House raises our gas prices bigtime...

[delldude]

but...I'm still waiting....how much of those tax cuts to oil companies to create jobs have created jobs which have trickled down into the US treasury so that they can actually increase the revenues to the tax base?

Here...sorry to keep you waiting.....grass to cut you know.

Tax Cuts and Job Creation


Despite criticism from Democrats and a number of influential opponents of his new tax cut plan, President Bush announced that a man was employed as a result of his 2001 tax cut of $1.35 trillion.

The discovery is expected to stem criticism that the wealthy were primarily the beneficiaries and the tax cut did nothing to create jobs.

"This will put a nail in the coffin of that class war thingie," said the president. "This proves that tax cuts create jobs and if you pass my tax cut bill this year, and next year and the next year, pretty soon, there will be jobs. Of course, we also have to get rid of those pesky minimum wage problemations to put the righteous to work."

Finding someone employed as a result of Bush's 2001 $1.35 trillion tax cut came after a year long search involving the FBI, the CIA, and the Department of Homeland Security. Although 26,000 agents conducted the hunt, security officials brushed aside criticism that more important security problems were ignored. "We can't locate 388,000 criminal aliens in this country, so this is good practice for us," said Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge. "I promise if there are more out there, we'll find them someday. This is not a waste of time."

Security officials located Jesus Ramirez, a 33-year-old Mexican immigrant, who obtained his $2.95 an hour job as a gate guard after 100 homeowners at Trophy House Luxury Gated Community in Houston, Texas received refunds as a result of Bush's 2001 tax cut.

"Our families were scraping by on $350,000 a year and couldn't afford to pay for security," said Jimmy Bookmaker, a Halliburton executive and president of the gated community association, whose motto is "Because we are better than you." "With tax cuts of $18,000 each, we can finally afford someone to sit in our guard house and buzz in visitors. You can't imagine the relief we feel."
Touting the trickledown effect of Ramirez's $180.00 take home pay from his 70-hour weekly paycheck, Treasury Secretary John Snowjob expects another job to turn up within weeks. This "snowball" effect will help the "soggy economy" and pretty soon all boats will be floating, Snowjob told Fox News on Sunday.


Despite Democratic descriptions of Bush's newest tax cut as "hogwash," Snowjob pointed proudly to Ramirez as an example of what it means to be truly American. "This proves beyond a reasonable doubt that tax relief creates jobs," Snowjob said. "So what if government debt equals $70,000 per family? That's only $6.4 trillion dollars. True Americans worry about security; they could care less about deficits and other boring stuff."

The discovery of the stimulus effect from the 2001 tax cut was met with jubilation. In Texas, ultra-conservative Republican legislators voted to cut taxes and abolish pensions, medical care, public schools and other "evil" government programs.

The plan to distribute $20 billion to the states was praised by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg who looks forward to $3.8 billion in the 2003 tax cut bill to solve the city's problems. "Getting the federal government to increase debt so we don't have to raise taxes on our wealthy citizens is a grand idea," said Bloomberg. "We can always cut services for the poor who don't vote anyway."

President Bush is pushing his tax cut plan by meeting with small business owners in Albuquerque, N.M., Omaha, Neb., and Indianapolis, Ind., who are planning on taking advantage of his tax deductions of $87,000 to purchase 6,000 pound, $102,000 SUVs. By making his appeal directly to those who will benefit from the tax breaks, Bush is exploring new ground.

Until now, administration efforts have been directed at making people believe that they will be better off with fewer public services and a massive invasion army. "Everybody in America wants to be rich and identifies with the rich," said Ari Flyswatter, White House spokesman. "Naturally everyone wants rich people to keep more of their hard earned money so they can get richer."

When asked about the $400 billion military budget, the $100 billion a year bill to occupy Iraq and the $300 billion deficit this year, Flyswatter invited newsmen back to the White House next month when President Bush expects to introduce two more people who obtained jobs from his 2001 tax cut package.

Oh jeez....wrong giveaway...I mean tax cut....

Well you cited 230 local jobs......find out how many were due to retirement.....How many do you think would be worthy? I think under Clinton a creation of 230 jobs would have made CNN Headline news.

