A Philosophical Question for Republicans

[JohnLockesGhost]

DEMAND of oil will remain somewhat constant. People need to get to work, goods need to shipped, and there is only so much conservation that can curb this, and it takes time to regear society to conserve.

Lastly, other oil producing nations and oil companies seem to reap big rewards from high prices.

Why would Gov't control be bad to the consumer- when the artificial supply of oil can be manipulated in order to effect price?

a) Demand for oil still has to follow the Law of Demand. The lower the price the more that's demanded. Conversely, the higher the price the less demanded. People will and do change their behavior as prices go up. All things being equal (which is saying a lot in economics) a given population will consume less gasoline at 3 dollars per gallon than they will at 2 dollars per gallon.

Other oil producing nations LOVE high prices. They love them so much, they'll supply MORE gasoline to cash in while the prices are high. This is the Law of Supply.

c) What kind of government control are you advocating? Price controls distort reality and will lead to less efficiency (e.g. lines, etc.).

Market prices reflect reality, that's why the market works so well. They alert us to the realities of the world and we respond accordingly.

Further, I certainly don't believe the current spike in oil prices is due to any supply issues, so blaming OPEC is misplaced rage.

We should be angry with the politicians in Washington whose policies have led to a dollar so weak that oil is over $100 and gold in bumping $1,000.

[HOF44]

c) What kind of government control are you advocating? Price controls distort reality and will lead to less efficiency (e.g. lines, etc.).

Market prices reflect reality, that's why the market works so well. They alert us to the realities of the world and we respond accordingly.

The market did a bang up job with that whole mortgage thing. Who needs more oversite?? We need oversite just as a Water Utility has or an Electrical Utility or a Natural Gas Utility.

Further, I certainly don't believe the current spike in oil prices is due to any supply issues, so blaming OPEC is misplaced rage.

We should be angry with the politicians in Washington whose policies have led to a dollar so weak that oil is over $100 and gold in bumping $1,000.

I agree with you mostly here. Except I would add that if you could get inside big oil you would see they are taking bigtime advatage of the situation. Most likely even breaking or redifining some anti-trust laws.

[DjTj]

Ya'll are overlooking a important aspect

Welfare is a payment(and yes it is good if not abused)

Tax breaks are collecting five dollars you would not have had if you demanded six. ....you are not GIVING ****,simply taking a little less.

But the effect on the budget is exactly the same, isn't it? If a customer walks into my store, and I tell him he gets a $1 discount on his purchase, isn't that the same as giving a customer $1 out of the cash register?

When I check my accounts at the end of the day, aren't I still out $1?

Now,

Tax breaks (in this case)is not collecting as much of taxes as possible from a NEW tax base.

Tax incentives or breaks (specific to domestic exploration or infrastructure) are generating tax payments that did not exist and likely would not exist in the US.

This is very much true, and welfare is the same way. Welfare puts money in the hands of people and into communities where that money would not exist otherwise. It gives people a temporary boost and gives them an opportunity to enter the workforce that would not exist without the payments.

The same way payments to Exxon can spur investment in the domestic oil industry, welfare payments can encourage retail spending and help transition people into the workforce.

Both policies are really the same: It is the government paying private entities to encourage certain behavior. I think that both payments have reasonable goals, and both can have a positive effect on the US economy ... I don't really see the difference between the two.

[akorn22]

The answer is simple. The rich executive worked hard in school and makes their money. The welfare person is given our money, then they get dependent on the government and just decide that blaming bush and rich people are good ways to rationale not going to school or work and remaining on welfare. In other words, the executive is contributing to the economy while the welfare person is taking away from the economy.

[Sebowski]

Shouldn't it at least be as simple as taking away breaks as their profits go up?

Isn't that how it works with people on welfare? When they start making more money they are no longer eligible.

Sometimes I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

[Sebowski]

The answer is simple. The rich executive worked hard in school and makes their money. The welfare person is given our money, then they get dependent on the government and just decide that blaming bush and rich people are good ways to rationale not going to school or work and remaining on welfare. In other words, the executive is contributing to the economy while the welfare person is taking away from the economy.

This post makes me very sad

[twa]

Shouldn't it at least be as simple as taking away breaks as their profits go up?

Isn't that how it works with people on welfare? When they start making more money they are no longer eligible.

Sometimes I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

That sounds perfectly reasonable,but it is not likely to achieve domestic exploration or production when it can be done cheaper elsewhere..

