Generate revenue and clean up the air. Shift America away from such a petroleum dependent lifestyle, saving us gobs of money and making us less reliant on dictators hell bent on out destruction…
You know, insignificant shit like that…
You’re too fucking stupid to even bother with.
An op-ed by William O’Keefe. Registered lobbyist for ExxonMobile. Can you find anyone that isn’t working for the oil/gas/coal industry who is against this?
In a perfect world, yes we’d cut mad amounts of spending. However, we only bring in a few trillion a year in taxes. We over over 10. If we cut spending to ZERO, it would still take 8-10 years to pay it off.
To raise more revenue the government must CUT taxes. That way, commerce begins again and more wealth is created by the private sector. The government will receive more revenue as this new wealth is created. This has been proven time and time again throughout history. When Ronnie and George cut taxes, the government received windfall revenue.
Cutting government spending is always a good idea as well!
Ahh, we have to cut taxes to make more tax revenue. K. Let’s actually THINK about this concept.
I save $200 every paycheck under the new Quik83Z Superduper Fix America Economic Agenda.
I spend that $200 on hookers and cocaine.
The drug dealer and pimp then take that money and buy $200 worth of fur coats.
Jamal’s House o’ Furz then reports $200 extra worth of taxable income that they would not have, without your plan.
The fur coat cost Jamal $100, so he profited $100. After operating cost deductions, he’s actually paying taxes on $50 …for the sake of argument… 20%
Therefore, the government is getting back $10.
You’re telling me that this is going to INCREASE tax revenues?
Perhaps you can explain this math a little better to be. Cause I’m not getting it.
Not to mention that so many Americans are in debt right now that a LARGE percentage of any tax cut would be used to pay down debt, which does nothing to stimulate the economy.
A tax is the price you put on an economic activity. If you raise the price of that activity, then less of that will take place. If you cut the price of that activity, then more will take place.
That is why tax increases never bring in as much revenue as predicted. They use a static model for predicting the revenue increases. For example:
Government sees $100 in economic activity taxed at 5%. They get $5
They decide to increase the tax to 8%. They predict they will get $8
People decide the tax is too high and decide not to engage in as much economic activity as they did before. So now, there is only $50 in economic activity for the government to tax. They get 8%, which is $4.
So now look at the reverse. They lower the tax from 5% to 3%. People see that the price for the activity has dropped, so they engage in more of it. Now, instead of $100 worth of activity, there is $200. Taxed at 3%, the government now collects $6.
That is why, even though Reagan cut marginal tax rates in the 80’s, the revenues that were collected at the end of his term were double what they were at the beginning. It works wherever it is tried. Even JFK tried it, and it worked during his term too.
Do you think Stores have sales to LOSE money? Of course not. Same principle.
"The only entities directly regulated by Waxman-Markey would be the electric utilities, oil refiners, natural gas producers, and some manufacturers that produce energy on site. So, the good news for the rest of us–homeowners, car owners, small-business owners, farmers–is that we won’t be directly regulated under this bill. The bad news is that nearly all the costs will get passed on to us anyway.
What are those costs? According to the analysis we conducted at The Heritage Foundation, which is attached to my written statement, the higher energy costs kick in as soon as the bill’s provisions take effect in 2012. For a household of four, energy costs go up $436 that year, and they eventually reach $1,241 in 2035 and average $829 annually over that span. Electricity costs go up 90 percent by 2035, gasoline by 58 percent, and natural gas by 55 percent by 2035. The cumulative higher energy costs for a family of four by then will be nearly $20,000.
But direct energy costs are only part of the consumer impact. Nearly everything goes up, since higher energy costs raise production costs. If you look at the total cost of Waxman-Markey, it works out to an average of $2,979 annually from 2012-2035 for a household of four. By 2035 alone, the total cost is over $4,600."
Polluters will still make pollution and then simply buy credits from someone that has leftover “pollution credits”.
There is another bill out there somewhere that directly impacts homeowners.
I dont like the fact that obama based his campaign on lowering taxes and then comes into office and wants to tax. The carbon credit system is not going to work anyway. when one company doesnt use up all of the credits allowed, another company who pollutes more buys those left-over credits from the other company, so the pollution is not going to change but the price of products will continue to raise.
