A Philosophical Question for Republicans

[Burgold]

And the tax incentives are to promote DOMESTIC exploration and refining.

How is that outsourcing?

Sorry. Meant it as two different issues. The outsourcing question had to do with exporting jobs and had nothing to do with oil. The Government decided at some point to offer tax incentives for corporations to outsource our industry to foreign nations. That is simply, our government is paying our industries to give away jobs.

Is that something that type of corporate welfare something that you support?

On the Oil incentives.

Yes, if we lifted the incentives, I'm sure that the price differential would be added to the consumer, but that is independent of whether you think the oil companies need, deserve, or should have them.

[outbaksean]

"duh", that's brillant conversation technique you have there. Why not just do this :doh:?

Anyway, if we didn't give the Oil companies tax money and prices went up, do you think we might be more inclined as consumers to put more money into alternitive energy who would be on a more fair playing field?

I personally woudn't be any more inclined to put more money into alterative energy. Would you?

[twa]

How do we/they know that is where it's going? And why is that the important part? What I'm trying to say is, if we would allow them to build refineries here and drill in the Dakotas, wouldn't it be more profitable to do so, regardless of how much tax money we give them?

Incentives

http://tax.cchgroup.com/tax-briefings/2005-2007-Highway-Energy.pdf

The Dakotas cost 40-50 bucks just to get it out of the ground(which is why it has not been attempted much) and takes newer technology.

It wasn't done because the risk/reward was not good when oil was selling for $40.

[Koolblue13]

I personally woudn't be any more inclined to put more money into alterative energy. Would you?

I already am for environmental reasons, money just makes it more feasible.

Incentives

http://tax.cchgroup.com/tax-briefings/2005-2007-Highway-Energy.pdf

The Dakotas cost 40-50 bucks just to get it out of the ground(which is why it has not been attempted much) and takes newer technology.

It wasn't done because the risk/reward was not good when oil was selling for $40.

But despite our corporate hand outs, oil is not $40 a barrel, so now what does the risk/reward weigh in at?

[SkinsHokieFan]

I am a little confused about someone sayiing that thanks to this current crisis they can not buy a house???

Exacty how is that not possible. Right now IS the time to buy if you have a good job and you have money saved up. With prices dropping to levels we have not seen since the early 2000's etc... now is the time to buy. If you wait till the market hits the bottom you might wait too long.

I know in the DC area gettiing inside the beltway is now more realistic then it has been in the past 5 to maybe 10 years.

Just wait 90 days from now and see where home prics are

You sound like every realtor I have spoken to in the past 6 months

"Buy now buy now" By September, these guys will be wishing they took some of my offers I have made

[twa]

I already am for environmental reasons, money just makes it more feasible.

But despite our corporate hand outs, oil is not $40 a barrel, so now what does the risk/reward weigh in at?

How long has the tax breaks been in effect since they were only approved in late 05?...it takes a long time to find,develop and actually produce or refine oil in most places.

How would you feel if they had a contract price in advance for the US to pay $70 a barrel...no matter what the supply or open market price is?

No one is stopping anyone else from getting in on this opportunity.

[chomerics]

Welfare condones sloth, thus bad.

Yea, been a while since I could revisit my question. . .

So am I to assume you are against corporate welfare? Do you agree that giving a $`8billion dollar tax break to a single industry is welfare, just as giving food stamps to a single mother?

[chomerics]

You might find it hard to believe. But in the end tax is no more or no less a cost of doing business than the cost to wash the windows.

Corporations number one goal is to maximize profit. In order to do so they increase price in order to maintain profit margin.

Business 101, Tulane. Whether you run Exxon or a sub shop.

yet oil does not follow standard economic principals because it is not a commodity, it is a necessity. People NEED oil to live, and they do not have but a handful of choices coming from the same people running the country right now.

in other words, the standard economic principals which determine markets an be thrown out the window because people will pay what they need to in order to survive. If oil was $12/gallon people would still buy it because they have to get to work. They would complain about it, but they would still purchase it. It does not matter what the price, people need it to survive, and unfortunately we do nothing about it in our government.

