Senate Dems Lose Vote on Repeal of Tax Breaks for Oil Companies Amid Pain at Pump

Why do democrats keep calling these tax breaks subsidies? Why do they keep neglecting to mention that many other industries in this Country get the same tax breaks? Why do they fail to inform us that they are picking on FIVE oil companies? They aren't demanding that these tax breaks be taken away from ALL oil companies, just the five that they don't like. Why don't they admit that if these tax breaks are taken away the price of gasoline will rise in accordance?

These big five oil companies pay about 40% in taxes, even with the tax breaks they get, billions of dollars. But all the democrats see is the dollar figures, never mind that there are lots of companies that make a bigger profit percentage, just not the dollar amount. The democrats also refuse to mention that out of those profits the oil companies pay for research and development and exploration. It's not like they drill a hole in the ground and oil pops out. They spend huge amounts of money figuring out exactly where the oil is.

And lets also keep in mind that the oil industry employs thousands and thousands of people. Every time obama and his gang of thugs make it harder for oil companies to drill, Americans lose their jobs. The oil industry sufffers every day along the Gulf Coast because obama refuses to allow them to drill.

obama recently said he is going to increase drilling in the Gulf, off of Alaska, and off of California. It's bullshit. It is an election stunt. He has no intention of EVER allowing our Country to become energy independent. Don't fall for it people...

From FoxNews

As expected, Senate Democrats lost a key test vote Tuesday on a bill that would have repealed $20 billion worth of tax subsidies for the nation's five largest oil companies, falling 8 votes short of a win.

The 52-48 vote came as a majority of Americans say in a new Gallup poll that high gas prices are hurting their finances.

Nearly seven in 10 Americans said high gas prices are causing financial hardship for their families. More than half said to compensate, they have made major changes, ranging from shorter trips to cutting back on vacation travel. More than a 1,000 people responded to the poll that has a 4 percent margin of error.

The national average price for a gallon of regular gas is $3.94, according to AAA, and Democrats were looking to exploit that high price with Tuesday's vote.

Last week, Democrats grilled oil executives on the tax breaks that they say are not needed and President Obama announced Saturday he was directing his administration to ramp up U.S. oil production by extending leases in the Gulf of Mexico and off Alaska's coast.

Democrats have been touting a new report by the Joint Economic Committee found that eliminating the tax breaks would reduce the deficit by $21 billion over 10 years and encourage alternative energy and energy efficiency.

"This new JEC report makes clear that there are ways to bring down the deficit without harming our economic recovery," said Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., chairman of the committee. "By repealing unnecessary tax breaks to the major integrated oil companies, we can reduce the deficit by more than $20 billion and speed the move to a clean energy economy without impacting prices at the pump."

But Republicans opposed the bill, saying it won't relieve pain at the pump, a conclusion also reached by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who said on the Senate floor Tuesday that "it won't affect gas prices at all."

Reid then went on to say the opposite.

"We have to do something about the exorbitant gas prices, and the best way to start with that is to do something about the five big oil companies getting subsidies they don't need," he said.

Read the rest at the link above...

On Earth Day, Thank a Hunter

Joe Texan sent me this link. I know it is a day late, but it is still worth a read. I never thought about all the things we, as hunters and fishermen, pay taxes on that support a bunch of freeloading, hippy tree huggers.

This will give you a new perspective on how we much we contribute to conservation efforts compared to the people who bitch about us. Kind of amazing really...

By Humberto Fontova - Townhall

‘In 1970, a Senator from Wisconsin named Gaylord Nelson raised his voice and called on every American to take action on behalf of the environment,” read President Obama’s Earth Day proclamation last year. “In the four decades since, millions of Americans have heeded that call and joined together to protect the planet we share.”

Well, I’ve got news for our President. Millions of Americans who had never heard of Gaylord Nelson “took action on behalf of the environment,” decades before the good Senator “raised his voice.” More newsworthy still, most of these belonged to those insufferable rustics who “cling to guns and bibles.” To wit:

The Pittman-Robertson Act (1937) imposed an excise tax of 10 per cent on all hunting gear. Then the Dingell-Johnson act (1950) did the same for fishing gear. The Wallop-Breaux amendment (1984) extended the tax to the fuel for boats. All of this lucre goes to “protect the environment” in the form of buying and maintaining National Wildlife Refuges, along with state programs for buying and maintaining various forms of wildlife habitat.

