Friday, December 31, 2010
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Saturday, December 25, 2010
Friday, December 24, 2010
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Sunday, December 19, 2010
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Saturday, December 4, 2010
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Tax and Spend, it never changes.
WSJ: A Sucker's Play -- Each $1 in Higher Taxes Results in $1.17 of New Spending
Wall Street Journal op-ed, Higher Taxes Won't Reduce the Deficit, by Stephen Moore (Wall Street Journal) & Richard Vedder (Ohio University, Department of Economics):
The draft recommendations of the president's commission on deficit reduction call for closing popular tax deductions, higher gas taxes and other revenue raisers to drive tax collections up to 21% of GDP from the historical norm of about 18.5%. Another plan, proposed last week by commission member and former Congressional Budget Office director Alice Rivlin, would impose a 6.5% national sales tax on consumers.
The claim here, echoed by endless purveyors of conventional wisdom in Washington, is that these added revenues—potentially a half-trillion dollars a year—will be used to reduce the $8 trillion to $10 trillion deficits in the coming decade. If history is any guide, however, that won't happen. Instead, Congress will simply spend the money.
In the late 1980s, one of us, Richard Vedder, and Lowell Gallaway of Ohio University co-authored a often-cited research paper for the congressional Joint Economic Committee (known as the $1.58 study) that found that every new dollar of new taxes led to more than one dollar of new spending by Congress. Subsequent revisions of the study over the next decade found similar results.
We've updated the research. Using standard statistical analyses that introduce variables to control for business-cycle fluctuations, wars and inflation, we found that over the entire post World War II era through 2009 each dollar of new tax revenue was associated with $1.17 of new spending. Politicians spend the money as fast as it comes in—and a little bit more. ...
We're constantly told by politicos that tax increases must be put "on the table" to get congressional Democrats—who've already approved close to $1 trillion of new spending in violation of their own budget rules over the last two years—to agree to make cuts in the unsustainable entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security.
Our research indicates this is a sucker play. After the 1990 and 1993 tax increases, federal spending continued to rise. The 1990 tax increase deal was enacted specifically to avoid automatic spending sequestrations that would have been required under the then-prevailing Gramm-Rudman budget rules....
The grand bargain so many in Washington yearn for—tax increases coupled with spending cuts—is a fool's errand. Our research confirms what the late economist Milton Friedman said of Congress many years ago: "Politicians will always spend every penny of tax raised and whatever else they can get away with."
Wall Street Journal op-ed, Higher Taxes Won't Reduce the Deficit, by Stephen Moore (Wall Street Journal) & Richard Vedder (Ohio University, Department of Economics):
The draft recommendations of the president's commission on deficit reduction call for closing popular tax deductions, higher gas taxes and other revenue raisers to drive tax collections up to 21% of GDP from the historical norm of about 18.5%. Another plan, proposed last week by commission member and former Congressional Budget Office director Alice Rivlin, would impose a 6.5% national sales tax on consumers.
The claim here, echoed by endless purveyors of conventional wisdom in Washington, is that these added revenues—potentially a half-trillion dollars a year—will be used to reduce the $8 trillion to $10 trillion deficits in the coming decade. If history is any guide, however, that won't happen. Instead, Congress will simply spend the money.
In the late 1980s, one of us, Richard Vedder, and Lowell Gallaway of Ohio University co-authored a often-cited research paper for the congressional Joint Economic Committee (known as the $1.58 study) that found that every new dollar of new taxes led to more than one dollar of new spending by Congress. Subsequent revisions of the study over the next decade found similar results.
We've updated the research. Using standard statistical analyses that introduce variables to control for business-cycle fluctuations, wars and inflation, we found that over the entire post World War II era through 2009 each dollar of new tax revenue was associated with $1.17 of new spending. Politicians spend the money as fast as it comes in—and a little bit more. ...
We're constantly told by politicos that tax increases must be put "on the table" to get congressional Democrats—who've already approved close to $1 trillion of new spending in violation of their own budget rules over the last two years—to agree to make cuts in the unsustainable entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security.
Our research indicates this is a sucker play. After the 1990 and 1993 tax increases, federal spending continued to rise. The 1990 tax increase deal was enacted specifically to avoid automatic spending sequestrations that would have been required under the then-prevailing Gramm-Rudman budget rules....
The grand bargain so many in Washington yearn for—tax increases coupled with spending cuts—is a fool's errand. Our research confirms what the late economist Milton Friedman said of Congress many years ago: "Politicians will always spend every penny of tax raised and whatever else they can get away with."
Monday, November 22, 2010
Al Gore, Hyprocrite? Whoda thunkit?
