#1
Remember a couple days back the article about 'this is going to be the most racist election ever' meme? This is exactly why they're falling back upon that narrative. They're losing their base in the community. Couple this with the double level of unemployment among that core, they're starting to sweat.
House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi used Exxon Mobil Corp.'s first-quarter profits to again call for ending subsidies to big oil companies, escalating the already-intense war of words over energy policy.
Earlier Thursday, the oil giant said its profit rose 69% to nearly $11 billion in the first quarter, as $100-a-barrel crude prices helped the company's bottom line reach levels not seen since 2008.
Pelosi, like President Barack Obama earlier in the week, said oil companies don't deserve tax breaks and that the U.S. ought to be investing in clean energy. Pelosi poinces on Exxon for making 2 cents a gallon profit, while her feds garnished 18.4 cents per gallon and relentlessly refuse to reduce that tax. In the first quarter Exxon paid $10 Billion in taxes while federal government sweeheart GE paid $0 in taxes in all of 2010. The Federal government then waste those tax dollars on "green", useless energy initiatives that in reality are payoffs to Democratic butt kissers, while Exxon invests thier 2 cents into viable energy resources for America. Drain the Federal swamp. ASAP.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
04/29/2011 6:48 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Just remember, before it gets to the bottom line, the Feds take half.
Posted by: Bobby ||
04/29/2011 6:59 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I openly admit I'm a complete dolt when it comes to macro economics. But something isn't making sense here. The immediate problem is I'm getting squeezed at the pump. But (As I understand it.) the fundemental problem is that high energy prices stunt economic growth. The rationale behind subsidies to the industries that produce commodities is to balance their production costs. And, in turn, those reduced costs make their product more affordable to the consumer and ultimately spur economic growth. So how does squeezing the tit of Big Oil make it less painful when I fill up my gas tank? I dunno, I'm beginning to think Obama and Pelosi are just playing games. But hey...if it works I say go after Big Sugar and Big Corn next. Have you seen the price liquor lately?
But you have a government that is driving prices up by stopping operations in the Gulf of Mexico and shutting off oil from Libya causing prices to rise and then they complain that because a barrel of crude goes up in price the oil companies make more money?
Look, the oil company DOESN'T SET THE PRICE. I wish these libtards would get that through their heads. The buyers set the price. The price is what amounts to an auction. There is nothing Exxon can do about the price of oil short of bringing more to market ... which this government actively blocks.
I just don't understand because it sounds like the government is giving them money with one hand and then taking it away with another hand. Wouldn't it make more sense to subsidize less but then tax less as well? Wouldn't it save a lot of accountants a lot of time?
#12
Yes, but more passes thru the Federal till this way.
Posted by: Bobby ||
04/29/2011 16:27 Comments ||
Top||
#13
The Feds don't subsidize oil. What they do is provide a few incentives to companies to drill. One of them is the Oil Depletion Allowance, which allows oil companies to deduct from profits, because extracting oil means there's less of it in the ground (the "depletion"). Since it costs money to do the surveys to find the oil, to drill to extract it, and then a constant cost to maintain the well AND the reservoir, the companies can deduct the costs from profits, based on a sliding scale. The mineral depletion allowance in one form or another exists in all mineral extraction industries. The environmental protection racket agency also requires that all mineral extraction companies set aside a certain amount for "restoration" once a mine closes or an oil well is shut down. This is also deducted from profits before taxes. I can't ever remember reading anything about the oil and gas industry that included any kind of direct subsidy for the industry. Taking away the two allowances listed above would make drilling much more expensive, and surveying prohibitive, yet that seems to be exactly what Peloosey wants.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
04/29/2011 18:35 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Well, fortunately we have the media to explain these things to us.
Thanks for doing their job, OP!
Posted by: Bobby ||
04/29/2011 19:14 Comments ||
Top||
#15
Y'all are forgetting state and city taxes as well as Federal
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
04/29/2011 19:17 Comments ||
Top||
#16
Well when you consider that to the ex-Queen Nancy and her gang *all* the profits properly belongs to the government and they are just being generous in even providing the incentive and allowing (hence the 'subsidies') the oil companies to keep even that much of their profits.
