Say Anything Blog

Gasoline Tax (42 cents per gallon)

Thats criminal, and in Minnesota they want to add 5 more cents. How much more of our income does the government need?

Check out:
Goon’s North Dakota Red Neck
Goon’s World

Gasoline Tax (42 cents per gallon)

Multiply the amount of the Federal tax per gallon times the number of gallons of gas sold across the country the next time some smarmy politician talks about the “obscene” profits of the oil companies. 
(Oil company profits average around 3-4 cents/gallon?)

Of course, if we tax these “obscene” profits even more, the oil companies have to raise prices to cover their costs and...lo and behold, the amount of Federal taxes goes higher still!

For any voter trying to choose between the two candidates for commander in chief, there is no better test than this: When American strategy in a critical theater was up for grabs, John McCain proposed a highly unpopular and risky path, which he accurately predicted could lead to success. Barack Obama proposed a popular and politically safe route that would have led to an unnecessary and debilitating American defeat at the hands of al Qaeda.

Frederick W. Kagan

How much more of our income does the government need?

Government spends, Government must tax.

And the Democrats want more

Umm.... haven’t the republicans been in charge since 2001?
Hasn’t our National Debt gone from 5,728,739,508,558.96 to 8,738,700,362,432.03 while republicans ruled? Don’t we pay interest on that money?
If I spend more than I earn I either have to cut my spending or increase my income.
I guess I could get a credit card and put it in my kids name and let them worry about it later when I’m gone.....no thats not nice.

Umm.... haven’t the republicans been in charge since 2001?

Umm.... most of the taxes go towards the Democrat “New Deal” and “Great Society” programs. These have been in effect for decades longer than 2001.

Hasn’t our National Debt gone from 5,728,739,508,558.96 to 8,738,700,362,432.03 while republicans ruled?

Umm.... read above. Also note that the entitlement programs have built in spending increases. Not much the Republicans can do there.

I guess I could get a credit card and put it in my kids name and let them worry about it later when I’m gone.....no thats not nice.

Precisely what I would tell FDR and Johnson.

Oh sorry likwidshoe, I keep forgetting, republicans spend money we don’t have on good things like wars and tax cuts for wealthy people while democrats spend money we don’t have on bad things like health and old age.
sum day I be smart
First 7 years of Clinton term
4,167,872,986,583.67
5,758,316,426,486.15
I guess the spending increases hadn’t kicked in yet.

Oh sorry likwidshoe, I keep forgetting, republicans spend money we don’t have on good things like wars and tax cuts for wealthy people...

Taking out dangerous dictatorships counts as money well spent in my opinion.

As for “tax cuts for wealthy people”, the wealthy are paying more than they ever have. So either you were ignorant of that fact, you were lying, or you are aware that the wealthy pay an increasing share and you’re just a demagogue hoping that we don’t catch on. Any which way, you’re not looking too good Mark.

...while democrats spend money we don’t have on bad things like health and old age.

It’s not the function of our government to take my money, take out a huge administration fee, and then give it to my neighbor.

sum day I be smart

I doubt it. You’re pretty damn ignorant and you seem to be happy with that.

First 7 years of Clinton term
4,167,872,986,583.67
5,758,316,426,486.15
I guess the spending increases hadn’t kicked in yet.

I’m not sure what your point is supposed to be there.

Get back to us when you have a better grasp of the facts.

I’ve concluded that you are a demagogue Mark. When the rich pay most of the taxes, every tax cut can be demagogued as a “tax cut for the wealthy”. Nevermind that the top one percent of income earners pay 34% of all taxes or that the top 50 pay 97%. To look at those figures would show the ridiculousness of your bumper-sticker slogan.

What do you have against wealth? Wealth is the solution to poverty. Your beloved government programs certainly aren’t doing much to solve poverty. Have you taken a trip through an inner city lately? Your solutions have failed.

Not to go unnoticed is that you can’t “spend money” on a tax cut. Unless, of course, you believe that government is the rightful owner of all money and labor.

Multiply the amount of the Federal tax per gallon times the number of gallons of gas sold across the country the next time some smarmy politician talks about the “obscene” profits of the oil companies. 
(Oil company profits average around 3-4 cents/gallon?)

