THE POLITICAL ARENA!!! Political Gladiators Inside!!

[Banned]

tell us how many corporations didn't pay taxes that year.

No idea, but I would bet the CEO's were appointed to the White House as economic advisers. Ask Timmy Geitner, he did not pay income taxes for 3 years yet was appointed a Sect. of the Treasury.

[Banned]

Chart: 'America’s Per Capita Government Debt Worse Than Greece'

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/cha ... 31797.html

[lonewolf]

I do not care what kind of fantasies you and the rest of the uber-left 5% believe and neither does the rest of the population.

I just know that most people are fed up with excuses and lies and I just wanted to post a clear and concise post that sums up that view on the subject.

You'd better take another look at "the rest of the population."
As I do not represent the 5% uber-left,

You may believe that, but you won't convince anybody who reads your posts.

[lonewolf]

I do not care what kind of fantasies you and the rest of the uber-left 5% believe and neither does the rest of the population.

I just know that most people are fed up with excuses and lies and I just wanted to post a clear and concise post that sums up that view on the subject.

As for "clear and concise," you missed that boat, unless regurgitated Fox-talk is now considered clear and concise.

The only FNC that I ever watch is O'Reilly's memo and maybe his 1st 1/2 hour. Lately, he's been on an oil company rant and you sound

JUST LIKE O'REILLY!

That is probably the only thing that might take you out of the uber-left category--maybe out of the 5% and into the left 10%.

[Hawk]

Never confuse oil with gasoline. They are mutually exclusive. We still import about half our oil, but we are a net exporter of gasoline.

Expanding oil production in North America may not have much effect on gasoline prices because of export, but i promise you that a drop in oil production definitely will have an effect...and not one that you or I will appreciate.

I haven't confused oil with fuels. Given that our refineries are exporting fuel means that we should be importing LESS OIL. If our refineries imported less, according to the right wingers (and they are wrong) prices will go down. My point has always been that Big Oil will gouge us at whatever the market will bear. This just proves that an increase of oil from the US will NOT lower fuel prices.

What sort of logic deduces that if you export more fuel, you should import fewer raw materials for that fuel? That makes zero sense, even if you disregard the reality of a world market and embrace isolationism.

Importing less oil drives prices down? I don't know who ever said that, but that's just plain silly. Especially when you consider that imported oil usually costs a lot less to produce.

In a world market, gasoline goes to the highest bidder and apparently that's China. Big oil is in business to make a profit, not to provide US citizens with a lifestyle that is proving to be unsustainable. Contrary to popular belief, we Americans are not "special."
{holds nose to sound like PeeWee Herman}

Better get used to it.

We have actually been lucky here in the US where gasoline is still cheap compared to the rest of the world...we are just catching up.

The lifestyle based on cheap gasoline is over. Time to go to cheap natural gas.

US oil drilling has increased and so has US oil production. My point thet you and Frank so deftly avoid is that we have been told that would lower prices. Why hasen't it ? Why is it Obama's fault that oil prices are high ?

[Hawk]

Oil is making record profits. They could import less oil because of increased oil production from the US.

If oil prices came down so would gas prices. What is Obama doing to keep oil prices high ?

Now explain to me (you didn't in your posts) what Obama is doing that is keeping oil (high oil prices = high gas prices) high ?

If the refineries imported less from foreign countries, wouldn't the price of oil come down ? That's the right wing thinking.

He's not allowing more domestic production and won't quit buying so much from foreign countries. There is anwar, and there is the gulf, as well as other off sure areas throughout the country that could be getting drilled. Production may be a little higher, but it is only from the drilling of areas that are already up and running. That isn't helping. Obama is going along with the environmentalist and not wanting any domestic drilling.

I don't blame the refineries for selling to other countries, the economy here sucks and demand is down because of it, and the prices.

We need look to other means of energy, and do it soon.

What was Bush doing to keep prices so high? You blamed him for it as much as I blame obama for it.

Dear Frank,

This is the third time I put this up for you:

According to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 37 million offshore acres were offered in the Gulf of Mexico for oil and gas exploration and production. The current 2011 average for U.S. petroleum production (through October 2011) is 7,782 thousand barrels per day, actually the highest in more than a decade — since the average of 8,011 thousand barrels per day in 1998, according to figures from the Energy Information Administration. And EIA estimates that the current 11-month average for U.S. dependence on foreign oil for 2011 is 45.4 percent. That’s the lowest since 44.5 percent in 1995.