Report: Al Gore Reverses View on Ethanol, Blames Politics for Previous Support
Published November 22, 2010 | FoxNews.com
advertisement
Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore reportedly has had a change of heart on ethanol, telling a conference on green energy in Europe that he only supported tax breaks for the alternative fuel to pander to farmers in his home state of Tennessee and the first-in-the-nation caucuses state of Iowa.
Speaking at a green energy business conference in Athens sponsored by Marfin Popular Bank, Gore said the lobbyists have wrongly kept alive the program he once touted.
"It is not a good policy to have these massive subsidies for first-generation ethanol," Reuters quoted Gore saying of the U.S. policy that is about to come up for congressional review. "First-generation ethanol I think was a mistake. The energy conversion ratios are at best very small.
"One of the reasons I made that mistake is that I paid particular attention to the farmers in my home state of Tennessee, and I had a certain fondness for the farmers in the state of Iowa because I was about to run for president," the wire service reported Gore saying.
Credits for corn ethanol subsidies expire at the end of the year unless Congress moves to renew the $7.7 billion annual program. Opponents of the corn subsidies say that it removes valuable food products from the table because the U.S. ethanol industry drives up the price of corn.
Reuters reported that Gore attributed a variety of factors to the food pricing crisis that has emerged, but that biofuels definitely have had an effect.
"The size, the percentage of corn particularly, which is now being (used for) first-generation ethanol definitely has an impact on food prices," he said. "The competition with food prices is real."
Ethanol production this year will reportedly consume 41 percent of the U.S. corn crop and 15 percent of the global corn crop. Last month, the Agriculture Department said corn crop production would fall this year and attributed the decline to the increase in the price of corn.
More than half of all corn production in the U.S. goes to feeding livestock. On Monday, Agrinet news reported that the USDA's world outlook board has found that the quality of corn production, despite the lower production level, had improved livestock weights, making beef, pork and chicken healthier and therefore able to feed more people.
Reuters reported that Gore had less concern about second-generation ethanol production, which does not compete with food since it uses chemicals or enzymes to extract sugar from fiber in wood, waste or grass.
"I do think second and third generation that don't compete with food prices will play an increasing role, certainly with aviation fuels," Gore reportedly said.
The Media Research Center's Noel Sheppard noted that as vice president, Gore was the tie-breaking vote in 1994 when the Senate voted to authorize ethanol production. Sheppard said that those who question Gore's motives behind the climate change movement that landed the former vice president a Nobel prize and Oscar should also look to his comments on ethanol.
"So more than 10 years ago, Gore supported an expensive, 'not good policy' because he thought it would help him get elected president. Yet media don't believe he'd misrepresent the threat of manmade global warming in order to become extremely rich," Sheppard wrote Monday.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/22/report-al-gore-reverses-view-ethanol-blames-politics-previous-support/#ixzz162zfEqiw
Published November 22, 2010 | FoxNews.com
advertisement
Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore reportedly has had a change of heart on ethanol, telling a conference on green energy in Europe that he only supported tax breaks for the alternative fuel to pander to farmers in his home state of Tennessee and the first-in-the-nation caucuses state of Iowa.
Speaking at a green energy business conference in Athens sponsored by Marfin Popular Bank, Gore said the lobbyists have wrongly kept alive the program he once touted.
"It is not a good policy to have these massive subsidies for first-generation ethanol," Reuters quoted Gore saying of the U.S. policy that is about to come up for congressional review. "First-generation ethanol I think was a mistake. The energy conversion ratios are at best very small.
"One of the reasons I made that mistake is that I paid particular attention to the farmers in my home state of Tennessee, and I had a certain fondness for the farmers in the state of Iowa because I was about to run for president," the wire service reported Gore saying.
Credits for corn ethanol subsidies expire at the end of the year unless Congress moves to renew the $7.7 billion annual program. Opponents of the corn subsidies say that it removes valuable food products from the table because the U.S. ethanol industry drives up the price of corn.
Reuters reported that Gore attributed a variety of factors to the food pricing crisis that has emerged, but that biofuels definitely have had an effect.
"The size, the percentage of corn particularly, which is now being (used for) first-generation ethanol definitely has an impact on food prices," he said. "The competition with food prices is real."
Ethanol production this year will reportedly consume 41 percent of the U.S. corn crop and 15 percent of the global corn crop. Last month, the Agriculture Department said corn crop production would fall this year and attributed the decline to the increase in the price of corn.
More than half of all corn production in the U.S. goes to feeding livestock. On Monday, Agrinet news reported that the USDA's world outlook board has found that the quality of corn production, despite the lower production level, had improved livestock weights, making beef, pork and chicken healthier and therefore able to feed more people.
