Patterico's Pontifications

5/9/2011

Some Democrats Think You Are Stupid

Filed under: General — Aaron Worthing @ 11:25 am



[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.  Or by Twitter @AaronWorthing.]

I have written before that when it comes to some Democrats and particularly the President, “high gas prices are not an unintended consequence of their policies: it is the means by which they will accomplish their goal.”  Their goal is to raise the price of gasoline so that you reduce your consumption of it.  So therefore, via Instapundit, we get this New York Times article about how some Democrats plan to raise taxes on the oil industry.

Linking two of the politically volatile issues of the moment, Senate Democrats say they will move forward this week with a plan that would eliminate tax breaks for big oil companies and divert the savings to offset the deficit.

With high gas prices and rising federal deficits in the political spotlight, senior Democrats believe that tying the two together will put pressure on Senate Republicans to support the measure or face a difficult time explaining their opposition to voters whose family budgets are being strained by fuel prices.

President Obama and some top Congressional Democrats have said they want to take some of an estimated $21 billion in savings from ending the tax breaks and steer it to clean energy projects. But the Senate’s Democratic leadership is calculating that using it to cut the deficit instead makes it a tougher issue politically for Republicans who are trying to burnish their conservative fiscal credentials.

“Big Oil certainly doesn’t need the collective money of taxpayers in this country,” said Senator Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey, one of the authors of the legislation that Democrats intend to showcase. “This is as good a time as any in terms of pain at the pump and in revenues needed for deficit reduction.”

As part of the effort to build support for the measure, the Senate Finance Committee has invited multinational oil company executives to discuss the tax subsidies and other government incentives at a hearing on Thursday.

Many Republicans are certain to oppose the proposal, making it hard for Democrats to assemble the 60 votes that will be needed to break a filibuster, given the resistance from energy-state senators in their own ranks. Republicans have characterized calls by Mr. Obama and Congressional Democrats to end the breaks as backdoor tax increases that will only increase gas prices.

“Instead of returning again and again to tax hikes that increase consumers’ costs, the administration and its Democrat allies in Congress should open their eyes to the vast energy resources we have right here at home and to the hundreds of thousands of jobs that opening them up could create,” Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, said in a statement.

Don’t tell me that the Democrats are too stupid to know that these taxes will be passed on to consumer.  Let’s remember how they pitch cigarette taxes: as a means of increasing the price of cigarettes and thus reducing smoking.  To quote Bill Clinton:  “One of the surest ways of reducing youth smoking is to increase the price of cigarettes.”  This is economics 101.

So they know what will happen.  They know that their plan will increase the cost of gasoline at the pump.  Some people are radical enough in their environmentalism that they will actually want this as a result.  But they are also betting on a good chunk of the American people being too stupid to understand that if you increase costs to gas companies, they will pass those costs on to you.

Now, personally I don’t like subsidies and special tax breaks generally, and would like to see a radical ending of such policies across the board.  But the Democrats aren’t advocating that, and I will be damned if they are going to single out this industry and make the price of gasoline, and only gasoline, go higher.

And the claim that it will reduce the deficit is bull, too.  First, if gas consumption is reduced, then you have to factor in those reduced profits for the oil companies when calculating tax revenues.  Second, high gas prices are an economy killer, so even if there is some modest increase in tax income from that tax hike in general, the drag on the economy will mean reduced taxes in other areas.  Again, they are depending on you being too stupid to see through all of this.

The only good news is we learn via the Washington Post (H/T: Hot Air) that gas prices might be going down this summer, by about 50 cents.  Which is about $2.50 than I would like, but I’ll take what I can get.

Still when you watch in horror each time you fill the pump remember this: some Democrats want you to feel this way and they have new proposals to make things even worse.

Update: Boston Herald predicts a $0.75 drop in gas prices?

[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]

174 Responses to “Some Democrats Think You Are Stupid”

  1. this isn’t a tax on Big Oil this is a tax on big oil’s smaller, independent competition – this is just more of bumble’s Soros-inspired corporatist fascism what has the failshit laughable US government partnering with favored companies what will toe the line

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  2. Only in a leftist’s mind would raising taxes on gasoline be a good idea when prices are at such high levels already. I heart how the MFM is bibble babbling about how prices have peaked, while ignoring what happened that caused them to jump. Only a leftists or the MFM, redundant, would think that raising taxes would decrease prices. Does the MFM ever mention that the government makes way more per gallon than the evil oil company does?

    JD (b98cae)

  3. To use the rhetorical nonsense we see from the trolls …

    This shows that Democrats hate the working poor – who are the ones most disproportionately affected by high transportation costs.

    And the reality is that that parody of an argument is very close to reality. To appeal to their narrow whacky leftist environmentalist demographic, Democrats happily make their supposed constituency more poor, and more miserable.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  4. Is it possible that Karl Rove is activating sleeper cells lying dormant in the democrat party?

    Could they be this stupid?

    If Obama approved drilling, he’d be hailed for crossing the aisle. Gasoline prices would fall quickly off speculation. His approval ratings would go up as people credited him for improving the economy directly, and we all felt the benefits every time we pulled up to a pump.

    Instead, tax increases on gas? Seriously?

    If I were motivated solely by Republican partisanship, and not the welfare of my country, I’d be so happy about this.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  5. Democrats happily make their supposed constituency more poor, and more miserable.

    Yup. They are the ones most easily controlled by yuppies who laugh off these taxes. A working mom with a van, or a working man with a full size V8 truck is really hurting from this. Next thing you know, we’ll drop the child exemptions, but try to snag these folks on food stamps. With any luck, maybe 99 weeks of unemployment. Then, they have to vote democrat just to put food on the table. And the yuppies will pretend these handouts show such great compassion, when really they are a trap that keeps families from getting by on their own steam and pride.

    We are too great a society to not know better.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  6. Jodi Miller at NewsBusted has a good joke today:

    Democrats say increasing gasoline prices will hurt Obama’s chances for reelection.

    That’s because it’s going to cost Democrats so much more money to transport illegal aliens to the polls.

    ropelight (2b7298)

  7. Cutting subsidies for an industry which is hugely profitable makes perfect sense to most people, which is why, in your love of corporate greed, y’all can’t see it. 11 billion and you think they need government money, whereas “we can’t afford Medicare.”

    Exxon Mobil reported a first-quarter profit Thursday of $10.7 billion, a 69 percent jump from the year before as higher crude oil prices, fatter U.S. oil refining and marketing margins, and a revival in global demand for petrochemicals boosted earnings.

    And, you boys think they need subsidies? They should be subject to windfall profit taxes, since all they do is poison the environment, bring gas to the corner station, and cause a bloated defense department to respond to their every whim.

    It is hysterical that SPRWTQJBD thinks it’s necessary to give tax money to oil companies, but finds it’s just outrageous to give tax money to grandma so she can afford medical care.

    timb (449046)

  8. No, what is hysterical is that timb thinks that that stupid rhetoric will mean crap to people who can’t afford to put gas in their cars thanks to Democrat policies.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  9. timb – Please explain how what Democrats propose to cut can properly be characterized as subsidies for an individual industry with a straight face.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  10. Cutting subsidies for an industry which is hugely profitable makes perfect sense to most people, which is why, in your love of corporate greed, y’all can’t see it.

