A Democrat Tells Karl Rove That Democrats Won’t Raise Taxes
December 3rd, 2007 at 06:12am Mark Noonan
On Fox News Sunday, and Rove’s reaction was the same as mine:
WALLACE: Let’s — because there’s a lot of stuff out there, so let’s hone in on a couple of things, and let’s talk, first of all, about the economy, spending, taxes.
Congressman, all the Democratic presidential candidates, as Mr. Rove points out, talk about letting the Bush tax cuts expire. The Democratic chairman of House Ways and Means, Charlie Rangel, is proposing an income surtax on couples making more than $200,000 a year.
Won’t people like Karl Rove be able to say, as they’ve said over and over again, your party will raise taxes, his won’t?
VAN HOLLEN: We will not raise taxes, and if you look…
(LAUGHTER)
No, no, no. If you look at…
ROVE: Oh, no, no, no, no. Wait a minute.
VAN HOLLEN: Wait. You tell me — wait, wait, wait, wait. Karl, wait. No, no, listen.
Yeah, right…sure, Van Hollen…we believe you! We know that you Democrats are determined to allow Americans to keep more of what they earn…unless, of course, they are “rich”…but not rich like Ted Kennedy or Jay Rockefeller….we’re talking about the other rich, the one’s who work for a living…
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Democrats, Economy
85 Comments
1. A Democrat Tells Karl Rov&hellip | December 3rd, 2007 at 6:35 am
[…] post by Mark Noonan This was written by . Posted on Monday, December 3, 2007, at 5:12 am. Filed under Politics. […]
2. The Political News You Ne&hellip | December 3rd, 2007 at 6:53 am
[…] Read the rest of this great post here […]
3. Christian Wright | December 3rd, 2007 at 7:51 am
I want the Dems to raise taxes.
The Middle class is being taxed enough, but that top 1% is not being taxed at all. Hit them where it hurts. It is that top 1% that caused the S&L Crisis under Reagan and the Sub-prime crises under Bush.
I just finished watching “The Smartest Men in the Room” and it showed how Bush 43 encouraged Kennyboy’s ambition to deregulate power, that eventually cause tens of thousands of people to lose their pensions.
Now he did it again by refusing to regulate mortgage companies, hedge funds, and you name it.
Republicans are bad for buisness and bad at running government. They are useless.
4. coulterfan | December 3rd, 2007 at 7:53 am
Nobody believes a word of what Karl Rove says! Didn’t he just suggest that Congress ‘pushed Bush’ into the Iraq war before the election, despite video evidence by Bush himself pushing for Congress’ vote?
Heck, even Andrew Card laughed at this ridiculous assertion and said “Sometimes Karl’s mouth gets ahead of his brain!”
He also had “the math” to PROVE that the GOP was going to actually PICK UP Congressional seats in the 2006 elections!
Yeah, Karl’s got a “credibility problem”, indeed!
5. coulterfan | December 3rd, 2007 at 7:56 am
You’re right, Wright! The Dems WILL RAISE TAXES, but only for those who aren’t paying their share currently. The middle class will not see an increase in their tax burden, and may even see a decrease.
And the POOR OIL COMPANIES may actually have to pay taxes again! Conservatives, while against helping families who are disadvantaged, SURE DO LIKE WELFARE FOR THE RICH!!!
6. js | December 3rd, 2007 at 8:35 am
Taxes on the gas exceed the oil industries profit.
In the end the only people who win are the ultra rich athiests and the governments they run. We scream about the outrageous profits of oil companies, but the government takes more than the oil companies through taxes on oil than the oil industries profit.
7. neocon | December 3rd, 2007 at 8:39 am
AND COULTER SURE LIKES TO PROMULGATE LIES AND DISTORTIONS FOR POLITICAL GAIN JUST LIKE ALL GOOD LITTLE LIBERALS!!!!
Is 39% not enough for you coulter? Do you feel that you deserve MORE OF THEIR MONEY because you don’t know how to make your own?
This year’s numbers show that both the income share earned by the top 1 percent and the tax share paid by the top 1 percent have reached all-time highs. In 2005, the top 1 percent of tax returns paid 39.4 percent of all federal individual income taxes - October 5, 2007 Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data
8. js | December 3rd, 2007 at 9:02 am
>>>>> In 2005, the top 1 percent of tax returns paid 39.4 percent of all federal individual income taxes <<<<
Yes, but isnt isnt it funny that the top 1% of tax returns paid the same amount or more tax as the lower 90% of Americans, but the ones we dont talk about are CEO’s and Executives whose annual income exceed 10 -100 million dollars, representing a substantial imparity in the use of these type of percentages.
I really dont think we understand the impact of this issue. To pay several executive ten to a hundred million per year, you have to realize that the costs of the products are inflated sufficiently to do so, which means that the leaches who pretend to justify making that kind of money can only do so at the expense of the rest of the 99% of us whose annual salary is actually a fraction (1/20 OF 1% AT 50K PER YEAR) of what these people make.
9. neocon | December 3rd, 2007 at 9:10 am
js,
You DON’T HAVE TO BUY THOSE PRODUCTS. And those products are obviously priced at what the market will bear, no more, no less. That’s the beauty of a free market.
In a capatilistic market, there are going to be rich people, and ultra rich people. If you attempt to regulate that, you will destroy the model and ultimately destroy what made this country great.
Life is not fair and never will be regardless of regulation.
10. coulterfan | December 3rd, 2007 at 9:10 am
REALLY Neocon?
According to Warren Buffet, he only pays 17.7% income and payroll taxes compared to the average 32.9% in his office:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2007/oct/31/usnews
But, who are you going to trust? Lying liberals like Warren Buffet, or “truthiness tellers” like Rove (”I am entitled to “THE MATH”, and “Bush was pushed into war by Congress”! LOL!)
Furthermore, even LIBERAL GW Bush thought that the GOP’s 8 BILLION Tax Breaks to Big Oil were excessive:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63958-2005Apr18.html
From the article opposing the Republican Congress’s plan:
“I will tell you with $55 oil we don’t need incentives to oil and gas companies to explore,” Bush said in a speech to newspaper editors in Washington. “There are plenty of incentives. What we need is to put a strategy in place that will help this country over time become less dependent.”
Ummm, but did he Veto this plan? OF COURSE NOT, he signed for 14.5 BILLION in tax breaks for Big Energy:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/08/AR2005080800124.html
Who’s lying again?
11. 2008 Presidential Electio&hellip | December 3rd, 2007 at 9:14 am
[…] Mark Noonan placed an interesting blog post on A Democrat Tells Karl Rove That Democrats Wonâ��t Raise TaxesHere’s a brief overview […]
12. AAR | December 3rd, 2007 at 9:40 am
It was sickening listening to Van Hollen’s misleading comments… and even more pathetic to see the Democrat minions “suck ‘em up”!
AAR
13. Bigfoot | December 3rd, 2007 at 9:43 am
I’m very leery about anyone promising not to raise taxes, thanks to George Bush. The first George Bush, that is.
