[JohnE]

Load em up boys and girls (There must be one or two out there...)

Dont you morons ever think that if Obama wasnt born in the US it would have been conclusively proven and the legit among the GoP would have jumped all over it by now?

Dont you morons ever stop to think about the consequences of banning abortion, cutting funding for birth control and rolling back social program and education funding?

Dont you morons ever stop to think about how the military will fund all the coolnew toys R-Money promised when he also promises to cut taxes?

Anyone else? Bueller, Bueller?

 

[Jim Mac]

In a word: no.

Well, OK. It's all fodder to the culture war, which is simply a tactic used to "win". I agree, though that there seems to be little thought on the unintended consequences of using this as a tactic.

 

[$tinkle]

Dont you morons ever stop to think about the consequences of banning abortion?

it will shift the DNC/GOP population to favor liberals?

my turn:

don't you morons ever think if you create a larger & more easily accessible pool of money there will be less accountability & creative problem solving, and more fraud/waste/abuse? (think: military, SNAP, & education)

don't you morons ever think that religious dogma is just as corrupt, manipulative, & controlling as irreligious dogma?

 

[jimmydean]

There was a funny ecard on fb yesterday.

While you were bitching about the guy buying a Snickers with food stamps, Exxon pocketed $9k of your tax dollars.

I thought it was an interesting perspective. Not to mention the $4.25/gal they pocketed for 92 octane.

 

[dante]

Load em up boys and girls (There must be one or two out there...)

Dont you morons ever think that if Obama wasnt born in the US it would have been conclusively proven and the legit among the GoP would have jumped all over it by now?

Doesn't actually matter, since he was born to an American parent. Being born on American soil doesn't have much (if anything) to do with being a "Natural Born Citizen". Just like if someone was born while their American parents were on vacation somewhere, or if he was born while his parents were stationed in Panama (ahem, McCain). Remember, the first 5 presidents of the United States weren't born in the US (since it didn't exist at that time) either...

Dont you morons ever stop to think about the consequences of banning abortion, cutting funding for birth control and rolling back social program and education funding?

I'd point out the juxtaposition of cutting funding for birth control *and* abortion, considering that one reduces the need for the other...

Dont you morons ever stop to think about how the military will fund all the coolnew toys R-Money promised when he also promises to cut taxes?

You sound like one of them "smart" people we was warned about by Santorum and Beck...

 

[$tinkle]

Not to mention the $4.25/gal they pocketed for 92 octane.

i will preempt my usual "but the gov't takes moar per gallon!!!" by acknowledging exxon is not compelled to put that money back in the economy.

 

[dante]

i will preempt my usual "but the gov't takes moar per gallon!!!" by acknowledging exxon is not compelled to put that money back in the economy.

God bless Free Market Capitalism®!! (weeps openly)

 

[jimmydean]

i will preempt my usual "but the gov't takes moar per gallon!!!" by acknowledging exxon is not compelled to put that money back in the economy.

And that's why the money they pocket outside of the crazy prices is the most baffling part of it all. Big Oil does not need handouts. Now the guy with a Snickers might ACTUALLY be hungry.

And we all know nothing satisfies hunger like a Snickers.

 

[RideDad]

Possibly some perspective on "Big Oil Subsidies". Credit to American Thinker March 8 2012. Sorry, the charts would not copy. See http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/03/big_oil_and_tax_breaks.html for the full article with Charts. By the way, Exxon has maintained a profit margin of between 6 and 11 percent since 2002. It's not their fault the world oil price is high. It's not their fault oil is priced in dollars and the dollar is weak by design in an effort to inflate our way out of the debt mess.

March 8, 2012
Big Oil and Tax Breaks
By Randall Hoven

To hear the president and Democrats talk, you'd think that Big Oil was sucking the Treasury dry with huge subsidies. Almost a year ago I wrote about the federal government's "subsidies" to Big Oil. I said then, "They are all tax 'breaks'... about $4.3 billion per year -- about 0.2% of this year's deficit and enough to fund about 10 hours of current US government spending."