    Specifically, what ‘subsidy’ only exists for oil companies, and not other companies?

    Cite the specific law you’re talking about.

    Is it really the case that oil companies are getting lower taxes than other companies are? Let’s see what specific law is so horrible that we’re all in love with “Greed”. Be more specific.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  11. And he comes in, and proves the point,

    narciso lopez (79ddc3)

  12. timb

    do you believe this will raise gas prices. yes or no?

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  13. daleyrocks beat me to it, but yeah, that’s what I am asking too. What is this subsidy he’s talking about. As far as I know, oil companies pay tremendous taxes to the US Government. They subsidize us, not the other way around.

    However, I have no aversion to oil companies paying the normal tax rate other industries pay. Just as I think unionized companies like GM shouldn’t get bailouts. Government shouldn’t be picking winners and losers. Sometimes, I get the sense that some on the left are dishonest about this, and want to tax a company simply because they are making a lot of money.

    That seems to be what timb is saying if you skip over the lies. That it will be politically viable to tax someone because they make a lot of money.

    This shows an attitude someone’s profits belong to the democrats to use as they want, and if you make too much money, somehow you have done something wrong to society and need to be punished. This is a very unhealthy attitude that has crippled societies that followed it.

    Also, unless this is somehow going to lead to far greater oil production, or decreased demand for oil, it’s not going to have a good impact on the rest of us. In fact, it’s probably going to reduce production some.

    We have a spending problem, not a taxing problem. We already know that raising taxes will lead to less revenue, generally. Oil companies have some control over this. They can weather a storm of hostile policies for some time. You can’t just tax your way to a balanced budget.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  14. Dustin, according to a roughly year-old article I found at the energy collective, the tax provisions being targeted are:

    (a) deduction of drilling costs
    (b) tax credits for low-volume wells
    (c) “manufacturing tax deductions for oil and gas companies”.

    I don’t understand what (c) means, so I can’t comment on it.

    Repealing (1) would seem to me to be actively discriminating against oil companies, although I don’t know if currently all mineral extraction companies can deduct the cost of extraction. But it seems to me that as a general rule deducting the cost of extraction is just like deducting any other business expense.

    Repealing (2) is probably the thing which makes the most sense in terms of standardizing tax policy across economic sectors.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  15. I made a commenting on this post you know. Just cause you can’t see it doesn’t mean it’s not there.

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  16. Thanks for the heads up, Aphrael. 2 doesn’t sound so odious to me either, though I wonder if that is really targeting big oil anyway.

    Anyhow, yes, companies should pay tax on their profits, which means deducting expenses. Seems reasonable to me. Treat them like any other company.

    What I hear so much of is identifying a profitable company and trying to find a way to make them pay a higher share because some feel they can get away with it.

    Or as timb said, “[higher tax for oil,] which is hugely profitable[,] makes perfect sense to most people”.

    My limited understanding is that marginal well credits were meant to avert wells from being shut down in a period of low oil prices. We have to be a little wary about this, as shutting them down will make oil prices more volatile, but if they aren’t profitable on their own, perhaps we need to find a better source of oil. I’d feel a lot better about eliminating this credit if we also ramped up production elsewhere.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  17. Please remind me when timmie was correct about anything?….crickets…

    The quickest way to a “double dip” recession is to bump transportation costs to the $5/gal level, which will spike inflation numbers across the entire economy, since everything you buy is transported at one point or another by a system powered by hydrocarbon fuels.

    When #2 diesel goes over $5, what are all of the public-transit systems going to do…
    they’ll increase the cost of fares directly impacting those who a) don’t have a car; b) have already foresaken that car for public-transit due to the cost of gas.
    Plus, airline fuel is tied to the cost of diesel (both variations of basic kerosene) – where do you think airline fares are going to go when the airlines are paying double what fuel cost them a year ago?
    No more vacation travel (empty theme parks and hotel rooms), and drastically reduced business travel (more empty hotel rooms, and restaurant tables unused, and cabbies with less airport fares, etc, etc, etc.

    Double-dip Hell!, this will result in Great Depression II!

    AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92)

  18. Dustin, a lot of those “marginal” wells are located on some-one’s “back 40″ who wants to make sure that the lease payments keep coming in, and the extraction allowance keeps getting passed-through to the land-owner.
    In other words, taxpayers demanding that Congress protect the Status Quo Ante.

    AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92)

  19. There is a depreciation schedule for oil fields that is a bit too generous – but some of that comes from the difficulty in estimating the life of a productive oilfield.

    Otherwise, the tax deductions for oil companies are similar to other businesses in that they are based on their expenses.

    Interestingly, timb tries to castigate Exxon Mobil for its profits (which are hardly extreme on a capitalized basis or on a total revenue basis), evidently ignorant of the fact that Exxon Mobil actually buys roughly half of its petroleum and so is only going to be encouraged by the proposed tax changes to import more

    But then, timb stands for nothing if not for stupid, counter-productive policy proposals based on hatred and class warfare.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  20. Why do people like the creepy trolls never mention that they paid billions more in taxes than they made in profits?

    JD (6e25b4)

  21. If oil prices are high, are marginal wells still getting this credit? Perhaps there’s some way to tweak the laws (That I have not read in this case) so that we avoid closing the wells when oil prices are very low, but avoid subsidizing them when oil prices are high (if they aren’t profitable now, are they really viable?).

    This still doesn’t strike me as the core of what democrats are demanding, which is more like a ‘windfall’ profits tax.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  22. Comment by JD — 5/9/2011 @ 12:37 pm

    C’mon JD, you’re asking for accuracy and honesty from timmie?

    AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92)

  23. aphrael – When Democrats last proposed a windfall profits tax on oil companies it proved to be politically unsaleable. Given what they are terming subsidies for oil companies are ordinary tax deductions for other companies, this just smacks of being a backdoor mechanism to tax windfall profits of oil companies, because Democrats just don’t like oil companies. The deduction for intangible drilling costs by independent oil companies, it was removed for integrated oil companies in 1972, may be one arguably unique area. The independents, however, drill most of the new wells in the U.S. so punishing them by eliminating deductions would be a very diabolical move by Obama and just further cement his anti-business credentials.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  24. It seems quite clear that some leftists have much anger and hatred for anyone that dare make a profit.

    JD (109425)

  25. “But they are also betting on a good chunk of the American people being too stupid to understand that if you increase costs to gas companies, they will pass those costs on to you.”

    The amount that they can pass on depends on the elasticity of the demand. That’s what our policy should focus on — increasing the elasticity of demand for gas.

    jbrauer (84ca1e)

  26. Taxman from The Beatles:

    Let me tell you how it will be,
    There’s one for you, nineteen for me,
    ‘Cause I’m the Taxman,
    Yeah, I’m the Taxman.
    Should five per cent appear too small,
    Be thankful I don’t take it all.
    ‘Cause I’m the Taxman,
    Yeah, I’m the Taxman.

