Republicans unanimously vote to continue OIL subsidies

[Roger]

112th congress roll call #153

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll153.xml#Y

[Jccarlton]

So you want to raid small businesses, create nonproductive jobs creating tax avoidance schemes and increase government corruption by creating an environment where everybody goes to Washington to lobby for reasons why they should get a break. That's really going to increase prosperity. The last century was full of exactly what you are proposing, which is one of the reasons that we are in the mess we are in now. See the Nixon/Carter years for reference.

That's a non-sequitur. You are inferring that any decisions to change the top rate of tax are done in isolation from decisions made to change any other tax.

Ahhh, Ok. The chart looks at the top personal rate or bracket, it doesn't look at any of the lower brackets, corporate or estate tax revenues for example. SO yes your basket idea is basically correct.

Decisions to change the top rate can be done in isolation or in conjunction with other changes, so no, I am not inferring that, not at all. Its a matter of policy choices, solely. Heres one example of a policy choice:

I want 20 brackets and a top rate of 70%, that would certainly raise considerable revenue. Including the fact that I would insist on tax breaks to stimulate my favored projects like solar and wind. and other deductions and exemptions to make the effective tax no higher than say... something like 40% should be the max thats considered. This way I am picking winners and losers, and solar, wind and other emerging tech and markets that will be vital in coming years. I wanna see them targeted now.

The reason I want 20 brackets: the lowest bracket can be 10%, the top 70%, 20 brackets better describes a curved line on a chart, and is fair to people that find themselves moving up or down a bracket due to small levels of income change, vs only 6 brackets.

Or we keep taxes where they are. and the effective tax rate where it is. And no tax incentives for capital to look at emerging tech and markets beyond what exists today.

[UncleMatt]

I think calling taxation "theft" is a bit melodramatic. However, taxation is most certainly a form of coercion.

You are free to move to ANY country you want to. Is that true or false?

"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right; when wrong, to be put right." -Sen. Carl Schurz

How, then, are you being "coerced" if you pay taxes where you VOLUNTARILY live?

I was born here. This is my home. If I am coerced here where I am from, how much less will I be coerced somewhere else from where I am not?

You are free to move to any country, or state, you want, with the kind of taxation you want. That is a simple truth that so many who claim taxes are "coercion" just ignore...

The same argument may be used regarding those who don't want to pay "Protection money" to the mob. It misses the point. Some level of taxation is reasonable and proper. Above that it is coercive theft. Democracy is often two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner.

I am no more "coerced" to pay my taxes than I am "coerced" to pay for a good or service in the private market.

Really? You have private markets that put you in Jail when you don't buy?

I have already pointed out that coercion is NOT involved, yet you go right back to singing the same song.

If a state passes a law to ban unions, I am free to move to state where unions are not banned. If the voters approved such a law, I would expect righties would think it should be enforced. SAME GOES FOR TAXATION! The voters decided, the laws were passed, and THAT is why your characterization of taxes as theft or coercion is simply and blatantly FALSE! If "love it or leave it" applies to lefties, then it ALSO applies to righties. TRUE OR FALSE?

And if you don't like living in a democracy where the voters are able to pass such laws, YOU ARE FREE TO LEAVE! No one is stopping you. So please go find a country that does things YOUR way, and then you will be happy.

Oh yea, THERE ARE NO SUCH COUNTRIES!

[Roger]

I have to ask, what are they trying to hide?

A reasonable question, I have provided the appropriate citations in a previous comment.

[Skipjack]

We have the "Tea Party", but I don't really see them becoming a third party.

The tea party is not really what I understand under "opposition party". The tea party is just a faction within the republican party.
I mean a real 3rd party that voters will migrate to, when the big parties screw up to much. If they had at least 20% of the seats in the house and congress, then the big ones would have to arrange themselves with them whenever they want to get their pork spent on something.
The teaparty will just pork away for the same stuff the republicans do anyway (much of which is going to Alabama lately).

[Diogenes]

Found the vote mentioned on the DCCC site

http://dccc.org/blog/entry/house_republ ... r_big_oil/

Today, House Republicans opposed a Motion to Recommit that would ensure no "tax benefit" could go to a "major integrated oil company." [HJ Res 44, Vote #153, 3/01/11]

Heres the text of HJ Res 44:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtex ... l=hj112-44

Illustrates my point. A "tax benefit" is not a subsidy.


A further thought; What about Federal gas taxes being 141.42 times oil company profits?

That ought to more than offset any "tax benefit."

[Diogenes]

You are free to move to any country, or state, you want, with the kind of taxation you want. That is a simple truth that so many who claim taxes are "coercion" just ignore...

The same argument may be used regarding those who don't want to pay "Protection money" to the mob. It misses the point. Some level of taxation is reasonable and proper. Above that it is coercive theft. Democracy is often two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner.