Now explain to me what Obama has done to make OIL prices high ?

I have no problem with refineries selling to foreign countries either. You missed the point. They have SO MUCH oil they can do that. They have received MORE from the US BUT that has not caused them IN ANY WAY to decrease the amount they import ! And It won't ! If we increase production by 100% they will still import because they have a market to sell in foreign countries.

Here is the point. Increased US production has very little to do with the price of oil or fuel as has been proven in the last three years.

[Merge]

I have another question, totally unrelated to the current argument: How many Rockpage Democrats believe in a woman's right to have an abortion??

[lonewolf]

US oil drilling has increased and so has US oil production. My point thet you and Frank so deftly avoid is that we have been told that would lower prices. Why hasen't it ? Why is it Obama's fault that oil prices are high ?

I don't blame Obama for the price of gasoline, just as I didn't blame Bush for it.

I simply posted facetiously to that effect just to illustrate the hypocrisy of the democrat ideologues and the media who blamed Bush, but not Obama. I believe that was what Frank was doing too.

Never confuse oil with gasoline. They are mutually exclusive. We still import about half our oil, but we are a net exporter of gasoline.

Expanding oil production in North America may not have much effect on gasoline prices because of export, but i promise you that a drop in oil production definitely will have an effect...and not one that you or I will appreciate.

[f.sciarrillo]

I don't believe it is big oil keeping the prices high for second. Especially since they make so little in profit. I feel it is the embargo in the gulf and the fact that dipshit obama is insisting on getting it from other countries.

I know you barry lovers will never admit to that. You get too much of a shiver up your leg every time he talks.

Oil companies make the most profit of any business in human history. How much more profit do they need? You're looking at fake charts from some blog... or something. There is no embargo in either the Gulf of Mexico (where they're drilling like mad) or the Persian Gulf, where the US Navy picks up surrendering Iranian sailors on a daily basis... we own that gulf. Bill laid the figures out for the 'Trust, but it went ignored, because it didn't dove-tail with what your media is drilling into you this week.

The Braintrust, ever clueless to their own manipulation, is busy lately, hitting the right-wing agenda hard, gasoline, gasoline, gasoline... it's what's being served them, and look, Ma... nary a word about the EMBARRASSING beatings the right is taking on the social issues they chose a few weeks ago. Santorum is revealing himself to be even more of a dick than we thought he was, his platform has been anti-birth-control, anti-choice, anti-gay; and all the evening news has to do is run what he says. It turns out that his idea of "small government" is complete, hands-off freedom for business, and tight socio-religious control of the bedroom and the family. Romney's past as a corporate raider and trust-fund-baby have made him comically clueless as to what the underclass do/think/feel. Newt is an also-ran whose personal baggage and political past make non-hardliners wonder what the hell the wing-nuts were thinking, but hey, you're the party that gave us notorious losers like Sarah Palin, Christine ODonnell, Michele Bachmann, and Donald Trump.
Every single day, the rhetoric gets hotter from the right, and every single day, the reception gets cooler.
You're losing, and you may have already lost in November, and we all can sense it. As The Braintrust gets more desperate, posting 2 pages a day on this thread, you become less and less competent, which makes everyone else more confident.

Once again you are calling factcheck fake. Sheesh. And show me your source where you are getting this information. Watch it be MSNBC.

[f.sciarrillo]

It is just like I said. You liberals think that 8% a gallon in profit to the refineries is too much. You don't want them to have a profit at all. You want them to go out of business. Maybe we should all go back to the good ole horse and buggy? OF course, then you would be saying that shit scoopers are getting too much profit.

I will say it again. The refineries get 8% a gallon. The government takes 13% a gallon. If you are going to complain about the refineries making too much, then you should be complaining about the government taking so much. Then again, your big government controlling wanting ways would be null and void.

[Hawk]

It is just like I said. You liberals think that 8% a gallon in profit to the refineries is too much. You don't want them to have a profit at all. You want them to go out of business. Maybe we should all go back to the good ole horse and buggy? OF course, then you would be saying that shit scoopers are getting too much profit.