[chomerics]

Would you prefer trickle up economics? Do you think that would have replace Reaganomics and its role in digging us out of our problems in the early '80s?

Or placed us into the banking mess we are now because of deregulation?

[chomerics]

Both payments seem relatively liquid to me ...

$1 of a tax break to Exxon will go to pay an employee, buy some equipment, maybe get paid out in a dividend ... the employee, contractor, or shareholder who gets that dollar will spend it somewhere, it might get paid again as taxes, and out again as a tax break...

$1 to a welfare mom will be spent at the supermarket or maybe for bus fare, and that money will similarly be spent somewhere in the open market, maybe even at a gas station where it will make its way to Exxon.

What is the real difference between the two payments, in terms of their effect on the economy?

It is nice to see someone who gets it.

[NavyDave]

I could do that crap... fly to Saudi Arabia kiss some ass. Fly to DC, kiss some ass. Sit on my ass and count my money. Drink some champagne.

No problemo.

Liberals always think its noble for someone else to struggle or take a pay cut.

How about looking at the record oil/gas profits the Government takes in every month.

Anyone notice how the prices have skyrocketed since the Democrats took over Congress?

Funny how kids ignore the fact that when it comes to oil imports the majority comes from Canada and Mexico.

And the alleged ass kissing would be minimal to non existent if left wing, communist nut jobs masquerading as Environementalists would get out of the way of growth and stop suing or blocking more oil exploration in Alaska, the Artic and in the gulf of Mexico next to the pristine and more in touch with nature peoples republic of CHINA

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Liberals always think its noble for someone else to struggle or take a pay cut.

How about looking at the record oil/gas profits the Government takes in every month.

Anyone notice how the prices have skyrocketed since the Democrats took over Congress?

Funny how kids ignore the fact that when it comes to oil imports the majority comes from Canada and Mexico.

And the alleged ass kissing would be minimal to non existent if left wing, communist nut jobs masquerading as Environementalists would get out of the way of growth and stop suing or blocking more oil exploration in Alaska, the Artic and in the gulf of Mexico next to the pristine and more in touch with nature peoples republic of CHINA

Way to spot a joke, fling some insults, and post one of the worst posts ever.

[NavyDave]

And it was not too long ago that liberals on this board and in Congress were sniveling how we were evil and unfair for driving Navigators (like me) and other SUVs while the suckers in euro land were in little matchbox cars but paying higher prices.

Democrats and liberals don't have a problem with gas prices if the majority of it were taxes and it forced us to waste money on alternative fuels and energy that use more energy to create it and isn't currently as feasible or inexpensive as oil.

[chomerics]

Well first, your assumption in the first part where you talk about welfare moms, you have republicans mistaken with Democrats. You are correct Republicans tend to favor big buisness, becuase it is only logical.

The BIG guy as you put it, is who employs everyone else, if you force thier hand, you lose jobs. The you know what trickles down.

To be truthful, I kinda see both as mooches. (oil and welfare moms) IMO the vast majority of welfare is lazy shiftless people mooching off the system. I'm not saying, there aren't legit needs for some, but IMO the majority are mooches.

I do believe that you need to be a little more flexable with big business as they employ. If you hurt those who employ, you won't have jobs.

What makes one mooch, as you put it, more desirable then another mooch? The fact that they contribute to society? What if they were a determent to society and say, oh I don't know, polluted the ground and made the taxpayer's cost even more exorbitant then it already is? What about the mother who is receiving government cheese and working three jobs to try and make something for her child? Is she still a mooch? Does her job give less service to our country because she is cleaning the oil exec's toilet?

So far Dj, JLG and ZLT are the only ones that have even glanced at the question I was posing, and it is not surprising. There are some, such as zoony and Portis, who use a thread such as this to try and take post shots at me because they don't like the answers to the questions I am seeking, but knowing their lack of debate skills, and introspection, I'm not the least bit surprised. There are others, who actually do answer the question, and look for the answers I am looking for. . . in other words, what makes one side different then the other side? Anything? is there a single difference in a dollar going to an oil executive then a person who is writing off his house then to a person on welfare? In terms of a dollar, why is there a difference?

