Say Anything Blog

And Hillary is proposing a $20 billion “fee” that the oil companies would pay to help fund research on clean energy.  She is also sure that the oil companies wouldn’t pass the cost onto consumers.

I’d like to point out that whenever someone mentions the “tax cuts for the wealthy”, that the tax share to income share ratio for each of the top 1%, 5%, 10%, 25%, and 50% are at their highest levels since 1996.  The tax rate cuts were more of a balancing measure than a windfall for any specific group.

I’d like to point out that whenever someone mentions the “tax cuts for the wealthy”, that the tax share to income share ratio for each of the top 1%, 5%, 10%, 25%, and 50% are at their highest levels since 1996.  The tax rate cuts were more of a balancing measure than a windfall for any specific group.

Unrelated: Meirs has withdrawn her nomination.

The one thing I need to point out is that all small states get more back from the government than they put in.  If your’re thinking Senator Conrad is a great Senator because of that your only fooling yourself.

For example when the highway bill passed the Senate Senator Conrad called it a “Grand Slam for North Dakota” because for every dollar of federal gas tax we got we receieved 2.08.  That’s fine but I pointed out that the average we received since the Interstate Highway System began was $2.06.  (I may not have the exact cents right).  All we got was average.

So the self-serving Senator was saying that average was a Grand Slam.  But it get’s worse because Senator Conrad misappropriated large chunks of money to give it to special interests like Ingersoll Rand.  He also took money out of our road money to deal with the Devils Lake funding money.  That should have not been highway tax money, but rather disaster money.

[...] Apparently Senator Conrad thinks so. [...]

RyanG:  Taxes are a drain on prosperity, not a boost.  Therefore cutting taxes is the best way to increase prosperity, and therefore increase funding for whatever we want to do.  Every time taxes have been cut in this country, including during JFK’s regime, revenues have increased.  If you are worried about Humvee armor, get your congressman to cut spending.  Spending less on social engineering is a guaranteed way to getting that armor.

If anybody thinks the United States can afford a tax cut, they need to check their math.

We’re at WAR, people.  Wars are expensive.  Buck up and sacrifice a little.  Maybe your tax money will pay for some soldiers’ Humvee armor.

We’re at WAR, people. Wars are expensive. Buck up and sacrifice a little. Maybe your tax money will pay for some soldiers’ Humvee armor.

1.  Tax cuts increase federal tax receipts.

2.  No cuts have been proposed for defense spending.

3.  The cuts that have been proposed will make more money available for rebuilding efforts in hurricane struck areas and defense spending (should we need it).

So, in summary, the proposed Republican plan will bring put more money in government coffers while giving Americans tax relief (thus stimulating the already surging economy).

What was your objection again Ryan?

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Here’s a plan:  Cut taxes for all Americans, cut most social spending, win the war, and remove hostile regulations all around.  The oil companies can then reinvest their profits instead of sitting on them and taking fire from the liberal leftist marxists.  Increase domestic oil production to the point where we don’t need much, if any imported oil for at least five years.  This would kick more ass in the Middle East than any military policy, thus changing the international political climate in our favor.  If the undiddled market price for oil is then high enough to justify developing other fuel sources, some of the reinvestment will take place there due to market forces.
If we as consumers choose to use less gasoline, then so be it.  Otherwise, leave us the hell alone to make our own choices in the marketplace, thank you very much.  We are not victims of corporate conspiracy, we choose to spend our money the way we spend it.  Never forget that.

And Hillary is proposing a $20 billion “fee” that the oil companies would pay to help fund research on clean energy. She is also sure that the oil companies wouldn’t pass the cost onto consumers.

Yes, I’m sure we’ll all be paying $6/gallon at the pumps if that happened, especially because those poor, poor oil companies only made billions upon billions in windfall profits this year off the backs of consumers, not trillions.

So, in summary, the proposed Republican plan will bring put more money in government coffers while giving Americans tax relief (thus stimulating the already surging economy).

If you want to stimulate the economy, hold off on the tax cuts and quit the “spend spend spend” economy style.  Pay off the national debt, balance the budget, fix the overwhelming trade deficit by encouraging production in America (not tax cuts to importers), wean America off dependence on foreign oil through the burgeoning renewables market (drilling in ANWR won’t help), and encourage people to save a little bit up in their bank accounts (savings was at a negative recently).

The tax cuts espoused by Republicans are dangerous and irresponsible during a time of war and during a time of budgetary crisis.  Spending government dollars to encourage production in America is much better than giving government money to rich people who export our jobs to India, thank you very much.