I will say it again. The refineries get 8% a gallon. The government takes 13% a gallon. If you are going to complain about the refineries making too much, then you should be complaining about the government taking so much. Then again, your big government controlling wanting ways would be null and void.

The bottom line net profit for Big Oil is in the Billions. AND I have no problem with that.

AND you still have FAILED to explain why Obama is to blame for the high cost of OIL. Go ahead...

And you have failed to explain why increased US drilling and increased US Oil production DID NOT cause prices to go down as we were told they would via "drill baby drill". Go ahead...

[Hawk]

I have another question, totally unrelated to the current argument: How many Rockpage Democrats believe in a woman's right to have an abortion??

Very touchy subject.

I'm Catholic. That's important to understand my position. Kill an unborn child, God will punish you.

Should my faith's beliefs be a Federal law ? I don't think so. My Religion has many laws that are not government laws. The ideal would be if the Judeo Christian religions would have enough influence on society that the law would not be needed. It would be / should be understood as an immoral act. But not punishable by Federal Laws.

The right wingers that want abortion to be against the law are generally the same crowd that believes in the death penalty (I'm against the death penalty). Until they fight for the death penalty for the mother (after the mother hires the hit man) who has an abortion I will call them hypocrites.

To keep things in context (any one of these thoughts alone can be wrong, the thoughts need to be in the context of the whole thought) Our job as religious people is to make people understand that abortion is wrong. Rather than force them to believe it and punish them if they don't believe it, convince them of the immorality of abortion. Adopt the baby to someone who wants the baby.

[Hawk]

You are still blaming the refineries for the prices. How can it be the refineries when they only get .06 cents profit a gallon? It can't. You don't want the refineries to make a profit at all. How much of a profit do you think is enough for the refineries? .01 cent a gallon? I know, 0.0 cents a gallon.

The government takes .40 cents a gallon. WHy aren't you complaining about how much they are getting? If the refineries are making record profits, then so is the government. They are taking 5 times more than the refineries. So start blaming them also. I know you can't.
edit:

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/04/gasoline-tax-profits/

OH MY GOODNESS FRANK !!! You either didn't read you link, or you didn't understand it. THE ARTICLE YOU POSTED was to point out that there is NO RELIABLE CHART ~ They are pointing out that the CHART you are relying on is, well, STUPID !

Qoute (from YOUR link)
"... trying to reduce profit figures to a per-gallon average for gasoline would be "heroic at best" and "sadly misinformed … at worst."
Unquote

You used the singular "government" as though it was the federal government. IT IS NOT ! The combined local / state / federal governmentS ! Oh just read the article. (Insult deleted)

In some states the combined tax might exceed the profit of the refinery, but in reality, it's impossible to calculate. BUT my point IS that we are producing more oil and we were told by the right that that would make gas prices go down. IT DIDN'T AND IT WON'T !

AND State taxes vary GREATLY from state to state. So NO ONE chart is good for every state.

Keep in mind FRANK - Federal tax on gas (by the figures IN THIS ARTICLE is only about 18 cents per gallon. NO figures exist for how much the refineries make per gallon. I got this info from YOUR LINK - READ IT...

IMPORTANT: These figures are from 2008.

IMPORTANT: " Federal taxes are a flat 18.4 cents per gallon of regular gasoline, no matter the price at the pump."


IMPORTANT: It's nearly impossible to calculate how much refineries make per gallon> " One big problem in trying to calculate such a per-gallon amount is that income can be earned on the sale of any number of products besides gasoline, such as diesel, home heating fuel, jet fuel, natural gas, crude oil and whatever else a company might sell."

VERY IMPORTANT ! "The same goes for profits. The EIA does not attempt to calculate an average figure for the profit earned on each gallon of gasoline. "It’s not that these guys [the oil companies] are obfuscating; it’s that the processes are intertwined," EIA economist Neal Davis told FactCheck.org. He added that trying to reduce profit figures to a per-gallon average for gasoline would be "heroic at best" and "sadly misinformed … at worst."

READ THIS TWICE SO YOU UNDERSTAND how the API manipulates the 8.3% profit. The API is the LOBBYING arm of Big Oil. "Nevertheless, the oil industry has tried to do something close to that. A publication from the American Petroleum Institute, the industry’s principal lobbying arm, displays a graphic stating that "taxes" made up 15 percent of the price of gasoline at the pump in 2007 (that figure comes from EIA) and showing a figure for "earnings" (a measurement API prefers to straight "profit") of 8.3 percent. This figure is the average earnings for the industry per dollar of sales.