They already pay more when the price of oil goes up(most leases have escalator clauses) AND when profits go up you pay higher rates(not to mention property taxes ect.)

Quote DJTJ

But the effect on the budget is exactly the same, isn't it? If a customer walks into my store, and I tell him he gets a $1 discount on his purchase, isn't that the same as giving a customer $1 out of the cash register?

When I check my accounts at the end of the day, aren't I still out $1?

The difference is you gain new customers(more major sales)meaning greater profits....Would you rather have a profit of $10 or $50(minus the $1 )?

The welfare money is almost certain to be spent here,the money for domestic oil exploration and refining is not.

I don't think some of you understand the vast investments,lease payments and royalties,ect that are generated ...that the oil companies are now giving to other countries.

[81artmonk]

The answer is simple. The rich executive worked hard in school and makes their money. The welfare person is given our money, then they get dependent on the government and just decide that blaming bush and rich people are good ways to rationale not going to school or work and remaining on welfare. In other words, the executive is contributing to the economy while the welfare person is taking away from the economy.

Holy CRAP, at 22 and you get it!!!!! :notworthy :notworthy

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

AWESOME!!

[81artmonk]

Some of you people are missing one HUGE point. The money we pay in taxes is OURS!!!!!! Not the governments! The government is TAKING away money that we earned by working.

[Heisenberg]

Some of you people are missing one HUGE point. The money we pay in taxes is OURS!!!!!! Not the governments! The government is TAKING away money that we earned by working.

I guess you don't see the purpose of taxes then either?

Regardless, I don't necessarily like the welfare program because of how it can be abused but I am curious as to what many of you think we should do with these people that have legitimate claims to welfare if they weren't receiving these checks. When homelessness skyrockets most of you will complain about all the homeless on the streets . . .

So I guess we should just kill them?

I'm not really sure how you solve this problem.

[outbaksean]

So I guess we should just kill them?

I'm not really sure how you solve this problem.

We could just do nothing. Would that be so completely outrageous? :yikes:

[Heisenberg]

We could just do nothing. Would that be so completely outrageous? :yikes:

Like I said,

Then you all will complain when there are tons of homeless people on the streets begging you for money.

[outbaksean]

Like I said,

Then you all will complain when there are tons of homeless people on the streets begging you for money.

Not me

[Mister Happy]

Anything? is there a single difference in a dollar going to an oil executive ...then to a person on welfare? In terms of a dollar, why is there a difference?

Chomerics, this is an interesting window into the mind of a liberal.

Are you trying to tell me that you didn't know that corporations generate wealth?

No wonder you think conservatives are heartless ****s. Who would want to donate money to the rich instead of the poor?

Did you ever see the movie "There Will Be Blood"?

When you let Plainview's corporation keep its money, it can take it, build an oil well on a useless piece of land in the impoverished Little Boston, and create a boom town, an oil pipeline and a vast fortune. All of that was created from "nothing."

That's the kind of return you hope to get when you invest in your money in corporations.

If you take the money from the corporation and give it to a welfare mom, economically, the best you can hope for is that it somehow find its way back to a corporation that can do the same thing with it. In the meantime, the money goes from the corporation to a government bureaucracy to the welfare mom to the gas pump then back to where it started. That process could take months or years.

Maybe by then the corporation changes its mind about building the well, or it decides to build the well in another country where it gets to keep more profits. At best, the lost profits, from the drilling for the X months the money was tied up, will only be delayed until the time the well would have previously dried up. In which case, we only lose what that money would have generated in the economy during those X months, and so on.

To maximize the economy, we want as much money as possible pumping through that wealth generation process.

Do you honestly think an oil executive is going to take a pay cut if you raise taxes (eliminate tax breaks) on his company? He'll do something like increase prices, lay off workers or scale back expansion of the company.

The people that feel the brunt of it are the very people you propose to help. Corporate income tax is not money from the rich to the welfare moms. It's money/jobs from the working moms to the welfare moms, and it damages the economy in the process.

[DjTj]

Quote DJTJ

But the effect on the budget is exactly the same, isn't it? If a customer walks into my store, and I tell him he gets a $1 discount on his purchase, isn't that the same as giving a customer $1 out of the cash register?

When I check my accounts at the end of the day, aren't I still out $1?

