- Joined
- Feb 21, 2012
- Messages
- 42,069
- Reaction score
- 13,776
- Location
- US Southwest
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
No, they have a large influence based up their market share....but go on...Oil prices are 100% controlled by OPEC.
Yes, depending on demand and what other suppliers do....but go on.....when OPEC cuts oil supply the price of oil goes up.
Well now you are talking about gasoline, and the gas you buy today is made from oil purchased months ago, each region of the US is supplied with gas from different refiners, each market has its own different variables...it is not that simple.When the oil production goes up prices go down and the US oil production has nothing to do with the price at the pump.
Actually I was responding to the poster who said Putin/Gaza cause the price of gas to go up, which they had little influence on the oil prices. But I will repeat for you, the 13 OPEC countries controls the prices on how much they produce.No, they have a large influence based up their market share....but go on...
Yes, depending on demand and what other suppliers do....but go on...
Well now you are talking about gasoline, and the gas you buy today is made from oil purchased months ago, each region of the US is supplied with gas from different refiners, each market has its own different variables...it is not that simple.
But what is your point? We were discussing the inputs to the US inflation of '21-'23.
That was me, you appear to be confused on that simple fact.....but go on.Actually I was responding to the poster who said Putin/Gaza cause the price of gas to go up,
Afterward, using the event analysis based on variational mode decomposition (VMD), from October 1, 2021, to August 25, 2022, as the event window, we found that the (Ukraine) war and its chain events caused the West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude oil prices to increase by $37.14, a 52.33% surge, and the Brent crude oil price to rise by $41.49, a 56.33% increase.which they had little influence on the oil prices.
And still waiting for you to show us how an ex-President can sign the Omnibus Spending Bill and therefore is responsible for that deficit in FY2009. You know the one the Dems bragged about cutting him out and where they took the last Bush/Rep deficit of a paltry $161B,
The FY2009 deficit was $1,400B as the worst of the recession took hold. Bush was still president during the first part of FY2009. Blame Bush for the Great Recession if you want, but you certainly can’t blame Obama for it.with the lower tax rates, to their $1,400B in just two years and kept it over $1,000B for the next three.
Oh look, you still haven’t learned how a bill becomes law
Working real hard to deflect from the thread topic, I see....Oh look you continue to dodge, what about a bill becoming law are you asserting I missed and be specific while you explain your assertion Bush could have and should have vetoed the FY2009 OSB and how that is written in how a bill becomes law. How many years have I been asking you now.
[/QUOTE]$161B was FY2007, the last full year Bush deficit was FY2008 at $455B, not FY2007. Why did it go up so much ? The reason is that the Great Recession was starting. Everyone knows that revenue tanks in a recession and expenses go up!
The FY2009 deficit was $1,400B as the worst of the recession took hold. Bush was still president during the first part of FY2009. Blame Bush for the Great Recession if you want, but you certainly can’t blame Obama for it.
How about for legislation and budgets they don't sign as Rahl contends.p.s. Presidents are responsible for legislation they actually sign. For example, Trump signed tax cut legislation, Biden had to live with it. Democrat presidents don’t have magic wands they can wave to undo previous Republican president’s tax cuts when they sign a spending bill. Here’s a look at Trump vs Biden’s actual legislation. Of course Trump is trying to do it again:
Working real hard to deflect from the thread topic, I see....
It’s so funny, you still don’t know now a bill becomes lawOh look you continue to dodge, what about a bill becoming law are you asserting I missed and be specific while you explain your assertion Bush could have and should have vetoed the FY2009 OSB and how that is written in how a bill becomes law. How many years have I been asking you now.
Um, thats a big what if, unfortunately the recession kicked our head in and depressed revenues for years. And as far as the "stimulus", it was not big enough to reverse the job losses, which took 8 years to regain.heading to surplus
UE was at 6.4% in jan '21, gdp had barely recovered to the late '19 level.Biden who inherited a strong economy
Higher deficits due to reduced revenue, we know.Nope directly addressing the post to which I responded and the actual results of when the Reps cut tax rates. Care to respond?
Yes. Bullshit. Every time they cut taxes, since Reagan in 1981, revenues went down (below expectations), and the deficit went up. Cause, effect.Nope directly addressing the post to which I responded and the actual results of when the Reps cut tax rates. Care to respond?
The debt isn't debt until the money is spent. Spending is the cause of debt.That is idiotic. There are two ways to increase deficits..... one is to raise expenditures, the other is to reduce revenue.... Of course, cutting expenditures and/or increasing revenue have the opposite effect, to reduce deficits (or increase surplus). Sorry, that is simply Accounting 101.
All of this is just why you think tax cuts are bad. It has nothing to do with refuting the obvious: spending more then you take in is what causes debt.No. By “changes in receipts” you are actually referring to just shoveling more and more money to big donors. Why should we expect the bottom half of the country who are struggling just to get along to live on less just so that politicians can reward big donors with huge tax breaks?
In a House Rules Committee hearing on Feb. 24, Rep. Jim McGovern, the ranking Democrat on the committee, offered several amendments to cap the extension of tax cuts at various income levels — first for those making under $400,000 per year, then at $1 million, then at $100 million, then $1 billion per year. All were rejected along party lines. Again, it’s all about rewarding the big donors l
The $400,000 level would have cut the amount of “changes in receipts” by about half or 2 trillion dollars. I know that he can’t afford a suit or a baby sitter when he is in the Oval Office but how much more money do you think Elon Musk needs?
Deficit raising tax cuts is a long running myth. The tax cuts actually increase tax revenue.According to the polls, 60% of Americans support cutting taxes, even if it means higher deficit. 74% of Republicans support this. 55% of Democrats oppose cutting taxes, even if it means higher deficit. Back in 1996, only 23% of Americans supported lowering taxes, if it means higher debt.
You can watch Harry Enten's analysis below:
How about you? Do you support deficit inducing tax cuts?
Well stated. The left makes the mistake of looking at tax revenue as a zero-sum game as if the amount of earnings and jobs remains static. They think more tax revenue is a simple matter of increasing taxes. They don't think of the negative consequences of raising taxes, which leads to more use of tax shelters and less employment opportunities.I think the difference now is this: More people now realize that cutting taxes won't necessarily increase deficits. More people now understand that it is spending that increases the deficit. More people now understand that cutting taxes unleashes the economy and results in economic growth and increased revenue.
Donny is killing the IRS, is that a problem?All of this is just why you think tax cuts are bad. It has nothing to do with refuting the obvious: spending more then you take in is what causes debt.
In the long term yes, but that's not the point of the thread.Deficit raising tax cuts is a long running myth. The tax cuts actually increase tax revenue.
Actually, it's tax increases that cause a loss in tax revenue. They result in less investment, less business expansion, less hiring, more layoffs, hence less taxes actually being paid.One effect of tax cuts is a loss in revenue and that's what pays for public services.
True. The problem is that congress critters still manage to spend roughly $1.50 for every new dollar earned. My point is that tax cuts do not cause deficits as the op is suggesting. Deficit spending does.Revenue going up, does not equal deficit or debt going down.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?