Of course, if we tax these “obscene” profits even more, the oil companies have to raise prices to cover their costs and...lo and behold, the amount of Federal taxes goes higher still!

Good point Proof, and just think its never enough money to the dems, they will want more and more and more so they can make people dependant on government. The more people they have dependant on government the more they can get people to vote for them. Sad but true.

Check out:
Goon’s North Dakota Red Neck
Goon’s World

Taking out dangerous dictatorships counts as money well spent in my opinion.

Soooooooo should we raise taxes or cut spending?

top 50 pay 97%

the top 50% also earns 86% of all the income.

What do you have against wealth?

Did I say I have something against wealth? I just think it’s funny that you feel that every tax dollar the republicans spend(including tax cuts for the wealthy) are for a good cause but all the taxes that we have to pay, for those causes, are the democrats fault. 

you can’t “spend money” on a tax cut

Well if we had a surplus than I wouldn’t say spend, but we have to borrow the money to pay for them so......

The bottom line is again, if we spend more than we take in we either have to raise or create new taxes or cut spending, with this administration it’s borrow like crazy.

Soooooooo should we raise taxes or cut spending?

It’s only an either/or proposition? How about we cut the “New Deal” and “Great Society” programs? We’d have 60+ percent of federal money freed up if we did those actions. We can’t do that though. We can’t even reduce the amount of spending increases without your types coming around and proclaiming that the Republicans are “cutting” these programs.

Are you seeing how the deck is stacked yet?

the top 50% also earns 86% of all the income.

They earn it. Correct. Why aren’t they paying 86% instead of the 97% they’re currently paying? Just what kind of “tax cuts for wealthy people” did they receive if they’re still paying higher and higher amounts?

I just think it’s funny that you feel that every tax dollar the republicans spend(including tax cuts for the wealthy)...

What “tax cuts for the wealthy”?! Are you dense? They’re paying more than they ever have. A “cut” for the wealthy means that the amount would be reduced. Or, at the very least, the percentage paid by the wealthy.

So where is the reduction Mark? Show it to us. You can’t, because it doesn’t exist. For you to insist on claiming that they got some kind of cut, even after shown the figures, is nothing but lying on your part.

And once again, you don’t “spend” tax cuts.

...are for a good cause but all the taxes that we have to pay, for those causes, are the democrats fault.

Really? Show me where I said that.

Well if we had a surplus than I wouldn’t say spend, but we have to borrow the money to pay for them so......

That’s faulty logic. You’re telling me that a guy living on credit cards who gets demoted at work (for whatever reason) just “spent” his paycheck? Only if you’re redefining the words to fit into your narrative.

The bottom line is again, if we spend more than we take in we either have to raise or create new taxes or cut spending, with this administration it’s borrow like crazy.

Why do we have to raise taxes? I guess you don’t realize what happens when tax rates (key word there) are lowered. Federal revenues go up.

Mark, this conversation would be so much easier if you wouldn’t do so much damn lying. You’re showing me that you’ll use any dishonest tactic to advance your agenda. That isn’t cool.

Pilgrim: When You first posted this, I suspected that, as long as your list was, you’d left something out.
Today it hit me! Usage Fees! (Tax by another name) Every municipality and government agency that was prohibited by law from raising taxes, levied fees on everything from garbage collection up to entrance into our national parks.

For any voter trying to choose between the two candidates for commander in chief, there is no better test than this: When American strategy in a critical theater was up for grabs, John McCain proposed a highly unpopular and risky path, which he accurately predicted could lead to success. Barack Obama proposed a popular and politically safe route that would have led to an unnecessary and debilitating American defeat at the hands of al Qaeda.

Frederick W. Kagan

It’s only an either/or proposition? How about we cut the “New Deal” and “Great Society” programs?

I have no problem with that, just so long as you have no problem cutting military spending.

Federal revenues go up

Federal spending increased more.

I have no problem with that, just so long as you have no problem cutting military spending.

Once again you ignore the question and pose another either/or proposition.

For your information, military spending is less than a third of the “New Deal” and “Great Society” spending.

not when you take into account the Iraq & Afghan war, veteran benefits, homeland security.....
If cuts need to be made then make them across the board.

If cuts need to be made then make them across the board.

Mark D,

Your argument is silly.  And a bit immature as well.

