Not one word about the real culprit of spiking prices, The Bernank. It should be fun watching the JD Keystone Cops trying to sort this one out.
Faced with the prospect of $5-a-gallon gas this summer, President Obama said today his Justice Department is creating a team to "root out any cases of fraud or manipulation in the oil markets that might affect gas prices."
"That includes the role of traders and speculators," Obama said at a town hall-style meeting in Reno, Nev. "We are going to make sure that no one is taking advantage of American consumers for their own short-term gain."
"This gas issue is serious," Obama said, adding that the best solution is developing alternative energy sources.
The Justice Department is also looking at allegations of price gouging, said Obama, who devoted most of his remarks to his plan to reduce the nation's $14 trillion-plus debt.
#1
Well, we're knee deep in bullshit speeches so maybe we could start there. It is this administration's anti-self sufficiency which has the prices going up. Investors know that. So whats the plan, use the JD to set up a vip list of legal petrol traders? How about Gov taxes and EPA fines as contributers?
And you...you..plebes..need electric cars and properly inflated tires.
Quick question - say everyone suddenly switches to hybrid and/or electric cars...what do you suppose the Govs will do to make up that shortfall of tax?
#2
OBomb says "I yump on that." Don't let a good crisis go to waste. Besides the voters are POd over gas prices and I might pick up a few votes if I act like I'm doing something.
#3
I've never cared much for The Donald, but listening to him in an yesterday in the DFAC gave me great pleasure. I think he'll soon have 'The One' being born in Pakistan. I love it!
#4
I know, I know! Let's punish the profiteering oil companies by adding some big extra special taxes on them. (We'll look like we're helping the people, we'll get lots of extra revenue, and the rubes will blame the oil companies for the fact that their gas costs even more.)
#6
Go ahead, Commissar Barry, say it: price controls. You know you want to.
Posted by: Matt ||
04/21/2011 20:02 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Don't forget WAGE and EARNINGS controls. You know of whom we speak, those evil capitalists who continue to EARN incomes as opposed to permitting the Party government to take care of them. They must be punished as well. The Party is the answer. There is no room in the new kibbutzim for these racist traitors. Do you think we are STUPID? They are the ENEMY!
#12
What an evil POS. 'Manipulation' gas prices is refusing drilling permits, raising taxes on gasoline, to go green which a high level Obama aid said was necessary to get prices to $9/gallon like in Europe.
Then he uses the crisis he created to 'go after the speculators'. This guy is a piece of trash.
Did Barack Obama take Tax 1 in law school? I did, and I remember the first day of classes, when mild-mannered professor Boris Bittker asked a simple question, "What is income?"
I was pretty confident I could come up with a quick answer and so were a lot of other students. By the end of the hour, after professor Bittker had politely punched huge holes in every student's definition, it was pretty clear that none of us could. Income is a slippery concept, especially slippery when you're trying to tax it.
Which leads me to think that Obama may have avoided Tax 1. Or perhaps he dozed off in class. For in his April 13 speech at George Washington University, the speech to which Standard & Poor's responded by reducing the government's credit rating to "negative," he seemed to think he could get all the money we need to balance the budget from higher taxes on the rich.
That's wrong as a matter of simple arithmetic, as is clear from a chart reproduced on the Wall Street Journal editorial page showing the total amounts of taxable income of each group.
The chart showed that if the government had simply confiscated every dollar from those reporting more than $1 million taxable income in 2008, it would not have gotten the $1.3 trillion needed to close the current federal budget deficit.
Posted by: Fred ||
04/21/2011 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Simple arithmatic falls into the category of realfact.
We don't do that anymore. We deal in goodfacts now.
Posted by: Bobby ||
04/21/2011 6:16 Comments ||
Top||
#2
It's long been know that taxing the wealthy produces little or no increase in revenue.
The classic case was the UK, where tax rates were as high as 95%. Along comes Maggie Thatcher and slashes the top rates of tax. Not only did tax revenues rise, but London was suddenly full of rich people, who previously had spent large amounts of time and money staying out the clutches of the tax man.
#3
It's long been know that taxing the wealthy produces little or no increase in revenue.
It's not that simple. A gov't levying no taxes has no income, except from, perhaps, donations. A gov't attempting to levy 100% taxes will have great difficulty collecting it from everyone. There's a sweet spot in between 0-100% where the government maximizes its income. The sweet spot changes from moment to moment.