I was wrong. The tax breaks for all fossil fuels was not $4.3B in 2011. It was only $2.5B -- about 0.19% of that year's deficit, and enough to fund only six hours of U.S. government spending. The source for such heresy? The Congressional Budget Office.

Just to be clear, that $2.5B was not just for Big Oil, but also for Big Coal and Big Gas: all fossil fuels. Here, more exactly, are those subsidies, in the CBO's words.

"Expensing of exploration and development costs for oil and natural gas." ($0.8B)
"Option to expense 50% of qualified property used to refine liquid fuels." ($0.8B)
"Option to expense investment costs on the basis of gross income rather than on production." ($0.9B)

I can't say I understand those "subsidies." Is exploration not supposed to be a cost of doing business for an oil company? Who is to say these expenses are not legitimate costs? But let's take the CBO's word for it that these are, for some reason, "subsidies."

Let's compare those subsidies to other energy subsidies. The CBO has a chart.


Well look at that: tax subsidies for all fossil fuels were only 15% of all federal subsidies for energy. The Green alternatives of renewables and "efficiency" took 78% of all tax subsidies for energy. Big Oil has so much influence on Capitol Hill that our government subsidizes its competitors five times more. Fossil fuels provide 77% of our nation's energy yet receive just 15% of the federal government's tax subsidies.

"Alcohol fuels," which include ethanol, took $6.1B of tax subsidies, or more than twice as much as oil, gas, and coal combined.

When did this start happening? The CBO has another chart.



The explosion of energy subsidies seemed to coincide rather neatly with Democrats taking over both the House and Senate in 2007, and then the presidency in 2009. (That darned Reagan cut subsidies for fossil fuels to nothing. In Reagan's last year, the small amount of tax subsidies for energy was all going to renewables.)

You know who else likes subsidizing alternative energy? George Soros. He wrote this in January 2009:

The American consumer can no longer act as the motor of the global economy. Alternative energy and developments that produce energy savings could serve as a new motor, but only if the price of conventional fuels is kept high enough to justify investing in those activities. That would involve putting a floor under the price of fossil fuels by imposing a price on carbon emissions and import duties on oil to keep the domestic price above, say, $70 per barrel.

Somehow, George got his wish for high fuel prices even without a Copenhagen-like global Cap & Trade system. When he wrote that, oil was only about $40 per barrel. Just one year later, it was consistently over $70 per barrel, George's magic threshold -- as if delivered as a Christmas gift. And this year it's been about $100 per barrel. Good times: a 150% increase in crude oil prices in the three years since George Soros called for higher fuel prices, perfectly coinciding with the three years of Obama's presidency.

You know who else pushes alternative energy sources really hard? The Communist Party USA:

We could begin with an immediate carbon tax that would penalize those with the largest carbon footprint - big corporations - while also making a case for the elimination of coal production and expansion of alternative energy sources.

And who else? Presidential candidate Barack Obama said this in 2008 (via Jake Tapper at ABC):

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted. That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel, and other alternative energy approaches.

Pretty wild coincidence, huh? Barack Obama, George Soros, and the Communist Party all pushing the same energy policies.

 

[$tinkle]

copy pasta with txt efex

what is your understanding of energy subsidies, and when they should sunset?

 

[dante]

Sorry I couldn't find an equally "non-partisan" hit piece like "American Thinker", so here's a 30+ page .pdf of a study done by Environmental Law Institute that documents the $72.5b spent by the Federal Government on Oil/Gas/Coal subsidies (either direct payments or industry-specific tax relief) between 2002 and 2008.

http://www.elistore.org/Data/products/d19_07.pdf

(It also documents the $29b spent on renewable resources during that time)

By the way, considering even the (laughably small) $2.5b is still 5+ times bigger than the emergency funding for FEMA that Republicans blocked last year due to concerns about the deficit, should those same Oil/Gas/Coal subsidies also be on the table if we're looking at cutting spending?