For the last couple of decades hunters and fishermen have contributed over $1.5 billion per year towards Senator Gaylord Nelson’s lofty goal. To date, hunters and fisherpersons have shelled out over $20 billion “on behalf of the environment.” A study by the National Shooting Sports Foundation found that for every taxpayer dollar invested in wildlife conservation, hunters and fishermen contribute nine.

So please note: to "preserve nature," they don’t tax Birkenstock hiking boots and Ying-Yang pendants – but do tax my shotgun. They don’t tax Yoga manuals and Tofu tid-bits wrapped in recycled paper – but do tax my 30.06 deer rifle. They don’t tax binoculars or birding Field Guides with cutesy photos of the red-cockaded woodpecker and spotted Owl – but do tax the shotgun shells I blast at Mallards before arraying on my grill as Duck-K-Bobs (cooked rare and lovingly basted with plenty of butter, Cajun seasoning and teriyaki sauce).

Going further, they don’t tax Kayaks and rock climbing picks and ropes – but do tax my compound bow and rifle scope. They don’t tax the plastic water bottles on Mountain bikes (or the mountain bike itself, come to think of it) or the cutesy spandex shorts these yo-yos wear – but do tax my duck decoys and camo pants. They don’t tax Yanni and Enya CDs – but do tax the arrows I fling at Bambi before he sizzles on my grill as Bambi-burger (lovingly draped with thick bacon slices that dribble their appetizing fat into the meat while cooking. Then a chunk of cheddar cheese melted on top.)

You talk about a "Cheeseburger in Paradise," Jimmy Buffet! Try one from Bambi!

Ten cents of every dollar I spent on my hunting and fishing toys (I'd cite the total but my wife might read this) funds Federal and State "conservation" programs. From my guns and ammo to my duck calls and decoys, from my rods and reels to my lures and gaffs, from my trolling motor to the very fuel for my outboard – ten cents of every dollar in this ghastly expenditure funds habitat for Spotted Owls, Red Cockaded Woodpeckers, Bald Eagles, Ospreys, Manatees, Snail darters, Black-Footed Ferrets, California Condors, Florida Panthers and Sea Otters.

None of these creatures (from what I hear) make a decent Gumbo or even a passable Chili. I must be crazy. But I have no choice. And this avalanche of tax dollars comes on top of those I fork over for the stacks of licenses, and permits, and stamps I'm required to have before I set a foot afield or set my boat afloat. Last season these totaled $500. (But sweetie! There are huge fines for hunting and fishing without them!)

And all the above is on top of my voluntary dues and assorted donations to such as Ducks Unlimited. (But snookums! I thought you loved the duck print I brought home at 2: 45 AM from the DU Banquet/auction? And especially the picture of me with the nice Hooters girl who worked the keg in her camo bikini?) According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation these donations to such as DU, Pheasants Forever, etc. total $300 million a year.

Read the rest at the link above...

Laffer Curve...

Have you ever heard of the Laffer Curve? I hadn't until several months ago. It's a little like the Bell Curve for grading in school, but this is for determining the optimal tax rate in an economy.

The Laffer Curve basically says that at 0 percent taxation the government gets $0 dollars in revenue, and at 100 percent taxation the government gets $0 dollars in revenue. At 100 percent taxation there is no incentive for people to earn money. Instead bartering and other means of trade take the place of cash transactions.

Based on those assumptions, there has to be a tax rate in between that keeps the people happy while generating the revenue government needs to function.

When Ronald Reagan took over after jimmy carter almost drove our economy into the ground, he used the Laffer Curve, in part, as a basis for dropping the highest marginal tax rate from 70 percent to 31 percent. It resulted in a massive increase in revenue to the federal government. Of course, congress continued to spend every single nickle that came in, and then some, so no surplus was ever attained.

It's hard to believe that taxing people LESS brings in MORE money, but it works. That isn't always the case, but historically in this Country it is very effective.

obama and his gang of thugs think that taxation is the key to solving our financial crisis. It isn't. Cutting spending is the first step. Reducing the size and influence of government is also a good step. Businesses have to have some freedom in order to be innovative. Innovation leads businesses to employ more people, more people paying a lower tax rate increases revenue to the government.

obama also talks constantly about the evil rich people. They don't pay their fair share. There are three points I would like to make about that.
1. The top 1 percent of wage earners in this Country pay 40 percent of the tax burden. Compare that to the bottom 45 percent who pay no taxes at all. Who is actually carrying the burden?

2. Rich people in this Country employ millions of people. The small business is the backbone of this Country. We are losing small businesses every day to uncertainty with the economy, over regulation, over taxation and just a general hostile environment created by this administration.