On closer examination, however, that 8.3 percent earnings figure turns out to be after-tax income. The pre-tax profit margin would be considerably higher. And that’s only an average"

IMPORTANT: "So, to the question of whether motorists pay more per gallon to the government than to oil-company profits, we can say only this: The answer depends on the state in which the fuel is purchased, the company that produced it and sold it, and when the motorist bought it."

HERE IS THE ENTIRE ARTICLE - And lonewolf wonders why I have to print the whole article ...


Let’s start with the basics. According to the Energy Information Administration, in February 2008 state and federal excise taxes accounted for 13 percent of the average price per gallon of regular gasoline sold in the U.S.

That figures to just under 40 cents per gallon as a national average. However, the actual amount paid varies greatly by state. Federal taxes are a flat 18.4 cents per gallon of regular gasoline, no matter the price at the pump. State taxes range anywhere from 7.5 cents to 34 cents per gallon, according to the Federal Highway Administration. And on top of that, the oil industry points to additional taxes and fees, such as sales taxes and inspection and environmental fees, that drive up the state-local fees to as much as 45.5 cents per gallon (in California).

And even these figures don’t account for income taxes that the companies pay on their profits. Those taxes would drive the tax total higher yet, but we know of no authoritative source that has attempted to break down how much income tax should be allocated to each gallon of gasoline. One big problem in trying to calculate such a per-gallon amount is that income can be earned on the sale of any number of products besides gasoline, such as diesel, home heating fuel, jet fuel, natural gas, crude oil and whatever else a company might sell.

The same goes for profits. The EIA does not attempt to calculate an average figure for the profit earned on each gallon of gasoline. "It’s not that these guys [the oil companies] are obfuscating; it’s that the processes are intertwined," EIA economist Neal Davis told FactCheck.org. He added that trying to reduce profit figures to a per-gallon average for gasoline would be "heroic at best" and "sadly misinformed … at worst."

Nevertheless, the oil industry has tried to do something close to that. A publication from the American Petroleum Institute, the industry’s principal lobbying arm, displays a graphic stating that "taxes" made up 15 percent of the price of gasoline at the pump in 2007 (that figure comes from EIA) and showing a figure for "earnings" (a measurement API prefers to straight "profit") of 8.3 percent. This figure is the average earnings for the industry per dollar of sales.

On closer examination, however, that 8.3 percent earnings figure turns out to be after-tax income. The pre-tax profit margin would be considerably higher. And that’s only an average. The profits of any particular oil company could be higher or lower. For example, in 2007, ExxonMobil’s after-tax earnings were 10.4 percent, much higher than the industry average. Furthermore, any particular gallon of gasoline might have passed through several companies as the product moved from the oil well to the refiner to the retailer that owns the pump.

Another complicating factor is that the percentages change from month to month, sometimes dramatically. State and federal excise taxes are generally fixed at a certain number of pennies per gallon, so as the price of gasoline rises, the percentage paid in excise taxes goes down. As shown in this breakdown, state and federal excise taxes made up 32 percent of what motorists paid at the pump in January 2000, when the average price for regular was only $1.29.

"Unfortunately, there’s no real simple answer," says Lucian Pugliaresi, president of the Energy Policy Research Foundation, which conducts economic analyses of energy issues and is supported by oil companies. It depends on when the gasoline was purchased. "If you bought it right now, I’d say the government is making more." If the gasoline was purchased a month ago or last year, that may not have been the case. And the answer further depends on what type of company the question refers to. Refineries, Pugliaresi says, are hurting right now. "If you’re an independent refinery, the answer is definitely they’re making a lot less than the government."

So, to the question of whether motorists pay more per gallon to the government than to oil-company profits, we can say only this: The answer depends on the state in which the fuel is purchased, the company that produced it and sold it, and when the motorist bought it.

[lonewolf]

The closest thing I can find that correlates with oil production is the quality of rock music:

[Hawk]

United States Oil

The number of oil rigs since Obama took office has more than tripled !
350% more rigs are operation now than when Bush left office !

