About Hardliner4freedom


Gender:
male
Member Since:
July 14, 2006
Last Signed In:
March 15, 2008
Profile Views:
26807
Blog Views:
13713
View Profile
Send a Message
Send To A Friend
Sign Guestbook
Add as a Friend

Previous Posts
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)
Archives
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
Onward Bound

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

 

Subscribe!
RSS 2.0 feed RSS 2.0
Add to My Yahoo
Add to My Google
Add to Bloglines
Add to My AOL

Share!


Hardliner4freedom - > Starship Sigma +5 -> Senior "Liberal Media" producer says oil price drop isnt political
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. "
.
The "liberal" Chicago Tribune likewise dismisses the theory:
http://newsblogs.chicagotri...
"But if an axis of the White House, Congress and oil industry had so much control over gas prices, why would they have allowed the run up in prices to occur in the first place with all the political risks that would entail? For instance, inflationary pressures from higher oil prices could threaten the very economic growth Republicans are boasting about."
.
Not to be outdone, the "liberal" Washington Post likewise toes the oil industry's line:
http://www.washingtonpost.c...
"Today's lower prices are the result, experts say, of ample supply, decreased demand after the heavy summer-driving season, a calmer than expected hurricane season, the lower price of crude oil and the switch by refiners to less-expensive winter blends.'
.
Now, I am not taking sides in this conspiracy theory at this point.  It may very well be that the surprise plummet of oil prices has nothing to do with the November elections.
.
But if the media were "liberal" and "anti-Bush," don't you think one of their senior guys would find some way to paint such a picture -- whether true or not?  
.
Isn't it one of the charges that leftists make -- that oil prices are being manipulated for political gain?  Don't you think the media would harness their leftist agenda and try to fool the millions of Americans who don't follow this stuff?
..
You'd think so.  But to find a cogent argument in favor of the conspiracy theory, one needs to leave the boundaries of mainstream corporate media and turn to Consumer Affairs:
.
http://www.consumeraffairs....
"Election Looms, Gas Prices Drop"

"A Tiger in GOP's Tank"
.
The search for the much-talked-about "liberal media" continues -- a quest that is, to date, fruitless.  I sure can't find the mainstream media boosting the leftist take on the drop in oil prices.
.

Posted in these Groups:
Topics:
posted by Hardliner4freedom on Wednesday, September 20, 2006 at 01:16 PM
Report a Violation
Viewed 531 times
58 comments from 10 users

1 2

posted by randomfactor on Sep 20, 2006 at 11:40 AM
Warren's anonymously got the *REAL* reason why gas prices are dropping...apparently the more soldiers needlessly killed in Iraq, the lower the price of gas will go.  So by killing another few thousand of our best-and-brightest, we could get gas down under $2 a gallon.  Now I don't see the connection myself, but it's one of the more rational arguments I've seen advanced for why we're in Iraq.   Crass and cynical, yes, but rational.
.
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
If someone could manipulate oil prices down, they would a take credit for it. Increased inventories, probably due to the summer driving season being over, is all it is. Next time the price goes up, let's see who calls for another round of the usual congressional investigations that never go anywhere...
posted by ProgressivePete2 on Sep 20, 2006 at 12:18 PM
You mean when Bush attacks Iran not if, right? I don't think there's any question that he's going to at the very least send in air strikes for freedom. You know, to liberate the democracy in Iran.
posted by TomW on Sep 20, 2006 at 12:22 PM
Robb, I've heard good arguments why prices are falling.  A lot of people bought gas futures against another major hurricane and they're now dumping them, the summer blend stocks are selling off so oil companies don't have to store it while they sell the winter blend.  But as for manipulating prices, Enron wasn't that long ago.  Companies definately have ways of moving prices by scheduling refinery maintenance etc.