3. Companies and corporations don't pay tax. Sure, they may send money to the federal government, but they offset that money by increasing prices on goods and services or being unable to afford raises and other benefits for their employees.

One last thing, it is not evil for a company to make a profit. Profits mean more research and development which results in better products. It means raises for employees. It means charitable donations. It means putting more money back in to our economy.

obama is bad for our Nation. He is anti-American in every sense of the word. His plot to turn us into a third world nation is dangerous. His underhanded and dirty tactics should not be tolerated. The press in this Country have given him a free pass from the moment he emerged from the chicago slime. Will the press be as forgiving when he comes for them?

For more information on the Laffer Curve, and other examples, visit this link...

What is a "Spending Reduction" in the "Failsafe" Provision?

According to a news article quoted earlier by BillyBob:

"A White House aide suggested the president's plan would save more than the committee claims in part because of a "failsafe" provision that would trigger additional spending cuts if debt reduction goals are not met. "

What we have here is further proof that the lying bastard in the White House lies, lies, and lies some more.  He is a big, stinking, lying, sack of shit.  This particular lie incenses me to no end, and should do the same for all you readers once you understand what President Pinhead is saying.

One way to lie is to use a new label to refer to an old idea and hope nobody realizes you're talking about something else.  In his recent speeches, Obama referred to "decreasing expenditures in the tax code" and finding ways to "reduce spending in the tax code."  There are no such things as "expenditures in the tax code" or "spending in the tax code."  What he is referring to is money that isn't being taken in taxes!  Any money citizens don't pay in taxes is considered an "expenditure" now in Obamathink.  If tax rates are increased, then to Obozo, that's a smaller "expenditure in the tax code."  This is such an Orwellian concept that it frightens me to think people are actually falling for it.

What this means is that he truly believes that all income earned by everyone in the country belongs to the government, and any that the government doesn't take in taxes should be considered an expenditure by the government.  This idea is so completely backwards that it would boggle the mind if it were anyone else but our Marxist Community Organizer-in-Chief.

The true meaning of this fail-safe provision is that if spending goes over a certain limit, taxes will increase AUTOMATICALLY, without our representatives voting on it.  And since when has spending ever NOT increased, especially with the liberal wrecking crew that's in charge of the executive branch and the Senate? We had a revolution 235 years ago over this type of crap.

BUCK OFAMA!

Nearly Half of U.S. Households Pay No Income Tax to Feds

I can tell you, I'm not one of the 45%. I need to have 5 or 6 more kids...

Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- As Monday's tax filing deadline nears, ponder this: The super rich pay a lot less taxes than they did a couple of decades ago, and nearly half of U.S. households pay no income taxes at all.

The Internal Revenue Service tracks the tax returns with the 400 highest adjusted gross incomes each year. The average income on those returns in 2007, the latest year for IRS data, was nearly $345 million. Their average federal income tax rate was 17 percent, down from 26 percent in 1992.

Over the same period, the average federal income tax rate for all taxpayers declined to 9.3 percent from 9.9 percent.

The top income tax rate is 35 percent, so how can people who make so much pay so little in taxes? The nation's tax laws are packed with breaks for people at every income level. There are breaks for having children, paying a mortgage, going to college, and even for paying other taxes.

Plus, the top rate on capital gains is only 15 percent.

There are so many breaks that 45 percent of U.S. households will pay no federal income tax for 2010, according to estimates by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank. 

 
Read the rest at the link above...

CBO Sees Benefits in Taxing Motorists Based on Miles Driven

Let me see, the money I earn is taxed. When I bought my car it was taxed. When I put gas in the car it's taxed. And now these assclowns talk about taxing me for the miles I drive? Exactly how many different times do they need to tax the same money?

Maybe if the dumbasses in washington could control their spending we wouldn't be in this mess. It doesn't matter how high taxes are raised or how many different taxes they impose on us, if they spend far more than they take in, it will never be enough. Is this some kind of super secret thing that only a few of us know? You would think with all the "smart" think tank type people they have in washington some one would have caught on to this by now. Don't spend more than you have, it's not rocket surgery.

By Susan Jones - CNSNews

A new Congressional Budget Office study says taxing motorists based on the number of miles they drive would be a fair and "efficient" way to charge motorists for the real cost of using the nation's highways. "Vehicle-miles traveled" taxes (or VMT taxes) also would provide a strong incentive for people to drive less.