Yes, i do think we should be in a rich-->poor tax system, but it has been reversed lately. We have flattened the taxes in this country which implies a poor-->rich scenario. It is not surprising the people who ardently stick up for the GOP are in the 6 figure bracket in terms of income. I, OTOH, while in that bracket, am not. Maybe that makes me foolish, who knows. I only know what I believe is best for the country, and debate is a good thing. It is just a shame there are not more people here who get the gist of my post, or understand why I posed the question the way I did.

Thinking is not a bad thing to do, it is a good thing. . .and no PB, Economics is not a science by any stretch, it is at BEST an attempt to understand the behavior of man and try to predict the way he will operate based on past evidence. Nothing will ever lead to a law, because if it did, it would make the entire system of economics baseless.

[chomerics]

Liberals always think its noble for someone else to struggle or take a pay cut.

How about looking at the record oil/gas profits the Government takes in every month.

Anyone notice how the prices have skyrocketed since the Democrats took over Congress?

Funny how kids ignore the fact that when it comes to oil imports the majority comes from Canada and Mexico.

And the alleged ass kissing would be minimal to non existent if left wing, communist nut jobs masquerading as Environementalists would get out of the way of growth and stop suing or blocking more oil exploration in Alaska, the Artic and in the gulf of Mexico next to the pristine and more in touch with nature peoples republic of CHINA

Have you come out of the closet yet ND? Or are you still buried under the clothes. . .you use the reference to ass kissing a little too often for the rest of us to be comfortable with. . .not that there is anything wrong with that:silly:

[twa]

Yea, been a while since I could revisit my question. . .

So am I to assume you are against corporate welfare? Do you agree that giving a $`8billion dollar tax break to a single industry is welfare, just as giving food stamps to a single mother?

I'm having trouble "getting it"

Welfare is paying out money already paid(by someone else) in taxes,while a tax break is charging you slightly less tax for upfront expenses in a venture that generates more taxes.

How is collecting less upfront to get more later comparable in any way to welfare?

Welfare certainly has it's place in society,but equating the two is impossible and a stretch even for you.

Even if the welfare recipient manages to become a taxpayer and starts to contribute to the tax base the contributions are unlikely to even recoup the money paid out....Which is not the case for the Oil tax breaks(which bring in bundles and provide what we "need to survive" )

Added Quote DJTJ

What is the real difference between the two payments, in terms of their effect on the economy?

The difference in my eyes is that the tax breaks not only help provide a "need" but generates MUCH more taxes...you in effect create money,it is not static.

[jbooma]

Because even if you have a good job and savings, the banks reportedly have become very skittish about approving loans and almost no one has enough savings to buy a house outright.

They want people with money and good credit applying right now, since I highly doubt a bank will turn someone like that down when they need money.

What banks have done is gone back to good lending practices and not giving loans to everyone. If you have 5 to 10 percent down you should be fine, and if you are buying a home you should have at least 5% of the downpayment.

[jbooma]

Just wait 90 days from now and see where home prics are

You sound like every realtor I have spoken to in the past 6 months

"Buy now buy now" By September, these guys will be wishing they took some of my offers I have made

actually in 90 days they will be higher since the market will pick up in the spring, it always does

[portisizzle]

What makes one mooch, as you put it, more desirable then another mooch? The fact that they contribute to society? What if they were a determent to society and say, oh I don't know, polluted the ground and made the taxpayer's cost even more exorbitant then it already is? What about the mother who is receiving government cheese and working three jobs to try and make something for her child? Is she still a mooch? Does her job give less service to our country because she is cleaning the oil exec's toilet?

So far Dj, JLG and ZLT are the only ones that have even glanced at the question I was posing, and it is not surprising. There are some, such as zoony and Portis, who use a thread such as this to try and take post shots at me because they don't like the answers to the questions I am seeking, but knowing their lack of debate skills, and introspection, I'm not the least bit surprised. There are others, who actually do answer the question, and look for the answers I am looking for. . . in other words, what makes one side different then the other side? Anything? is there a single difference in a dollar going to an oil executive then a person who is writing off his house then to a person on welfare? In terms of a dollar, why is there a difference?

