Posted on 01/14/2007 7:40:41 AM PST by Flavius
Under $1.25/gal. before Mrs. Clinton returns to her office.
CLEAN, said it will save U.S. taxpayers about $13 billion over an unspecified number of years
I found this line to be extremely funny. Shouldn't there have been a sarcasm tag after it?
Ask the Soviets how that whole centralized planning thing worked out for them.
my whole world is turning into a big sarcasm tag
The "Tax the Hated Corporations" fallacy:
Businesses don't pay taxes --
businesses *collect* taxes from --
(are you ready?)
(you've probably guessed it already)
Thee 'n me....
"the lion's share of the savings comes from striking a phased-in 3-percent tax reduction that Congress gave to all U.S. manufacturers in 2004"
Those manufacturers would be better off in Mexico, or China or some such cheap labor low tax place anyway. Take away the tax cuts, raise the minimum wage, WOW, these democrats really do hate this low unemployment/inflation thing Bush has going. What a shame!
It has nothing to do with economics it's all about concentrating power in Washington.
Could anyone shed some light on the energy industry's use of the funds they're keeping as a result of these tax breaks? IIRC, they're using those breaks to fund more exploration of domestic oil resources. Is that wrong?
To me, this whole thing seems like the Dems punishing anyone who is now or once was associated with Bush or given assistance by the administration. Am I wrong?
no your wrong
they just started
Surely Nancy Pelousy must know of some other "big fish" that need looking into.
In comparison, ending the geophysical tax breaks will save $103 million, according to committee data.
New math, apparently - So the liberals come in, and gosh, aren't even there for a week, and they're already raising taxes! One hundred hours, they're aiming to raise taxes, just on this one bill, $6.6 billion dollars.
National GOP to the white courtesy phone please, your base would like you to make a commercial. Because if we don't hammer them now on it, it'll be an empty issue in 2008. Oh, and the RINOs will find it a lot harder to swallow leaping onto the band wagon.
And what does the senator from Exxon say? Somehow this benefits NY and NJ oil and disadvanges Texas, surely.
I understand what you are saying, but everything has something to do with economics. Lucky for us this garbage, if passed, would still have to go through the Senate and be signed by the President. I know his veto pen is rusty, but I think he may be greasing it up.
Honestly, I don't know nearly enough about the oil industry to say one way or the other, but why does the elimination of tax breaks prevent the oil companies from developing new sources? They are profitable. None of them, to my knowledge, are going bankrupt. On the other hand, I don't understand why it's a better idea to prop up alternate energy technologies. For example, wind and solar power are terribly inefficient and very expensive. Politicians just can't keep their hands out of the marketplace. Government interfere IS the problem, because the market will find the most economical solution for America--not a bunch of politicos beholden to special interests IMHO.
"The "Tax the Hated Corporations" fallacy:
Businesses don't pay taxes --
businesses *collect* taxes from --
(are you ready?)
(you've probably guessed it already)
Thee 'n me...."
One of my friends uses a wonderful analogy when told that the government should tax someone specifically. He replies "Pump the water out of the other guy's side of the lake."
I wonder if they'll take a hard look at Occidental. Oh wait, my bad, Occidental is a big oil friend of Al Gore. Nevermind.
Well, it isn't as if they have actually passed the bill and gotten it signed into law.
Whatever Nancy wants, Nancy gets.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.