Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
The solution, obviously, is to make it less profitable to bring the gas to market.
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.
:
“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.”
It’s a bigger issue than gasoline. The liberal democrat solution to any commodity becoming more expensive, is to take the profit angle out of it, sit back & hope for the best. Scoring: Problem remains but profit is gone == success; problem solved but profit is made solving the problem == failure.
And, problem remains and someone’s still making a profit == try again.
Hat tip to Instapundit.
It has to work this time around. When a company is forced to give up its profit through increased taxes, isn’t that company’s natural reaction one of “Golly! That Congress, representing The People, sure does hate us a lot! We’d better lower our prices!” Yeah, there is a long and rich history of this working out just great. Never fails.
Discussed further at Althouse’s place, where Crimso comments:
In order to be “fair,” the government should only take the “collective” money that reflects profits. What percent of revenues (on average) of the oil companies is profit. Never mind. I already know the answer, and I know there’s a shitload of companies who have much higher profit margins.
So now some jackass, or perhaps more accurately looter or thief, a member of Congress (but I repeat myself) wants to decide how much of “our” money the oil companies deserve. “A republic, if you can keep it,” indeed. I guess we can’t.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I enjoyed the VDH article, the comments…not so much. Kind of sorry I read them.
At least three of the posters there seem to be in abject denial that the media has a left-wing bias, and therefore are of the sorely mistaken belief that this in turn somehow means VDH’s entire thesis is invalidated. One of those people asserted that because someone can’t pull hard proof of that right out of his butt, it must mean that “the point is weakened.” Good grief – smug as well as wrong. Has this guy not watched any of the alphabet soup networks or read a newspaper in the last ten years?
I didn’t even bother commenting.
- cylarz | 05/09/2011 @ 09:56…”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.
No, it’s the Democrats sponsoring the plan who are going to have some ‘splaining to do. They get to explain to the voters why they deliberately adopted a policy that makes the problem worse by punishing the oil producers…who will then simply raise their prices even more to cover the new taxes.
Why don’t these people “get it,” Morgan? Even if someone really does think that punishing corporations is the answer, doesn’t simple math demonstrate how the increased costs are just passed along to the consumer?
I like how you wrote a “when I start running this place” item which said “Businesses can’t be taxed. At all.” Well said.
- cylarz | 05/09/2011 @ 09:59