14. AAR | December 3rd, 2007 at 10:19 am
Christian Wright
The Middle class is being taxed enough, but that top 1% is not being taxed at all???
Really?!!! Which useless Democrat (Liberal) site did you pull that DEMOCRAT LIE from, or did YOU just make up the LIE???
According to the Office of Tax Analysis … a small group of higher-income taxpayers paying most of the individual income taxes each year.
Wall Street Journal, April 15, 2006…
If you prefer pictures… Rush has some pie charts.
NO VALID STATISTICS will even remotely support your
LIE that the “top 1% is not being taxed at all”!!!
AAR
15. js | December 3rd, 2007 at 10:31 am
js,
You DON’T HAVE TO BUY THOSE PRODUCTS
LoL, you must live in a different America than I do. Funny how you argue like this, but you dont have a clue about real america. Take Walmart for example. I mean, really, thats about it. Without Walmart, thousands and thousands of family owned American businesses would still be there to compete for your dollar. now its all going to china. You just bark like a dog, neocon. You really dont have a bite.
On average, it takes about 10 years for one wallymart store to eliminate all local competition. They have 3800 stores across the USA, so you have to figure they have out ten times as many stores from competing on the market. And thats just Walmart.
16. AAR | December 3rd, 2007 at 10:44 am
coulterfan (Middle Path),
Nobody believes a word of what Karl Rove says!???
Really? NO ONE? Your statement is a blatant lie!
As for those oil companies, why don’t you just ask your Democrat Congress to close them down?
By the way, who do you think “owns” those oil companies, who benefits from their profits, and who ultimately do pay taxes on those profits? Got any stocks? Know anyone who has a retirement fund or IRA with mutual funds or stocks… who depend on or benefit from them for their retirements?
And yes, I believe many (most) of those executives are overpaid!
AAR
17. phnx | December 3rd, 2007 at 11:00 am
Funny how the Dems talk a good game about sticking it to the rich. But when they have the chance to stick it to the SUPER RICH they bail.
The latest example is their failure to plug the loophole that allows 1000 fund managers to be taxed at 15% as if their incomes were passive instead of 36% like everyone else.
The average income of this group is over $100 million per year, and some make over $1 BILLION per year.
I say good for them if they can do it, but in the meantime I don’t see any reason to give them special tax treatment that amounts to a government subsidy.
You leftist trolls, like Christian Wright, are sucked in by the rhetoric of your leadership year after year, and never hold them to account for the snow job they give you.
BTW: Penalize the rich for making lots of money, and watch them relocate to overseas tax havens. Why do you think there has been a flight of wealth and jobs from inner city America. Its because of taxes…the increase crime and urban decay came afterwards.
18. neocon | December 3rd, 2007 at 11:12 am
js,
I am sure you have facts to back up your assertion js, right? Ten years, and all small business’s are out of business just because of evil walmart. Huh.
The walmart down in my community has been there for about 12 years and they sell shampoo for cheap. But my wife still buys the expensive shampoo from the small hairdresser down the srett. I guess my wife doesn’t know how “real” America works either, right?
And I still must be clueless too, because I still overpay for much of my hardware, choosing to do business with the small hardware store in my community.
btw, your line about “not knowing anything about real America” was priceless. You’re a joke js.
19. neocon | December 3rd, 2007 at 11:14 am
The government makes more money off of a gallon of gas than the oil companies do, and they’re using that money to fund your entitlement programs.
Still want to eliminate oil companies?
20. phnx | December 3rd, 2007 at 11:51 am
This may be a little off topic, but it is about taxes. Maybe we can start another thread. I would be interested to have a discussion on taxes in general.
What’s the answer, a flat tax, a VAT tax, tax on assets, NO tax? Let’s hear it.
I am personally concerned that the percentage of the population paying no federal income tax is approaching 50%. If this percentage goes over 50%, it will be the end of the US. Voters who have no federal income liablity will “stick it to the rich” and force higher and higher taxes to redistribute the wealth of the nation. This will result in a rebellion of the taxpayers.
Before this occurs I propose another solution:
Make payment of federal income tax a requirement of voter eligibility. Pay no tax, get no vote. (a spouse filing jointly would automatically qualify)
I know this is controversial and doesn’t stand a chance of ever even being considered much less passed. But it makes sense. Our votes essentially how the government will distribute the tax revenue that is brought in from the tax paying public. The main question I have is: Should someone who does not contribute to the tax roll have a voice in the distribution of those funds?
Now that I have done my flame retardant suit, What do you think?
21. Kahn | December 3rd, 2007 at 11:57 am
First off, if you don’t like the oil companies don’t drive or heat your house. Install a windmill, or solar cells. How many liberal posters here have solar cells on their roof? Why not?
Montgomery County Maryland, just across the river from me just decided to ANOTHER 15 cents per gallon of tax. It’s already sky high - but whatever. I don’t buy gas there.
22. js | December 3rd, 2007 at 12:14 pm
>>>>And I still must be clueless too<<<<
If you tried, you would figure it out.
That goes to the core, no? If you cant find out about wallymart, what use debate, the data is so easily available.
23. AAR | December 3rd, 2007 at 12:48 pm
Where do all the Low Income and poorer Americans as well as “poor” illegals shop — as well as Middle Class Americans — to get the most for their families, for their children, and for their income? …WAL-MART!!!
Where are the Lower Income and poorer Americans — and Middle Class — able to buy quality products — at the one of the best and lowest average prices around — which allows them to enjoy large flat screen televisions, electronics, DVDs/CDs, kitchen items, appliances, drugs, and a multitude of items that only the rich — who helped bring down those prices in the first place — could afford in the past? …WAL-MART!!!
Where do the Low Income and poorer Americans — and Middle Class — buy food, including fresh fruits and vegetables, at the lowest average prices around — allowing them to eat and enjoy life, and a standard of living much better than they might otherwise (without another tax increase!)? …WAL-MART!!!
Who is it that forces the competitors to keep their prices low? Who would competitors like to shut down so they can raise the prices (and THEIR PROFITS) at the expense of the Low Income and poorer Americans? …WAL-MART!!!
Who is it that runs an efficient operation and works to keep their prices among the lowest around? …WAL-MART!!!
In addition to America’s poor, think about all those hundreds of millions of people around the world, who produce those items which would not sell nearly as well if the prices were higher, and who would have their family income slashed if it weren’t for… WAL-MART!!!
Let’s REALLY STICK it to the Lower and Middle income families — let’s CLOSE WAL-MART or RAISE their prices!
And then, let’s hear the Looney Democrats cry for the need to RAISE TAXES on the wealthy — AND MIDDLE CLASS — so the Lower Income and poorer families can afford the higher prices CREATED by DEMOCRATS!!!
NUTTY DEMOCRATS (Liberals)!!!
(And yes, I would like to see far more of those products produced in cost competitive, and more automated factories in the United States rather than so many in China… even if it does cut Chinese jobs!)