Yes, i do think we should be in a rich-->poor tax system, but it has been reversed lately. We have flattened the taxes in this country which implies a poor-->rich scenario. It is not surprising the people who ardently stick up for the GOP are in the 6 figure bracket in terms of income. I, OTOH, while in that bracket, am not. Maybe that makes me foolish, who knows. I only know what I believe is best for the country, and debate is a good thing. It is just a shame there are not more people here who get the gist of my post, or understand why I posed the question the way I did.

Thinking is not a bad thing to do, it is a good thing. . .and no PB, Economics is not a science by any stretch, it is at BEST an attempt to understand the behavior of man and try to predict the way he will operate based on past evidence. Nothing will ever lead to a law, because if it did, it would make the entire system of economics baseless.

Chrome,

I gave you a rational and reasonable response to your question.

That you do not agree with me is understandable.

But why post the above garbage? Did it make you feel better?

[cathartic-j]

So far Dj, JLG and ZLT are the only ones that have even glanced at the question I was posing, and it is not surprising.

Hey now, I know I spent most of my post on addressing portisizzle's infatuation with Reaganomics, but first I did post a response to the real topic:

To folks who have issues with welfare: do you take advantage of the tax break on your mortgage? Because that's a form of welfare, too, though there's no way in hell that a low-income person will be able to take advantage of it. The government does things to directly benefit all kinds of sub-populations. It's just that when a certain welfare program happens to benefit the very poor, Republicans tend to get upset, while when those programs happen to benefit the very rich, the Democrats get upset. And when those policies benefit the middle class, I guess nobody notices. In any case, to me it makes sense for any redistributive policies to work rich --> poor, but that's just my opinion.

A couple of thoughts I want to add on:

First, I realize that I'm probaby not going to change anyone's mind here, but if you want to actually posess some factual knowledge about "welfare queens," this might be a good place to start.

"Despite the high employment levels of women who have left welfare, their incomes increase only modestly after leaving the welfare rolls. About half of leavers experience an increase in income immediately after leaving, with the other half experiencing a decline. After a year or two off the rolls, earnings gains slightly exceed losses in TANF benefits. When EITC 6 income is added in, the gains are slightly higher. However, the major change in income after leaving welfare comes increased income from other family members (very little from boyfriends and other unrelated persons, however). Such income is a larger component of total household income than either the earnings of the leaver herself or TANF and Food Stamp income. As a result of additional income from this source, total household income grows by about 20 percent after two years off the rolls. Income from other household members is thus a key ingredient to sustaining the incomes of women leaving welfare.[9]"

Second, tax breaks are a form of government-created benefits to a targeted group. No, they don't create an "extra" tax burden, but they shift the existing burden to everyone who isn't included in the break. For that reason, one might even argue that tax breaks are more of a giveaway: beneficiaries of a welfare program are contributing some (albiet a small amount) to that program with their taxes; beneficiaries of a tax break, on the other hand, are not "funding" that break in any way. (Yes, I know that this is a tenuous argument.)

[33]

Color me impressed with Cathartic-j. :notworthy

[JohnLockesGhost]

No you don't.

"Businesses should be able to sink or swim by themselves. I know, they'd complain that they have to compete with a bunch of state-owned enterprises around the world, but I really don't care."

What is your opinion of the effect these banks are having on the economy? How would you feel if a couple of major oil refiners had to shut down?

Oh, you don't care.....

Ok, I must have missed this brilliant riposte.

So, you claim I don't understand economics and to prove so you quote me, and ask me two questions. The first a legitimate question about the effect of bank collapses, the second a question about a wild scenario involving spontaneous refinery closings.

I'll address the first. Bear Stearns should have been allowed to go under. Ironically, it's the most prudent way to prevent future bank failures. For it's bankruptcy, or at least the threat of bankruptcy, that forces banks to adhere to responsible loaning and investing policies. If Bear was to go under, its assets would have been liquidated and its shareholders would have squeezed whatever value they could get out of their shares.