 

[$tinkle]

faux newz as a source? hung by your own pitard

everyone knows FEMA doesn't create jobs, just resentment

the mayflower did just fine w/o them, and even repurposed it into a floating sick bay. yankee ingenuity, bitchez

 

[dante]

*chuckle* Had it open from commenting on a family member's FB post with the assumption that it would have somewhat more credibility than one of those librul MSM outlets like "Reuters".

edit: Btw, I'm perfectly fine with prioritizing every single aspect of the federal budget and deciding what's worth paying for and what isn't. I'm pretty sure that the Republicans are scared to death of something like that, since a majority of Americans would vote for cutting corporate welfare and spending on our military.

 

[eaterofdog]

Dont you morons ever think that if Obama wasnt born in the US it would have been conclusively proven and the legit among the GoP would have jumped all over it by now?

These people are Authoritarians who feel they must obey their leaders without question. So what do they do when some black dude who doesn't know his place gets into the highest office of the land? They create a reason to invalidate his authority.

 

[Jim Mac]

This "moron" thread is obviously incomplete without this:

 

[Silver]

Load em up boys and girls (There must be one or two out there...)

Dont you morons ever think that if Obama wasnt born in the US it would have been conclusively proven and the legit among the GoP would have jumped all over it by now?

Dont you morons ever stop to think about the consequences of banning abortion, cutting funding for birth control and rolling back social program and education funding?

Dont you morons ever stop to think about how the military will fund all the coolnew toys R-Money promised when he also promises to cut taxes?

Anyone else? Bueller, Bueller?

No. 5 character limit. No.

 

[johnbryanpeters]

i will preempt my usual "but the gov't takes moar per gallon!!!" by acknowledging exxon is not compelled to put that money back in the economy.

They're not compelled and they don't. The point that the collective "conservative" morons fail to understand is that they're voting for an extraction machine that removes money from their own pockets. All hail the corporate overlords.

 

[jonKranked]

80/20 rule. fix education. everything else will sort itself out in a generation or two.

 

[stevew]

valerie plame was never in danger.

 

[Beef Supreme]

Benghazi!

 

[stevew]

Benghazi!

someone has a crush.

 

[JohnE]

80/20 rule. fix education. everything else will sort itself out in a generation or two.

WHAT!? And risk creating more members of the liberal elite? Shutyomouf!

 

[Jim Mac]

80/20 rule. fix education. everything else will sort itself out in a generation or two.

so, 20% of the population causes 80% of the problems? That's the Pareto rule.

 

[$tinkle]

99/1?

 

[Toshi]

They're not compelled and they don't. The point that the collective "conservative" morons fail to understand is that they're voting for an extraction machine that removes money from their own pockets. All hail the corporate overlords.

... but... but... Galt's Gulch! I read it. It must be true.

 

[RideDad]

what is your understanding of energy subsidies, and when they should sunset?

I don't agree with calling the expensing (deducting) of legitimate business expenses a subsidy. Shall we start taxing revenue rather than profits? So there should be be no sunset of "subsidies" that are really just a company deducting real expenses from it's revenue. Straightforward handouts are another story and can be argued.

I have not read much of the pdf referenced by Dante other than the first couple pages. Plan to read it in more detail later. First thought is these numbers are from 2008 and prior. Things have changed dramatically since then. Furthermore, comparing expensing and handouts is not a reasonable comparison. Haven't looked at it enough to sort out those details yet. My second thought is comparing some tax breaks/subsidies for an industry (fossil fuels all inclusive) to those of the renewables industry is kind of whacked when you consider how much of our energy is supplied via fossil fuels compared to renewables. Don't know what that ratio is but would guess is to be 90/10 at best.

 

[Westy]

Just realized Mitts real first name is Willard. If he gets elected I am going to start an extreme whacko movement called "Namers" claiming he cannot be president as his name on the ballot was wrong.

 

[$tinkle]

I don't agree with calling the expensing (deducting) of legitimate business expenses a subsidy.

why? the effect is identical: it helps or favors a particular industry to increase growth (e.g., profit)

Shall we start taxing revenue rather than profits?

no. that would harmful to growth, obviously

So there should be be no sunset of "subsidies" that are really just a company deducting real expenses from it's revenue. Straightforward handouts are another story and can be argued.

what do you consider straightforward handouts? should they sunset?

comparing expensing and handouts is not a reasonable comparison.

is that b/c one is earned, while the other isn't? or something else?