 

[KCFlyer]

Here...sorry to keep you waiting.....grass to cut you know.
Oh jeez....wrong giveaway...I mean tax cut....

Well you cited 230 local jobs......find out how many were due to retirement.....How many do you think would be worthy? I think under Clinton a creation of 230 jobs would have made CNN Headline news.

I'm confused here...if some of those 230 jobs were "created" because of retirement, then and replaced with a younger (read lower paid) person, then the amount that "trickled down" was actually less...while the 1200 jobs created overseas had a lot that "trickled out". If anyone plays down the 230 jobs created by the tax cuts, it would be the Bush administration. Because when one job costs a billion dollars to create - it redefines the definition of 'fuzzy math'.

 

[delldude]

I'm confused here...if some of those 230 jobs were "created" because of retirement, then and replaced with a younger (read lower paid) person, then the amount that "trickled down" was actually less...while the 1200 jobs created overseas had a lot that "trickled out". If anyone plays down the 230 jobs created by the tax cuts, it would be the Bush administration. Because when one job costs a billion dollars to create - it redefines the definition of 'fuzzy math'.

Play down...LOL

No matter what it cost, the previous admin would have whooped and hollered until the wee hours......and I believe they subscribed to the 'fuzzyology' or was it spin they were masters at? Neverless...don't those 1200 overseas jobs come with US tax obligations?

 

[delta777]

Play down...LOL

No matter what it cost, the previous admin would have whooped and hollered until the wee hours......and I believe they subscribed to the 'fuzzyology' or was it spin they were masters at? Neverless...don't those 1200 overseas jobs come with US tax obligations?

Trying to carry on a give-and-take conversation with delldude is all but impossible. This mental midget doesn't have an original thought in his pea-sized brain. He has been "Hannitized" to the nth degree. Reminds me a lot of my father, all he can do is spout Faux News talking points, and if he doesn't like what you had to say, rather than openly and honestly debating you, he resorts to calling people poo-poo heads. He's probably as hypocritical as that pill-popping Rush Limbaugh.

 

[delldude]

Never been Hannitized or follow the Junkie......look who's throwing names.....

You Lib's make me laugh....

 

[KCFlyer]

Play down...LOL
Neverless...don't those 1200 overseas jobs come with US tax obligations?

Not necessarily.

 

[delldude]

Not necessarily.

But not totally no either.

 

[jerseyfinn]

. . . The plain fact - when W took office, and the oil companies didn't have the huge tax breaks that they're enjoying now, the price of gas was half of what it is today. (See earlier post for figures and source.) Another plain fact - when the price of crude fell more than $10/bbl earlier this year, prices at the pump were increased by approximately 40 cents/gallon (again, while huge tax breaks were in place). Given these facts, what has the oil industry done to show that these tax breaks have been productive for the AMERICAN taxpayer in any way?

OK, you keep talking windfall and price. A simple question. What is the aggregate US consumption of oil ( known as demand in economics 101 ) and what were these figures 10, 5, and 2 years ago? Do the same math with world oil consumption. I suspect that you will discover that both US and world consumption of oil is steadily rising. Also note another "fact". The so-called "easy" oil has been found. Now there's still oil inside this mother earth, but it's either in a form more difficult to extract, or in locations remote and costly to operate in. Just a hunch on my part, but consumption and production/operating costs also have something to do with the aggregate price of any product/comodity.

Last time I looked, oil is considered a comodity and therefore subject to relatively ordinary market forces covered in economics 101 and not Pelosi's twisted cookbook called "conservatives are bad people -- how to cook anyone who won't vote democrat".

Liberals of course invent clever arguments/schemes and plain old smoke and mirrors to distort any plain fact when they're out to get someone - in this case the prez and big oil. When B43 is no longer in office, what sort of excuse will dems generate about oil then?

I think the only resolution to this sort of BS argument will come when we've sucked out all the oil mother earth has and the dems will have to fine a new enemy and something else to whine about.

Everything in life is not a conservative conspiracy ( no matter how many wet dreams Al Gore and Hillary have )

Barry

 

[jerseyfinn]

. . . . Supply and demand is one thing. Gov't protection is another. Help the truly ailing industries such as the airlines and farming. Instead we overtax the former and have drastically cut subsidies to the latter (and a portion of the subsidies we do give them has been going to guys that have been dead for a decade).