I really don't care for the argument about confidence. I have no doubt a Bear Stearns bankruptcy would have sent ripples through the collective psyche of other investment banks. They might have wondered, "are we over-exposed to the same lousy mortgages Bear was?" They may seek safer investments. But I would consider actions good and reasonable in a shaky economy. Instead the Fed and others insist we must save the banks keep confidence high (i.e. keep the spigots running fast and furious). I disagree, such a time calls for sober judgement.

Point #2: What possibly would cause "a couple refineries" to close spontaneously, outside some act of terrorism or natural disaster? Are you suggesting that without subsidies the oil companies would suddenly find these refineries unprofitable?

[JohnLockesGhost]

yet oil does not follow standard economic principals because it is not a commodity, it is a necessity. People NEED oil to live, and they do not have but a handful of choices coming from the same people running the country right now.

in other words, the standard economic principals which determine markets an be thrown out the window because people will pay what they need to in order to survive. If oil was $12/gallon people would still buy it because they have to get to work. They would complain about it, but they would still purchase it. It does not matter what the price, people need it to survive, and unfortunately we do nothing about it in our government.

I often see this claim but really see no evidence that oil some grand exception to everything we know about markets. Its price is still determined by the same pressures of supply and demand. Even if you claim that demand is fairly inelastic (a reasonable claim), the market is still by far the best way to establish a price that distributes gasoline efficiently.

If you want price controls to keep the price low, we'll have to learn to like lines because we'll be sitting in them a lot. I need no further proof that gasoline functions like regular commodities than the gas shortages of the 1970's. Price controls equaled lines. When the controls were removed, the prices rose and the lines stopped.

If we want cheaper gas, we need a stronger dollar. It's that simple.

[Beer is Food]

If we want cheaper gas, we need a stronger dollar. It's that simple.

Agreed... but, what about OPEC's control on Supply?

[DjTj]

I'll address the first. Bear Stearns should have been allowed to go under. Ironically, it's the most prudent way to prevent future bank failures. For it's bankruptcy, or at least the threat of bankruptcy, that forces banks to adhere to responsible loaning and investing policies. If Bear was to go under, its assets would have been liquidated and its shareholders would have squeezed whatever value they could get out of their shares.

So a lot of people make this argument that bankruptcy is necessary to create a disincentive to bad loan policies, but it's not like there isn't a huge disincentive from the billions of dollars that have already been lost and the thousands that have already lost their jobs. Avoiding bankruptcy is not getting off scot-free; and in fact, staying out of bankruptcy means that debts must actually be paid in full.

What's the difference between losing 90% of shareholders' value and losing 100% of the value? You don't need bankruptcy to force banks to adhere to responsible loaning and investing policies; they will do so because they don't want to lose money, and because they like making money.

I really don't care for the argument about confidence. I have no doubt a Bear Stearns bankruptcy would have sent ripples through the collective psyche of other investment banks. They might have wondered, "are we over-exposed to the same lousy mortgages Bear was?" They may seek safer investments. But I would consider actions good and reasonable in a shaky economy. Instead the Fed and others insist we must save the banks keep confidence high (i.e. keep the spigots running fast and furious). I disagree, such a time calls for sober judgement.

Whether Bear Stearns needed to be saved by the Fed is a complex question, and I wonder if JPMorgan would have acted anyways (perhaps at a lower price) without the Fed backing the loans, but in some sense the Fed is a private entity making its own judgment on what is best for the economy, and they are also interested in making money, so it's not exactly an act of charity either.

There is definitely some price at which JPMorgan would have been willing to buy Bear Stearns and some price at which the Fed would have been willing to back the loans, and maybe political pressure forced a resolution more quickly than it would have happened otherwise, but how much difference did it really make? The line between free market capitalism and government intervention is really kind of blurry here, and I think that's true of almost every high-level financial activity ...

There is a lot of gray area between bankruptcy and getting "bailed out." We shouldn't look at them as our only two options.