AAR
24. AAR | December 3rd, 2007 at 12:57 pm
And who is largely responsible for those HIGHER oil, gas, and energy prices?
DEMOCRATS… LIBERALS …That’s Who!!!!!
That message should be and should have been told to the American people!
If YOU LIKE paying HIGHer PRICES for OIL, GAS, HEATING, FOOD, and EVERYTHING ELSE — THANK THE DEMOCRATS… their Liberal base… and the excessively fanatical environmentalists whom they unquestioningly support, even at the expense of America and Americans!
AAR
25. js | December 3rd, 2007 at 1:27 pm
Actually, wallymart was more of a bait and switch….they drop prices for about a year, then they go back up….its really not that uncommon, in the initial shock of a superstore, they put alot of folks out of business….they also reduce the wages of retail employee’s….which also affects the economy and creates more of the “poor” people you claim they help by making prices “affordable”…affordable?? really, its pretty hard to tell about that….they dont really have any independents to compete against anymore, do they? cite role model in competition, et al best buy, circuit city, also national chains duping the economy, raking the money and sending it to profit centers outside the USA…..tell us about it…wallymart is an american dream, its capitolism gone haywire is what it is.
26. Kahn | December 3rd, 2007 at 1:33 pm
js - got some price examples of products to back that up? The one in out town has been open for almost 20 years. Still looks cheap to me.
Though I’m not happy with the “Buy Chinese” theme either.
27. js | December 3rd, 2007 at 1:35 pm
oh, and its funny, once upon a time we used to get 10 cucumers/tomatoes for a dollar, now its 1 or 2. bellpeppers are like that as well, so no, big chains and the huge distribution network only helps the rich, while they fleece the poor and middle income with profits that run into several hundred, if not over a thousand, percent on key items….combine it with taxes on everything, including oil and gas…then let the big corporations move to foreign nations (why not, they own the stock, we dont) and you find out how to destroy a free society…unlimited profit from the stupid gringo’s, those white boys who made the chevy popular, ya, the workig american who is on the way to extinction…
28. coulterfan | December 3rd, 2007 at 1:38 pm
>>And who is largely responsible for those HIGHER oil, gas, and energy prices?
DEMOCRATS… LIBERALS …That’s Who!!!!!
Things were A LOT cheaper under the Clinton administration. . . I STILL remember paying about 1 dollar per gallon for gas.
Wages are stagnant, but inflation has crept up steadily since GWB took office.
29. OhioOrrin | December 3rd, 2007 at 1:39 pm
I don’t carry water 4 millionaires anymore.
They should pay more in TAXES because they r free to earn, enjoy, & pass-along their millions in our law enforcement country.
Otherwise the poor would jump their fence, kill them, & take what they wanted.
I also don’t carry water 4 the for-profit medical sector anymore.
So don’t waste ur time w Bill n Thelma ads, redux.
30. Diana Powe | December 3rd, 2007 at 1:41 pm
One of the fascinating things about the modern Republican Party has been its change from its strong identification as representing the middle class as in Richard Nixon’s “Checkers” speech:
to primarily representing the interests of corporate America, as in this paragraph from the then-CEO of the now-defunct Enron Corporation, Kenneth Lay, in his letter to his friend and then-Governor George W. Bush dated 09/11/98 about the outcome of the Texas election that year:
This is also a problem with the Democratic Party as phnx noted in post # 16.
Some of this identification is understandable given the much larger percentage of Americans who are employed by corporations (many of them foreign-based) since Nixon spoke in 1952. However, the GOP has apparently succeeded in large part in persuading middle-class Americans that their interests are somehow primarily aligned with the interests of those who make up the boards of directors of large corporations. These are the same boards who hire the CEOs and CFOs with contracts and salaries that are only rarely based on their actual productivity as executives and practically never related to the often-astounding sums of money they receive when they are subsequently fired by those boards for their failure to produce a higher stock price.
Some of this may be the “get-rich-quick” mentality that has fueled the various speculative bubbles which have popped since the 1980s, culminating in the current meltdown of housing values in the subprime mortgage lending crisis. Greed is an absolute reality in human beings (as well as being one of the cardinal vices or Seven Deadly Sins) but it is absolutely encouraged in the current culture where one finds ordinary people regularly utterly debasing themselves on television for money as in the upcoming series The Moment of Truth. It has also been since the 1980s that we’ve seen such a large number of religious “leaders”, often mouthing support for Republicans, who have openly accumulated vasts sums of money and then been brought down in scandal. This is not a Republican problem, witness, for example, the vileness of Congressman William Jefferson and his $90,000 in cash in his freezer. However, it is a problem.
I wonder what a modern Republican Party that actively pursued its roots in the presidency of Dwight David Eisenhower would look or sound like? I don’t know, but it would make for an interesting idea.
31. neocon | December 3rd, 2007 at 1:44 pm
AAR,
No need to entertain the very ignorant, poorly informed and much indoctrinated js.
He doesn’t get it and never will. A perfect example of our failed educational system.
Many small business’s continue to flourish with the evil walmart in town. And js doesn’t care one bit about the the low prices offered to those lower income families, nor does he care about the many people he would send to the unemployment line. He is only jealously focused on the very successful walmart executives and he is hell bent on bringing them down.
To liberals, personal success is something to destroy.
32. anarchist | December 3rd, 2007 at 2:01 pm
AAR, you cannot just look at taxes without looking at expenditures. All taxes taken are payed out as disbursments for various projects, buerocrat’s pay, subsidides, ect…, the sum of this activity is the fiscal policy of the government. Of course the recipients of this money form only a fraction of the population. The result is that some people pay more taxes than they recieve in disbursements and some people recieve more than they pay. This creates two classes, those who the burden of supporting the government falls onto, the net tax payers, and those who receive that money, net tax consumers.
All net tax payers deserve tax relief. I work in a resturaunt where almost no-one makes more than 14k a year, yet we all pay over 15% of our income to the federal government, and no one there recieves anything from the federal government. You may say, “oh that’s only a couple hundred a month”, but it’s still money that came entirely from our own labor, it’s still rightly our money. We rightly deserve tax relief as well.
Of course I completely agree that the government shouldn’t use taxes as a weapon to achieve some sort of egalatarian minded social engineering, but rather as a means of funding government.
Phnx, choosing who spends your money and how is called the free market. You are basically advocating the free market.
33. js | December 3rd, 2007 at 2:36 pm
i dont think its demoncrats or public-cans, its about big biznis, and how many of our so called elected officials that they can claim to ownz
how can they say they represent the people when they only protect the profitz of the billionairs?
its not kansas anymore toto, its a twizted mess that we landed in and for some reason, folkz juz donlikit.
34. js | December 3rd, 2007 at 2:39 pm
just look at the machine they created to keep track of all the taxes, the budget of the irs is in excess of 11.6 BILLION dollars
what a waste, if they want to do something for this country, get rid of the IRS
the reason they dont is because its too easy to hide the truth behind what they are doing to us, its criminal
35. phnx | December 3rd, 2007 at 3:26 pm
“Phnx, choosing who spends your money and how is called the free market. You are basically advocating the free market.” anarchist
When you talking about spending from your own pocket that’s true, but talking about that in relationship to taxes is a different and much much more complicated issue.