Former White House officials have launched a new group designed to foil conservative attacks on President Obama's reelection with unlimited campaign cash.
Former Obama deputy press secretary Bill Burton announced the formation of Priorities USA and Priorities USA Action, two groups that will exploit campaign finance loopholes President Obama had previously condemned.
The groups began on Friday with a website and video attacking the "extreme right," featuring examples of harsh rhetoric toward Obama by Republican presidential candidates, as well as the wealthy conservatives who support them.
#2
Toxic narcissists do not like criticism. They are in their own heads infinitely wise and always right.
BTW, has anyone talked to Ole Johnny McCain about how well his famous campaign "reform" bill worked out? I mean the infinitely wise all powerful and mystically insightful Obama only raised $750 MILLION for his last campaign...John, I THOUGHT your bill was supposed to stop crap like that? Someone plug John's pacemaker back in and have him give me a call...
Posted by: Bill Clinton ||
04/29/2011 13:50 Comments ||
Top||
#2
...Well, seeing as how Governor Haley shot herself (not to mention 1200 jobs and the rest of the state)in the foot this week by running an Amazon.com sales center out of here, she'd BETTER not screw this up.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
04/29/2011 8:17 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Lots of states are going after Amazon. I guess they really need the sales tax revenues. It's a shame, 1200 jobs aren't easy to find these days.
Posted by: Steve White ||
04/29/2011 9:20 Comments ||
Top||
#4
In Louisiana I have to pay a sales tax substitute to the state on purchases made from Amazon, but it's an 'honor' system.
As Amazon and other merchants displace more and more brick & mortar merchants the governments are going to have to replace those sales tax revenues with something (and it won't be with decreased spending). So far it looks like whichever state holds out the longest against taxing Amazon sales will win all the Amazon jobs - and then the feds will step in. So the question is, can Amazon operate from Grand Cayman? (No, tariffs & shipping would eat them up.)
#5
States do need the sales tax revenue and should get it. However, they are burdening Amazon with the work and that company can still tell them to piss off and go somewhere else.
This would be a perfect area for the commerce clause and the feds to work. The feds can write the rules and the guidelines for a national/state sales tax counting house. 3-4 companies can be contracted to run it with federal and independent oversight. They pay for it by taking a small percentage of the taxes they collect. The internet/interstate companies use this group to calculate and collect the state, county and city taxes for the person that is making the purchase. Business happens and at the end of the month, the counting house deposits each state, county, city's taxes directly into their coffers. It is painless for the state, company and buyer while being transparent, easy and instant. No more keeping 50 accountants on your payroll to do business across the nation.
There are ways to do this without burdening businesses and buyers with loads more paperwork and regulation.
#6
In Louisiana I have to pay a sales tax substitute to the state
Most states, I believe, have a use tax imposed on anything you import from out of state. The states would love to have the retailers collect local taxes, but calculating the amount due is a little more complicated than just a lookup table with 50 entries. Even trying to do it by 5 digit ZIP code fails in places like Houston where sales tax is levied by county and city and can change from one side of the street to the other.
But the NLRB hardened their hearts and wouldn't let them go build planes in the wilderness a Right To Work state.
Posted by: Grenter, Protector of the Geats ||
04/29/2011 9:54 Comments ||
Top||
#8
It's starting to look like Amazon's strategy is to be the only major retailer where you don't have to pay sales tax. Interesting, for guys who are allegedly fans of big government.
#9
Darth, this is one area where the 'FairTax' (national sales tax or VAT) would work -- everyone would pay a level sales tax, so be it Amazon or mom-and-pop store, every business would have a level playing ground tax-wise.
Posted by: Steve White ||
04/29/2011 11:44 Comments ||
Top||
#10
@2
State representatives, on a 71-47 vote a night earlier, defeated a bill that would have provided a sales tax break sought by Amazon.