Reuters reported that Gore had less concern about second-generation ethanol production, which does not compete with food since it uses chemicals or enzymes to extract sugar from fiber in wood, waste or grass.
"I do think second and third generation that don't compete with food prices will play an increasing role, certainly with aviation fuels," Gore reportedly said.
The Media Research Center's Noel Sheppard noted that as vice president, Gore was the tie-breaking vote in 1994 when the Senate voted to authorize ethanol production. Sheppard said that those who question Gore's motives behind the climate change movement that landed the former vice president a Nobel prize and Oscar should also look to his comments on ethanol.
"So more than 10 years ago, Gore supported an expensive, 'not good policy' because he thought it would help him get elected president. Yet media don't believe he'd misrepresent the threat of manmade global warming in order to become extremely rich," Sheppard wrote Monday.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/22/report-al-gore-reverses-view-ethanol-blames-politics-previous-support/#ixzz162zfEqiw
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Guantanamo detainee convicted of 1 conspiracy count, acquitted of murder in NYC terror trial | Washington Examiner
Guantanamo detainee convicted of 1 conspiracy count, acquitted of murder in NYC terror trial | Washington Examiner
As Glenn Reynolds would say: "the country is in the best of hands>"
As Glenn Reynolds would say: "the country is in the best of hands>"
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Saturday, November 6, 2010
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Monday, October 25, 2010
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Saturday, October 2, 2010
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
qoute from Woodward book
It has been reported that Bob Woodward’s latest book quotes President Obama “We can absorb a terror attack”, in truth, we have and could again.
This attitude is similar to a prey or herd animal. Huge herds of wildebeest allow lions and other predators to feed on the edges of the herd. Thousands will survive by sacrificing the young/old/infirm at the edges of the herd.
This attitude troubles me in that the defense against terrorist attacks may not be as complete as they should be. The current occupant of the White House seems distracted, almost annoyed that he should ward off each and every plot, when we could “absorb” some
Monday, September 20, 2010
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Monday, September 6, 2010
Sunday, September 5, 2010
Saturday, September 4, 2010
Friday, September 3, 2010
Thunder Tales: They Won't Get It
Thunder Tales: They Won't Get It: "They won't get it. They don't understand what to me is very clear language. You can tell it by their posture. I'm a bit surprised that they ..."
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
VP BiteMe, Joe Biden
Why is this man Vice-President? Meeting with a Four Star General, and cannot wear socks? Nothing less than low class.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Monday, August 23, 2010
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Monday, August 16, 2010
Sunday, August 15, 2010
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Monday, July 26, 2010
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Monday, July 19, 2010
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Saturday, July 17, 2010
Friday, July 16, 2010
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Friday, July 9, 2010
Monday, July 5, 2010
Saturday, July 3, 2010
Friday, July 2, 2010
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Friday, June 25, 2010
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Sunday, June 6, 2010
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Monday, May 31, 2010
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Who is John Galt? Via Instapundit
THE PRESIDENT SAYS you’ve got enough money. “During a conference at which I just spoke, the owner of several companies showed me a pair of cufflinks he’d just had custom-made, engraved with the words ‘Who Is John Galt?’ If the president isn’t familiar with Ayn Rand’s Galt, he might want to read up. This business owner said the cuff-links were the last item other than absolute necessities that he would buy until Obama was an ex-president. He said he was sending out a letter to the restaurants and shops he patronized, his dry cleaners, the service companies that tended his lawns at his homes – over 200 different business owners – letting them know that President Obama had determined he was making too much money and was too rich for reason. Therefore, he was going to cut sales and production at his companies by half, himself work but one day a week, cut business spending to the bone and personally buy nothing – other than vacations out of the country – until the president exits.”
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Saturday, May 15, 2010
What a real Leader sounds like.
| Gov Christie calls S-L columnist thin-skinned for inquiring about his 'confrontational tone' |
Friday, May 7, 2010
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Why I will vote Democrat
When your liberal friends or acquaintances can't explain why they will vote for Democrats, give them this list. They can then pick a reason.
10. I will vote Democrat because I believe oil companies' profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene but the government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% isn't.
9. I will vote Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.
8. I will vote Democrat because Freedom of speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it.
7. I will vote Democrat because I'm way too irresponsible to own a gun, and I know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers and thieves.
6. I will vote Democrat because I believe that people who can't tell us if it will rain on Friday can tell us that the polar ice caps will melt away in ten years if I don't start driving a Prius.
5. I will vote Democrat because I'm not concerned about the slaughter of millions of babies through abortion so long as we keep all death row inmates alive.
4. I will vote Democrat because I think illegal aliens have a right to free health care, education, and Social Security benefits.
3. I will vote Democrat because I believe that business should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as the democrats see fit.