At you level of income there are all sorts of state and federal programs for asistance like the EIC, food stamps, housing, etc. If you choose not to take advantage…
36. phnx | December 3rd, 2007 at 3:32 pm
Speaking of taxes, did anyone get a chance to see Bill Clinton on the stump, talking about how no body asked him if he needed a tax cut???
Notice that as much as rich Dem supporters, Hollywood movie stars and the Dem leadership complain about the tax cut…NOT ONE OF THEM HAS REFUSED TO TAKE IT OR RETURNED IT TO THE TREASURY.
If they had, you bet we’d be sure we’d have heard about it.
My how times have changed. The Dems used to be the party of the working man. We used to be dealing with Limousine Liberals…now its LEAR JET LIBERALS.
37. AAR | December 3rd, 2007 at 8:17 pm
coulternut (Middle Path),
Having memory problems, are you?
If you think things were cheaper when Clinton was president, guess what, they were even cheaper when Eisenhower was president! You could buy gasoline for as little as 13 cents a gallon then. You could fill up your car for a couple of dollars! Why did Clinton drive gasoline prices to over $2.00 per gallon?!!!
AAR
38. TiredofLibBullShit | December 3rd, 2007 at 8:29 pm
If liberals feel that they do not pay enough taxes, why don’t they contribute more?
Again, they should put their money where their mouth is. It is the same all over - taxes, the environment, conservation, etc. etc. etc.
39. AAR | December 3rd, 2007 at 8:30 pm
phnx,
This may be a little off topic, but it is about taxes. Maybe we can start another thread. I would be interested to have a discussion on taxes in general.
I am personally concerned that the percentage of the population paying no federal income tax is approaching 50%. If this percentage goes over 50%, it will be the end of the US. Voters who have no federal income liability will “stick it to the rich” and force higher and higher taxes to redistribute the wealth of the nation. This will result in a rebellion of the taxpayers.
Your ABSOLUTELY RIGHT… that IS the DEMOCRATS’ GOAL!
I think there are ways to stop it, but Republicans — especially those in Congress — can’t seem to figure it out or get their act together!
If you or others would like to discuss topics — without Liberal clutter — it’s easy enough to set up a topic using Google groups or blogs (not quite as fancy as B4V).
AAR
40. Diana Powe | December 3rd, 2007 at 8:39 pm
AAR,
You can’t do direct comparisons between gas prices during the Eisenhower Administration and during the Clinton Administration unless you’re going to correct your numbers for inflation. The numbers are meaningless, otherwise.
41. AAR | December 3rd, 2007 at 8:40 pm
More on coulternut’s comment that gasoline prices were cheaper under Clinton…
There are also 739,247,000 more people in the world now than when “Slick Willie” Clinton was president… using and competing for oil and gas… driving up demand and costs… all while DEMOCRATS block access to America’s oil!
The rest of the world is competing more for oil now, and not just for their cars. It takes oil to produce all the plastics and synthetic materials we buy and use each and every day… and the rest of the world is buying them too. It takes energy to produce and manufacture all of those consumer goods as well.
China, India, and nations all around the world are much more prosperous — thanks in large part to the United States! They have more money to buy more consumer goods made from plastics and synthetics, made from oil, and which require energy (oil and gas) to produce. Thanks to Americans purchasing their goods, many more now have homes to heat and cool, and cars which need gasoline!
America has tens of billions of barrels of oil (trillions of dollars) in Alaska, off our coasts, and in the Gulf for which DEMOCRATS have BLOCKED drilling and access — all while China, Mexico, Cuba and others drill and strike huge reserves in the Gulf and Russia is getting ready to drill in the Arctic!
America has several hundred years of energy in coal and oil shale — BLOCKED by DEMOCRATS!
In addition to the crude oil itself, America must now import gasoline at a substantially higher price, because DEMOCRATS and the fanatically extreme Environmentalists have blocked the building and expansion of new and larger refineries!
That ever scarcer and higher priced oil goes into the basic material costs, production, distribution. and sales of ALL the products we use — even our food — ALL driven higher because DEMOCRATS have BLOCKED access to AMERICA’S oil and gas and driven up ALL costs — not just gasoline and heating!
Thanks DEMOCRATS for the HIGHER GAS PRICES and HIGHER PRICES on EVERYTHING we buy and use!!!
AAR
42. AAR | December 3rd, 2007 at 8:46 pm
Diana,
Tell that to your friend coulternut.
I’m only replying to his failed memory (or lie) when he said: “Things were A LOT cheaper under the Clinton administration. . . I STILL remember paying about 1 dollar per gallon for gas.
AAA
43. AAR | December 3rd, 2007 at 9:11 pm
Diana,
I didn’t know you were a Nixon supporter!
Things have changed a little, even since Nixon’s time.
Those corporations which you apparently dislike, provide the jobs, products, food, communications, services, and other things Americans want and need, and which drive America’s and the world’s economy.
Who do you think owns those corporations? Stock holders, many millions of whom are Americans. Their stocks are part of most people’s IRA’s and retirement accounts, and provide a higher standard of living for retirees.
How about putting those on welfare to work, so they don’t need as many taxes, and perhaps might even pay a few taxes, not to mention giving them the opportunity to succeed and excel themselves! Why do we have “the poor” working an average of two days a week? What do they do the other three days? Loaf? Pick up their welfare and entitlement checks?
Stop enslaving tens of millions of Americans with Democrat welfare — keeping them dependent on more and expanded welfare, subsidies, entitlements, and handouts — all used to buy votes for Democrats! Stop trying to “legalize” tens of millions of illegal aliens so you can enslave them with your welfare!
AAR
44. AAR | December 3rd, 2007 at 9:24 pm
phnx,
You’re right. Those wealthy, bleeding heard, “do good” Democrats like Clinton and the Hollywood Liberal elite, who have more money than they can possibly throw away — won’t volunteer to give their excess money to the government for taxes, or to all the “deserving” poor Americans on welfare who could use another large flat screen television and a new couch! You’d think they could live comfortably and get by on a few million dollars. I could!
Instead, Democrats feel compelled to take and give away everyone else’s money. It gives them a “sense of accomplishment” and makes them “feel good” — like a bunch of “robbing hoods”!
AAR
45. Xango Annie | December 3rd, 2007 at 11:25 pm
Good merciful heavens…some of the Dems on this thread need to adjust their meds..seriously..they would lie when the truth would do better.
46. coulterfan | December 3rd, 2007 at 11:32 pm
>>If liberals feel that they do not pay enough taxes, why don’t they contribute more?
I think part of the issue is that the taxes are going to things we don’t support. To hell with the line item veto, we need LINE ITEM TAXES. So, if I DON’T WANT TO PAY for Bush’s Iraq War, I shouldn’t HAVE TO! Likewise, I could pay that portion of my taxes (which would have gone to Iraq) on schools for AMERICA’S CHILDREN, US INFRASTRUCTURE, and UNIVERSAL HEALTH INSURANCE! Why would I want to pay more taxes just to watch Bush flush it down the toilet or give it to his buddies in the defense industry?
