding a job already know that when you call the unemployment office that one extra time...hoping to slip in one more $300 check request....the recording tells you that you are no longer listed as "unemployed." This is a good economy however, according to the White House. posted by
TomW
on Sep 22, 2006 at 08:36 AM
Effective Tax Rates in Future Years Under Current Tax LawUnder current law--and the assumption that incomes grow at a constant rate between 2001 and 2014--the total effective federal tax rate for all taxpayers drops from 21.5 percent in 2001 to 19.6 percent in 2004 before reversing course and climbing over the next decade (see the top panel in Table 2). From the 2004 low of 19.6 percent, the overall effective tax rate jumps to 21.4 percent in 2005 as most features of JGTRRA and JCWAA disappear--decreasing the child credit, lessening the relief from marriage penalties, and raising the AMT. The effective rate climbs slowly over the next five years, to 22.1 percent in 2010, primarily because the unindexed AMT affects more and more people and the growth of real incomes pushes taxpayers into higher tax brackets. The effective tax rate takes another jump to 23.6 percent in 2011 after EGTRRA sunsets and thereafter resumes its slow climb driven by continued real income growth and the widening reach of the AMT (by 2014, nearly 22 million taxpayers will be subject to the alternative tax). Overall, then, under current law, the effective federal tax rate will increase from 21.5 percent in 2001 to 24.1 percent in 2014. Because tax legislation enacted since 2001 focuses primarily on the individual income tax, the pattern of changes for the total effective tax rate over the 2001-2014 period derives almost entirely from changes in the effective individual income tax rate (see the second panel in Table 2). The pattern of changes in the effective federal tax rate for all taxpayers is repeated for each income quintile and the top income percentiles, albeit with slightly different turning points and different degrees of change between 2001 and 2014 (see Table 2). For the bottom four quintiles, the effective individual income tax rate turns upward in 2004, a year ahead of the rise for the top quintile. All quintiles experience a jump in their overall effective tax rate in 2011 following the expiration of EGTRRA. They also all have a higher effective rate in 2014 than in 2001. For example, the effective rate for the lowest quintile increases from 5.4 percent in 2001 to 8.3 percent in 2014; in contrast, the rate for the top quintile climbs from 26.8 percent to 28.8 percent and that for the top 1 percent of taxpayers rises from 33.0 percent to 33.6 percent over the same period. The differential increase in effective tax rates among quintiles is reflected in a shift down the income distribution in shares of taxes paid (see the third and fourth panels of Table 2). The share of taxes paid by the top quintile falls from 65.3 percent in 2001 to 62.8 percent in 2014, even though that group's share of income does not change. Four-fifths of that decline occurs for the top 1 percent of taxpayers, whose share falls by 2 percentage points, to 20.7 percent of federal taxes in 2014. The share of taxes paid by each of the middle three quintiles climbs by about 0.7 percentage points. posted by
randomfactor
on Sep 22, 2006 at 09:05 AM
Thanks for the assist, Tom. Here's a simple chart showing the National Debt as a percentage of gross domestic product. Appropriately enough, Republicans tend to send it into the *RED*. Not only is Bush giving away the store to his corporate sponsors, he's mortgaging it so he can give it away *TWICE.* posted by
TomW
on Sep 22, 2006 at 09:12 AM
posted by
anonymous
on Sep 22, 2006 at 06:25 PM
Why are tax receipts at an all time high?? The reason for the deficit is not because of tax cuts, its because of uncontrolled spending. posted by
anonymous
on Sep 22, 2006 at 06:28 PM
Interesting that Democrats think it is morally justified that 1 percent of this country finances 20% of the expenses...While 50% of the country pays absolutely nothing.....
posted by
Hardliner4freedom
on Sep 22, 2006 at 07:21 PM
. Being taxed according to your ability to pay is not a radical idea, so I wonder why you're opposed to it. . Are you one of those 1%? If yes, are you hurting? . If you are not one of those 1%, are you willing to see your own taxes double so that the have-mosts can get off easy? posted by
anonymous
on Sep 22, 2006 at 10:10 PM
You are right. Being taxed according to your ability is not a radical idea.
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." Karl Marx. Founder of Communism. And yes, I am opposed to it. Not suprising that you and your fellow communist liberals like the idea. So I guess that means 50% of the people in this country have no abilities, since they are paying no income taxes. Pretty much sums up the Democratic Party base. Do I think everyone should pay the same amount of tax?? Of course not. Do I think everyone should at least pay something?? Heck yes. What say you each head of household currently paying no income tax has to pay $5 per week. Makes it roughly $250 per year to live in this great country. Don't you think it is worth $250/year to have the priveledge of living in this country?? I know illegal aliens pay 10 times that to enter this country. Don't you think it is worth the cost of a pack of smokes to live in this country? Do 50% of the people in this country has so little ability that they cannot even afford $5 a week to live in this great country?? Another thing that needs to change is withholding. I think everyone should have to write a check to the government each month for their taxes. Then I think you would get a lot more prudent use of those dollars. Now, if I were to write out a check to the government for monthly taxes, just like I do for housing, food, gas, etc, it would be larger than my house payment, gasoline, utilities, and food COMBINED. I guess that means I have a lot of ability, or live well within my means, or both. What about the people that have just as much ability as me, but screwed around and messed up their lives to where they make minimum wage. Same ability as me. Do they get to pay the same tax rate I do?? I thought you endorsed the taxation according to ability?? Don't bitch about the rich having unfair access to those in power... They've "EARNED" it....... posted by
TomW
on Sep 23, 2006 at 12:57 AM
Half the population not paying taxes? You're almost right. The figures I see say 40%. If you include every man, woman and child in the US. In addition to these non-payers, roughly 15 million individuals and families earned some income last year but not enough to be required to file a tax return. When these non-filers are added to the non-payers, they add up to 57.5 million income-earning people who will be paying no income taxes. Even 57.5 million is not the actual number of people because one tax return often represents several people. When all of the dependents of these income-producing people are counted, roughly 120 million Americans – 40 percent of the U.S. population – are outside of the federal income tax system.