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
I don't think Bush has an October surprise.  He can't go into Iran.  You'd see a real Revolt of the Generals if that happened.
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
Some generals think we're already *IN* Iran.  A "revolt of the generals" like the one in Thailand this week?
posted by ProgressivePete2 on Sep 20, 2006 at 12:31 PM
Mucus, there are a lot of people that voted for bush last time only because we were at war. The so called "security moms" which I call "terrorized moms" You know, don't change horses mid stream. They argue that a democratic congress would inhibit the GWOT. Must be the potential investigations. You know, checks and balances. Now that everyone sees through their BS, they have to do something to distract us. Oooooh, look at those pretty lights and smoke from the missles. You know all the 24/7 news channels want him to do it. They'll have something other than Suri Cruise and Lindsay Lohan to talk about.
posted by randomfactor on Sep 20, 2006 at 12:34 PM
Muke, it was also "market forces" when Enron raped the California electricity market.  God punished Lay for that one, remember?
.
Pete, what makes you think they *WANT* to talk about anything else?
posted by robbwillis on Sep 20, 2006 at 12:39 PM
Good points Tom. I wasn't thinking about Enron in regards to oil, but I doubt we'll ever see a top oil exec sent to prison under Enron-type circumstances, regardless of which party is in power. The results of the last front page outrage-over-gas-prices investigation were buried in the back pages because nothing was found. Are the investigators in cahoots?  
posted by ProgressivePete2 on Sep 20, 2006 at 12:48 PM
You know they already have the fancy graphics ready to go. Was it the Daily Show where I heard they have pre made montages of every famous person they can think of just in case they die. Nothing is as funny as Colbert's Road to armageddon graphic. Cracks me up every time.
posted by TomW on Sep 20, 2006 at 01:01 PM
Nothing was found because the Republicans refused to put the oil execs under oath.  Here is the video of Ted Stevens saying no.  Seriously, a Democrat on the committee said "i'd like to swear them in" and the Republican leader said no.  Since the Republicans control Congress, they also control all of the committees.
posted by robbwillis on Sep 20, 2006 at 01:11 PM
Oh, I believed you without seeing Ted Bridge-To-Nowhere's video. Call me cynical or jaded, I've just seen all the oil investigations go no place. I'm more inclined to think there's nothing to be found instead of believing some money glutton like Exxon's retired CEO needs to maniplulate oil to make another buck. If I could get congress to do something about oil companies, I would prefer they draft legislation capping their CEOs' salaries to some multiple of the lowest paid worker in their company.
posted by TomW on Sep 20, 2006 at 01:29 PM
Robb, I like your idea.  But we haven't had a Democratic Congress since 94, so while I know that most investigations lately haven't gone anywhere, you get Feingold or Conyers in charge of a committee.  If they say so, I'll believe it.
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
I will be honest, I didn't read the comments just the post and links..but I support your arguement to a degree, but I buy into the Oil companies are doing this on their own, its in their best interests to keep the Repubes in power. So no, there isn't collusion between the administration and Big Oil, there doesn't have to be.

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. 

For starters, the market is global, not limited to the U.S. 
Second, they can't trust each other that much. 

Even the menbers of OPEC can't trust each other enough to make anything other than a crude attempt at controlling the price of Crude Oil. The big production reserves are a thing of the mast. This takes away their shock absorber. Besides, when OPEC tried it back in the 1970's, the major producers were cheeting each other by producing more than the agreed upon volumes.

 The speculators in the Futures Market move the price around more than any other single influence. If you think they're organized, you're kidding yourself. They're out to make money. They're actually betting on influences beyond control. They're betting on the sevarity of the Hurricane Season. They're betting on the sevarity of the winter months. They're betting on the fuel usage during the vacation season (Summer months).

The price is dropping right now, because there's a glut of futures paper floating around. The hurricane season was mild and the vacation usage season went light. 

Trust me, I'm losing my ass right now. I'm hoping that the price goes back up before mid January. That's when my futures are due.

posted by tonyh on Sep 20, 2006 at 08:46 PM
RF,
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
Yeah, mom and pop American companies like Exxon and Chevron don't have contacts on the world market.  I'm not saying that there aren't very good reasons for the price fluctuations.  There always are.  But there are also a number of reasons the price of oil should be rising, including growing Asian consumption and the Alaska Pipeline failure that spiked prices a few weeks back.  They haven't fixed that yet.
posted by randomfactor on Sep 21, 2006 at 08:01 AM
Tom, I don't.  But "God" is woven inexorably into the English language (and probably all others too, Bohjemoi) so you go to war with the metaphors you have, not the ones you wish you have.   Or as I like to think, "a man's speech should exceed his grasp, or what's a metaphor?"
posted by TomW on Sep 21, 2006 at 08:07 AM
I know RF, but you should tell Tony.  :) 
posted by robbwillis on Sep 21, 2006 at 09:37 AM
Hey Tom,
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
There's no proof that the White House is manipulating gas prices..... duh. They don't have to. It's "understood". I think the lower gas prices are the results of everything people have mentioned here, in addition to many other factors. But that doesn't mean that producers aren't dumping gas onto the market (they had huge reserves and were literally running out of storage space they had so much) to drive prices lower than they "should" be. They're pushing prices down.  This is the "October surprise". Nothing Bush has said or done, because he didn't have to. Just like people understand when you don't pay the mob "protection" money.
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

Since they've done so poorly over the past six years, you mean, Anny?

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?
.
But let's play your game.  Why should I think the oil companies like having the Republicans asleep at the wheel?

Perhaps because that's where they put their money?

http://www.opensecrets.org/...

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
Let's take a look at those numbers you cited anonymous:

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. 