The difference is you gain new customers(more major sales)meaning greater profits....Would you rather have a profit of $10 or $50(minus the $1 )?

The welfare money is almost certain to be spent here,the money for domestic oil exploration and refining is not.

Okay, that's a good point. Incentives to multi-national corporations have the potential to move money from other countries into our country.

But that could also happen with welfare or other domestic spending. Suppose that Wal-Mart is deciding whether to build the next Super Wal-Mart in Guangdong Province or in Mississippi. Suppose that Toyota is deciding whether to build its next North American plant in Mexico or the United States. Investment in the people and the infrastructure of poor communities in the United States could certainly influence those decisions by creating an available workforce and giving people a little extra money to spend.

Incentives can help on both ends ... Exxon may need encouragement to build a refinery in the United States to create jobs, but we also need strong communities to provide labor to do those jobs, and they need Americans that can afford to buy their gas.

If you take the money from the corporation and give it to a welfare mom, economically, the best you can hope for is that it somehow find its way back to a corporation that can do the same thing with it. In the meantime, the money goes from the corporation to a government bureaucracy to the welfare mom to the gas pump then back to where it started. That process could take months or years.

On the flip-side of this argument is that even though there is bureacracy involved, the decision to spend that dollar will be made by an individual in the free market - theoretically, the welfare mom will distribute that dollar in the most efficient way, according to her needs. When we distribute millions of welfare dollars, there will be millions of individual decisions, which will funnel the money to the best corporations through the operation of the free market.

When Congress instead decides to pick certain industries and certain corporations for special benefits, the process takes place outside of the free market. Rather than a million individual decisions choosing the best corporation, Congress will choose one based on the efforts of lobbyists (who are also paid millions). The process of giving tax breaks and earmarks is thus ripe for corruption ...

As I said, both methods of disbursing money have noble goals and are useful in different situations, but it is impossible to say that one kind of disbursement (tax breaks to corporations) is always better than another (welfare payments to individuals).

[btfoom]

...

Can someone help me come to grips with this conundrum? Is it just greed that goes through people's mind? Why is one side good and the other bad?

It really comes down to taking personal responsibility for your decisions and using logic and principles when making a decision.

On one hand, there is a woman who started drinking and skipping school at the age of 14. Soon, the addition of drugs and boys led to her being pregnant at 16. Dropped out of school and lived at home for a couple of years. Moved into a government subsidized apartment, had another few kids (more kids, bigger Govt checks), because why not, mama did it. Pretty much neglected the kids due to drug/men habit. The oldest joind a gang before he left elementary school. Now, here she is, early thirties, spending the money meant for mild and bread on booze and drugs. The oldest now stealing cars and dealing. At this point, over $1,000,000 in government services and money and nothing to really show for it.

Meanwhile, Exxon has employed more than 100k people per year, provided fuel to allow folks around the world to be able to heat their houses, drive cars, enjoy freedom. They paid billions in taxes to local and federal government, donated hundreds of millions to schools and other charities, and almost single handedly fund thousands of regular folks retirement funds.

One woman was able to retire comfortably due to her 401k fund swelling due to Exxon profits. She will be able to put her oldest grand-daughter through college (a life-long dream). Unfortunately, her dream comes to a crashing end as her grand-daughter was car-jacked by a young gang member who stole her ATM card before killing her.

So, comrade chom, I have question for you. Why do you and all your lefty buddies support criminals and killers while reviling enteties that help literally millions of people?

If only there were some real-world examples of a country who has communism/socialism as their government and economic philosophies.

[Sebowski]

Holy CRAP, at 22 and you get it!!!!! :notworthy :notworthy

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

AWESOME!!

This post makes me even sadder

Sometimes on this board I can't believe the type of company I keep.

The only thing I have in common with some of the ignorant people on here is a football team. Reminds me to never talk politics or religion at a sports bar.

[HOF44]

On one hand, there is a woman who started drinking and skipping school at the age of 14. Soon, the addition of drugs and boys led to her being pregnant at 16. Dropped out of school and lived at home for a couple of years.

Meanwhile, Exxon has employed more than 100k people per year, provided fuel to allow folks around the world to be able to heat their houses, drive cars, enjoy freedom

You gave the absolute best eamples to support you position, I'll give you that. Hard to disagree with you.

But what about someone that comes down with a dibilatating injury, or chronic illness that prevents them from providing for themselves. Do they just get put on the street? Left to die?