US oil output declined under Bush but has increased 8% under Obama !

My Source was MSNBC. THEIR SOURCE is US Energy Administration.

TRY and dispute those facts.. You won't be able to dispute those numbers, you'll only find rhetoric. Research for yourself and have great fun if you can prove me wrong.

Again. if the US is producing MORE oil, why are the prices up and why is it Obama's fault ?

[Hawk]

The closest thing I can find that correlates with oil production is the quality of rock music:

LOL Good find !



BTW aren't you the guy who complains when a photo is too large ? It makes my post to Frank too wide to comfortably read.

[f.sciarrillo]

Hmmm, I guess I did read that wrong, Bill. Oh well. I did find this. It is from 2008 as well. It explains it better. For me anyhow.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/13/news/ec ... /index.htm


NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Motorists may fume when forking over $3 a gallon at the local service station, but as it turns out, your local filling spot makes chump change from a gallon of gas.

So exactly who is getting rich?

Oil traders: While often blamed for pushing up prices, traders don't necessarily benefit from the high price of crude or gasoline; they profit from how much the price changes. Traders can get rich - as long as they bet correctly on whether prices will rise or fall.

For example, an investment bank that makes a bet that the price of oil will rise makes money when oil prices go from $95 to $100 a barrel - or $100 to $95 if it bet the price will fall - not on the difference between production cost and trading price.

"If you wanna keep your job, you gotta be more right than wrong," said John Kilduff, an energy analyst at the trading firm MF Global in New York, explaining how traders make their money.

Gas stations: A surprisingly small amount goes to the guy who runs the station.

Most service stations are independently owned and operated and take in between 7 and 10 cents for every gallon they sell, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

That 7 to 10 cents going to the gas station isn't even profit. Out of that, station owners still have to pay leases, workers, and other expenses - leaving them with a profit of just a few cents. For the service stations, most profit comes from selling coffee, cigarettes, food and other amenities.

These calculations are based off of EIA's most recent numbers, when gas was $3.04 a gallon. Gasoline hit another record nationwide average of $3.27 a gallon Thursday.

Taxes: The government takes about 40 cents right off the top, with about 18 cents going to the feds. State taxes vary widely, but the national average is about 22 cents a gallon. Most of this money is used to build and maintain roads.

Transportation: Getting the gas from refineries to service stations via trucks or pipelines - and the cost of storing it in large tanks - eats up another 23 to 26 cents per gallon.

Refining: About 24 cents a gallon goes to refining companies like Valero (VLO, Fortune 500), Sunoco (SUN, Fortune 500) or Frontier (FTO, Fortune 500) that specialize in turning crude oil into gas. Some companies like ExxonMobil (XOM, Fortune 500), Chevron (CVX, Fortune 500) and ConocoPhillips (COP, Fortune 500) also have refining operations.

Profits for refiners have been squeezed lately because the price they pay for oil has risen so much faster than the price they can sell the gas for. This helps explain why Big Oil companies -like Exxon, which actually buys more crude oil than it produces - haven't seen their profits rise as much as the price of oil.

Crude oil: This is the most expensive part of a gallon of gas. Of every gallon of gas $2.07 from every gallon of gas goes to producers of crude like Chevron (CVX, Fortune 500), BP (BP), and smaller outfits like Anadarko (APC, Fortune 500) and Marathon (MRO, Fortune 500), or national oil companies controlled by countries like Saudi Arabia, Mexico or Venezuela.

Crude currently trades around $110 a barrel, but breaking down the money in that barrel of oil is tough. Exploration and production costs, royalty payments - all a big part of $110 a barrel oil - vary widely country by country and project by project.

"It's difficult to generalize; there's a whole spectrum of costs," said Ron Planting, an economist with the American Petroleum Institute, an industry trade group.

They can range from $1 a barrel to produce crude in Saudi Arabia to over $70 a barrel to find, develop and pump oil in the deep water Gulf of Mexico or off the coast of Algeria, said Ann-Louise Hittle, an oil analyst with the energy consultants Wood Mackenzie.

EIA estimates it costs U.S. oil companies an average of about $24 a barrel to find, develop and produce oil worldwide, but that doesn't include costs like transportation, administration, or income taxes - which can be substantial. While Exxon made $40 billion in 2007, a 60% increase from 2004, it paid $100 billion in taxes and royalties.