#4
But the Marxist drive to tax the "rich" isn't about taxes...or even income. It is about tightening the ideological screws on that segment of the population with the most motivation and the most means to oppose Marxist Socialism. A Socialist government can exempt its employees and its unions from such taxes by simply raising their wages to compensate for increased taxes. And the "poor" are similarly exempt -- through welfare and a host of entitlements and exemptions.
#5
The chart showed that if the government had simply confiscated every dollar from those reporting more than $1 million taxable income in 2008, it would not have gotten the $1.3 trillion needed to close the current federal budget deficit.
In the left wing side of the brain, they actually believe that if you confiscate all that money this year, it'll be around the next year to take again. They failed the elementary school admonition about killing the goose that lays the golden egg.
#8
The end game (I'm not crazy nor am I a conspiracy theorist gone bats) is to percipitate a collapse of the US economic system of the scale of the Weimar Republic. When the riots start and the violence escalates, the Prez will declare martial law, suspend elections and send Congress home. He will rule by decree and declare himself leader...he's got the czars in place what do you think those are for?
Posted by: Bill Clinton ||
04/21/2011 10:13 Comments ||
Top||
#9
BC, most likely if things got that bad other things would occur across the country.
The "sweet spot" was found to be between 14 and 17%. The key to keeping it steady is to CONTROL SPENDING. Means of which may be accomplished by limiting the leviathans growth and spending to within 17% of GDP. Sound Kosher?
#12
The key to keeping it steady is to CONTROL SPENDING. Means of which may be accomplished by limiting the leviathans growth and spending to within 17% of GDP. Sound Kosher? Yup, even Kosher for Passover. But 'controlling spending' is so un-PC.
#15
That article is really about how stupid the Laffer Curve is.
Everyone who reads the NY Times knows how the Laffer Curve has been completely discredited. Reagan tried it and everyone knows he was a failure.
The problem is, a lot of people believe what I just typed. (BTW, I do not).
Posted by: Bobby ||
04/21/2011 13:08 Comments ||
Top||
#16
the "poor" are similarly exempt -- through welfare and a host of entitlements and exemptions
No, they aren't; they (and we) are just tricked into thinking so. By understating inflation, and because of a time lag between cost increase and transfer payment increase, the protected ones also pay a price for government excesses. And while I can afford to pay an extra dollar for a bag of tortillas, there are people who can't (and they tend not to be the ones screaming at Tea Partiers either.)
#17
The link took me to another article about how stupid the Laffer curve was, drawing a straight line for central government corporate tax rate. Higher rates = higher revenue, you morons!
Gee, is that that same as income tax, or overall tax rate? The highest rate shown was Norway, at 10%.
Apples and oranges, perhaps?
Posted by: Bobby ||
04/21/2011 13:13 Comments ||
Top||
#18
It will increase what Obama can pass to his supporters---the key to staying in power.
Posted by: President Obama ||
04/21/2011 20:45 Comments ||
Top||
#21
#8 The end game (I'm not crazy nor am I a conspiracy theorist gone bats) is to percipitate a collapse of the US economic system of the scale of the Weimar Republic. When the riots start and the violence escalates, the Prez will declare martial law, suspend elections and send Congress home. He will rule by decree and declare himself leader...he's got the czars in place what do you think those are for?
Posted by Bill Clinton
With California, Oregon, and Washington State and off-shore drilling are signed over leased to China as payment for debt; when foreign misadventure conflicts news diversions are no longer affordable; the gov't can NO LONGER BORROW; and the US dollar with all of those racists portraits printed on them is worthless, little of the old shall remain. As food lines form the cities go up in smoke, martial law emergency will be declared, weapons and precious metals will be confiscated repatriated and the new script ration stamps issued. The Party will take care of it's own. Homeless former taxpayers will be assigned to KOA FEMA region camps with designated reeducation and medical facilities. Culturally trained and sensitized HIV FREE AFRICOM and UN mercenaries Sub-Saharan Partner peacekeepers will arrive to collect the civilian weapons end the looting and violence and nuetralize hold-out racist US Army rebels. The Revolution CHANGE is coming!
h/t Instapundit
Credit Mark Levin with bursting the Trump bubble. Just last week he was the first voice on the right to thoroughly dissect Trumps history of political activity (donations to Hillary, Weiner, Rahm, Schumer and others).