    If you drive a car, I’ll tax the street,
    If you try to sit, I’ll tax your seat,
    If you get too cold, I’ll tax the heat,
    If you take a walk, I’ll tax your feet.
    Taxman…

    ropelight (2b7298)

  27. What our policy should concentrate on is opening up new fields, and bring production on-line, here within the economic boundaries of the United States of America:
    the Outer Continental Shelf;
    the Easter Gulf of Mexico;
    the Caribbean south of the Florida Keys (why should China be drilling there for Cuba, and we aren’t?);
    tar-sands and oil-shale in the Great Heartland of America;
    the many new natural gas fields all across the country;
    Oh, and discontinuance of the subsidies/tariff protections for ethanol which will lower the costs of foodstuffs in the super-market for house-wives/husbands across the country.

    That this is not our policy is just confirmation of the totalitarian mindset that resides in the seat of power today in DC.

    AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92)

  28. That’s what our policy should focus on — increasing the elasticity of demand for gas.

    Let the market do that on its own as prices go up naturally. I buy fuel efficient cars, and even take the bus if it’s a decent way to get where I’m going. Not good enough? So what? The government needs to worry less about problems like this, and worry more about spending a hell of a lot less money.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  29. “Let the market do that on its own as prices go up naturally.”

    Elasticity of demand is about the response to prices going up.

    “I buy fuel efficient cars, and even take the bus if it’s a decent way to get where I’m going. Not good enough? So what? The government needs to worry less about problems like this”

    And what? make more decent buses?

    jbrauer (b5a79f)

  30. discontinuance of the subsidies/tariff protections for ethanol

    There’s been movement in this direction recently. It’s long been difficult because of the prominence of the Iowa Caucus in the presidential selection process, but the budget deficit gives us our best chance to kill them off in decades.

    [Note that, while I’m a strong supporter of ethanol in concept, I think the Brazilian sugar cane ethanol is vastly superior to our corn ethanol (and has less of a distortive effect on food prices). I’d basically prefer some sort of non-edible-plant-based ethanol, as that would have the smallest effect on food prices – not zero, because at some point there’s competition for farmable land, but less than in the current situation).]

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  31. jbrauer, there is little elasticity in demand for gas currently. There is a lot of economics work to show this.

    Government public transportation policies really focus on high cost, low benefit solutions that steal resources away from the kind of transportation needs of the urban poor like buses in favor of wasteful systems like high speed rail that benefit the upper middle class.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  32. Maybe the government should stop placing barriers in the way of known and proven technologies, for political reasons, in pursuit of their orgasmic gree energy technologies that only create jobs in places where unicorns fart fairy dust.

    JD (3ad5b9)

  33. vAnd what? make more decent buses?

    Comment by jbrauer

    I see your point. Yes, cities should try to meet demand for public transportation realistically.

    But not so they can manipulate oil prices. They should be focused simply on providing effective services the taxpayers want to have.

    Elasticity of demand is about the response to prices going up.

    Of course, but so what? It’s not the government’s business. As supply goes down, and prices go up, people will either decide their oil using products are worth it, or they won’t.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  34. “As supply goes down, and prices go up, people will either decide their oil using products are worth it, or they won’t.”

    I’m thinking you’re not familiar with what is meant by “elasticity” in this context.

    “jbrauer, there is little elasticity in demand for gas currently. There is a lot of economics work to show this.”

    I’m saying policy should be to increase it. Because then, people will have more ability to “either decide their oil using products are worth it, or they won’t.”

    jbrauer (3a0f11)

  35. jbrauer, policy should be to increase the number of unicorns too. I looove unicorns.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  36. He shut down the Gulf, for the better part of a year, the EPA is going after the dune lizard in Texas, the Alaskan pipeline will fall below carrying
    capacity by 2019, if not sooner, possibly the oil
    new fuel is coming from fracking in the Dakotas, and they are on a war path against that,

    narciso lopez (79ddc3)

  37. I wonder what profit margin the leftists would “allow”. What limit would they put on profits? They seem to hate the idea of a profit, and intentionally divorce the concept of profit from the underlying costs, taxes, etc …

    JD (85b089)

  38. JD just called Sarah Palin a leftist?

    My work here is done…

    EricPWJohnson (6e67ac)

  39. Jbrauer – kindly tell us all the other names you have posted under/been banned under. It took you about 4 comments to inadvertantly let one of your rhetorical tics out.

    JD (29e1cd)

  40. Epwj remains an imbecile, and sadly, seems proud of it.

    JD (85b089)

  41. “Some”?

    Alan Davidson (0e6f97)

  42. “We already know that raising taxes will lead to less revenue, generally.”

    This is utter nonsense.

    Its like saying raising the price of a car will lead to lower company revenue.

    Sometimes, a small targeted tax cut can produce a bump in revenue, just as a small targeted cut in sales price can raise overall revenue.

    But the Laffer Curve is this logic blown to absurdity- according to this logic, if we cut taxes to zero, we will reach peak revenue.

    Liberty60 (de903c)

  43. Eric

    um, are you talking about the deal she brokered regarding state owned lands? its a tad different subject.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  44. liberty

    no, the curve specifically says if you go down to zero taxes, you get zero revenue. the key is to find the best ratio of taxes to income.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  45. “Epwj remains an imbecile”

    JD – Well, he likes to lie and smear, a lot. Which means EricPW acts pretty much like a lefty.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  46. Liberty60, you are ignorant of the Laffer Curve from your comment.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  47. JD

    I’m finally going to say it – Sarah palin raised more taxes on the oil companies than anyone

    She was proud of it

    And officially in front of everyone – you still dont get it

    How is it different than a Profits tax on Oil different than a tax on gasoline?

    You officially are one of the biggest idiots on the internet

    Quite an achievement

    EricPWJohnson (6e67ac)

  48. “Liberty” is yet another one. They appear to be drawn to this topic.

    JD (b98cae)

  49. Epwj – the irony in that is rich, seeing how you routinely, as a matter of practice, like to make assertion after assertion, none of which are ever true, and then repeat said assertion when called out on it.

    JD (29e1cd)

  50. JD

    You should be proud, you earned this one, all by yourself

    Barack Obama is an a$$, however even he didnt have a stones to pass THAT big a tax on oil oh its different than GAS,

    Yeah we get it from the international economist JD here folkes – he’s the one with the learning…

    I’m for America, I’m for drilling and jobs and economic growth, other countries – even those with high taxes – dont tax THEIR oil companies, they tax foreign oil companies – but not thier own. Othr countries many dont tax the investors that invest in this job creating economy giving life’s blood

    But now Alaska.

    And yes I know I’m aware that you dont like Palin, you seem to say that alot yet never call her out for the heinous taxes raising craptastic mess she made out of our critical resource area.

    Yeah I know here comes the I’m cool guys, I’m going to pretend I’m not an idiot…

    JD – you know that she raised taxes, more than the most vile murderous dictators that roam the planet and it starting to ome out

    EricPWJohnson (6e67ac)

  51. JD

    Here’s an assertion – you are an idiot – you are saying she didnt raise taxes?