Yeah, great idea. How many billions did the government give the airlines, several of who ran straight for BK? I'm especially thinking of US Air who's done BKx2 and is a real POS airline with the present management in Tempe. Likewise large coprporate conglomerates suck up the bulk of farm subsidies and not small family farms.

Want another good example of head-up-the-ass government? What about the ethanol legislation Congress is in such a hurry to pass? Ethanol is not a solution per se as you still gotta grow corn or whatever ( with all of those implications for soil and water ) but more important, this legislation will drive up the cost of corn -- why? Supply and demand, only it's not a market which is creating that demand and the resulting supply/price ratios. It's the heavy hand of government.

What liberals are bitching about with oil is not subsidy-driven. It's a coincidence of steeply rising world and domestic oil consumption combined with the revenues they produce which in turn show up on the balance sheets of corporations. The magnitude of profits are both profit/consumption driven and a consequence of B43's very successful tax cuts which actually have brought more money into government coffers than the old ( higher rate ) tax laws would have.

Oh wait, I've committed liberal blasphemy!!! I gave B43 credit for something positive. Sorry, I must be living in the real world.

Barry

 

[Flying Titan]

OK, you keep talking windfall and price. A simple question. What is the aggregate US consumption of oil ( known as demand in economics 101 ) and what were these figures 10, 5, and 2 years ago? Do the same math with world oil consumption. I suspect that you will discover that both US and world consumption of oil is steadily rising. Also note another "fact". The so-called "easy" oil has been found. Now there's still oil inside this mother earth, but it's either in a form more difficult to extract, or in locations remote and costly to operate in. Just a hunch on my part, but consumption and production/operating costs also have something to do with the aggregate price of any product/comodity.

Last time I looked, oil is considered a comodity and therefore subject to relatively ordinary market forces covered in economics 101 and not Pelosi's twisted cookbook called "conservatives are bad people -- how to cook anyone who won't vote democrat".

Liberals of course invent clever arguments/schemes and plain old smoke and mirrors to distort any plain fact when they're out to get someone - in this case the prez and big oil. When B43 is no longer in office, what sort of excuse will dems generate about oil then?

I think the only resolution to this sort of BS argument will come when we've sucked out all the oil mother earth has and the dems will have to fine a new enemy and something else to whine about.

Everything in life is not a conservative conspiracy ( no matter how many wet dreams Al Gore and Hillary have )

Barry

Well, assuming this was your answer to one of the two facts that I pointed out, then I suppose the logic that follows is that all of the "easy" oil went away when W took office --- and that's your explanation for why gas prices have doubled since he became president? Just coincidental timing, I suppose.

Secondly, if the increase in gas prices is due to the scarcity of oil, then why - when the price of crude oil went down more than $10/bbl. earlier this year - did the price of gas go up by about 40 cents/gallon?

My overall point is - and has been throughout this thread - that the oil industry doesn't respond to normal market forces. Wild price swings can occur without readily apparent cause, and the explanations offered by oil companies can, at times, strain credulity. The original point of this thread was that removing sizeable tax incentives for the industry would lead to big price increases at the pump. I don't believe this is the case since implementing these tax incentives didn't save the AMERICAN public a single dime. Economics 101 has never explained how the oil industry performs and it certainly hasn't explained it over the last few years.

 

[delldude]

He said the easy oil has been found...he did not say its gone....right away you have to somehow try and link oil gone/bush in office/price gouging...give me a break.

Secondly, if the increase in gas prices is due to the scarcity of oil, then why - when the price of crude oil went down more than $10/bbl. earlier this year - did the price of gas go up by about 40 cents/gallon?

Refinery capacity vs demand......you could have free oil and still pay through the nose with refining costs.The era of cheap anything is something from "Back in the Day".....we can not make oil build new refineries so we can have 50 cent a gallon gas.Maybe we should let the gov't take over oil production...i'm sure that will spin like a top.

I don't believe this is the case since implementing these tax incentives didn't save the AMERICAN public a single dime. Economics 101 has never explained how the oil industry performs and it certainly hasn't explained it over the last few years.