He was also the first to ask a number of important questions about Trumps world view, including, What does he think about Kelo? The Club for Growth is out today with the answer directly from Trump himself from 2005 on Fox News.
I happen to agree with it 100 percent, not that I would want to use it. [note below, he would actually want to use it]
But the fact is, if you have a person living in an area thats not even necessarily a good area, and government, whether its local or whatever, government wants to build a tremendous economic development, where a lot of people are going to be put to work and make area thats not good into a good area, and move the person thats living there into a better place now, I know it might not be their choice but move the person to a better place and yet create thousands upon thousands of jobs and beautification and lots of other things, I think it happens to be good.
But the reality is, Trump did try to use the power of eminent domain to seize private property. He did this in Altlantic City, and it wasnt to build an elementy school or even a tremendous economic development. He wanted to knock down an old ladys home so he could build a parking lot for limousines near his casino.
Full disclosure: I used to work for the Institute for Justice, which successfully defended Vera Coking against Trumps land grab in Atlantic City. More details about that case can be found here.
#1
I don't get why everyone assumes he runs as an (R)? I first thought him running vs. Obama in the (D) primaries when he started making news, actually think he has a better chance there.
Talk about big business liking big government; its the other talking head to Zaphod Obumblebox.
#2
I don't think a lot of people understand the Trump candidacy. To paraphrase The Chronicles of Riddick: "In normal times, stupidity would be fought by intelligence. But in times like these, well, it should be fought by another kind of stupidity."
Seriously. I think Trump can beat Obama because he's even more of a vapid, larger-than-life celebrity than Obama is. And I honestly think he'd make a better president in spite of this.
#3
Yup, fight stupidity with stupidity that does something. He may have man overcomb, but he can grasp the obvious, run with it, trip, fall, pick himself back up (bankruptcy) and keep going. More than I can say with Bambi. As for his casino in Atlantic City...the elderly lady hopefully was remunerated before relocation and its bit of a little scary neighborhood at night, so she might be better situated.
Posted by: Fi ||
04/21/2011 18:11 Comments ||
Top||
#4
He wanted to knock down an old lady's home so he could build a parking lot for limousines near his casino.
Not that I'm in total agreement, but compensation to the elderly vs indirect tax seizure? Building and renewing vs Detroit style leveling? Parking lots for evil gas guzzling cars? Convenience for BUSINESS patrons? Mark Levin is a genius, but if Trump is anything, he's a businessman and not a communist.
If it is true, as Michelle Obama said in February, that her husband isn't smoking anymore, maybe he'd better start mellowing out with the cigs again before it costs him the presidency.
The Barack Obama we've been seeing lately is a different personality than the one that made a miracle run to the White House in 2008.
Obama.2008 was engaging, patient, open, optimistic and a self-identified conciliator.
Obama.2011 has been something else--testy, petulant, impatient, arrogant and increasingly a divider.
Never forget: That historic 2008 victory came with 52.9% of the total vote and 52% of independent voters. David Axelrod recently noted "how small the margin for error is."
Presidential personality is well inside the margin of error for 2012, but the one on display recently has not been attractive. And it's happening a lot.
This Monday, after wrapping up a White House interview with a Dallas TV reporter, the station reported that Mr. Obama said: "Let me finish my answers the next time we do an interview, alright?"
This self-referencing, snappish tone tracks with the president's "open mic" comments last week at a Chicago fund-raiser. Dismissing the GOP as "nickel and diming" him on budget negotiations, he asked, "You think we're stupid?" White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said the president wasn't embarrassed. But he should be. Not because his comments were caught, but because suddenly he's sounding more like Travis Bickle ("You talkin' to me?") than the president of the United States.
The Obama migration from the high road to the low road is evident even in nonpolitical settings. Here he is last weekend talking about the White House phone system: "You know the Oval Office always thought I was going to have like real cool phones and stuff. I'm like 'come on guys, I'm the president of the United States.' Where's the fancy buttons and stuff, and the big screen comes up? It doesn't happen."