This reminds me of public financing stadium supporters (usually ‘Small Government’ Conservatives who want to waste public money on multi-billion dollar sports franchises). I DID NOT support public financing and voted for Gov. Jesse Ventura. He told stadium supporters that they COULD contribute by sending their tax surplus refunds into a fund for the Vikings and/or Twins stadiums. Guess how many folks (like my Republican in-laws who INSISTED we NEEDED a stadium) sent in? Nada, nothing, zip!
Now THAT money would have gone directly to the stadium- in contrast with ‘liberals paying more taxes’ to corrupt Republican administrations. Hey, if my taxes went to things I support (and wasn’t wasted with ‘No Bid Contracts’ or the 12 BILLION LOST in Iraq), I would gladly pay more taxes.
For example, if I could pay $2400 MORE PER YEAR IN TAXES for a single-payer tax system with no deductibles, no co-pay (like they do in Canada), YOU BET I would do it and drop my employer plan costing $8400 (my portion alone. . . if you include co-pays and deductibles, it costs even more).
AAR-
You better check your figures, gas prices (adjusted for inflation) have recently been higher than ANY TIME IN HISTORY, including during Carter’s term! Republicans are quick to say that the economy is stronger than ever, but MOST AMERICANS don’t feel that way. Sure, the wealthy are doing quite well, but the wages for most Americans are stagnant and the cost of living has been going up dramatically.
If a vote were held today between GW Bush and Bill Clinton, who do YOU think would win?
47. coulterfan | December 3rd, 2007 at 11:38 pm
AAR:
Here’s a chart which might help you understand:
http://www.fintrend.com/inflation/images/charts/Oil/Gasoline_inflation_chart.htm
What happens to gas prices immediately following Bush’s election? Hmmm. . . what industry were he and his cabinet members in before coming into office?
If you don’t think that instability in the MidEast (due in large part to the ill-conceived Iraq War and the saber-rattling towards Iran) has led to higher gas prices, you haven’t been paying attention.
And what about CEO’s salaries and benefits (especially in the oil industry, which receives ENORMOUS tax breaks)?
Why are you against helping the poor with health insurance, but approve of tax giveaways to multi-billionaires?
48. coulterfan | December 3rd, 2007 at 11:55 pm
I’ve got a GREAT idea!
If Republicans really believe in fiscal responsibility, they are as concerned about the national debt as anyone. However, they REALLY believe in the Iraq war, while Democrats wish to end it (in large part because of the cost in money and in lives).
Simple idea. Those who wish to remain in Iraq, agree to pay- say- $2000 or so more in Federal taxes. This will alleviate some of the financial strain on the military and allow us to stay and fight for the Iraqi’s freedom!
What do you think? I think the 1.5 trillion we’ve spent in military, medical, etc would have gone a LONG way towards health care or energy independence. . .
49. AAR | December 4th, 2007 at 1:08 am
coulternut (Middle Path),
Higher demand means higher prices… UNLESS more oil and gasoline are produced to meet that demand!
Any crisis — even hurricanes and snow storms — means higher oil and gas prices UNLESS more oil is produced to prevent real, potential, or imagined shortages.
American HAS the OIL and GAS that would help meet world demand and stabilize or reduce prices — DEMOCRATS have BLOCKED the drilling and access to OUR OIL!
American HAS the OIL and GAS reserves that would stabilize prices during times of crisis — DEMOCRATS have BLOCKED the drilling and access to OUR OIL!
American could produce the gasoline that would increase supply and reduce prices — DEMOCRATS and their Environmental Extremists have BLOCKED building and expansion of AMERICAN REFINERIES!
DEMOCRATS have blocked the drilling, refineries, and alternative sources of oil and gas that would have stabilized and reduced oil and gasoline prices!
DEMOCRATS are to BLAME for HIGH oil, gas, and energy PRICES — leading to higher prices on everything else!!!
That’s the message that must get to the American voters!!!
DEMOCRATS are America’s PROBLEM!!!
AAR
50. AAR | December 4th, 2007 at 1:12 am
coulternut,
I’ve got a GREAT idea!
Why don’t all of you Democrats move to Canada like Democrat said they would do if President Bush won a seond time.
You could help Canada destroy their nation!
AAR
51. AAR | December 4th, 2007 at 1:59 am
Democrats have and continue to block drilling in ANWR and near our coast lines.
ANWR alone has the potential to produce billions of barrels of oil — some estimates say as much as 30 billion barrels! That’s oil that could have been ready to satisfy America’s needs and to stabilize prices during emergencies and shortages.
At the current price of oil, that’s TRILLIONS of dollars that have gone or will go overseas — even to our enemies — and that worsens our balance of payments.
Do the math, 30 billion barrels from ANWR at $100 per barrel is 3 TRILLION dollars — just in the value of the crude oil alone. The retail value of the refined products would be much greater.
Even if ANWR produces only 15 billion barrels, that’s still more than 1.5 TRILLION dollars that could and should remain in America. And there are potentially many more tens of billions of barrels available in other areas within the United States, along our coasts, and in the Gulf of Mexico. That’s even MORE TRILLIONS of dollars that could have and should have remained in America — BLOCKED BY DEMOCRATS!
And then there are all of the jobs associated with American oil and gas. Estimate are that ANWR alone could produce as many as 735,000 to 1,000,000 new jobs and many billions and billions of dollars in revenue to the local, state, and federal government — in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.
And where are these jobs going — along with the TRILLIONS of dollars in oil revenue, salaries, taxes, and American dollars? To Iran, Venezuela, and other nations to develop their economies, provide them jobs, and develop their military!
As we spend more money to buy foreign oil, that worsens America’s balance of payments, reducing the value of the dollar, further driving up the price of oil, gasoline, and everything else Americans buy and use!
Reduce the price of oil and gasoline… keep trillions of dollars in America and America’s economy… create millions more American jobs… increase federal, state, and local tax revenue by hundreds of billions of dollars… put more money in American’s pockets — drill for AMERICAN OIL!!!
AAR
52. brian (boston) | December 4th, 2007 at 6:43 am
Of course the richer you are the more taxes are paid. As a simple example, a person for makes $100,000 compared to a person making $40,000 with the same rate will pay more taxes.
I believe the tax pie just shows that the rich are much richer than the rest of the country. There is a huge divide between the rich and middle class in the country.
As someone mentioned before, the rich can pay less in percentage of taxes paid than the average middle class American. If this is corrected, then I don’t think too many on either side will complain.
53. coulterfan | December 4th, 2007 at 7:37 am
AAR-
You think oil and coal are the FUTURE? You think opening ANWR up would significantly drive down prices? This reminds me of Bush’s pledge for TORT reform, only no one asked him how much our insurance premiums would go down with such reform. . . You know what? Insurance premiums went UP another 40% since tort reform was passed.