You people still confound me....big oil was saving production money through these tax breaks(not having to pay) and now they are gone(have to pay=cost more)...it now costs them more to operate because these giveback incentives are gone.....so guess what....wholesale price will reflect it sooner or later...can't you comprehend that?

. . . Supply and demand is one thing. Gov't protection is another. Help the truly ailing industries such as the airlines and farming. Instead we overtax the former and have drastically cut subsidies to the latter (and a portion of the subsidies we do give them has been going to guys that have been dead for a decade).

Why help the airlines or farming in the first place...?The ones that can't compete go away...just like in the jungle.

 

[KCFlyer]

But not totally no either.

Well...I guess if I was all for granting billions in tax breaks to "create jobs", I would want to stipulate that ALL the new jobs that are created return monies to the treasury. Anything less, and those tax breaks to create jobs result in nothing more than a drain on the treasury.

 

[local 12 proud]

It was mostly just you and local 12 smooching in threads that nobody else cared to deal with b/c they were obviously mundane.

Sounds like someones jealous..., care to cut in? :blush:

. . . . Supply and demand is one thing. Gov't protection is another. Help the truly ailing industries such as the airlines and farming.

Yea thats worked out real well huh?

Whats the matter Ch. 12, gov'ment run out of cheese?

 

[delldude]

It was mostly just you and local 12 smooching in threads that nobody else cared to deal with b/c they were obviously mundane.

Oh baby...i'm getting weak in the knees.... :mf_boff:

 

[Ch. 12]

Yeah, great idea. How many billions did the government give the airlines, several of who ran straight for BK? I'm especially thinking of US Air who's done BKx2 and is a real POS airline with the present management in Tempe. Likewise large coprporate conglomerates suck up the bulk of farm subsidies and not small family farms.

You are confused. The gov't gave "one-time" bailouts after 9/11 but does not give tax breaks (actually...the airline industry is one of the most heavily taxed) or any other form of funding as they do the "fledgling" oil industry (since 2000). In fact...the airlines actually pay additional amounts to support the gov't (TSA funding). Sure the BKs have sucked tax dollars out in the form of unemployment benefits, etc, but the gov't is not giving and funds to the airlines in BK. The creditors are the ones that take it in the shorts. And why? B/c our gov't will give tax breaks to big oil (so that they can raise fuel prices and garner windfall profits) but add MORE taxes to the airlines. And farm subsidies have been slashed to nearly nothing...period. Who cares who gets it? They don't really exist anymore. You see...if we subsidized, say, corn...the oil industry would have competition. Now...corn production is at its highest level since the 1950's but that is b/c we are exporting nearly all of the additional production to countries that actually HAVE ethanol programs.

Want another good example of head-up-the-ass government? What about the ethanol legislation Congress is in such a hurry to pass? Ethanol is not a solution per se as you still gotta grow corn or whatever ( with all of those implications for soil and water ) but more important, this legislation will drive up the cost of corn -- why? Supply and demand, only it's not a market which is creating that demand and the resulting supply/price ratios. It's the heavy hand of government.

Again...perhaps if we were supporting farming rather than punishing it then costs would not go up. Seeing as farmland has dwindled to nearly nothing in this country, I'm sure a few extra corn farms would definitely do no harm. Hell...you want to drill the ice caps but don't want to let somebody plant a field of corn? Here in lies the problem with your blind faith...can't even reason.

What liberals are bitching about with oil is not subsidy-driven. It's a coincidence of steeply rising world and domestic oil consumption combined with the revenues they produce which in turn show up on the balance sheets of corporations. The magnitude of profits are both profit/consumption driven and a consequence of B43's very successful tax cuts which actually have brought more money into government coffers than the old ( higher rate ) tax laws would have.

If only it were as easy as supply and demand. It's not. Bush slashed taxes to one industry and one industry only...the oil industry. And that is the one that has the highest profits of all...breaking records every quarter. And what did the industry do to reward the tax cuts (that one would think would be to either allow them to divert these funds into refinery construction OR lowering prices)? They raised prices and recorded even more profits. This is called subsidation. Sorry you can't see that. Again...why are we rewarding one industry (that just happens to be the one tied to our President's family's and friends' interests) that does nothing to benefit the consumer with these cuts but further punish other industries with further taxation? Hell...the airline industry is subsidizing the oil industry...does that make sense??