Next claim: More people own houses than at any time in our history.  True.  It has risen every year since the 1920's except under Reagan.  Of course, we are also looking at all time highs in foreclosure as well, driven by record low lending rates now rising.  Again, borrowing on our credit card.

Lastly, the stock market.  I assume you mean the Dow Jones not NASDAQ.  It's tricky since companies get swapped out of the DOW Jones so it's not an apples to apples comparison.  Let's take a look:  Right now the DOW is trading at 11,500, Under Clinton, the market reached a high of 11,723 on Jan 14th, 2000.  So the market now is trading near new highs, not at highs.  BTW, Bill took the market from 3674 on November 23rd, 1994 to the record high.  Bush has taken the market from about 11,700 to 11,500.  Not exactly a record of prosperity.  But check out some other good numbers as well.

And as for raising taxes, Bush signed the Bill Thomas Tax Act which authorized the largest increase in taxes since WWII.  Of course, like everything the President does, the bill doesn't come due until after he leaves office.  Check out what your taxes will look like in 2011.

posted by TomW on Sep 22, 2006 at 08:36 AM
Here's a good summary, from the CBO.gov site (sorry for the length):

Effective Tax Rates in Future Years Under Current Tax Law

Under 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.*

http://www.dailykos.com/sto...

posted by TomW on Sep 22, 2006 at 09:12 AM
Yup, time for another Democrat to put our finances in order so the next Republican can sell it all off again.  If I didn't care about the country so much, I'd like to see a Democrat refuse to take responsibility for Republican debt once.  Just cut taxes, give away more money and let the Republicans figure out how to keep America from defaulting on its loans.  The problem is, they'd cut taxes for the middle class which increases economic velocity which would end up in more tax revenue anyway.
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.

Republican policies has caused high gas prices??? What policies?? Name them.  Trying to drill more offshore causes gas prices to rise??  Trying to drill Anwr causes gas prices to rise?? trying to limit the number of gasoline formulations causes gas prices to rise??
Just what policies would the Democrats enact to lower gas prices?? Huh?? I thought your fearless leader ALGORE wanted $5 per gallon gas?? Or have you guys flip flopped on that as well?? Flip, flop, flip, flop.  Man, grow a friggen spine..

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
I assume that you're saying that because you think the wealthy are unfairly taxed.
.
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.

Darn free-loading toddlers.   Here's a nice graph of the number of people paying no taxes by year.  Funny how you whine about Bush so much with his tax policies but then act like you're on his side, or he's on yours.  You're probably one of those people who wishes there were more jobs so there would be a broader tax base.  I guess you're also in favor of raising the minimum wage so that the freeloaders who work 40 hours a week and still live below the poverty line can start contributing something.

 

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:
.
"To each according to his needs."  I never said that.  You just tacked that on so you could hate me more easily.
.
Are you one of those top 1%?  If yes, are you hurting?"
.
If no, are you willing to see your own taxes double, because that's what it will take to pick up the difference if we let the top 1% off easy.  Why are you so intent on cutting your own throat, to make life easier for those whose lives are already easy?
.
Taxes pay for a lot of things, my friend,  They pay for roads, police, fire, and a big, expensive, drawn-out project we've undertaken in Iraq, among other things.  They're not just "taken from you and given to poor people."

.

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.
.
So, turn off that hate radio and start thinking for a change.

posted by Hardliner4freedom on Sep 23, 2006 at 06:49 AM
I should add that many of the wealthy became wealthy during a time when the tax code was a lot more hostile to high incomes.  So don't tell me they're being punished.
.
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
You still didn't answer my question.  Are you willing to double your own taxes so that the top 1% can get off easy?
.
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
By the way, I do pay my hefty share of taxes.  Without whining like you are.
posted by randomfactor on Sep 23, 2006 at 02:54 PM
When were taxes cut for everyone, Anny?    And when did tax receipts go up?  They weren't the same time.  Reagan's tax cuts led to budget deficits, leading to his enacting the largest tax increase in history (at that time.)  Bush's tax cuts led to budget deficits, leading to his enacting the largest tax increase in history.  The difference?  Bush didn't have the cojones to have the taxes rise during *HIS* administration, so like all the nation's problems he pushed it along to future generations.

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
Ah yes, the Bush "tax cuts for everyone".  Pay slightly less now and pay it back with interest over the next 10 years.  The check you got in the mail was an advance, not a cut.  We had to pay it back the next year.
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
In fact, individual federal income tax receipts are down from 2000.  Since individual income tax is our topic, this is pertinent.  (Note also that corporate tax revenues plummeted during Bush's first term, not surprisingly, but began to climb again, bypassing the 2000 total in 2005.)
.
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.
1 2

  (You need to be signed in to leave a comment)

BAKERSFIELD.COM HOT TOPICS:

Advertisement