>>American could produce the gasoline that would increase supply and reduce prices — DEMOCRATS and their Environmental Extremists have BLOCKED building and expansion of AMERICAN REFINERIES!
BS! All the big oil tax ‘incentives’ were supposed to lead to more refineries, alternative energy research, etc. The problem is: this was not a mandate, so the oil companies (knowing profits would be higher without new refineries) didn’t build them! Of course, nobody wants a refinery in their back yard (including rich Republicans). . . but the REAL issue is greed and profits.
Hey, if you think oil is the future we have a MAJOR disagreement. Our supply (even with ANWR) won’t last long and is relatively hard to access. Are you suggesting price controls on oil, as well as opening public land to oil companies? WHO gets the profits? The American people (who own the land) or Big Oil?
If the US was the first to market with a Hydrogen car which was inexpensive and easy to refuel, do you NOT THINK that we would be exporting them ALL OVER THE WORLD? Maybe you think that the private sector can do it all, but do you think we would have made it to the moon without NASA?
Hey, the ‘Line Item Taxes’ are a GREAT idea! You could put your tax money towards Iraq and I could purchase a single-payer health care policy with mine! This would be a way that those who support this war could SHOW their support (rather than merely slapping a magnetic ribbon on their SUV)!
If Hillary wins, are YOU going to move to Canada? I NEVER said I would if Bush won, but I never said I would stop fighting for what I believe in. Just cause abortion will remain legal (and taxpayer funded under Guiliani- another reason for the Line Item Taxes)- I didn’t see all the Pro-Lifers flee the country to Portugal, Mexico, or Brazil!
54. coulterfan | December 4th, 2007 at 8:24 am
BTW, I LOVE you shifting argument AAR! You went from ‘EVERYTHING is more expensive under Democrats’ to. . GAS WAS more expensive under Clinton. . . (and when I proved you wrong) We should open ANWR to drilling. . .
Hey, refresh me pal. WHO had both houses of Congress and the Presidency for SIX YEARS?!?!? After 9-11, the GOP could force through whatever agenda they wanted, but (contrary to what you claim) MANY Republicans, including my own Sen. Coleman (R) also voted against drilling in ANWR.
Again, WHO would profit from ANWR oil? Should the taxpayers get 60% of the net profits and the other 40% go to Big Oil? Isn’t that fair- since WE own the land and all? Or, do you suggest capping oil prices so that American taxpayers aren’t GOUGED even after giving up one of the few remaining federal protected areas we have left?
55. AAR | December 4th, 2007 at 8:27 am
coulternut (Middle Path),
STOP misleading and lying to the American voters!
OIL is the PRESENT! We CAN NOT live without OIL — at PRESENT!
AMERICA HAS OIL! DEMOCRATS are blocking access to AMERICA’S OIL!
Blame DEMOCRATS for HIGH GAS PRICES!
DEMOCRATS are responsible for TRILLIONS of U.S. dollars going overseas, increasing our national debt, devaluing the dollar, increasing oil prices even more… INCREASING PRICES on EVERYTHING!!!
DEMOCRATS are the PROBLEM!
REDUCE gasoline prices! START the drilling!
Let AMERICA’S oil flow!!!
AAR
56. coulterfan | December 4th, 2007 at 8:29 am
And with the Line Item Taxes, you could allocate some of your tax money to helping the Big Oil companies build refineries! If you value that over public education, you could put your money where your mouth is!
And do you think the Iraq War would still be going if Americans had to allocate some of their tax money to it? Do you STILL think that the war supporters would be OKAY with LOSING 12 BILLION DOLLARS, NO-BID CONTRACTS, PAYING PRIVATE CONTRACTORS SIX TIMES WHAT ARE SOLDIERS ARE BEING PAID, ETC? Isn’t my ‘Line Item Taxes’ a CONSERVATIVE idea which would force us to prioritize and demand VALUE from the taxes we pay?
57. AAR | December 4th, 2007 at 9:23 am
coulternut (Middle Path),
The Chinese can drill for oil off America’s coasts, but Democrats FORBID Ameircans from drilling for OUR own AMERICAN oil!!!
Worse still, the Chinese can suck out even more AMERICAN OIL — closer to America’s shores — using slant drilling techniques!!!
DEMOCRATS… LET AMERICA’S OIL FLOW!
REDUCE the cost of OIL and GAS… Just say NO to DEMOCRATS!
AAR
58. coulterfan | December 4th, 2007 at 9:39 am
AAR evidently wants to use MORE tax money to help out BIG OIL! He obfuscates and won’t answer any questions and, when his point is proven wrong, just changes the subject!
But the beauty of my ‘Line Item Taxes’ idea is that he COULD send MORE OF HIS TAX MONEY to Big Oil companies and the Iraq War! He could then keep his private health insurance plan, while I use MY TAXES to purchase Single-Payer Health Care!
See, EVERYBODY WINS!
59. AAR | December 4th, 2007 at 9:51 am
The Chinese can drill for oil off America’s coasts, but Democrats FORBID Ameircans from drilling for OUR own AMERICAN oil!!!
Worse still, the Chinese can suck out even more AMERICAN OIL — closer to America’s shores — using slant drilling techniques!!!
DEMOCRATS… LET AMERICA’S OIL FLOW!
REDUCE the cost of OIL and GAS… Just say NO to DEMOCRATS!
AAR
60. AAR | December 4th, 2007 at 10:02 am
WHO would profit from ANWR oil?
AMERICANS would WIN with LOWER gasoline PRICES!
AMERICANS would WIN with LOWER heating COSTS!
AMERICANS would WIN with REDUCED dependence on FOREIGN OIL!
AMERICANS would WIN … with MILLIONS more American jobs… TRILLIONS of dollars put back into AMERICA’S economy… and hundreds of BILLONS in taxes for AMERICAN needs!
DEMOCRATS are driving up the PRICE of OIL, GAS, and HEATING!
THINK about it the next time you fill your car!
THINK about it the next time you pay your heating bill!
THANK the DEMOCRATS for HIGHER GAS, OIL, and HEATING COSTS and for sending YOUR MONEY to IRAN and foreign nations!!!
AAR
61. coulterfan | December 4th, 2007 at 10:14 am
LOVE your “Talking points”, AAR!
But, WHO gets the PROFITS from drilling in ANWR?
Should it be a 60/40 split with 60% going to the American taxpayers (since WE own the land)?
If YOU owned land which had oil under it, would you insist on sharing in the PROFITS, or would you be content to charge a low rent while others tore up your property and pocketed ALL the PROFITS???
BTW, feel free to send any tax refund you get to the BIG OIL companies! I’m SURE they’ll take it and you can help them BUILD REFINERIES!
62. AAR | December 4th, 2007 at 10:14 am
coulternut (Middle Path),
“Hey, refresh me pal. WHO had both houses of Congress and the Presidency for SIX YEARS?!?!?”
The DO NOTHING Democrats have controlled Congress for almost a year!