    Then well, you are an idiot

    EricPWJohnson (6e67ac)

  52. I’m reminded of the many times I’ve shown you to be talking out of your ass, EPWJ. So many, that its gotten boring.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  53. JD missed the point about taxes – so if the oil companies profits are taken away – oh no they’re not – they have to raise the price, then the tax gasoline – where does it end?

    palin raised taxes – Obama is wanting to raise taxes

    Republicans in Alaska are trying to undo Palins taxes just like republicans are trying to prevent and undo taxes under Obama

    The difference is one was a republican…

    EricPWJohnson (6e67ac)

  54. EPWJ, did Palin kill your dog?

    There is no other explanation for your obsession. Oh, and did you share ownership in the dog with happyfeet?

    SPQR (26be8b)

  55. Now you are lying. I never claimed she did not riase the. Everyone admits she changed the structure. That you wish to argue that I am claiming something that io am not is typical of you. We all know that you are a knob jobber for big oil, and you much preferred the crooked deals with the Murkowski clan. We almost care to hear you yimmer yammer on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about this, yet again.

    JD (85b089)

  56. SPQR

    I’m reminded of the many times you have no actual facts to back up anything you say, I do bow to your vast repository of hearunto beforehand known knowledge that seems to truimph those who actually work in those industrys.

    If you could only get a visa and a consulting contract and come to the world over here and straighten us out – the global energy crsis would be over.

    As Allied is coming tomorrow to pack us up as we are off to Asia – I need your one sentence answers without links or facts for everything

    Would save us all alot of manhours and time and effort.

    EricPWJohnson (6e67ac)

  57. Isn’t there a federal tax on every gallon of gasoline pumped in the US, as well as individual state and sometime even city taxes? Aren’t these taxes in addition to any Corporate tax on the oil companies? Isn’t it the consumer of the gasoline ultimately paying all of these taxes? Wouldn’t taking more money from the oil companies simply be taking more money from the consumer of gasoline? Is it really that simple?

    c-harr (49b64e)

  58. JD

    Yep you did, in fact you even went so far as to claim i was just another mouth piece for big oil and when your pal Daley went off the deep end the guy who comments on everything is now saying he new all along bt said nothing?

    Hmmmm……

    BTW the FBI is really honestly waiting for your information on what you know about your first hand knowledge of evil backhanded oil dealing in Alaska

    What a idiot, and now I guess a liar as well? or maybe just a denier

    JD called Palin a leftist – wow!

    EricPWJohnson (6e67ac)

  59. JD

    Yep you did, in fact you even went so far as to claim i was just another mouth piece for big oil and when your pal Daley went off the deep end the guy who comments on everything is now saying he new all along bt said nothing?

    Hmmmm……

    BTW the FBI is really honestly waiting for your information on what you know about your first hand knowledge of evil backhanded oil dealing in Alaska

    What a idiot, and now I guess a liar as well? or maybe just a denier

    JD called Palin a leftist – wow!

    EricPWJohnson (6e67ac)

  60. EPWJ, yeah, I’m sure you are easily reminded of your fantasies.

    My favorite of which remains when discussing the shooting at a border crossing by a Border Patrol agent, where you claimed that the video of the incident showed the BP agent crossing into the Mexico side to pursue the stone throwing youths. And viola, the actual video showed no such thing, and indeed showed that you had never even seen it.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  61. Liberty60 @42 —

    Raising the price of autos to meet the demands of unions did in fact reduce income for auto makers.

    The popularity of lower cost imported vehicles increased and our domestic manufacturers lost more and more market share – until taxes on the imports ‘protected’ jobs and companies.

    The only losers were the American consumers – as we will be again with new energy taxes.

    Old Bob (21b5df)

  62. Oh, and EPWJ, I’m pretty sure it wasn’t a very good dog.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  63. Some?

    Steve
    Common Cents
    http://www.commoncts.blogspot.com

    Steve (88e6e2)

  64. Epwj is an abject liar. This comment by diarrhead style is tiresome. You outright accused Palin of a specific felony, being the recipient of a 6-figure no-show job. I will spare you the embarraSment and not list the litany of assertions that proved to be pure fantasy. I almost feel sorry for you, you have crossed into IMP fantasy territory. Watching someone devolve in real-time is sad. Get help.

    JD (85b089)

  65. JD

    This isnt personal, this is just an observation, you defended the indefensible and compiled it worse by not understanding that palin DID raise taxes, the Dems are just trying to

    From the Team R guy….

    Geez, is it sinking in yet? Yes they called Palin names, yes they accused her of bad things, yes she made millions and still is pretending to be a candidate

    All i get for pointing out the facts is a bunch of name calling

    but JD, look at what you wrote here – and look at what Palin did – Maybe Okeefe could do an expose on the free money given out to Alsakans that dont live there? (hint hunting lodges, Cabins? tracts of cheap frozen land)

    Be an eye opener

    EricPWJohnson (6e67ac)

  66. I’m thinking you’re not familiar with what is meant by “elasticity” in this context.

    If I don’t know something, I readily admit it. I understand what the word means. I also think that we can create this ‘elasticity’ over time.

    For example, if gasoline went to $30 a gallon next week, sure, I would still fill my pickup up a few more times because I need it. But as soon as I could, I would come up with an alternative. I would create my own lower demand for oil.

    Government has other things to worry about, and frankly, they suck at manipulating us. And are too corrupt. You seem pretty naive about economics.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  67. SPQR

    Please get a consulting contract – i know we need an expert like yourself, please help us we need you!

    Learn Arabic and Chinese – it’s helpful I heard

    EricPWJohnson (6e67ac)

  68. Actually, all Democrats think all Americans are stupid. But you can hardly blame them; look at their supporters. I’ve known a few GOP staffers who tell me that their Dem counterparts will ask them, “you don’t really believe what your party says about people being capable of leading their own lives, do you?”

    Why shouldn’t they believe people are incapable of leading their own lives? Their supporters are begging to be dependent on government. Their supporters are gullible and none too bright. See timb’s post above for confirmation.

    But here’s another example. The Obama admin is simultaneously advancing two contradictory claims about US oil production.

    1. There is no “silver bullet,” nothing the administration can do to alleviate our current situation and lower prices by authorizing increased domestic production, because even if they did approve new permits for oil exploration and drilling it would take years for that oil to hit the market.

    2. Oil production has increased under the Obama administration.

    I won’t get into the multiple elements of insanity of the first argument. It does contain one element of truth. From the time an oil company pays the USG for the lease and gets a permit to explore for oil, it does take years for oil from the new field to reach the market. The Obama administration has tossed around numbers like 5 to 10 years (in the case of ANWR); let’s take the Obama administration’s word for it. And it’s also true there has been an increase in production during Obama’s 2 years plus a few months in office.

    http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx?country=us&product=oil&graph=production

    Since both statements are true, it means the Obama administration had nothing to do with the increase in production in 2009/2010. Because to increase production during those two years, somebody had to get the ball rolling by at least 2004/2005. That won’t stop them from taking credit that should go to prior administrations, though.

    I bet timb won’t be able to grasp that obvious point. But then, that’s what Obama’s betting on, too. No, make that counting on.

    As I said earlier, Democrats know just how much respect they ought to give to their supporters’ level of intelligence.

    Steve (266b4d)

  69. ohnoes … tomorrow night an unsuspecting America will be greeted with the cast of Glee performing a cover of Rebecca Black’s infectious teen anthem and God help us but I don’t think America is ready

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  70. happy

    oh, God and my wife loves that show…

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  71. EPWJ you called her tancredo racist so excuse me for not being convinced by your conservative credentials.

    DohBiden (15aa57)

  72. Why for the love of pete, would they subject us to that.

    narciso lopez (79ddc3)

  73. her and tancredo*

    DohBiden (15aa57)

  74. “Yep you did, in fact you even went so far as to claim i was just another mouth piece for big oil”

    EricPW – Are you now denying this?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  75. Actually, all Democrats think all Americans are stupid.

    No. I only think people who are willing to make generalizations like that are stupid.

    That’s somewhat unfair. But no more unfair than your broad generalization was. :)

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  76. “when your pal Daley went off the deep end”

    Making EricPW look bad = going off the deep end

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  77. Exposing EricPW’s lies = going off the deep end

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  78. Illustrating EricPW completely unsubstantiated smears and asspulls = going off the deep end

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  79. EricPW is a mouthpiece for smearmonger Gail Crystal Magnum.

    DohBiden (15aa57)

  80. do you believe this will raise gas prices. yes or no?

    Aaron, I strongly recommend moderating every single comment from timmi, regardless of thread, until & unless (s)he answers this question.

    Darth Venomous (a0b6a2)

  81. Yes someone who called her an islamophobic ultra-right bigot is now all of a sudden finding his conservative voice.

    Piss off.

    DohBiden (15aa57)

  82. _________________________________________

    “high gas prices are not an unintended consequence of their policies: it is the means by which they will accomplish their goal.”

    Absolutely.

    As for White House administrations associated with conservatives/Republicans (eg, George W Bush), various people will assume such presidencies want to nudge prices higher to fatten the wallets of fat cats in the oil industry. Even if accurate (and it isn’t) — and if it were, my not caring for that strategy one iota — I’m even more POed at various liberals like Chu and Obama wanting higher prices in order to discourage gasoline consumption.

    At the same time, when I see people driving around in newly purchased gas-hog SUVs, I often think “you better not be one of those pro-environmentalist, pro-Democrat, pro-Obama voters!”

    online.wsj.com, December 2008:

    Mr. Obama plans soon to introduce his energy and environment team, which will include Nobel Prize-winning physicist Steven Chu as energy secretary…

    In a sign of one major internal difference, Mr. Chu has called for gradually ramping up gasoline taxes over 15 years to coax consumers into buying more-efficient cars and living in neighborhoods closer to work.

    “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe,” Mr. Chu, who directs the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California, said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal in September.

    Mark (411533)

  83. Obama seems to be hellbent on re-creating the Carter Administration. The last winfall profits tax on oil sent the economy into a tailspin (not that it needed much help – sound familiar?). What will this one do? Nevermind stupidity, do the Democrats sincerely believe that history started in 1979? And have they conned themselves into thinking we believe that way, too?

    Redhawke (a89303)

  84. Wow did that POS just compare palin to murderous dictators?

    DohBiden (15aa57)

  85. There are lots of ways to tax an industry and lots of ways not to tax it but regulate it so that it pays hidden costs that function like a tax.

    How many of the people insisting that oil companies not be subsidized realize that the subsidies are generally offsets to the inane regulations imposed by EPA et al?

    Also, if the oil companies are not paying corporate income tax because of their legal deductions that protect their profits, does this mean they should be “tried for the same crime (making profits) twice” by regulating them to get the money they protected?

    The oil companies don’t spend their profits on candy and whores. They reinvest it in making more profits…whether that be providing profit incentives to executives or returning more dividends to shareholders to keep capital investment rolling in…. it is grown up time as to how to spend the money.

    When I hear leftists groaning about corporate welfare and the poor Granny with no medical care, i want to puke. My Dad married a 65 year old grandmother whose husband left her a mint worth of oil and natural gas stocks that buy her a pretty nice health care plan. He never earned more than 50K a year but he spent 10 per cent every payday on oil and natgas stock. Why didnt the granny without medical care do that? Is that my fault?

    Should the woman with oil and natgas stock who worked and saved for her old age health plan, be penalized by oil company taxes and regulations and revocation of subsidies that offset ZANY enviro regulatory fees? So granny can have a medical plan she never put aside a dime for?

    Doesn’t make sense. Have the non-tax paying lefties who DONT PAY ANY INCOME TAX, donate their tax returns every year to pay for Granny.

    Leave profitable companies alone. Let the people keep their money and see what happens to society.

    What a concept. The left think it would turn into a mass Roman-type vomitorium withe poor being turned into asphalt or something genocidal like that.

    Utter rubbish. Government is corrupt. Business at least gives human beings a chance to be ethical in the production of wealth. Government has to steal the money…..the rest is fruit from the same poisonous tree.

    My two cents.

    Bear1909 (893d7a)

  86. Why can’t we incentivize federal departments to come in under budget each year? Instead of forcing them to spend and overspend in order to protect their turf? Why can’t we criminalize federal department heads and their staff for fraud when they overspend their legislated budgetary allocations? Why can’t the government be regulated like they regulate other employing powers that be in the economy? Waste, fraud and abuse of authority in a Non-Wall Street business is an exception— people know that if they want to be in business year after year they have to stay out of tax trouble and jail. What does Congress and the federal bureaucracy have to watch out for? They own the press. They buy their votes Who regulates them? Turn the light on Congress and the Federal Government. Oil company taxes and profits is a smokescreen so the public wont take a look at Barney Frank and Chuck Shumer and what these grifters have stolen over the last 40 years. I’ll toss Jamie Gorelick in for good measure— and she is about to come back to the trough?

    Bear1909 (893d7a)

  87. There’s a word for the money you pay a land owner to extract minerals from his property. It’s “royalties”, not “taxes”. That is what Palin raised.

    Milhouse (0cad94)

  88. But people think it’s wrong and that is their right.

    DohBiden (15aa57)

  89. Most people can’t tell if their behinds have been drilled or bored. How are they going to understand what the Dhimmicrats are doing to them and their goulash city gene pools of would-be descendants?

    Bear1909 (893d7a)

  90. 14.Dustin, according to a roughly year-old article I found at the energy collective, the tax provisions being targeted are:

    (a) deduction of drilling costs
    (b) tax credits for low-volume wells
    (c) “manufacturing tax deductions for oil and gas companies”.

    I don’t understand what (c) means, so I can’t comment on it.

    Repealing (1) would seem to me to be actively discriminating against oil companies, although I don’t know if currently all mineral extraction companies can deduct the cost of extraction. But it seems to me that as a general rule deducting the cost of extraction is just like deducting any other business expense.

    I may be able to shed somee light on #1 here. Oil companies are now allowed to deduct 100% of intangible drilling costs in the year those costs are incurred. Most companies have to “capitalize” capital expenditures and amortize them over the life of the asset acquired. Being able to immediately deduct capital expenditures from their tax return is a sweet deal for oil companies.

    I think the change they are talking about is making oil companies capitalize drilling costs and depreciate them over the life of the oil & gas reserves discovered.

    And quickly, this thing about “passing costs on to consumers” is a crock. Oil companies are what economists call “price takers”. They sell at a market price, not on a cost-plus basis. If they did a barrel of oil would cost about $31 or thereabouts, $25 in finding costs with a nice little 30% profit margin tacked on.

    That is all.

    DB (0575bc)

  91. That is all? Really? I suppose you can document exxonmobil, shell, etal turning 30% profit margins?

    JD (318f81)

  92. Just thing we’re fascists though.

    DohBiden (15aa57)

  93. Just think we’re the ones who do not believe in a right to privacy………coming from the party who looked the other way when Obama passed the Patriot Act.

    DohBiden (15aa57)

  94. JD

    Whats more telling in that chart is HOW much profit is actually made on USA operations – for Exxon is almost nothing, most of their profits come from overseas operations

    McDonalds BTW just for the first time – I’m told had foreign sales pass domestic sales

    But the tax structure in the states is not going to be favorable for anything but foriegn firms whose employees are taxed much less and whose firms are taxed much less – drilling in the USA and driving out US ol companies who cannot compensate for the inequities in taxes.

    This is the double whammy, not only are we dependent on foreign oil but more and gradually more, now here in the USA (like the Dems in Alaska who are defending the largess Palin put in funded by the highest taxes in the world on petroleum), only foreign firms CAN afford to profitably do business in the States.

    So soon, as the 40’s through 90’s wells wind down the newest drilling will be done gradually by foreign firms.

    Foriegn oil companies selling and drilling in the USA, and shipping their oil here.

    EricPWJohnson (6e67ac)

  95. “Palin put in funded by the highest taxes in the world on petroleum”

    EricPW – Yet another EricPW big oil shill falsehood. I previously proved it was false domestically. Let’s have some back up for your assertion or a withdrawal.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  96. Daleyrocks – shhh. He’s on roll. Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!

    JD (29e1cd)

  97. It was royalties lefturd.

    Go back to whining about islamophobia and how your muslim friends are being persecuted Mr.Paranoia

    DohBiden (15aa57)

  98. How about the fact that the Democrats canceled the arctic survey, that the EPA is shutting down Shell’s foray into offshore oil, because of the exhaust from the icebreaker ( I swear I wish I was making this up)

    narciso lopez (79ddc3)

  99. “Daleyrocks – shhh. He’s on roll”

    JD – Don’t pay any attention to me. I’m off the deep end.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  100. JD – EricPW the oil company shill cannot even answer the question of whether Palin was a good governor.

    His frame of reference is the out of state oil companies rather than the citizens of Alaska.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  101. The price of gasoline at the pump is a product of supply and demand for GASOLINE. Oil prices are a factor, but only one factor of many, and its not the price of oil that is driving the current price spike.

    More important is the lack of domestic refining capacity to meet increased demand, as well as environmental regulations concerning formulations between the winter and summer.

    If you do a small historical analysis over the past 20 years, you see a spike in the price of GASOLINE every year sometime between March and June. Some years are worse than others, and sometimes it comes early and sometimes it comes late.

    But it always heads back down in a big way in June and July.

    This is because refineries are managing their inventory as they shift from one formulation to the other, at the same time consumption rises as the weather warms and people drive more. When inventories decline relative to demand, prices go up. When inventories catch up, prices go down.

    If you think the price of oil drives gas prices, then explain why gas was $4.50 a gallon in the summer of 2008 with oil at $145 a barrel, yet its $4.50 a gallon again in 2011, but the price of oil hasn’t gone above $115 yet?

    shipwreckedcrew (436eab)

  102. Daleyrocks

    In other words – let me restate it for you

    What Daleyrocks is trying to say:

    I’m a total idiot. Look i think that a neato Republican gov raising taxes on a vital industry to the overall american economy is a good thing but the evil democrat doing the same thing is wrong

    So I’m Daleyrocks – I am a total idiot on issues of governor Palin!
    ————————————————

    And they call me a shill for big oil – not realizing that every industrial, social, and economic region of this great country is totally dependent on big oil…

    Morons on the internet – who would have thought?

    EricPWJohnson (6e67ac)

  103. Isn;t it sad thatt Scooter Libby was blamed for leaking Valerie Plames’s name to the press when he did not.

    DohBiden (15aa57)

  104. Epwj – When you are knobbing your big oil masters, do you swallow, spit, or dodge?

    JD (318f81)

  105. Shipwreckedcrew

    Taxes is a driving factor – look at who is aasking to drill in Alaska

    Exxon, no, Conoco – nope

    Venezuela – yes China – yes France – yes Italy – Yes

    Sure they dont pay corporate income taxes and no interest as govt loans them money interest free, they dont have to pay payroll taxes, and much more

    How are these companies better positioned to do business in the states?

    Oh thats right Daleyrocks knows – he’s the international petroleum investment and marketing expert that I see at all these conferences with world leaders….

    He’s the one with the learnin

    EricPWJohnson (6e67ac)

  106. Goodnight, all. Hopefully, epwj will pass out, and not subject yo to his 93826465837254748264th delusional rant about the evils of the Palin.

    JD (318f81)

  107. JD

    Is that all you got is oral sex comments – this from someone who contributes to a blog that smears the host here and tried to get him fired and ruined?

    Oh thats right – you are the international investment expert that I see eerywhere

    Please JD, we need your expertise – we have been going down the wrong path we need this rare team of experts here to help set us and reverse this trend of ever increasing demands on the industry – we need you!

    EricPWJohnson (6e67ac)

  108. this from someone who contributes to a blog that smears the host here and tried to get him fired and ruined?

    Patterico – do you have an issue with me?

    JD (318f81)

  109. Now, goodnight. We have seen this same idiocy and mania from epwj before.

    breaking News – millions of jooooooooooooos in Iran learn that BREITBART indictment is imminent.

    JD (318f81)

  110. “In other words – let me restate it for you”

    EricPW – You don’t have to restate anything I say. My words were clear and in English. Just back up what you say before erecting fields of new straw men.

    You are pathetic.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  111. daley

    No Daley you misread an article, and misapplied economics – whether it was deliberate or accidental is up for debate

    Taxes raise prices – your argument was they didnt – if Palin was involved

    EricPWJohnson (6e67ac)

  112. So Daley are you on record that raising taxes higher than Gahaffi and Venezuela was a good thing because sarah did it?

    Come one – lets hear your logic

    EricPWJohnson (6e67ac)

  113. “But the tax structure in the states is not going to be favorable for anything but foriegn firms whose employees are taxed much less and whose firms are taxed much less – drilling in the USA and driving out US ol companies who cannot compensate for the inequities in taxes.”

    EricPW – Moving the goal posts to federal corporate income tax rates, over which Palin had no control, from the Alaskan ACES tax structure which you called the highest taxes on petroleum in the world is typical behavior from you. I’m still looking for back up for your original statement.

    Most educated people, whether they frequently attend international investment seminars or not, understand that the U.S. corporate tax rates are virtually the highest in the world.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  114. Daleyrocks

    Now there were plenty of links showing that – and again you are lying

    http://www.makealaskacompetitive.com/learn-more/

    J

    EricPWJohnson (6e67ac)

  115. “Taxes raise prices – your argument was they didnt – if Palin was involved”

    EricPW – So it was your contention that raising Alaskan extraction taxes raised the world price of gas? You were obviously not smart enough to understand a real world argument rather than a text book one.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  116. Here’s another one Daley couldnt find

    http://juneauempire.com/stories/010711/opi_766574449.shtml

    Alaska was in the mid range of oil tax regimes for competitiveness under the Murkowski Administration, but enacted the highest marginal tax rate in the world under Palin. This is demonstrated by the numbers

    More Daley couldn’t find

    At a $100 market price for a barrel of oil the current marginal tax rate for the Gulf of Mexico is 43%, for Alberta it is 55%, and for Alaska under ACES it is 85%. Alaskans simply cannot compete with the Gulf of Mexico for oil and gas exploration and development capital by imposing a tax that is twice the amount charged there

    EricPWJohnson (6e67ac)

  117. “Now there were plenty of links showing that – and again you are lying”

    EricPW – Nothing in that link mentions the highest taxes on petroleum in the world. Still waiting.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  118. Daley thats EXACTLY why a blogger is needed desperately to help correct the course that experts in these industries that have it wrong, all we ever needed to do was to ask you and now that I have discovered this vast resource of previously unknown knowledge of complex interconnected energy consumtion and production – we need you Daley – please get a consulting contract and come and straighten us out – or maybe you could testify as an expert in Alaska resource management at the Senate Hearings this summer?

    Please Daley Alaska and the country need you

    EricPWJohnson (6e67ac)

  119. it is royalties and btw you should apologize for slandering Aaron Worthing as an islamophobe.

    DohBiden (15aa57)

  120. “but enacted the highest marginal tax rate in the world under Palin”

    EricPW – Does highest “marginal” rate translate into highest overall tax rate? Come on, with all those international investment seminars you go to you should know better than to try to push crap like that.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  121. “Please Daley Alaska and the country need you”

    EricPW – Please EricPW, stop lying and stick to things you know about.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  122. EricPW – Economics, taxes and finance are not among the things you know about, if that has not already been made clear.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  123. Before aces tax Alaska was a great place to invest

    http://www.iraqdividend.com/World_Oil_Tax_Policies.pdf

    Opps Daley maybe right Chavez passed Sarah Palin last week when he announced his 90% tax over her 85% tax

    my sincere apologies – Palins the second highest tax raiser in the world – as of May 6th

    http://www.taxationinfonews.com/2011/04/venezuelan-oil-taxes-to-reach-up-to-95/

    EricPWJohnson (6e67ac)

  124. EricPW – Beg for forgiveness.

    Don’t make me come into the shallow end after you.

    The power of Christ compels you.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  125. Daley – you must have missed this one as well it took my 14 year old 11 seconds to find it on google

    http://www.akbizmag.com/more/10402-ak-state-house-majority-caucus-press-release-house-passes-governors-oil-tax-reform-bill-hb110.html

    “We firmly believe that doing nothing is not an option,” said House Speaker Mike Chenault, R-Nikiski. “Even if we got it right back when we passed ACES, which I don’t think we did – the global oil industry has changed since then. It’s night and day. New technology has opened up more places for development and Alaska, with some of the highest production costs and highest oil taxes in the world, is simply no longer competitive.”

    Liar, liar, pants on fire :)

    EricPWJohnson (6e67ac)

  126. Annd game set match,,,

    Alaska Republican House filled with consevatives – somehow knowing their own state, decided that Palin was a leftist

    Imagine that…

    EricPWJohnson (6e67ac)

  127. Palin a leftist?

    Says the same dousche who uses the left’s talkng points whenever someone has a legit beef with islam.

    BTW when will people who compare people to murderous naziesque dictators get banned?

    DohBiden (15aa57)

  128. And I mean comparing those who are not dictators ti naziesque dictators.

    DohBiden (15aa57)

  129. And yes socialism and fascism are far-left ideologies.

    DohBiden (15aa57)

  130. Shouldn’t a person with any self respect at all at least try to learn the difference between a royalty and a tax before they parrot talking points from the lunatic left?

    Roland (ab3879)

  131. Roland, you would think so. But confusing the two is important to the spin. The fact that Alaska’s oil comes overwhelmingly from public lands means that the question is easy to hide from people with propaganda.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  132. SPQR – A person with self respect should also understand that increasing the costs (through higher royalties or taxes) to one or a few suppliers of a commodity product (oil) in a fragmented market does not automatically give those suppliers the ability to pass on those cost increases to customers. Without pricing power on behalf of the seller, the textbook answer is spurious. In this case the royalty is based on profit, so the argument is circular.

    If a new tax were imposed on the entire industry, the argument would have merit.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  133. SPQR – Rational people who attend multiple international investment seminars normally understand issues such as pricing power.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  134. daleyrocks, oh the problem is more fundamental than that … indeed, fundament is the problem.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  135. What are these investment seminars of which he speaks?

    JD (85b089)

  136. “What are these investment seminars of which he speaks?”

    JD – Maybe those seminars are where he got the brilliant insight that there is no such thing as tax avoidance. Heck, I utilize tax avoidance every year on my personal taxes when I choose to itemize my deductions rather than electing the standard deduction.

    I’m thinking those international investment seminars have not been a very productive use of time and money for EricPW.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  137. Wow 70 comments of making things up.

    1st: the House in Alaska passed the repeal of the Taxes by the Leftist Palin. The vote overwhelmingly Republican led, overturned her predatory taxes

    2nd: In the Senate Democrats are blocking any reforms of Palin’s tax – because democrats believe in high taxes

    3rd: Roland, leftists are the one’s defending Palin’s tax hikes – they are also the one’s who voted it in when she was in office

    I know these facts get in the way – and Daley – Palin worked for Murkowski and was an intergral part of his machine until she was passed over for a US Senate seat. Funny for all those years before she didnt seem to have any problems with them until she didnt get what she wanted

    EricPWJohnson (c0a978)

  138. Funny the murkowskis and Eric their shill had no problems with Palin until she disagreed.

    and Eric you hypocritical swine until you aplogize for slandering Aaron as an islamophobe I don’t take your consevratism seriously.

    DohBiden (15aa57)

  139. Palin a lefty? Quit projecting please.

    conservatism*

    It was also a severance tax you vile moron.

    DohBiden (15aa57)

  140. EricPW – As I recall, your solution to the Alaska budget problems to be recreated by lowering royalty rates was to institute a property tax on homeowners and stop funding the pensions left underfunded by Governor Murkowski. No, never let anybody call you a shill for the oil companies.

    Here’s another article you missed:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/06/the-tragedy-of-sarah-palin/8492

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  141. No he is a shill for the tax and spend liberals.

    Which makes him a hypocrite.

    DohBiden (15aa57)

  142. “Wow 70 comments of making things up.”

    EricPW – I didn’t count your comments. I would not have thought it was that many.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  143. So Eric wants top raise property taxes on homeowners but yet calls out Palin as a tax and spend lefty that takes some heavy grade chutzpah.