posted by
Hardliner4freedom
on Sep 23, 2006 at 06:44 AM
You didn't answer my other questions, Anny. And you happily tacked on another part, which I never said that I went along with: . And everyone who spends any money pays taxes. People who pay no income tax nonetheless pay sales taxes, excise taxes, and if they drive, they pay gasoline taxes and vehicle taxes. posted by
Hardliner4freedom
on Sep 23, 2006 at 06:49 AM
. I'm glad you acknowledged their greater access to people in power. That's the best argument for progressive taxation around. If you enjoy disproporationate influence in government, it's only right that you pay for it. BTW, by many measures, I am wealthy. posted by
anonymous
on Sep 23, 2006 at 07:19 AM
WHy is it that when taxes were cut for everyone, tax reciepts went up??
You preach a zero sum game... You don't take into accout that when taxes are cut, that money can then be spent on other things, which in turn creates more spending, and more taxes coming in. And really, isn't it worth a pack a smokes aweek to live in this country?? Why are you so dead against those that pay no income tax pay at least a pack of smokes a week for living in this country. Why do you want to punish those with the most ability?? posted by
anonymous
on Sep 23, 2006 at 07:23 AM
Well, if you are wealthy by many measures, why don't you write a check out to the government so that you are paying what the 1% in this country pays??
So, now that you are sold on progressive taxation, quit whining about disproportionate influence to government. If 1% are paying 20% of the bill, they should get a greater influence than the 50% who are paying none.... posted by
Hardliner4freedom
on Sep 23, 2006 at 02:46 PM
. If yes, why? . I noticed one thing about you, hater. . Not once did you ever ask what my views are on taxation, how much the government should be spending, and what should be taxed, and what shouldn't. You were telling me what you "know" I believe. Why? Because I suspect you're just a hater. . You talk about freeloaders. I bet I can have you defending freeloaders with all of your might, in three exchanges or less. At the same time, I will have you arguing against people who work for their money -- likewise, with all of your might. . Try me? posted by
Hardliner4freedom
on Sep 23, 2006 at 02:50 PM
posted by
randomfactor
on Sep 23, 2006 at 02:54 PM
http://www.pkarchive.org/ec... posted by
anonymous
on Sep 23, 2006 at 09:51 PM
http://webcpa.com/article.c...
That is the link to the record tax receipts from just a week ago..... And Bushs tax cuts were for everyone, except of course, those that do not pay any taxes at all. .And how can you cut the income taxes of people who pay no income taxes... posted by
TomW
on Sep 23, 2006 at 11:14 PM
On the tax receipts, I'm not surprised that corporate earnings are up. The government is spending like a drunken sailor going into battle at daybreak. If the government is spending 200,000,000 dollars a day on Iraq alone, much of it going to American companies, is it any wonder that tax revenues are high? Tell me that Federal spending as a percentage of the GDP has also declined to Clinton era levels and I'll consider this unexpected. posted by
Hardliner4freedom
on Sep 24, 2006 at 08:43 AM
. Read it and weep: . http://www.taxpolicycenter.... . But let's explore this "cut taxes, and tax revenues will go up" claim. By doing so, I think I can prove that the basic principle of the Laffer curve is sound. . To a point, the claim is true. When taxes are excessively high, you can speed up the economy (and thus boost tax revenues) by cutting taxes and thus increasing disposable income. . But let's see what happens when tax rates get very low: . Suppose the total income tax rate (fed + state + local) is down to, say, eight percent. That leaves citizens and businesses with 92% of their gross income. . Do we really think that if we cut taxes another two percent, to six percent, that the tiny 2.2 percent increase in net income will speed up the economy to recove the lost 25 percent in tax revenue? I think that's stretching it. . Il's even sillier to argue that cutting taxes to one percent wil help any more. Do we really think that the tiny 5.4 percent increase in net income will be able to accelerate the economy eight-fold -- to recover the lost 87.5 precent reduction in tax rate? . Ludicrous. Anyone with a brain can see that. . Therefore, this proves that cutting taxes only stimulates the economy enough to boost revenues when tax rates are higher than a certain point. Go below it, and things start deteriorating again. . Sounds like a vindication of the Laffer Curve to me. BAKERSFIELD.COM HOT TOPICS:Advertisement |