The legislature refused to give them a sales tax break by a very large majority. Put the blame for the Amazon departure on Walmart and state retailers who pressured the legislators directly. Do not blame that one on Nikkie Haley. The shooting was done by the legislature quite clearly.
Posted by: The Other Beldar ||
04/29/2011 11:49 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Darth, this is one area where the 'FairTax' (national sales tax or VAT) would work -- everyone would pay a level sales tax, so be it Amazon or mom-and-pop store, every business would have a level playing ground tax-wise.
A VAT would end up taxing every sale, even B2B. It is like a compound tax, and the end consumer can really get hammered.
But I'm sure they'd only ask for a 1% VAT, and never raise it above, say, 2%. Or thereabouts. Just like the federal income tax.
State representatives, on a 71-47 vote a night earlier, defeated a bill that would have provided a sales tax break sought by Amazon
I wonder what calculus they use to justify this in their tiny minds. Probably the idea of "well, if we let them get away with this, then the next thing you know every company in the US will move here and not pay the sales tax."
Of course, they completely ignore the idea that they just threw away all those potential jobs. And the income taxes that come along with them. And the other businesses that get supported by a healthy middle class. And the idea that these businesses really doesn't cost the state anywhere near the 5% sales tax they are asking for. And the idea that they won't need to pay for food stamps for employed workers. Or housing subsidies. Or free school lunches. Or their health costs. Or the costs of the housing market getting crushed by all the mortgage defaults.
Yep. They are completely ignoring this. Unless, of course, they want to create the kind of folks that want to live in a nanny state. Which can't really support them as well as if they were used to in a free market constitutional republic. In which case they are doing a "great" job.
So who/what did we vote for over the last 50 years or so?
#13
I suspect the reason we don't already have a VAT is that it's so flatly unconstitutional, Congress knows there really isn't a way the courts could find any wiggle room in their "living" document:
Art. I, Sec. 9: "No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state."
Nope, no penumbras there.
Amazon reminds me of a 17th century house in Amsterdam: 1 meter wide, five stories high. Half a block deep, but barely wide enough for a staircase inside. Why? Property taxes were calculated according to how much street profile the building occupied. An elegant visual of how taxes distort the markets. So: go Amazon.
#15
I've been in a few of those Dutch houses. The average is about eight feet wide, and extends from the sidewalk to an alley in back. Either the front or the back of the house is taken up with stairs and a landing. There are usually one or two narrow, long rooms opening from the stairwell to the opposite end of the house. There's usually one room on each floor. The kitchen is on the ground floor, the living room/parlor is on the second floor, and the rest of the floors contain bedrooms. You're really in hurting condition if you have bad knees. They're the kind of houses people like Obumble love, though - crowd us all together where we're easy to control, make us take public transport because it's too expensive to buy gas or a car, and seal up all the open space in "wilderness" or "national [whatever]". I think I'd reach for my shotgun before I'd be forced into something like that.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
04/29/2011 18:49 Comments ||
Top||
#16
"States do need the sales tax revenue and should get it."
Why, Darth?
Sales taxes are used to build/maintain roads, provide police and other services, etc., to businesses in the state.
Amazon ain't in most states.
I have to collect 5% sales tax when I sell something on my Etsy shop to someone in Virginia; 1% of that goes to the county I live in. When I sell at the Farmers Market, I collect sales taxes, but the 1% goes to the city where the market is located. And when I sell at the big Christmas show, the 1% goes to the county where the show is located (not the one I live in). (And I can tell you that filling out the sales tax form for the quarter where I make sales in all three locations is a pain in the ass.)
I have no problem with that. I live here, so I use the roads, the police protection, and the other services. (Well, not many of them, but some.) So do my local customers.
Amazon doesn't have a physical presence here. Why should they collect taxes here? What benefit are they getting from the state?
I'd suggest that the states don't "need" increased sales tax revenues; they NEED TO STOP SPENDING. Particularly on things that aren't absolute necessities.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
04/29/2011 21:09 Comments ||
Top||
#17
A useful and informative rant, Barbara. I hadn't thought of it that way. Thank you.