2. I will vote Democrat because I believe liberal judges need to rewrite the Constitution every few days to suit some fringe kooks who would never get their agendas past the voters.
1. I will vote Democrat because my head is so firmly planted up my *ss that it is unlikely that I'll ever have another point of view.
From: "Stormbringer"
10. I will vote Democrat because I believe oil companies' profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene but the government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% isn't.
9. I will vote Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.
8. I will vote Democrat because Freedom of speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it.
7. I will vote Democrat because I'm way too irresponsible to own a gun, and I know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers and thieves.
6. I will vote Democrat because I believe that people who can't tell us if it will rain on Friday can tell us that the polar ice caps will melt away in ten years if I don't start driving a Prius.
5. I will vote Democrat because I'm not concerned about the slaughter of millions of babies through abortion so long as we keep all death row inmates alive.
4. I will vote Democrat because I think illegal aliens have a right to free health care, education, and Social Security benefits.
3. I will vote Democrat because I believe that business should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as the democrats see fit.
2. I will vote Democrat because I believe liberal judges need to rewrite the Constitution every few days to suit some fringe kooks who would never get their agendas past the voters.
1. I will vote Democrat because my head is so firmly planted up my *ss that it is unlikely that I'll ever have another point of view.
From: "Stormbringer"
Friday, April 30, 2010
Monday, April 26, 2010
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Monday, April 19, 2010
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Friday, April 16, 2010
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Profound truth
Taking less money from people who have it is not "giving to the rich". Giving less money to people who do nothing for it is not "stealing from the poor." Attention Democrats/Liberals; this is profound, write it down, believe it.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Monday, April 12, 2010
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Law enforcement cutbacks,Hat tip: Instapundit
Ashtabula County Common Pleas Judge Alfred Mackey was asked what residents should do to protect themselves and their families with the severe cutback in law enforcement.
“Arm themselves,” the judge said. “Be very careful, be vigilant, get in touch with your neighbors, because we’re going to have to look after each other.”
Ashtabula County gun dealers and firearms instructors tell WKYC their business has really picked up since the Sheriff’s Department cutbacks began some months ago.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Monday, March 29, 2010
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Friday, March 19, 2010
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Monday, March 8, 2010
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Thursday, March 4, 2010
We are in the best of hands.
A clunker that travels 12,000 miles a year at 15 mpg uses 800 gallons of gas a year.
A vehicle that travels 12,000 miles a year at 25 mpg uses 480 gallons a year.
So, the average Cash for Clunkers transaction will reduce US gasoline consumption by 320 gallons per year.
They claim 700,000 vehicles, so that’s 224 million gallons saved per year.
That equates to a bit over 5 million barrels of oil.
5 million barrels is about 5 hours worth of US consumption.
More importantly, 5 million barrels of oil at $70 per barrel costs about $350 million dollars
So, the government paid $3 billion of our tax dollars to save $350 million.
We spent $8.57 for every dollar saved.
I’m pretty sure they will do a great job with health care though…
We’re in the best of hands.
From: Instapinch.com
A vehicle that travels 12,000 miles a year at 25 mpg uses 480 gallons a year.
So, the average Cash for Clunkers transaction will reduce US gasoline consumption by 320 gallons per year.
They claim 700,000 vehicles, so that’s 224 million gallons saved per year.
That equates to a bit over 5 million barrels of oil.
5 million barrels is about 5 hours worth of US consumption.
More importantly, 5 million barrels of oil at $70 per barrel costs about $350 million dollars
So, the government paid $3 billion of our tax dollars to save $350 million.
We spent $8.57 for every dollar saved.
I’m pretty sure they will do a great job with health care though…
We’re in the best of hands.
From: Instapinch.com
Ways and Means Chairman update
Levin to Succeed Rangel as Ways and Means Chairman
By Tory Newmyer
Roll Call Staff
March 4, 2010,
Rep. Sander Levin (D-Mich.) will take the chairmanship of the Ways and Means Committee and Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.) will step aside, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told the Democratic Caucus on Thursday morning, sources in attendance said.
Stark, the No. 2 Democrat on the panel, has been serving as acting chairman since Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) surrendered the gavel Wednesday, but Democrats on the committee resisted the idea.
Hattip: Instapundit
By Tory Newmyer
Roll Call Staff
March 4, 2010,
Rep. Sander Levin (D-Mich.) will take the chairmanship of the Ways and Means Committee and Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.) will step aside, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told the Democratic Caucus on Thursday morning, sources in attendance said.
Stark, the No. 2 Democrat on the panel, has been serving as acting chairman since Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) surrendered the gavel Wednesday, but Democrats on the committee resisted the idea.
Hattip: Instapundit
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Monday, February 15, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)