A French doctor says ‘Medicine in my country is so advanced that we can take a kidney out of one man, put it in another, and have him looking for work in six weeks.’
A German doctor says 'That is nothing; we can take a lung out of one person, put it in another, and have him looking for work in four weeks.
The Russian doctor says 'In my country, medicine is so advanced that we can take half a heart out of one person, put it in another, and have them both looking for work in two weeks.
An American doctor, not to be outdone, says ‘You guys are way behind. We recently took a man with no brains out of Illinois , put him in the White House, and now half the country is looking for work.’
Unemployment skyrocketed under him, and he’s the only US President actually born in Illinois.
Just sayin’… that joke was around in the early 80’s.
I’m heading out to breathe somoe nasty air and have my thumb checked up on from a doctor in one of the lower-ranked health care countries in the world.
Actually, the rate of unemployment was relatively stable the first year of Reagans term, even though he inherited a recession from the biggest buffoon of the 20th century, Jimmy carter. It peaked towards the end of that recession in late 1982, and declined continually throughout the rest of his term, as the tax cuts kicked in and economic activity increased.
I shouldn’t have used the term “skyrocketed” because that implies a drastic increase quickly. However, he highest unemployment rate in the post World War II era was 10.8% and that occurred a couple of years into the Reagan term of office.
Yes, Carter was an idiot, but so was Bush2. We only blame the previous Pres when it suits us. That happens with both parties.
The difference with Carter is that the economy started to improve as his term ended, IMHO in spite of him, not because of him. This is counting GDP as well us unemployment and other economic factors.
So, it can’t all be blamed on the nimwit peanut farmer out of Georgia.
I shouldn’t have used the term “skyrocketed” because that implies a drastic increase quickly. However, the highest unemployment rate in the post World War II era was 10.8% and that occurred a couple of years into the Reagan term of office.
Yes, Carter was an idiot, but so was Bush2. We only blame the previous Pres when it suits us. That happens with both parties.
The difference with Carter is that the economy started to improve as his term ended, IMHO in spite of him, not because of him. This is counting GDP as well us unemployment and other economic factors.
So, it can’t all be blamed on the nimwit peanut farmer out of Georgia.
Unemployment was on the increase during the end of the carter term, and continued into the Reagan administration. The numbers are right on the bureau of labor statistics site. The 10.8% figure for November and December 1982 is correct. However, the 1.9% increase between Jan-june of this year is the highest rate of climb since 1948. It is widely acknowledged that the early 80’s recession was sparked by the Iranian revolution in 1979 and the 79 energy crisis. Carters mishandling of the Iranian hostage crisis only made things worse.
Not sure why you mention Bush2, but unemployment during his administration was actually pretty low.
Nothing to do with unemployment; just stated because both parties blame the prior President when the current one is/was having troubles getting his own plans rolling.
Many who were quick to blame Carter, and the blame was, of course, heavily biased toward the republicans at the time, are the same ones to blame Obama, when Bush2 could be just as easily blamed as Carter was for the state of affairs during the next president’s term of office.
I only compared Bush2 because we all are quick to blame the prior president when it suits our party favoritism, and also favor the current one due to the same party loyalty.
I just find it funny how closed-minded many are when it comes to our air and our health care. Both suck. We have someone trying to do something about it. And he gets trashed.
Nothing to do with unemployment; just stated because both parties blame the prior President when the current one is/was having troubles getting his own plans rolling.
Many who were quick to blame Carter, and the blame was justified but glorified by the republicans, are the same ones to blame Obama, when Bush2 could be just as easily blamed as Carter was for the state of affairs during the next president’s term of office.
I only compared Bush2 because we all are quick to blame the prior president when it suits our party favoritism.
I just find it funny how closed-minded many are when it comes to our air and our health care. Both suck, but our high-horse American attitude doesn’t care unless it directly affects us or our families, and even then, we’ll sacrifice good health care for all across the country, and clean air in the most polluted city in America… when it messes with our pocketbook. We have someone trying to do something about it. And he gets trashed. But I don’t see any better ideas coming from anyone. So we get sick from our air, and have sub-par health care to make us better.