The DEMOCRAT CONGRESS is BLOCKING access to AMERICA’S oil!
DEMAND that the DEMOCRAT CONGRESS get the legislation to President Bush that will ALLOW Americans access to OUR OWN OIL and REDUCE the PRICE of OIL and GAS and HEATING!
THINK! The next time you fill your car with over priced gasoline or pay you high heating bill, give the DEMOCRAT CONGRESS a call and tell them to STOP BLOCKING AMERICAN OIL!!!
President Bush is WAITING for that BILL!
AAR
63. phnx | December 4th, 2007 at 10:41 am
AAR,
“If you or others would like to discuss topics — without Liberal clutter…”
Thanks for the invite. I think Almiranta and others have dicussed this possibility. As busy as I am I’m not sure I could be a regular contributor, but I would like to hear from others on plans for activism as the election gets closer. If something is set up have Mark contact me though my email.
64. AAR | December 4th, 2007 at 10:43 am
WHO gets the PROFITS from drilling in ANWR?
The AMERICAN PEOPLE get the PROFITS!!!
MORE American OIL!
REDUCED oil PRICES!
REDUCED gas PRICES!
REDUCED DEPENDENCE on FOREIGN OIL!
REDUCED BALANCE of PAYMENTS!.
REDUCED PRICES and COSTS on EVERYTHING!
MORE MONEY in their pockets and purses to spend as they choose!
LOWER TAX RATES as more revenue is produced by TRILLIONS of dollars going into an expanded American economy… producing more jobs… and producing HUNDREDS of BILLIONS in new revenue from lower tax rates!
DEMOCRATS… cut the manure… REDUCE oil, gas, and heating PRICES and COSTS to the American VOTER!
Start the drills. Produce American oil! Winter is coming!
Americans are fed up with the DEMOCRATS’ higher gasoline and heating costs!
AAR
65. coulterfan | December 4th, 2007 at 11:12 am
Boy, AAR, You SURE are a JOKER with your BOLD TALKING POINTS, but you are still UNABLE TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS!
Don’t you THINK that Americans should get THE PROFITS from OIL EXTRACTED FROM OUR LAND?
Or, do you think that 100% of the PROFITS SHOULD GO TO THE BIG OIL COMPANIES?
And, according to Oil Company estimates, EVEN IF ANWR WERE OPEN, OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN FUEL WOULD AT BEST DECREASE FROM 68% IMPORTED TO 64% IMPORTED BY 2025!
That’s YOUR IDEA for ENERGY INDEPENDENCE?
Boy, you sure are a BIG THINKER!
66. AAR | December 4th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
Middle Path (coulternut),
You’ve said nothing that warrants a discussion. All you do is repeat the same old DEMOCRAT talking points we have heard for seven years… Big Bad Oil… tax, tax, tax… block, block, block!!!
Your only purpose here is to spread more Liberals propaganda on this Conservative blog as you have on others!
If I want to read your opinions, I can go to any Looney Liberal website or listen to one of your nutty Democrat politicians.
ANWR is only the beginning!
America has hundreds of billions of barrels in oil, gas, and other petroleum reserves — enough to last for a couple of hundred years — ALL BLOCKED by you DEMOCRATS!
We can produce American oil… or we can do as DEMOCRATS WANT — send OUR money to other nations to build and fuel their economy, create their jobs, and allow them to collect the taxes — while WE PAY HIGHER OIL, GAS, and HEATING COSTS!!! Why not send them several more TRILLION dollars that we could use right here in America???
Thanks again, though, for the DEMOCRATS’ high oil, gas, and heating costs!
AAR
67. coulterfan | December 4th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
Oh, to point out the obvious (if you haven’t noticed), AAR is being deceptive in his use of the word “profits”.
I meant “profits” in the MONETARY sense - shouldn’t the American people reap the benefits of their own natural resources rather than the oil companies?
AAR is shifting to using the word “profits” to mean “to benefit”
For instance, The American people would reap the profits of Universal Health Insurance because we would have better overall health, lower infant mortality, and lower health costs!
The thing is, though, that there wouldn’t be a monetary profit with UHC- it would actually COST taxpayers (though FAR less than they’re paying already to private insurance companies).
However, it would be deceptive for me (like AAR) to claim that it would “profit” the American people.
Just thought I’d point this out- though anyone paying attention ALREADY KNOWS how he’s obfuscating!
68. coulterfan | December 4th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
And, BTW, WHY does he support CORPORATE WELFARE for OIL COMPANIES (and their BILLIONAIRE CEOs) while opposing Health Coverage for those who can’t afford it?
69. AAR | December 4th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
phnx,
A few of us have been corresponding a little already, mostly just chatting for now.
I’ll ask Mark to send you my e-mail address in case you want contact me later.
AAR
70. AAR | December 4th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
Middle Path (coulternut),
There is no “corporate welfare” except in the tiny little brains of you LIBnuts.
Is that all you can do? Repeat these same old Liberal propaganda line?
I don’t need to convince you lying, misleading Democrats of anything… it’s the American people who need to know that you DEMOCRATS are BLOCKING access to AMERICAN OIL and INCREASING up GAS PRICES!
STOP BLOCKING ACCESS TO AMERICAN OIL!
If you don’t want Americans to have the oil and gas they need at reasonable prices, just ask your Democrat Do Nothing Congress to put those companies out of business — along with the millions they employ, and the IRAs and Retirement Accounts they help build!
I’ve got other things to do now, but you just keep repeating the same old Liberal talking points!
If the American people want to be played for fools by you Democrats, that’s their choice. I can only tell them what you are doing!
AAR
71. coulterfan | December 4th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
>>There is no “corporate welfare” except in the tiny little brains of you LIBnuts.
REALLY, AAR? There ARE no ‘public sports stadiums’, there ARE NO ‘tax breaks’ for Oil companies, there are no “no bid” contracts? etc, etc
This MUST mean that if Democrats roll back the (nonexistant) 14 BILLION DOLLARS in TAX BREAKS for oil companies, that YOU WON’T OPPOSE IT (since they DON’T EXIST!)
Guess the Washington Post is wrong that there are 14.5 BILLION in tax breaks:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/27/AR2005072702207.html
72. coulterfan | December 4th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
CATO Institute also disagrees with you- check their site. They calculate that corporate welfare amounted to over 140 BILLION DOLLARS in 2005! That’s FAR MORE than social welfare programs or even Universal Health Care. . .
Who’s misleading people, AAR?
73. coulterfan | December 4th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
Oh, and if you consider CATO Institute to be “LIBnuts”, how far to the right are you?
Do you advocate corporate ownership of our entire government? Maybe our politicians could dress like NASCAR drivers with corporate labels all over their suits (come to think of it, at least that would be HONEST!)
Hmmm, which German political party advocated wholesale corporate takeover of government? What form of government IS IT that is just to the right of ‘reactionary’?
74. phnx | December 4th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
Colterfan,
If you would get your head out of your a**, you’d know that the government gets royalty payments on its oil leases, as well as tax revenues from the profits of the oil companies. I know that conflicts with your demo talking point but neverthless it is true.