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood floated the idea of a VMT tax one month after President Obama took office, but Obama’s spokesman immediately shot it down. "It is not and will not be the policy of the Obama administration," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters in February 2009.

But that was then.

The CBO study, released this week, says the federal government pays in part for about 25 percent of the nation's highways, which carry about 85 percent of all road traffic. Right now, federal spending on those highways is funded mainly by taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel, but those taxes do not raise enough money to support either the current federal spending on highways -- or the higher spending levels that some transportation planners advocate.

The CBO said most of the costs of using a highway, including pavement damage, congestion, accidents, and noise, are tied more closely to the number of miles traveled than to the amount of fuel consumed.

While raising fuel taxes would bring in more money, the CBO notes that a "fundamental" problem would remain: "By themselves, fuel taxes cannot provide a strong incentive for people to avoid overusing highways," the report said.

On the other hand, VMT taxes would have most motorists paying "substantially more than they do now -- perhaps several times more," the report said. "Such a system would maximize the efficiency of highway use by discouraging trips for which costs exceed benefits."

As for the costs of establishing and operating a nationwide VMT tax, CBO admitted that its estimates are "rough." Metering equipment would have to be installed in all cars and trucks, perhaps "under a mandate to vehicle manufacturers."

Read the rest at the link above...

White House defends embrace of G.E. CEO despite report company didn't owe taxes in 2010

Wait, GE made more than $5 BILLION dollars in the US, over $14 BILLION worldwide, and owed no taxes for 2010? What do you figure accounting that crooked costs? And then you figure GE got a $3.2 BILLION tax benefit. Holy crap!

It never fails, every single scumbag obama appoints to a position , czar or whatever, turns out to have some kind of shady or weird dealings. It's a big deal for about 15 minutes, then it goes away. I guess that proves it's ok to surround yourself with criminal scumbags when the media is in your pocket. The main stream media in this Country should hang their heads in shame. They have disgraced everything it is to be a news organization...

by Brian Montopoli - CBSNews

In January, President Obama named General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt to head the President's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, an economic advisory board focused on job creation.

In his State of the Union address that same month, meanwhile, he called for the closure of corporate tax loopholes in conjunction with a lowering of the corporate tax rate, which stands at 35 percent.

"Over the years, a parade of lobbyists has rigged the tax code to benefit particular companies and industries," he said. "Those with accountants or lawyers to work the system can end up paying no taxes at all. But all the rest are hit with one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. It makes no sense. It has to change."

Mr. Obama's choice of Immelt came under scrutiny Friday in the wake of a front-page story in the New York Times reporting that despite $14.2 billion in worldwide profits - including more than $5 billion from U.S. operations - GE did not owe taxes in 2010.

In fact, the story said, G.E. claimed a tax benefit of $3.2 billion.

Go read the rest at the link above...

Taxes and Debt

Millions of honest hard working Americans are preparing their 2010 taxes. I started my taxes last weekend. I have always prepared my own taxes. I have this crazy notion that the average person should be able to prepare their own taxes. Crazy.

Anyway, I don't mind paying federal income taxes. We need good government services, mail, protection, strong defense, schools, etc. I do, however, hate paying taxes on my savings account. If you're lucky you might get 2 - 2.5% interest? I don't have a lot of money. I try to have no debt and believe planning for the future financially is important. Even the government wants us to have less debt and save more. It seems to me there is a disincentive to save. We get pitifully low interest rates and then they take 20 to 25% of the earnings. Why save?

Change gears: the federal debt on February 25, 2011 was $14,133,170,464,255.33. If you divide approximately 310,000,000 citizen's into this number it's about $45,576 for every man, women and child. I'm guessing illegal aliens aren't part of this number. The government adds about $4.11 billion per day in debt.

Since I can't wrap my mind around at number like $14 trillion, another way to look at it is the government borrows 40 cents on every dollar it spends. When you mail your taxes, 40% of the postal workers salary is borrowed, 40% of the clerk who processes passport applications is borrowed, 40% of your congressman and senator salaries is borrowed, 40% of the money to fund the war in Afghanistan is borrowed. Hey, I'm not picking on postal workers or clerks. That's not my point.

In my opinion this is not just obscene it is immoral. Where is the accountability? I freaking don't get it! What does the government do when it goes bankrupt? China? I'm curious of the 40% we borrow on every dollar spent, how much of that is loaned by China? I think Mandarin is the most spoken dialect. Maybe I will take a class or two. Just in case.

Enough of the whining. Next week I will have a profile on the firearm of the week. It will be cool.

Blessings yall, Big Mullet