Nonetheless, $40 billion - or any of the record profits seen by most oil companies over the last few years - is certainly a lot of money, and it has put Big Oil in lawmaker's cross hairs.

Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., has called the chief executives of the five biggest oil companies to testify on the industry's record profits on April 1st. Markey's office swears it's no April fool's joke.

[onegunguitar]

[lonewolf]

LOL Good find !



BTW aren't you the guy who complains when a photo is too large ? It makes my post to Frank too wide to comfortably read.

What too large photo?

[lonewolf]

This merry-go-round is another example of why the government needs to chill and get their hands out of EVERYTHING. Stop picking winners because we all lose:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/close-tax ... 6.html?l=1

[songsmith]

I have another question, totally unrelated to the current argument: How many Rockpage Democrats believe in a woman's right to have an abortion??

I'm a registered Independent. I believe if you're not actually pregnant, it's not your call.

[songsmith]

Nice. I forget, is he Muslim this week, or Nazi?

[Hawk]

The national debt would balloon under tax policies championed by three of the four major Republican candidates for president, according to an independent analysis of tax and spending proposals so far offered by the campaigns.

The lone exception is Texas Rep. Ron Paul, who would pair a big reduction in tax rates with even bigger cuts in government services, slicing about $2 trillion from future borrowing.


Report: Debt will swell under top GOP candidates’ tax proposals
According to the report released Thursday by U.S. Budget Watch, a project of the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum and former House speaker Newt Gingrich would do the most damage to the nation’s finances, offering tax and spending policies likely to require trillions of dollars in fresh borrowing.

Both men have proposed to sharply cut taxes but have not identified spending cuts sufficient to make up for the lost cash, the report said. By 2021, the debt would rise by about $4.5 trillion under Santorum’s policies and by about $7 trillion under Gingrich’s plan, pushing the portion of the debt held by outside investors to well over 100 percent of the overall economy, the study said.

The red ink would gush a little more slowly under former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, the report said. Until this week, Romney had paired $1.35 trillion in tax cuts with $1.2 trillion in spending reductions, leaving the debt rising on a trajectory that closely tracks current policies.

But that changed Wednesday, when Romney proposed to cut federal income tax rates by 20 percent more for all earners, which would slash U.S. revenue by more than $2 trillion over 10 years.

Romney economic adviser Glenn Hubbard said the lost cash would be recovered by closing tax loopholes and boosting economic activity. But until the campaign offers a more specific plan, Budget Watch analysts said Romney’s entire framework would add about $2.6 trillion to the debt by 2021.

Only Paul emerged as a fiscal conservative in the report. His policies would cut tax revenue by more than $5 trillion over the next decade, the report said, but the loss would be offset by more than $7 trillion in spending cuts, including deep reductions in defense and federal health programs.

The report marks the first independent attempt to gauge the overall impact of policies proposed by the GOP candidates on the nation’s $15.4 trillion debt.

“As we enter the thick of the campaign season, no one can ignore the debt issue,” said Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, which supports debt-reduction efforts in Washington. “This report is designed to inform the public on the fiscal policies put forward by each of the Republican candidates and stimulate debate on this crucial topic.”

Paul campaign spokesman Gary Howard welcomed the analysis. “It’s not a surprise to us the report found that Congressman Paul’s plan is the only one that doesn’t raise the debt,” Howard said via e-mail. “The critical importance of dealing with our growing debt has been a hallmark issue of Dr. Paul’s campaign and his career.”

Romney spokesperson Andrea Saul declined to directly address the findings, arguing that Romney is the only candidate to lay out a realistic budget framework “that will jump-start the American economy and bring tax relief to middle-income Americans.”

Aides to Santorum and Gingrich did not respond to requests for comment.

The report does not include an analysis of President Obama’s latest spending blueprint, which seeks to reduce borrowing by $3 trillion by 2021. Budget Watch plans to analyze Obama’s request in future reports.

The report does not seek to offer support to any candidate, and its authors have gone to significant lengths to give the campaigns and their developing policy ideas the benefit of the doubt. The report offers three scenarios for each candidate: A “low-debt scenario” is based on the most generous assumptions about the ability of proposals to save money or generate revenue. A “high-debt scenario” is much more stringent.