I am no more "coerced" to pay my taxes than I am "coerced" to pay for a good or service in the private market.

Really? You have private markets that put you in Jail when you don't buy?

I have already pointed out that coercion is NOT involved, yet you go right back to singing the same song.

Oh, you SAID so? That changes everything! If you SAY there is no coercion, then that settles the issue. I'm convinced. Sorry to bother you about the whole going to jail thing for not paying your taxes. By the way, are you familiar with this guy?

If a state passes a law to ban unions, I am free to move to state where unions are not banned. If the voters approved such a law, I would expect righties would think it should be enforced. SAME GOES FOR TAXATION! The voters decided, the laws were passed, and THAT is why your characterization of taxes as theft or coercion is simply and blatantly FALSE! If "love it or leave it" applies to lefties, then it ALSO applies to righties. TRUE OR FALSE?

Equal protection under the law is the law of the land. However, the difference between a Democracy and a Republic (we are founded as a Republic) is that the voters can't take away your rights just because they are a majority.

Your property is YOUR property, and the voters cannot thieve it away from you just because they want it.

And if you don't like living in a democracy where the voters are able to pass such laws, YOU ARE FREE TO LEAVE! No one is stopping you. So please go find a country that does things YOUR way, and then you will be happy.

Oh yea, THERE ARE NO SUCH COUNTRIES!

Dude, I hate to school you on history and law, but this nation is NOT a Democracy. It is a Democratic Republic.
(The operative word is R-E-P-U-B-L-I-C.) The founders DETESTED Democracy.



"Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives, as they have been violent in their deaths."
-James Madison



"Remember, Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a Democracy yet that did not commit suicide"
-John Quincy Adams



"It has been observed that a pure Democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity."
-Alexander Hamilton



And other quotes from the founders on Democracy.

[Diogenes]

We have the "Tea Party", but I don't really see them becoming a third party.

The tea party is not really what I understand under "opposition party". The tea party is just a faction within the republican party.
I mean a real 3rd party that voters will migrate to, when the big parties screw up to much. If they had at least 20% of the seats in the house and congress, then the big ones would have to arrange themselves with them whenever they want to get their pork spent on something.
The teaparty will just pork away for the same stuff the republicans do anyway (much of which is going to Alabama lately).

I think you have a serious misunderstanding regarding the nature of the Tea party. The defining attribute of the Tea Party is an opposition to taxing and spending. The passions unleashed will tolerate no deflection from this purpose. Anyone who deviates will be a target, and I am very confident in that assessment.

The Tea Party stands for fiscal discipline above all else, and it will target Republicans just as quickly as Democrats. The message it is trying to send to Washington is that there will be no more business as usual. Either cut spending or we will target you.

[Skipjack]

I understand the acclaimed purpose of the teaparty, though they are nowhere to see when money is supposed to roll to defense contractors via the NASA budget, instead of a cheaper, commercial option. Of course not, because defense contractors are republican "territorry" and the teaparty is just republicans claiming to be something else.
No, whe I say opposition party, then I mean a real opposition party that also has its own checkmark on the voting ballot.
The republicans would not loose anything if their voters still keep coming to them, just with a different name, right?
But that is not what I want. I want them to seriously hurt whenever they screw up. I want them to bleed whenever they screw up. Bleed voters that is! Because less voters means less support means less money for them and less money for their associated porkers.

[hanelyp]

Skipjack, if you want a real 3rd party we need to get something other than plurality voting. I favor approval voting myself. As I understand the constitution this can be applied on a state by state basis.

[Diogenes]

I understand the acclaimed purpose of the teaparty, though they are nowhere to see when money is supposed to roll to defense contractors via the NASA budget, instead of a cheaper, commercial option. Of course not, because defense contractors are republican "territorry" and the teaparty is just republicans claiming to be something else.
No, whe I say opposition party, then I mean a real opposition party that also has its own checkmark on the voting ballot.
The republicans would not loose anything if their voters still keep coming to them, just with a different name, right?
But that is not what I want. I want them to seriously hurt whenever they screw up. I want them to bleed whenever they screw up. Bleed voters that is! Because less voters means less support means less money for them and less money for their associated porkers.

Just for kicks and giggles I thought you'd like to see an example of Defense contractor conflicts of interest involving public officials. In this case it is a member of the Obama government.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/03 ... tor-stock/

[Skipjack]

Just look at the travesty happening about the NASA budget right now.
Certain senators are making sure that defense contractors such as ATK keep getting expensive cost plus contracts from NASA. In return they are trying to remove funding for CCDEV and commercial crew. which should be what republicans stand for (if they were not hypocrits).
The senators in question are Shelby (Alabama) and Hall (Texas).
A dem (Nelson, FL) is also going against his own president by supporting this...
It is shameful!