If you were laid off, or laid up, from your job for a week, would you reduce your family’s expenditure for food by 25% for the month?  How about the mortgage payment?  Are you going to make a partial payment of just 75% of the mortgage?  Will you cut back your electricity, cable, phone, entertainment, and gasoline purchases by 25%?  Would you send in only $450 of that $600 monthly car payment?

Of course not.  Instead you would (hopefully) use some discretion and judgment in deciding which expenditures to reduce, and by how much, to fit within your adjusted monthly budget.  So, why should it be any different when we’re talking about our nation’s budget and expenditures?

People who advocate “across the board” cuts simply do not have the intelligence or the character to make the difficult choices necessary.  What you suggest isn’t “fairness,” it’s cowardice.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

National defense is necessary; social spending and entitlements aren’t.  End of story.  The reality is that reducing the unnecessary social spending would derail the politicians’ gravy train.  They might have to become productive members of society.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

OK Bat One

I am nowhere near as intelligent as you so please bear with me and I will try not to be silly.

I should reduce certain expenditures instead of reducing all expenditures. Got it.

Now, should we A: reduce the defense budget or B: reduce let’s say SS budget? Hmmmmmmm.
Damn, I thought I would be smart enough to answer that on my own but I guess I will have to go ahead and use one of my lifelines.
Well I phoned a friend and he said it all depends, if you are old and on a fixed income then go with A.
But if you work for a defense contractor then the answer would be...........shit.... time ran out before he finished.
Should I use another lifeline?

National defense is necessary; social spending and entitlements aren’t.  End of story

Yah so take that gramma, quit your bichin you don’t need any medication, what hospital....too expensive.
Are the vets left out also?

Yah so take that gramma, quit your bichin you don’t need any medication, what hospital....too expensive. Ah, the leftie anecdotal emotional rant.  What about grandma’s family?
Are the vets left out also? That’s part of defense spending, as if you didn’t know.

A fairly small amount of social spending is necessary for the truly disadvantaged, but not a penny for the lazy or those unwilling to work. We don’t need 2/3 of our annual budget devoted to fat cat social spending.  It’s just a gravy train for greedy politicians.  They confiscate our money, then use it to buy votes.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

The reality is that reducing the unnecessary defense spending would derail the politicians’ gravy train.  They might have to become productive members of society.
I fixed your typo

Once again, MD, defense spending is necessary.  You lie once again.  At least use your own words, instead of stealing the words of those who are more knowledgeable than you.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

Are the vets left out also? That’s part of defense spending, as if you didn’t know.

Question: does the defense budget fall under discretionary spending or mandatory spending

A fairly small amount of social spending is necessary for the truly disadvantaged, but not a penny for the lazy or those unwilling to work.

SS small????

Mark D,

Please pay attention.  I didn’t say YOU were silly… I said your argument was.  And it still is.

Look, if you don’t care for having your argument held up to public ridicule, don’t make silly arguments.

Of course the entire argument about spending cuts is silly.  A modest amount of spending discipline by either of both political parties, and enough economic sense to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, and there would be no need to worry about deficits at all.

Indeed, there is authoritative economic research that indicates that by making the tax cuts permanent, and further reducing certain business taxes, we could maintain a GDP growth rate of 3 to 3.5% and not ever have to worry about “fixing” Social Security, which would then not go into a negative cash flow and ultimately default, as now projected.

Try that on one of your “lifeline” buddies, Mark!

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

MD: The promise of social spending is to cure the various ills of society.  To me, “cure” means that it will get better, and eventually disappear.  However, we see just the opposite with govt social spending.  Every year, we are told that more and more is necessary, and the problems that we were promised would be fixed just get worse and worse.  Maybe common sense would tell us that this method doesn’t work!
I would be very happy if govt spending cured poverty or made education better, but it doesn’t, and I object to spending ever more in something that is an obvious failure. If there was a way to really eliminate these problems, let’s try it, because what we are doing is going in the wrong direction.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

We have tax cuts now and last I heard they were predicting a falling GDP growth rate for 2007.

Mark D goes on, If cuts need to be made then make them across the board.

So just make cuts across the board without taking into account whether or not it makes sense? Get real.

Yah so take that gramma, quit your bichin you don’t need any medication, what hospital....too expensive.