The numbers cited above are taken from the report’s “intermediate-debt scenario.” which “gives credit for non-specified changes to certain parts of the budget,” such as promises to reduce some forms of spending by a certain percentage, even if the candidate has yet to nail down ways of generating the cash .

[f.sciarrillo]

Obama raises big money from basketball stars.

http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/ ... -home.html

[f.sciarrillo]

The national debt would balloon under tax policies championed by three of the four major Republican candidates for president, according to an independent analysis of tax and spending proposals so far offered by the campaigns.

The lone exception is Texas Rep. Ron Paul, who would pair a big reduction in tax rates with even bigger cuts in government services, slicing about $2 trillion from future borrowing.


Report: Debt will swell under top GOP candidates’ tax proposals
According to the report released Thursday by U.S. Budget Watch, a project of the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum and former House speaker Newt Gingrich would do the most damage to the nation’s finances, offering tax and spending policies likely to require trillions of dollars in fresh borrowing.

Both men have proposed to sharply cut taxes but have not identified spending cuts sufficient to make up for the lost cash, the report said. By 2021, the debt would rise by about $4.5 trillion under Santorum’s policies and by about $7 trillion under Gingrich’s plan, pushing the portion of the debt held by outside investors to well over 100 percent of the overall economy, the study said.

The red ink would gush a little more slowly under former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, the report said. Until this week, Romney had paired $1.35 trillion in tax cuts with $1.2 trillion in spending reductions, leaving the debt rising on a trajectory that closely tracks current policies.

But that changed Wednesday, when Romney proposed to cut federal income tax rates by 20 percent more for all earners, which would slash U.S. revenue by more than $2 trillion over 10 years.

Romney economic adviser Glenn Hubbard said the lost cash would be recovered by closing tax loopholes and boosting economic activity. But until the campaign offers a more specific plan, Budget Watch analysts said Romney’s entire framework would add about $2.6 trillion to the debt by 2021.

Only Paul emerged as a fiscal conservative in the report. His policies would cut tax revenue by more than $5 trillion over the next decade, the report said, but the loss would be offset by more than $7 trillion in spending cuts, including deep reductions in defense and federal health programs.

The report marks the first independent attempt to gauge the overall impact of policies proposed by the GOP candidates on the nation’s $15.4 trillion debt.

“As we enter the thick of the campaign season, no one can ignore the debt issue,” said Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, which supports debt-reduction efforts in Washington. “This report is designed to inform the public on the fiscal policies put forward by each of the Republican candidates and stimulate debate on this crucial topic.”

Paul campaign spokesman Gary Howard welcomed the analysis. “It’s not a surprise to us the report found that Congressman Paul’s plan is the only one that doesn’t raise the debt,” Howard said via e-mail. “The critical importance of dealing with our growing debt has been a hallmark issue of Dr. Paul’s campaign and his career.”

Romney spokesperson Andrea Saul declined to directly address the findings, arguing that Romney is the only candidate to lay out a realistic budget framework “that will jump-start the American economy and bring tax relief to middle-income Americans.”

Aides to Santorum and Gingrich did not respond to requests for comment.

The report does not include an analysis of President Obama’s latest spending blueprint, which seeks to reduce borrowing by $3 trillion by 2021. Budget Watch plans to analyze Obama’s request in future reports.

The report does not seek to offer support to any candidate, and its authors have gone to significant lengths to give the campaigns and their developing policy ideas the benefit of the doubt. The report offers three scenarios for each candidate: A “low-debt scenario” is based on the most generous assumptions about the ability of proposals to save money or generate revenue. A “high-debt scenario” is much more stringent.

The numbers cited above are taken from the report’s “intermediate-debt scenario.” which “gives credit for non-specified changes to certain parts of the budget,” such as promises to reduce some forms of spending by a certain percentage, even if the candidate has yet to nail down ways of generating the cash .

Source? I want to see another side of the story. I haven't seen the candidates reports, but I am guessing there are tax cuts, or continued tax cuts. Which you and the rest of the liberals are dead set against.

So how much of a percentage should we pay in tax's? And how do tax cuts increase debt. It doesn't, spending increases debt. This government is on a spending frenzy, and they refuse to do anything about it. They want to cut the debt? Stop the spending, and stop the borrowing.