Also not all companies live up to lofty ideals you have prescribed to Exxon. Remember Hooker Chemical, PG&E??

The topic is not nearly as simple and clear cut as some make it out to be.

[btfoom]

You gave the absolute best eamples to support you position, I'll give you that. Hard to disagree with you.

But what about someone that comes down with a dibilatating injury, or chronic illness that prevents them from providing for themselves. Do they just get put on the street? Left to die?

Also not all companies live up to lofty ideals you have prescribed to Exxon. Remember Hooker Chemical, PG&E??

The topic is not nearly as simple and clear cut as some make it out to be.

That's why I wrote it like that. If you read Chom's initial post, he makes it out to be that simple, just the other way. I simply tried to point that out by going the other way. Nice to see at least someone caught on.

By the way,agree completely with your post. IMHO, there are no 'easy' solutions to complex problems.

:applause: :applause: :applause:

[HOF44]

By the way,agree completely with your post. IMHO, there are no 'easy' solutions to complex problems.

That really gets me too. How people on both sides of the spectrum paint everything in absolutes. Life is rarely that simple.

[DjTj]

That really gets me too. How people on both sides of the spectrum paint everything in absolutes. Life is rarely that simple.

I was watching the 3rd season of Battlestar Galactica recently, and maybe a sci-fi show isn't the best thing to quote for political philosophy, but Laura Roslin said something that really struck a chord with me:

"It's naive to think that [] things that we can't understand have simple explanations. Because simple explanations make us feel like we have control when we don't."

I think that's the psychology that makes people reach for simple explanations. People want to feel like they are in control, that we could just make a simple change in policy and everything would be fixed ... but unfortunately, that is almost never true.

[Mister Happy]

As I said, both methods of disbursing money have noble goals and are useful in different situations, but it is impossible to say that one kind of disbursement (tax breaks to corporations) is always better than another (welfare payments to individuals).

Let's make one thing clear. Money to welfare moms does not stimulate the economy through their spending. That can only damage the economy because it removes money from the wealth generation cycle for a period of time. For example, that money could have been used to drill oil and create wealth.

Now you might be able to find a way to use the money that damages the economy even more, but it would take a pretty bad scenario for a corporation to not be better than the best case scenario for a welfare mom.

No, it is not ALWAYS better, but as general rule, to maximize the economy, you want as much money as possible in the hands of corporations generating wealth.

[Mister Happy]

When Congress instead decides to pick certain industries and certain corporations for special benefits, the process takes place outside of the free market. Rather than a million individual decisions choosing the best corporation, Congress will choose one based on the efforts of lobbyists (who are also paid millions). The process of giving tax breaks and earmarks is thus ripe for corruption ...

I have no problem with universal corporate tax breaks instead of targeted tax breaks.

If it were up to me, they'd all get the same "tax breaks", i.e. no corporate income tax. They keep all their money. That's pure free market with no favoritism.

You're the one who wants to take their money and pick and choose who gets it. Not me.

Do you think Barack Obama is not going to give out subsidies and tax breaks to certain companies and eliminate tax breaks to others?

That's what government does, so if you want wealth redistribution, don't complain when the distribution is corrupt.

[Dan T.]

Let's make one thing clear. Money to welfare moms CANNOT stimulate the economy. It can only damage the economy because it removes money from the wealth generation cycle for a period of time. For example, that money could have been used to drill oil and create wealth.

Ideally, aid to the mother IS an investment. If if provides a boost so that she's able get out of a cycle of poverty, to afford day care and get some training or find a job, that investment helps her become a productive member of society. Paying taxes and off the welfare roll. So yes, that money invested in the "welfare mom" CAN stimulate the economy in a small way.

And that is actually what happens in alot of cases, despite the picture many people, including some on this board, paint of welfare recipients as lazy worthless bums sucking on the government teat. Sure that happens sometimes. But welfare also provides a needed boost to get people back on their feet.

[Mister Happy]

Ideally, aid to the mother IS an investment. If if provides a boost so that she's able get out of a cycle of poverty, to afford day care and get some training or find a job, that investment helps her become a productive member of society.

Exactly. That's the kind of investment we want to make.

It may or may not pay more dividends than a corporation with the same money. That I can't tell.

But it is a step in the right direction, and I doubt anybody would complain about a program that does that. Although, it would be better served as a non-profit organization than a government agency. That way it still has some accountability to the donors.