And this right there shows why it is so damn hard to have this discussion in this country. You have the nerve to complain about spending and then balk at any talk about where most of the spending goes. Instead of logical discussion, we get immature emotional rants.

Question: does the defense budget fall under discretionary spending or mandatory spending

The federal government’s obligation to national defense in the U.S. Constitution. You tell us Mark.

Question: does the defense budget fall under discretionary spending or mandatory spending

It should be mandatory, but the Dems treat it as discretionary.

We have tax cuts now and last I heard they were predicting a falling GDP growth rate for 2007.

We have tax rate cuts now. Tax revenues have increased.  As far as economic predictions go, they are almost always wrong, mostly because they are done on the basis of static analysis, and a demand economic system is very dynamic.  Only the govt can produce falling GDP, and the Dems are working very hard to make that happen, with their threats against the oil industry(Hillary) and general efforts to increase tax rates.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

Rob
So Military pensions and Vet benefits would fall under
unnecessary entitlements and social spending?

We have tax cuts now and last I heard they were predicting a falling GDP growth rate for 2007.

Mark D,

Would you please provide a citation and URL for this “prediction” of economic doom and gloom.  I ask because the only such forecasts I have seen are based on the possibility of Democrats raising taxes, which would of course diminish our economy.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

It looks like Mark just likes being a contrarian. He’s already shown that he will lie to make his partisan cheap shots. Now he’s asking stupid questions that have already been answered.

The guy is not here in good faith.

Lik

The point is, what should be cut or reduced.
The right says social programs
The left says defense programs
Who is right?

The guy is not here in good faith.
I’m under attack here.
Bat One I will respond later with your request.
It is 1:30 and I need to go to work at 7:00

Dishonest Mark D says, The right says social programs

How about this? We cut the social programs to under 20% of the federal expenditures. That would put it right around the level of the Constitutionally mandated defense spending.

Who is right?

I’m guessing the people who are citing the Constitutionally bound defense spending while pointing out the astounding failures of the socialist programs are right. I’m also guessing that the people who are so dishonest that they call any tax cut a “tax cut for wealthy people” even after being shown that that’s not true are full of shit. But call me biased towards reality.

You, obviously, see things differently and prefer to make up your own reality while doing emotional end runs around any tax discussion.

Bat One asked, Mark D,

Would you please provide a citation and URL for this “prediction” of economic doom and gloom.

He might be talking about this report.

Notice the hilarious bias. America has been growing at over three percent for years and all we’ve heard from people like Mark and his beloved MSM is that we are living in “the worse economy since Herbert Hoover” and that the next Great Depression is right around the corner, if not already here.

Meanwhile, Europe is expected to grow 2.7% next year. The headline? “Europe’s economy set for robust growth”.

Nice, huh? The bias is so stark that it is sickening that they expect to take us in for fools. Well,..I guess they have taken some fools in.

Let’s see here… France projected to grow at 2.2%, Germany at 1.8%, continental Europe’s two premier economies, and this is what is called “robust growth” in Europe???  What a paltry joke!

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

We have tax cuts now and last I heard they were predicting a falling GDP growth rate for 2007.

Me thinks that is also MSM propaganda who is in the mouth piece of the DNC.

Check out:
Goon’s North Dakota Red Neck
Goon’s World

Boy you guys jump around like crazy, it’s hard too keep up. Focus please.

As far as GDP goes, I was responding to what Bat One said:
Indeed, there is authoritative economic research that indicates that by making the tax cuts permanent, and further reducing certain business taxes, we could maintain a GDP growth rate of 3 to 3.5% and not ever have to worry about “fixing” Social Security, which would then not go into a negative cash flow and ultimately default, as now projected.

So my response was:

We have tax cuts now and last I heard they were predicting a falling GDP growth rate for 2007.

Where did I predict Doom & Gloom?
Where did I compare to the Euro Zone?

Bat One

Fed cuts US GDP forecast for 2007 UPDATE

http://www.forbes.com/afxnewslimited/feeds/afx/2007/02/14/afx3426350.html

Boy you guys jump around like crazy, it’s hard too keep up. Focus please.

Nobody is jumping around. We’re only responding to your foolessness.

Don’t blame us if you can’t keep up.

Where did I compare to the Euro Zone?

Nowhere. Did someone say that you did?