#5
There's an old saying; The more people like you the more inclined they are to trust you. That strategy worked quite well for then-candidate Obama. However, now-President Obama is a known commodity. Therefore, the converse of that logic is more applicable. The less people trust you the less likely they are to like you. Some are suggesting that to increase his favorability numbers Obama may need to "re-gain" the trust of the american people. Unfortunatly for him there's another old saying; You can't "get back" what you never had.
As far as the implication that conservatives are richer than liberals (because, yeah, Central Park West and San Francisco are bubbling over with conservatism), I'll refer back to my blog post on this issue last summer:
John Kerry, the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee worth $188.6 million is easily the richest lawmaker, outpacing Republican Darrell Issa by more than 10 percent. Of the 12 richest lawmakers, only 3 are Republicans. Drill down a bit further, and it evens out -- Republicans are 23 of the richest 50 according to The Hill.
Other data points:
Wealthy Individuals Voted for Obama: CNN reported about election 2008: "High income voters -- those who said they make at least $100,000 a year --went in Obama's favor, 52 percent to 47 percent."
Wealthy Counties Voted for Obama: American's richest county, Loudoun County, Va., voted Obama 54-46, thus being more Democratic than the rest of Va. and the nation (which were both 53% Obama). Fairfax, Va., the nation's second-wealthiest county, voted 60% Obama.
Wealthy States Voted for Obama: The three wealthiest states -- Maryland, Connecticut, and New Jersey, all voted overwhelmingly for Obama.
Posted by: Fred ||
04/21/2011 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Sure, they have enough money that they think we should all pay more tax, so they can feel better about the poor.
They could give it away at a church.
Posted by: Bobby ||
04/21/2011 6:12 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Wealthy Counties Voted for Obama: American's richest county, Loudoun County, Va., voted Obama 54-46, thus being more Democratic than the rest of Va. and the nation (which were both 53% Obama). Fairfax, Va., the nation's second-wealthiest county, voted 60% Obama.
Both counties are part of Washington D.C.'s metropolitan area.
#5
High income voters -- those who said they make at least $100,000 a year --went in Obama's favor
Didn't we recently see a big increase in the number of government workers making over $100k? And a huge increase in the number of lobbyists (who also make way more than 100k)? Their jobs depend on voting for the beast (not Obama in particular either).
#6
Thats just it, this cancelling of deductions will amount to a furthur nationalization of charity, as well as creating a glass ceiling for the up and coming successful. Imagine you have a certain expense ledger at home compared to your salary - your house near work, car payment, insurances, kid expenses, property taxes, so forth. Under such a plan it is possible that a pay increase puts a family into the Stinking Capitalist tax bracket and post tax actually nets less than with the previous wage. So as a company to offer a wage which is attractive it must bump the wage to a point where employee nets more in new bracket than old bracket and wage.
When el prez said he made enough money at $1.5 mil, netted $1mil, and he is willing to pay more taxes (and why not, all his expenses are paid for) well I looked up average starting wages of pro athlete rookies and thanks to Obama's gracious attitude to paying taxes (on taxpayer income) guess who gets it in the shorts. Become successful in your field, invent something, how about all his high power lawyer friends, sure they are all happy about his nonchalant pressing of their service?
On a more personal level, say you are one of those who makes a good check, decent job which can increase wages in order to adjust to inflation; keep you and family at a recognizable purchasing power. How long until you break that level set for Middle Class Will Not Have Taxes Increased? Example, make $100k@25% tax = $75k net. Get promoted, make $120k@33% tax = $80k. See, your job had to pay out $20k for you to get a $5k raise. Glass ceiling.
Not going to get into his nationalizing the health insurance plan he talked about just yet. You know, where Congress gets together to decide what treatments will be allowed, you know because insurance companies are cheating people out of treatment - those government regulated companies. Yup, a government who fails at regulation and a Congress approved medical list, a Congress which seems to have a tough time getting a basic budget on-time or a budget at all depending on who is in. Gimmie some of that crap cake. Really, who do you appeal to if say Congress decides health costs are too much for anyone over 50?
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Did Barack Obama take Tax 1 in law school? I did, and I remember the first day of classes, when mild-mannered professor Boris Bittker asked a simple question, "What is income?"
As far as the implication that conservatives are richer than liberals (because, yeah, Central Park West and San Francisco are bubbling over with conservatism), I'll refer back to my blog post on this issue last summer:
