While most of us were celebrating New Years Eve for 2013, the U.S. Senate passed a bill overnight to prevent the dreaded Fiscal Cliff from happening. With plenty of drama and nonsense, the proposal crafted by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Vice President Joe Biden is an ugly one which may not pass in the House of Representatives. But my guess is that enough House Republicans will go along with Speaker John Boehner and together with House Democrats, the bill will pass. In the Senate, the vote, which happened about 2:30am EDT, wound up being 89 to 8 with 5 Republican and 3 Democrat Senators voting NO. The bill postpones the sequestration measure for two months, sparing the military and domestic programs from facing spending cuts, makes the Bush Tax Cuts permanent for those earning under $450,000 per year, and extends unemployment for another full year. Estate and Capital Gains taxes are also increased. All-in-all, the last-minute Fiscal Cliff bill increases revenue by some $620 Billion dollars with only a vague promise of some $15 Billion in spending cuts. Not exactly a ′balanced approach′, is it?
To say that Barack Obama got all he wanted may be over doing it a bit. For starters, his approval ratings have dropped some 5% since his reelection mainly due to the bitter fight on the Fiscal Cliff. And this fight is far from over, even if the House passes the Senate′s bill. As of today, America′s credit card is maxed out, so get ready for another brawl over the debt ceiling. That fight to raise the debt limit will undoubtedly be another knock-down-drag-out battle with Republicans holding the edge this time. While tax rates will go up for top earners, the numbers affected will be fewer than under Obama′s previous proposals.
In case you are curious, the senators who voted NO were Marco Rubio (R-FL), Rand Paul (R-KY), Richard Shelby (R-AL), Mike Lee (R-UT), Charles Grassley (R-IA), Tom Harkin (D-IA), Mike Bennet (D-CO) and Tom Carper (D-DE). Both Rubio and Paul are seen as among potential front runners for the 2016 GOP presidential primaries. We can expect many NO votes in the House, especially from ′Tea Party′ Republicans and those with future ambitions for higher offices. Most eyes will be on how Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) votes as he may also be running for president in 2016.
So the Fiscal Cliff apparently has been avoided more or less thanks to the ugly, compromise bill passed by the U.S. Senate overnight. A deal struck between Mitch McConnell and Joe Biden saved the day after Majority Leader Harry Reid gave up his attempt to broker a solution. The bill will make the Bush Tax Cuts permanent for about 98% of taxpayers and extend unemployment benefits for another year. Also, the sequestration of mandatory spending cuts has been postponed for two months. Only those who earn more than $450,000 per year will see an increase in their income taxes. Taxes on dividends and Capital Gains was also increased from 15% to 20% and the Estate Tax was increased from 35% to 40% for inheritances exceeding $5 Million dollars. The House of Representatives is scheduled to meet at noon today and we will see if the bill is passed there. But the fact that while $620 Billion dollars in new revenue is only offset by a mere $15 Billion in spending cuts is not a good sign. Round Two begins shortly when Congress addresses raising the debt ceiling limit.
January 1st, 2013 at 9:41 am
Assuming the House says nay, it goes back to the Senate who can analyze the House vote, make some minute to nothing change and send it back to the new 113th House Thursday afternoon. There will be a 17 vote swing (241 Rs & 191 Ds in the 112th and 233 Rs & 200 Ds in the 113th) difference.
It’s safe to say that the Tea Party will follow suit with Paul and Lee. But come Thurs afternoon, nut cases like Bartlett, Landy, Walsh, and West will all be gone (and an indeed very merry good riddance to all). So while we don’t know how the House will vote, another important thing to look at is the how the old House votes compared to how the new House will vote.
January 1st, 2013 at 10:03 am
It’s too tall a task to ask politicians to have the spine to do what’s right when by nature they do whatever they feel secures their reelection.
Not addressing all this overspending and extraordinary deficit is wrong, but not surprising when we can see a significant sector of the United States -similar to those that half-trollingly visit this site to enlighten us with their perpetually failed “progressive” ideas – ignorantly defending fiscal imprudence as if somehow debt begets prosperity and drunkenness, sobriety.
This blindness comes from hardened hearts that somehow pretend to break for the first time in history the law of reaping what we sow. May God dawn on them to wake up from their stupor and return to the path that once made the USA great.
January 1st, 2013 at 10:50 am
Well done Rivera
January 2nd, 2013 at 5:29 am
Hope the House rejects this bill. No new taxes on anyone and decrease on Estate, inheritance, capital gains, and investments taxes. This is preventing average people ( many average income people who have these investments, especially those who are disciplined) building up wealth and help the economy grow.
STOP THE SPENDING THAT IS THE PROBLEM.
Obama and the Democrats are punishing those who are disciplined and successful. The Democrats want to keep power and make every one dependent on them. No Liberity. The Democrats could never survive in the free market system because they are lazy and want to live off of other’s labor, creativity and discipline.
The Democrats want to rid the political system of the Republican and Tea Partys. The Democrats would have no oppostion ( Obama’s Mode of operation because cannot win on record or ability). Ridding the opposition would keep the useful idiots wanting the Democrats and their promises of forever childhood.
January 2nd, 2013 at 6:00 am
Sue, your diatribe is riddled with errors on every front but I’ll only address 1 issue.
Under the Bush tax policies, General Electric, ExxonMobil, and Verizon recorded $171 billion in pretax US profits according to an analysis by Citizens for Tax Justice. What would you suggest as a fair tax for these folks? 1%? 10%? What they actually paid was -$2.5 billion. Or in other words, Our government went out and confiscated $2.5 billion from American workers and redistributed it to corporations that made $171 billion. And these weren’t the only companies nor were they an exception. Out of the Fortune 500 companies that didn’t pay negative, most of the rest was less than 1 or 2 %. And this is very likely an incurring thing for many of the most wealthy and likely explains why Mitt Romney was so reluctant and selective on his tax returns. And even if you want to argue Mitt, the profits of these corporations are open records.
So here’s what’s so disturbing in your rant. You screech for more. You actually advocated a “decrease on Estate, inheritance, capital gains, and investments taxes”. Decrease capital gains and investments???? How much more negative should these corporations pay? Where or how is it the right thing to do when we tax the less wealthy in order to write a check with it to the most profitable?
Why is it so hard for the partisan hacks here to man up to an obvious flaw in our system?
January 2nd, 2013 at 6:10 am
Ronald, Ronald, Ronald…!!!
http://www.forbes.com/2011/04/13/ge-exxon-walmart-apple-business-washington-corporate-taxes.html
“America’s three biggest oil companies, ExxonMobil ( XOM – news – people ), Chevron ( CVX – news – people ) and ConocoPhillips ( COP – news – people ), all endure income tax burdens of more than 40%–higher than the statutory U.S. rate of 35%. Exxon, with a 45% rate, tallied $21.6 billion in worldwide income taxes for 2010.”
General Electric, on the other hand, being close buddies with Obama, only paid $1.05 billion in taxes in 2010 at a rate of 7.4%. As usual, its not what you know but who you blow.
January 2nd, 2013 at 7:21 am
“How much more negative should these corporations pay? Where or how is it the right thing to do when we tax the less wealthy in order to write a check with it to the most profitable?”
Ronald, you’d make some sense if you like the rest of the moonbats acknowledged we have a spending problem.
That issue is the one issue in Sues post you failed to address.
Sue is right, its not only the top 1-5% that will be taxed on state inheritance and capital gains, but actually a very large part of the middle class.
“Or in other words, Our government went out and confiscated $2.5 billion from American workers and redistributed it to corporations that made $171 billion. And these weren’t the only companies nor were they an exception.”
“In other words” ?
Your words mean nothing when you set narratives such as this. You’re saying these companies enjoy their levels of taxation at the average Americans expense ?
How stupid is that ?
If I paid less they’d have to pay more ?
The fed taxes us on average 5 cents out of every dollar we spend on their product and then taxes them on average 35 cents on their sales of their product. Do you seriously believe that our governments entitlement and wasteful expenditures are supported by this measly ratio the middle class “supposedly” pays to these corporations in some indirect and obscure manner?
The fact of the matter is most Americans pay very little fed tax at the expense of the top 5% which pay more than half of this countrys bills.
Tell me Ronald, why is it that in 2001-3 liberals screamed bloody murder over the Bush tax cuts but today have sacrificed all credibility by not wanting to let go of them ?
“Why is it so hard for the partisan hacks here to man up to an obvious flaw in our system?”
Thats the most hypocritical koolaide marinated statement you’ve posted so far.
This coming from a far leftist ideologue who does not begin to understand the basic concept of free enterprise.
This coming from an idiot who equates the rich to a source of energy he calls heat which he ignorantly thinks cannot be destroyed, only transferred.
Hes never poured water on a fire.
The only obvious flaw is that liberals do not like to pay their bills and government investments almost always fail.
And by the way, Sue is a nice lady who only posted the very obvious.
I normally dont bother investing too much in slapping you down, but if you treat her again the way you just did and I will dissect your next bullsht riddled post to fricken oblivion, hurt your feelings and humiliate the living crap out of you til you cant stand being here.
Her post was not an attack on you and quite the opposite of your posts which are “always” laced with personal attacks.
You’re a punk
January 2nd, 2013 at 7:39 am
I’m not sure what your rebuttal references Andy. It’s as if on one hand, you’re comparing world wide taxes to U.S. taxes while somewhat suggesting the top guns actually pay 35%. On the other hand you seem to be chastising GE for paying too little (which is rather bizarre considering your usual stand on low taxes) because they’re “close buddies with Obama”, as if there’s some line on the tax form or some exemption code if the President likes you or something, which makes no sense.
Do you deny the accuracy of the Citizens for Tax Justice report(http://www.ctj.org/pdf/notax2012.pdf)? Regardless if their tax rate is 35%, 50%, or 99%, at the end of the day, 30 Fortune 500 companies had a negative tax rate for the cumulative years 2008-2010 while a great deal of the rest saw less than 1%.
So the most profitable have the power to manipulate the system in order for the government to confiscate money from the working class and to give it to them.
January 2nd, 2013 at 8:17 am
“On the other hand you seem to be chastising GE for paying too little ”
Yes, chastised would be too little seeing as how Immelt and Obama are bosom bed buddies.
“So the most profitable have the power to manipulate the system in order for the government to confiscate money from the working class and to give it to them.”
How ?
Your premise that more taxation of the middle class somehow results in a transfer to the top percenters profits is absolute fabricated bullsh!t
Most working class pay zero fed tax.
Entitlement recipients,SS,unemployment recipients,Medicaid/care draw far more from the federal government than all of Americas most wealthy could ever supply.
Ask China.
In typical liberal fashion, as seen in the cliff negotiations, your Marxist bullsht refuses to address the fact that liberals are spending too much and instead choose to make it a revenues and class warfare argument.
January 2nd, 2013 at 8:21 am
“Do you deny the accuracy of the Citizens for Tax Justice report”
I would. They’re nothing but a liberal think tank.
January 2nd, 2013 at 8:23 am
“as if there’s some line on the tax form or some exemption code if the President likes you or something, which makes no sense.”
Any idiot, except for you not being just any idiot, knows that favors come in other forms not on your tax form.
January 2nd, 2013 at 11:38 am
Micky @ # 10, I never asked you. I asked Andy which you obviously took the liberty of speaking for. And it appears Andy has exited stage right.
Nothing new here. Typical rodeo clown maneuver.
January 2nd, 2013 at 12:00 pm
You’re an idiot Ron.
Doesnt matter who you’re talking to.
Sorry to mess up your blissfully ignorant black and white world with imaginary boundaries and narratives. Anyone is allowed to respond to your printed bullsht whether you like it or not.
Obama just managed to raise taxes on those he said would not see a tax increase under his admin.
“Nothing new here. Typical rodeo clown maneuver.”
Ass hole.
You’ve had your ass handed to you by me so many times without any attempt at refute its mind boggling.
You cant handle my ass. Thats all there is to that.
January 2nd, 2013 at 12:35 pm
Here’s a simple reality. 30 of the top Fortune 500 companies paid zero taxes while actually getting a tax subsidy while the majority of the remainder paid less that 2% (and a very high number less than 1%).
Sue promotes a “decrease on Estate, inheritance, capital gains, and investments taxes”. So I ask a simple question. How much less than 1 or 2% or how much more negative taxes is fair for those profiting multi-billions? And instead of even a feeble attempt to a rational response, Andy does some soft shoe shuffle dance pretending they pay 35% (or something silly) while Micky the kibitzing rodeo clown distracts the discussion while Andy ducks under the fence. And of course Micky comes back spewing how he kicked my ass.
Do you guys really expect to be taken with an iota of seriousness?
January 2nd, 2013 at 12:47 pm
My proposal is to jettison the words of liberals into outer space and let the aliens figure it out.
January 2nd, 2013 at 1:03 pm
“Do you guys really expect to be taken with an iota of seriousness?”
Certainly not from a moron like you.
You could tax the 30 top Fortune 500s all you want, it wont make difference.
“Sue promotes a “decrease on Estate, inheritance, capital gains, and investments taxes”.”
Sue is correct.
The majority of inheritances, capital gains and estates handed down are in the middle class you idiot.
“So I ask a simple question. How much less than 1 or 2% or how much more negative taxes is fair for those profiting multi-billions?”
“You attack peoples numbers with no sources of your own to back your claims.
And please, no more links to liberal think tank sites.
As I said above, raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans has already been proven a useless cure.
That fact makes most everyone of your posts today astoundingly irrelevant.
“And instead of even a feeble attempt to a rational response,”
Shut up ass hole.
You’ve never countered one of my posts to this day with anything substantial.
January 2nd, 2013 at 2:41 pm
“Shut up ass hole.”
You knew it was coming, it was just a matter of time.
January 2nd, 2013 at 4:52 pm
“You knew it was coming, it was just a matter of time.”
BFD, get a life.
January 3rd, 2013 at 5:59 am
Ronald, Ronald, Ronald…,
First, I did not “exit stage right” as YOU put it. I’m only on the computer once a day. It is no secret that my health is bad and the couple hours of strength I muster to function here in the morning is about all I can do these days.
Besides that, nothing, and I mean NOTHING, you ever say is very interesting. Most of it is just the usual dribble that the Far Left talking point distributors put out daily.
My point in my rebuttal to you was that if you are pals with the Obama administration, like GE, Google, Verizon, AT&T and Apple, then you get a pass on paying taxes, as well as exemptions from healthcare and other regulations, fees and taxes.
You also seem to forget that oil companies, like Exxon/Mobile, not only pay taxes on the thin profit margins they earn, about 3-5%, but also pay lease fees to Uncle Sugar, which makes up a substantial portion of federal revenues.
January 3rd, 2013 at 7:10 am
Sorry to hear about your health issues Andy. I had no idea. Godspeed.
Regardless of you exiting or not, my point was that there’s a pattern here of changing the narrative or distracting the argument by injecting a kibitzing troll. It’s a common practice on blogs that throw out weak tea claims or try to defend their debunked agenda that falls apart when challenged.
Your response only validates my point. So, if you are “pals” with a sitting POTUS (or maybe that only applies to Obama?), then you get a pass on paying taxes? That’s your rebuttal? Wanta do over? I mean, by what logic? What tax form wavers taxes based on palling with a president? And in that nonsense you do support lower corporate taxes right? But if Obama’s president, then those low taxes is because they’re pals? Or something? And Exxon/Mobile’s exempt because they have “thin profit margins” or something? I suppose you can make huge profits but as long as your profit margins are “thin”, that adjusted gross income becomes irrelevant? Or something? That’s your argument? They can make huge profits and not pay taxes provided they are a)”pals” with Obama, b)can show “lease expenses” or something, and c) maintain a “thin profit margin”.
And this is your argument in justifying lower taxes on the most profitable corporations that are already paying negative taxes?
I would say you’d be better served by sending your resident troll back in but I already know that’s going to happen anyway.
January 3rd, 2013 at 7:47 am
Ronald…,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-676R
“In fiscal year 2006, oil and gas companies received over $77 billion from the sale of oil and gas produced from federal lands and waters, and the Department of the Interior’s Minerals Management Service (MMS) reported that these companies paid the federal government about $10 billion in oil and gas royalties.”
You may also note that in 2007, with that ‘friend’ of ‘Big Oil’, GW Bush, in office, that the royalty fee rate increased to 18.75% from the sale of every barrel of oil produced off-shore. The on-shore royalty rate is 12.5%. This does not include further royalties and fees which state governments demand from domestic producers.
Naturally, you can cherry-pick the Fortune 500 to get your negative income tax rates, but Big Oil is the least of the offenders. Meanwhile, companies with very high profit margins, like Apple and Google, 30% margins or better, get away with plenty thanks to their association with Obama. They, along with GE, have no trouble getting plenty of tax breaks while they ship thousands of jobs to China and shelter their earnings offshore willy-nilly.
January 3rd, 2013 at 2:17 pm
Andy, giving economic facts to Marxists is usually a waste of time.
January 3rd, 2013 at 7:41 pm
There was a time in History where socialism actually worked. But one of the main reasons was that everybody was looking to serve instead of being served. And the fact God killed the cheaters helped too.
January 5th, 2013 at 1:54 pm
Andy @#21, you make an admission that GE, Apple, & Google slip thought the cracks when it comes to paying taxes. This contradicts the very trickledown theory you advocate. You do this by foolishly fabricating some notion that President Obama has some magic wand to that makes friends or pals immune from paying, invisible from the IRS, or something. This is yet another prime example of how you hypocritically want it both ways, desperately trying to salvage your failed argument by creating some Obama bashing rant that insults the intelligence of anyone of reasonable intellect.
And there’s Patrick to the resue! Funny stuff.
January 5th, 2013 at 3:53 pm
“This contradicts the very trickledown theory you advocate.”
No it doesnt.
How far up your ass did you have reach for that ?
January 6th, 2013 at 5:29 am
Ronald,
Where do you come up with these delusions? Obama certainly has a magic wand, his name is Eric Holder. I just read the other day that the Feds were dropping their investigation on Google. We don’t see much effort being made to collect the back taxes Warren Buffet owes. Oh, but go after some goofball film maker and toss him in jail because it fits with your narrative about why a U.S. ambassador was killed.
This is justice in Obama’s Amerika.
January 6th, 2013 at 8:15 am
Andy, if you’d look back at Sue’s #4 post and my #5 response to her, maybe you can focus on how you’ve spun the argument as I suggested in post #24. And then again, maybe the blind partisan allegiance you possess forbids you to do that?
You and your corporate loyalist have not only constantly defended the Bush tax cuts at every level, but they’ve cried for more cuts. This is what you’ve advocated in writings after writings directly or indirectly.
There’s a reality that the majority of the most profitable companies have and are paying anywhere form 2% to negative taxes on very huge profits. I keep hearing not only support for this but as Sue says, “No new taxes on anyone and decrease on Estate, inheritance, capital gains, and investments taxes.”. You’ve been a mouth piece for maintaining to even lowering tax rates or you’ve been a strong advocate against any Obama changes to those policies.
Now stay with me because here’s the kicker. You endorse lower taxes as good policy as long as it compliments the GOP’s agenda regardless of how corporations have become welfare recipients. Once someone exposes that reality, an argument that has substance, the political hack in you forbids you from acknowledging it. So you invent some theory that Exxon is exempt because they have other expenses(while ignoring their overwhelming profits) while justifying it because of the “profit margin” of their product. WTF????? And then to further compliment your delusion, it’s a bad thing if a corporation pays low to negative taxes if they happen to not be totally anti Obama-no mention of their expenses or profit margins! That’s utterly asinine. And you validate that claim by saying Eric Holder is a “magic wand”. You give examples of collecting “back taxes” from Buffet which has nothing to do with endorsing lower “capital gains, and investments taxes”(the original argument). You then present some non sequitur that since you “just read the other day that the Feds were dropping their investigation on Google” (like if Andy reads something, it’s gotta be true?). This was a FTC antitrust probe which isn’t even related to the right or wrong argument of lowering capital gains, and investments taxes, just as Obama’s magical hypnosis on the IRS for his “pals” has nothing to with it.
While you found 2 or 3 “Obama pals” to manipulate your argument, you overlooked the 49 of the very highest profitable companies that paid zero to negative taxes from 08-10. And even aside from the irrelevance of your Obama/pals nonsense, 28 paid negative taxes from 2001-2003. 46 paid zero in 2003. Yet you scream for lower capital gains, and investments taxes?
How much lower than a zero to negative tax burden for the most wealthy is fair?
The intellectual dishonesty and laziness of your rebuttals have become boring.
January 6th, 2013 at 8:30 am
The only person around here who is boring, Ronald, is YOU!
When are you guys going to figure out that corporations and people earn incomes and profits for their own betterment, not just so the government can confiscate the fruits of their labor? You Liberals always toss Exxon around like they are some fatted calf ready to be sacrificed on the altar of Socialism. Maybe you, Obama and Maxine Waters should just go ahead and try to do what she suggested, nationalize the oil industry!
Obama can then set up a bureaucracy of gas panels to determine how much gasoline should be rationed to all of us. While you are at it, why not nationalize food production, too? Don’t forget the candle industry!
Exxon and other oil producers do indeed have very high expenses. Part of which is employing a large labor force, mostly union jobs at that. Then they have to pay rent on the lands they lease for drilling. Then they have to pay royalties on every barrel of oil sold right off the top. Then they have to pay a corporate tax on profits, too. Let us not forget all the money they shell out to comply with federal regulations, too!
I wonder why Google, Apple, and AT&T are not paying any leases or royalties related to the Internet? Was it not created by our government with public funds, therefore public property? Why do they get a pass on stealing from the American people? Because they are sending Obama checks to pay for his inauguration?
You figure it out!
January 6th, 2013 at 10:02 am
“I wonder why Google, Apple, and AT&T are not paying any leases or royalties related to the Internet? Was it not created by our government with public funds, therefore public property? Why do they get a pass on stealing from the American people? Because they are sending Obama checks to pay for his inauguration?”
While this has nothing to do with the discussion as it originally started; I am curious if these “leases” were paid under previous administrations. What are these mysterious leases you speak of?
January 6th, 2013 at 10:26 am
Andy, considering you’re talking directly to me, let me state that I really don’t care if you “wonder why Google, Apple, and AT&T are not paying any leases or royalties related to the Internet”. That’s an off topic distraction. And I really don’t care if you feel “Obama can then set up a bureaucracy of gas panels to determine how much gasoline should be rationed to all of us”. That too is an off topic distraction. And I really don’t care at all about Exxon as not only is your argument illogical (they had clear profits of $41.1 billion in 2011), you selectively omit the the other 49 top profiting companies that paid zero to negative taxes. You also pretend this is strictly an Obama failure (while promoting it at the same time) by running from the fact it’s been going on for well over a decade.
You still cowardly run from the argument, an argument you yourself injected yourself into in post #6 to my response to Sue.
You state a question “When are you guys going to figure out that corporations and people earn incomes and profits for their own betterment, not just so the government can confiscate the fruits of their labor?”. Okay, I can rationalize with you to a point but your rhetoric somewhat bypasses both reality and again, distracts from the topic you yourself stepped into. Obviously, the government must
“confiscate” some “fruits of labor” as I believe we both agree in a military need and some government expenses. We can cut a lot of expenses but we can never cut to the point that no taxes are ever needed. But your statement as well as your history of statements, somehow implies that not only raising taxes on the most profitable is wrong but you actually advocate lowering them-when they’re already paying 0 to negative.
So you are being quite dishonest when you advocate ending the “confiscation” of the fruits of our labor when you promote less than zero taxes for the top earners. You are in fact promoting the confiscation of money from American workers to hand over to the most wealthy, Plutocracy and Social Darwinism at its worst. And your only rebuttal you have is “yeah, well, so Obama and Maxine Waters” or how Exxon’s barely eking by, or “Obama likes Google so take that (or something equal stupid).
You are quite typical of today’s GOP in most every way Andy, totally fraudulent in every aspect.
January 6th, 2013 at 11:44 am
Ronald, you’re an idiot.
Oil companies make only 5 to 15 cents profit on a gallon of gas.
The reason their profits are astronomical is due volume only.
Buzz, the leases many oil companies hold are held only because they’re term stipulated.
It can take only one year to find out a plot holds no reserves or not enough to be worth drilling. The oil companies are stuck paying the state or fed for years of useless land
January 6th, 2013 at 11:51 am
As usual, I have no idea what you are referring to in your comment.
Read what I wrote and you will see that I was referring to the mythical Internet leases that Andy presented.
January 6th, 2013 at 12:12 pm
Buzz, you obviously dont know what Andys saying.
“I wonder why Google, Apple, and AT&T are not paying any leases or royalties related to the Internet? Was it not created by our government with public funds, therefore public property? Why do they get a pass on stealing from the American people? Because they are sending Obama checks to pay for his inauguration?”
There are no leases.
Thats the point.
My comment on oil leases was to Ronald whos nothing more than a socialist bot brainwashed into the hate oil mandate of his peers.
I’m sure Ronald loves it when green bullsht like Solyndra is not only tax exempt because of the green energy loopholes while also being heavily subsidized as an “investment” by yours and my money. Which we all know, we’ll see a return on.
For decades the government has pumped millions of our dollars into companies such as Solyndra, GE,wind farms,GM, Ford, Chrysler, etc who are exploring alternative energy sources and green technology.
Tell me, has the cost of our cars, gas, or electricity gone down in these last couple decades ?
Wheres our return on these so called “investments” ?
January 6th, 2013 at 12:14 pm
correction
“I’m sure Ronald loves it when green bullsht like Solyndra is not only tax exempt because of the green energy loopholes while also being heavily subsidized as an “investment” by yours and my money. Which we all know, we’ll>>>NEVER<<<see a return on.
January 6th, 2013 at 12:34 pm
Leave it up to the resident troll to support Andy’s flawed and ridiculous distraction that a company can profit $41 billion yet should be tax exempt or even a welfare recipient because they did this in volume.
January 7th, 2013 at 6:32 am
Ronald,
You keep missing the point, which is getting very tiresome. Exxon/Mobile is not exempted from any taxes. Where are these mythical tax exemptions you speak of? As for “welfare recipient”, the $4 Billion or so in federal oil subsidies primarily goes to small oil-related companies that do exploration. I’m not crazy about them getting that money, but at least it is a better ‘investment’ (as Obama likes to call any federal welfare program) than the tens of billions of dollars Obama hands out to ‘green energy’ companies.
January 7th, 2013 at 6:35 am
Buzz,
Like you, I am also puzzled since my comment #6 easily showed that Ronald’s comment #5 was nothing but the usual Liberal B.S.. So here we are because Ronald insists on chasing his tail around in circles since he cannot handle a straight answer to anything.
January 7th, 2013 at 7:13 am
“Leave it up to the resident troll to support Andy’s flawed and ridiculous distraction that a company can profit $41 billion yet should be tax exempt or even a welfare recipient because they did this in volume.”
I said no such thing ass hole,
First,with documentation, you must show example of this “welfare” you speak of.
Where does your figure of 41 billion come from and would that figure be “after” paying overhead,salaries,payroll,R&D,ins., or “before”.
As usual, you’ve managed to pull another totally fictitious argument out yer ass by placing lies in my mouth.
If this were my sight your ass would gone simply because you can never make a point unless it involves you misrepresenting anyone you speak with.
January 7th, 2013 at 7:25 am
“Buzz,
Like you, I am also puzzled since my comment #6 easily showed that Ronald’s comment #5 was nothing but the usual Liberal B.S.. So here we are because Ronald insists on chasing his tail around in circles since he cannot handle a straight answer to anything.”
I love how you all declare yourselves the clear victors on all threads.
I am not sure what your record is, but I think Micky’s record is now 1,343 and 0. Quite a streak.
Of course when people decide that they are also judge and jury, the results may be viewed as tainted.
I love how none of this is a difference of opinion, but is instead, you guys are right and everyone else is wrong.
How can this collection of intelligentsia not be used for more significant purposes?
The fact that you guys, of all people, possess the secrets to our economy and foreign policy is mind-boggling.
I have even learned that even though I have been in the medical business for 30 years; in governmental, research, hospital and insurance settings, that everything I know is wrong.
Micky has made that clear to me. In fact, it turns out I am a simpleton.
It is good to know I have stumbled upon the authorities on all things.
January 7th, 2013 at 7:52 am
“If this were my sight your ass would gone simply because you can never make a point unless it involves you misrepresenting anyone you speak with.”
Why do you always make this personal?
If this were your “sight” (the word is “site”, geez, not to be a jerk, but are you even trying?) it would be comprised of you and four sycophants saying, “You’re right, Micky”.
Everyone else would be summarily tossed, but only after you “set them straight” with an obscenity-laden tirade where you can clearly identify them as morons, stupid, intellectual bigots (whatever that is) and assholes.
I was always pretty sure many of you only want like-minded people to comment (which may explain why anyone left of center ends up on double-secret probation or is mysteriously banned for violating the “comment policy for liberals”).
Even better, I suppose, would be a person that posts a liberal opinion and then writes, “You know what, I stand corrected, I have changed my mind, I am now a right-wing extremist and I am truly sorry for holding such outlandish and ill-informed opinions”.
January 7th, 2013 at 8:15 am
“f this were your “sight” (the word is “site”, geez, not to be a jerk, but are you even trying?) it would be comprised of you and four sycophants saying, “You’re right, Micky”.”
Ya know, you really lack imagination and creative thought.
I’m not going to explain the site/sight thing to you.
It also showslack of substantial argument when you pick om such irrelevant crap.
Also, its not “personal”
I would boot his ass as a business decision in the better interest of my readers…ASS HOLE.
FYI idiot.
Its “ideological bigot”, not “intellectual bigot”.
Please show me where I ever used such a useless phrase.
You cant, because you’re just Ronald.
You pull stupid sht out yer ass that has nothing to do with anything or is based mis-caricaturization or mis-representation.
You sure you’re not both the same guy ?
January 7th, 2013 at 8:19 am
Buzz
” was always pretty sure many of you only want like-minded people to comment (which may explain why anyone left of center ends up on double-secret probation or is mysteriously banned for violating the “comment policy for liberals”).
Even better, I suppose, would be a person that posts a liberal opinion and then writes, “You know what, I stand corrected, I have changed my mind, I am now a right-wing extremist and I am truly sorry for holding such outlandish and ill-informed opinions”.”
Wow, for someone who says he only comes here for the comedy you sure as hell are getting bent out of shape.
Like I said before.
You’re an awfully sensitive guy.
January 7th, 2013 at 10:05 am
Yeah, Micky, you respond real well when people attack yuur character or when someone invokes name calling toward you.
Let’s go back and look at your responses when you were designated as a troll, or rodeo clown (you have to at least give Ron points on that one for being amusing).
January 7th, 2013 at 10:06 am
What became of Ron M.?
Banned?
January 8th, 2013 at 4:45 am
@ Buzzbee
“I love how you all declare yourselves the clear victors on all threads.”
Well, it certainly helps when those arguing keep trying to pass off the same old lies. Ronald thinks that Exxon pays no taxes at all! But as I have pointed out, with sources, they are paying all sorts of revenue to the federal government at multiple stages.
Meanwhile, the majority of the corporations that are paying little to no taxes all have one thing in common. They are big financial contributors to Obama and the Democrats.
January 8th, 2013 at 9:16 am
“Yeah, Micky, you respond real well when people attack yuur character or when someone invokes name calling toward you.
Let’s go back and look at your responses when you were designated as a troll, or rodeo clown (you have to at least give Ron points on that one for being amusing).”
Rons ass has been handed to him so many times by yours truly his only course has been to avoid all conversation with me and toss out a couple of very inaccurate labels.
I am certainly not a troll whos fishing for irrelevant and gratuitous bashing when he cant answer the simplest of questions without rambling off a litany of completely manufactured falsehoods.
Technically he would be the troll.
By tossing out crap designed only to infuriate and without any substantive backing he meets the description of “troll” long before I ever get near it.
Rodeo clowns are nothing to sneeze at and often have more balls than the riders themselves. Without them, people would die.
( I can here it now,”theres no proof rodeo clowns save lives”!!)
But hey, alls fair in love and war.
I have no problem labeling or being labeled by “names” as you call them.
You see, in relation to my opponents,I too am an ass hole, prick, etc.
The difference is that I call people names when they present crap that insults conventional wisdom.
Being disingenuous,intellectually dishonest,obtuse,ideologically bigoted,or being tagged as a racist for no good reason.
These are the traits that many liberals enter into a conversation with that immediately draws my ire.
When push comes to shove among all the expletives that get flung around my core contributions still go to the crux of the debate.
Anyone who holds a position that my political views automatically makes me a racist are most certainly ass holes. Ass hole, prick, idiot, what have you, are nothing compared to being related to as a N@zi, fat white inbred, hick, trailer park trash, domestic terrorist, gun freak, greedy money hoarding neocon, religious zealot, war, monger, polluter, animal hater, sexist, homophobe, blah blah.
I could say you are naive, idealistic, immature, but thatsentirely more work than necessary when “grasshopper” says it all in a nutshell.
Name calling also serves as a great tool to see just how long before my opponent focuses on that one minor irrelevancy and uses it to defer away from the main argument he is no doubt loosing.
If they continue to keep the argument at a personal level even after repeated attempts to return to the founding debate then I’ve made the case that their argument was wrong to start with.
Heres one example of how my choice of words is actually very benign in comparison to the crap that gets tossed at me/us.
“I love how you all declare yourselves the clear victors on all threads.”
So, you think I’m just jerking off my ego ?
Remember. You said you’re here only for comedy.
I’ve stated repeatedly that my purpose for debate is one of love for country.
And, with the revelation that you’re here only for comedy do you expect to ever be taken seriously ?
You cant place a decent argument so you call us all in a sense delusional ?
That statement, even though it contains no names, profanity etc, is quite fcking vulgar my friend.
And guess what ? In the real world there are actually winners and losers.
Your accusation of us being judge jury and executioner goes directly to insulting the most basic intelligence. God forbid we all agree water is wet
As it happens very often with you, you either have no concluding rebuttal or simply cant answer a question because you as well as anyone who knows that by answering the question it incriminates your argument and renders you wrong.
So, with all that to bare calling you a loser,ass hole or a schmuck etc is nothing compared to the premise you and most liberals set up that were all some kind of evil troglodytes from the git go.
Your losing streak can be attributed to what Rivers accurately describes as an inability to drive home even the simplest of liberal talking points.
January 8th, 2013 at 1:18 pm
I read it and as usual, I have no idea what it means.
Perhaps when I am more mature and less naive I will be able to grasp it.
I suppose it implies that while no one else finds it necessary to invoke an endless stream of obscenities, or label people as stupid or call them an asshole, you are somehow justified.
I have no doubt however, that it does, indeed, induce page hits. People love to gawk.
January 8th, 2013 at 2:50 pm
“I read it and as usual, I have no idea what it means.”
Frankly I dont give a sht