And while we are speaking of oil, and the alledged Bush-Cheney-Big Oil cabal, it might interest you to know that the Department of the Interior is investigating to see if they can recover over $2 billion in royalty payments to date, and an estimated additional $8 billion over the life of the contract, as a result of loopholes in an oil lease contract written by the executive branch.
I hope that you are outraged by the obvious corruption that resulted in this windfall to BIG OIL. This is proof positive of complicitity in corruption. The President and Vice President should be prosecuted and thrown in jail for this. I hope that you will support me in a call for this.
Its time that the CLINTON ADMINSTRATION answered for this!!!
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1206/121506cdpm2.htm
75. AAR | December 4th, 2007 at 6:46 pm
Middle Path (coulternut),
Corporate welfare, huh?
So you’re saying that the oil companies don’t pay taxes, right?
You’re saying the government is actually paying oil companies a few billion dollars in handouts from our taxes, right?
AAR
76. coulterfan | December 4th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
>>So you’re saying that the oil companies don’t pay taxes, right?
Oh, if THAT’S the definition then there IS NO SUCH THING AS WELFARE!
Folks who have taken ‘welfare payments’ for generations SURELY pay sales tax, gas taxes, property taxes, and income taxes (if they are employed). Since they pay sales taxes, the food stamps and checks they recieve from the government CAN’T be ‘welfare’!
Thanks for clearing that up, AAR!
77. coulterfan | December 4th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
>>the government gets royalty payments on its oil leases, as well as tax revenues from the profits of the oil companies
I know they do, but that’s not a fair division of the ‘profits’. Typically such profits would be split 60/40 with the majority going to the landowner. Would you lease out your land for oil exploration without demanding a majority of the net profits?
Hey, I was not a huge fan of Clinton, but he was a thousand times better than Bush! BTW, if an election were held between Bill Clinton and GW, who do YOU think would win?
78. coulterfan | December 4th, 2007 at 8:48 pm
>>You’re saying the government is actually paying oil companies a few billion dollars in handouts from our taxes, right?
I think you’re smarter than this. . . If Big Oil gets 14.5 BILLION in tax cuts, that puts more of the TAX BURDEN on CITIZENS! Just as when the public finances sports stadiums, they often sell land (or give it away) at a net loss. Furthermore, the government often LOANS tax money to sports franchises at LOW or NO INTEREST!
Ironically, the Big Oil companies are the ones benefiting MOST from this war, but are not paying their fair share in Federal Taxes!
Hey, what did you guys think about Wellstone’s bill to only give Federal Government contracts to US companies which pay Federal taxes? The Bush administration was AGAINST IT, as was the GOP controlled Congress but doesn’t it make sense that companies which move offshore to AVOID paying US Taxes (like Halliburton, now in Dubai)) SHOULD NOT GET TAXPAYER-FUNDED CONTRACTS!
And doesn’t anyone else like my Line Item Taxes idea? That way, you wouldn’t have to pay for services you don’t want (like Guiliani’s public abortion financing) and I (along with the majority of Americans) wouldn’t have to pay for the Iraq War!
79. AAR | December 4th, 2007 at 9:51 pm
Middle Path (coulternut),
And here I thought you really and truly meant that oil companies were receiving government welfare!
So, what you really mean when you say oil companies are receiving “Corporate Welfare” is they aren’t paying as much in taxes as what YOU think they should pay, right? That would be like saying the wealthy, who already pay most of the taxes, are receiving “government welfare”, because YOU believe they aren’t paying enough taxes, right? What would you call that, “Wealthy Welfare”?
So, what you’re really doing by using the term “Corporate Welfare” is deliberately trying to mislead and deceive the average American voter — who equates welfare to the taxpayer funded payments and support for the poor — into believing that oil companies are not paying taxes, but instead receiving some sort of government welfare assistance!
Just say in plain English that you want more and higher taxes — like all good little Liberals do — and stop calling it “welfare” when someone isn’t paying as much in taxes as YOU think they should!!!
RE: Your: “Who’s misleading people, AAR?”
RE: Your: “Just thought I’d point this out- though anyone paying attention ALREADY KNOWS how he’s obfuscating!”
I think any rational thinking person can easily see that YOU and the Democrats are the ones who are obfuscating and deliberately trying to mislead and deceive the American people!!!
AAR
80. AAR | December 4th, 2007 at 10:57 pm
Coulternut laments “I STILL remember paying about 1 dollar per gallon for gas”, but objects to drilling for American oil (including ANWR and off our coasts) — preferring instead for Americans to pay $3 or $4 or $5 or more per gallon of gasoline!
Coulternut ponders “But, WHO gets the PROFITS from drilling in ANWR?” but wants Democrats to block access to American oil… instead sending TRILLIONS of American dollars and associated jobs, along with hundreds of billions of dollars in tax revenue, to Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Mexico, Canada, and other nations!
Who will get the profits from drilling for American oil? America and Americans — instead of other nations!!!
Who profits from drilling for American oil? Each and every American who pockets more money from reduced gasoline and heating prices — rather than sending it to some rich sheik in Saudi Arabia!!!
DEMOCRATS, STOP BLOCKING ACCESS TO AMERICAN OIL.
The American people want cheaper gasoline and heating fuel!!!
Drill for American oil and reduce those gasoline and heating prices.
Let Congress decide who — in America rather than Saudi Arabia — gets the profits!
AAR
81. AAR | December 4th, 2007 at 11:02 pm
coulternut,
Folks who have taken ‘welfare payments’ for generations SURELY pay sales tax, gas taxes, property taxes, and income taxes (if they are employed). Since they pay sales taxes, the food stamps and checks they receive from the government CAN’T be ‘welfare’!
I think those little brain cells are beginning to overheat, smoke, and misfire! How can I respond to [il]logic like that?! Perhaps you would consider those on welfare as “government employees” whose “government job” is to transfer money from me and those who pay income taxes to other government agencies?!!!
AAR
82. phnx | December 5th, 2007 at 2:31 am
“but that’s not a fair division of the ‘profits’”
coulterfan
Not fair according to who, you?
Fair market value is defined as what a willing buyer and a willing seller agree upon.
Federal oil leases are granted in a competative bidding process. The highest bidder gets the lease. By definition its fair.
It seems that you are proposing the nationalizing the oil industry. Isn’t this what Chavez has done? Don’t look now but your red undies are showing.
83. petroleum refining&hellip | March 5th, 2008 at 7:47 am
petroleum refining
Thanks for the nice read, keep up the interesting posts..
84. In Aaa Insurance Life Ter&hellip | March 10th, 2008 at 3:42 am
Life Insurances Unfairly Loaded Up
According to a research by LifeSearch, the percentage of people under 35 who are buying life insurance has dropped by five per cent to 31 per cent.
85. Www Nh Retirement System.&hellip | March 18th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Www Nh Retirement System.com
I enjoyed reading your blog. What a great thing it is to be able to share information like this on the Internet.