[Iran Press TV] The Wisconsin Democratic Party has slammed a voting legislation proposed by Republican politicians as "morally repugnant." Only if you're a Dem...
"The Republican voter suppression bill is an affront to democracy in Wisconsin," said Democratic Party of Wisconsin Chair Mike Tate.
[The bill] drafted by Rep. Jeff Stone, would require voters to show a Wisconsin driver's license, a state-issued ID card, a military ID, a passport or a naturalization certificate. Oh, noze! Not some form of identification!
They would also have to provide both their current address and their previous address, and sign a poll book when they voted. In addition, the bill would restrict many voters from using absentee ballots and end straight-ticket voting for anyone not in the military or overseas. Republicans claimed the bill is needed to help prevent voter fraud. Sign a book? That's... that's... Oh, Gawd! My mind just boggled!
Opponents of Assembly Bill 7 (AB-7) packed the Assembly Committee on Election and Campaign Reform's public hearing on the Wisconsin Voter Identification Bill on Wednesday.
According to the 2005 study, only 26% of African-Americans and 34% of Hispanics have a valid Wisconsin driver's license. Well, of course. Nowadays most people walk around with no form of identification at all, don't they? So only 26% of African-Americans and 34% of Hispanics in Wisconsin drive? Wonder who funded the 2005 'study'...
Posted by: Fred ||
04/29/2011 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
A significant number of illegal aliens do not have valid IDs.
#5
Note: Note having a valid drivers license is a CHOICE.
Not for all of us, CrazyFool. It took me five tries to pass, the first time around. It took me two tries when we moved back from Europe -- but the habits of thought necessary to survive Brussels roads are not acceptable in Sharonville, so I don't take that as a judgement on my driving ability.
#6
Typically states issue an ID in lieu of drivers liscence for those who can't or don't want to drive. On or the other is necessary to legally purchase alcohol, tobacco or firearms. I fail to understand why voting should not require at least as much identification.
(Oh, and those 26% & 34% statistics must be approximately the percentage that is too young to drive - at least in many states illegals can get them.)
#7
...would require voters to show a Wisconsin driver's license, a state-issued ID card, a military ID, a passport or a naturalization certificate...
More open than I'd be. I would require a separate voter photo ID, issued at the time of registration and free to the voter (cost assumed by the state). It would have the usual demographics and a photo, bar code and magnetic stripe. It could only be used for voting and would be required to vote: no tickee, no laundry.
Posted by: Steve White ||
04/29/2011 9:34 Comments ||
Top||
#8
But Doctor, voting is such an important right that we CAN'T restrict it from those who lack the foresight or intelligence to get proper ID before the election. In fact, voting is so important that voting twice must be doubly important.
#11
I see nothing onerous about those rules. We've had them in Colorado for at least 20 years that I know of, possibly longer. You can still cast a provisional ballot that will be held for up to 72 hours until you can come in with the proof you're eligible to vote.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
04/29/2011 18:54 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Some of this is knee jerk politics. And I'm sure if the dims had proposed it some of the GOP would of automatically responded not only no but hell no. It just seems to be the way politics is now days*. Actually a lot of the Democrats I know are in favor of this. Not because there has been a huge problem with voter fraud. Which there hasn't but because a lot of them are really concerned about illegal immigration.
*Personally I blame the post Watergate Democratic Party for most of the lack of bi-partisan policical action in DC and the states
I agree the 'burg isn't a place for bitherism but these lines are worth the post
Forget the certificate itself. The most astonishing thing I saw yesterday was a sitting president waiting for the host of Celebrity Apprentice to finish a New Hampshire press availability so he could start his own.
When your presidency is so lackluster youre getting upstaged by a guy whose job is to coax coherent sentences out of Gary Busey . . . well this was not a good moment for the republic.
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.
Former White House officials have launched a new group designed to foil conservative attacks on President Obama's reelection with unlimited campaign cash. 