    DohBiden (15aa57)

  144. And Eric can you go please suck on Frank Murkowski’s left tit thanks.

    DohBiden (15aa57)

  145. Dohbiden

    Raise Property Taxes?

    I said that?

    The Cato Institute said that all Sarahs tax was – is other states pay for welfare for Alaskans

    Had nothing to do with Property taxes – had to do with wealth redistribution from the other states – to Alaska

    geez, get even some basic basic facts straight

    EricPWJohnson (c0a978)

  146. Daley

    Your link about the burden of the top ten states was BEFORE the ACES tax

    But – do you see my point? Its high – production costs in Alaska are sky high

    Aces added to 85% the tax burden

    Look, I know you read things – but you missed the point that this was from another time in Alaska

    EricPWJohnson (c0a978)

  147. http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/palin-uninspiring-tax-policy-record/

    Here is a commentary from a source thats generally been accepted

    Daley your second link was an article by a Liberal former Demcrat Staffer for the US Senate Dr Lucier – sure he liked Palin taxing the oil companies – most democrats do

    EricPWJohnson (c0a978)

  148. For all Patterico readers

    You’ve seen the back and forth

    Daley, JD, Dohbiden et al – missed the point that the Tea Party Republicans and the old republicans in the State of Alaska house

    Just agreed with me, repealed Palin’s taxes

    It was linked earlier in the thread.

    The only people standing in the way in the Alaskan Senate to KEEP Palin’s taxes:

    Are the Democrats……

    The same ones who also requested hearings and ethics investigations of Palin – they are the only one’s who think that the Oil companies should pay the highest taxes in the world….

    Is anyone surprized?

    EricPWJohnson (c0a978)

  149. Nobody, absolutely nobody, is surprised that you continue to lie.

    JD (086b46)

  150. JD

    Did the State House led by Republicans – just overturn her taxes and replaced them with more or less the Murkowski tax system?

    Did alaska repeal ACES in the House?

    EricPWJohnson (c0a978)

  151. JD

    Did the State House in Alaska replace ACES?

    Sample responses would be

    Yes
    No
    random accusatory dodge here

    EricPWJohnson (c0a978)

  152. EricPW – You are just using the “There were no WMD in Iraq” argument. Silly.

    Were the citizens of Alaska better off with Palin’s plan? I have yet to see you answer that question.

    Is Governor Parnell a former oil industry lobbyist?

    Do oil companies always want lower taxes?

    How much have they spent lobbying to replace Palin’s bill?

    How many of your so-called “Tea Party Republicans” are former corrupt Murkowski supporters?

    What does replacing the bill have to do with your smear of Palin as a tax and spend liberal?

    Stop moving the goal posts.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  153. Daley,

    So – did the Republicans in the State house think that Palins taxes were good or bad for Alaska?

    So – did they overturn her signature accomplishment?

    So you are saying that the Democrats are right in Alaska?

    Is that what you want to go on record here?

    To me its what you are stating but clear it up for me

    If Palin raises taxes its good, if Republicans vote to lower “Palin” taxes – its bad and corrupt?

    That Democrats Identify more with “Palin” tax increases than with Republican tax cuts?

    I’m confused – you are/were/never(?) a conservative?

    EricPWJohnson (c0a978)

  154. When you typed “I’m confused” that might be the only honest thing you have typed here in days.

    JD (109425)

  155. He keeps reminding me, of Kevin Kline’s character
    in a ‘Fish called Wanda’ who is of course, the epitome of the ‘Ugly American’ common to many of Python’s offerings, but still.

    narciso lopez (79ddc3)

  156. For JD OT in a land far far away

    In 1921, the federal Sheppard-Towner Maternity Act created the birth “registration” or what we now know as the “birth certificate.” It was known as the “Maternity Act” and was sold to the American people as a law that would reduce maternal and infant mortality, protect the health of mothers and infants, and for “other purposes.” One of those other purposes provided for the establishment of a federal bureau designed to cooperate with state agencies in the overseeing of its operations and expenditures. What it really did was create a federal birth registry which exists today, creating “federal children

    It has a long history much of it repealed – but much of it reintroduced in later legislation

    http://www.mainemediaresources.com/mpl_birthcert.htm

    Just to counter your numerous claims that I make stuff up – and there is more

    EricPWJohnson (c0a978)

  157. JD

    So why did the Republicans in the State house overturn Palins signature tax increase?

    Simply really?

    Come on call me a name or two or three, make your landmark Ad Hom’s

    then when its outs of your system – why did the State House in Alaska – Filled with Republicans – overturn her Taxes (why did democrats vote to preserve Sarah’s higher tax rates?)

    EricPWJohnson (c0a978)

  158. You are now just running around with the goalposts. Do you ever tire of embarrassing yourself? That last effort was typical. You made a specific claim about a “unified birth registry”. It was something nobody had ever heard of, so we looked it up, and could not find it. Then you claimed that an organization or association had been responsible for it. Their website had no mention of it, ever. Now you link splatter and copy paste a bunch of gibberish that absolutely does not support your original claim.

    Daleyrocks – it is manic again. Feedback loop. Repeating things like a broken record. Conflating marginal tax rate with tax rates. Conflatint taxes and royalties. Republican A pushes and passes a law. Republican B changes law, and in his world, that makes Republican A a socialist.

    You really want to go through a comprehensive listing of the crap you have made up here? I would think you would eventually tire of being humiliated.

    JD (822109)

  159. JD

    So you cant answer why in less than her current term would have been in office they overturned her Tax?

    Yeah Ad Hom’s were good a laundry list is good

    But the QUESTION remains – gee why are you defending a TAX increase?

    JD, why?

    You’ve gone to great lengths – WHY?

    its a huge tax increase no?

    Why? Are you defending it? And yes if Rep A convinces everyone (especially the democrats who voted for it to pass) that high taxes are good and then the Republicans who dont have a reality show – come to the reality that this woman just connived some of them to pass a huge tax increase

    And work to overturn it

    But JD says – well in 1986 you said sally was uncool – so I dont have to look at any other arguments –

    Cool phrases – yes – name calling – yes – answering the question – nope!

    EricPWJohnson (c0a978)

  160. JD

    Why do you think they overturned her tax in the house. last month?

    EricPWJohnson (c0a978)

  161. I do not accept your lies as Teh Narrative. I am not defending anything. I am disputing your lies. Your little pea brain is so consumed with your white hot hatred of The Palin that you cannot even be rational. You make happyfeet look like he likes The Palin. This does not imply you are otherwise rational, you most assuredly are not, but The Palin really brings it out of you. Keep asking your silly little questions. I will keep mocking you.

    JD (0d2ffc)

  162. Seeing as he agrees with Halcro and Murkowski, who were for a state income tax, on top of the PFUD
    franchise fees.

    narciso lopez (79ddc3)

  163. Why did the House vote to overturn Palin’s royalty scheme? I don’t know, but one possibility is that your boss paid them off, or that they anticipated your boss making it worth their while. That’s at least as logical an explanation as yours.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  164. One of the best indicators of a persons worth is the quality of those who oppose and slander them.

    Have Blue (854a6e)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 3.0391 secs.