Haven't looked at it enough to sort out those details yet. My second thought is comparing some tax breaks/subsidies for an industry (fossil fuels all inclusive) to those of the renewables industry is kind of whacked when you consider how much of our energy is supplied via fossil fuels compared to renewables.

why is that 'kind of whacked'? is there a ratio below which it's no longer whacked? b/c if so, the gov't can certainly step in to "make things fair", as just one way to get us to a "solution". shall we let the free market reign free? or "free within reason"?

 

[Pesqueeb]

Just realized Mitts real first name is Willard. If he gets elected I am going to start an extreme whacko movement saying called "Namers" claiming he cannot be president as his name on the ballot was wrong.

 

[RideDad]

why? the effect is identical: it helps or favors a particular industry to increase growth (e.g., profit)
no. that would harmful to growth, obviously
what do you consider straightforward handouts? should they sunset?
is that b/c one is earned, while the other isn't? or something else?
why is that 'kind of whacked'? is there a ratio below which it's no longer whacked? b/c if so, the gov't can certainly step in to "make things fair", as just one way to get us to a "solution". shall we let the free market reign free? or "free within reason"?

Expensing legitimate business expenses favors no one. Every business does this. If we don't, then we ARE taxing revenue, rather than profit or earnings. That's wrong on many more levels than just retarding growth.

A grant is a straightforward handout and yes they should sunset.

It's whacked because in my opinion it's about introducing distortions into the marketplace. Any direct subsidy is a distortion. Deducting business expenses is not a distortion. It's simply fair. I expect that most of the so-called subsidies in fossil fuels are nothing more than deducting expenses and whatever true subsidies are handed out to fossil fuels is very small in relation to the size of the industry. This limits the amount of possible negative distortion (loss of wealth).

Regarding renewables, I would expect the amount of true subsidy in relation to the size of the industry is way higher (many, many times over) than with fossil fuels. This may result in negative distortions such as purely wasted resources. The root issue really is whether or not the powers that are handing out the subsidies are correct that their "investment" will pay off. Any time you have to distort an industry because it is so far away from where the market is, the risk of being wrong is much higher.

Power companies are legislatively required to provide a percentage of their electricity from renewable sources. It may be 20%, I'm not sure. Regardless, it most cases this electricity is more expensive than their lowest cost alternative so we pay for that. So you have a product that is purchased under legislative duress on the demand side and is heavily subsidized on the production side. If, within a relatively short time, the cost of renewable power equalizes with that of other options then it may have been worth the "investment". If not, then we are just pissing money away.

Ethanol is used in gasoline because it is mandated by Congress. If it were not required, we wouldn't use it since it's more expensive. Another distortion that has been pissing money away for years. I think we have been doing this for something around 20 years and we keep raising the use requirement over time. If ethanol were able to become cheaper than traditional gasoline (not to mention the distortion it has on food prices and food supply, think starving children in third world countries. I think I've read we burn 40% of our corn production) then it may have worked out for the better. It's also heavily subsidized on the production side and protected with an import tariff and it still can't stand on it's own in the marketplace on the demand side. It has to be forced by law into the marketplace. So again, we pay more.

Any time we buy a good or service and we pay more than the true cost (including a reasonable profit margin for the producer) we risk destroying wealth. The renewable industry is a great example of that unless it can become price competitive with traditional energy within a reasonable period of time.

When you pump too much money into trying to support / launch an industry, you run the risk of people spending that money it ways that may never payoff. In my opinion, we are doing this in the renewable industry. I looked at a residential solar system. The gov't (Fed and State) was willing to pay for essentially half the system with tax credits (not deductions, but credits) and the system still had at least a 10 year payoff if I believed the numbers the sales guy was pitching regarding cost savings on my elect bill. That's insane. The thing probably would need to be replaced by the time it paid off. Let's keep working on R&D (some level of gov't research grants etc.) until the product is somewhat viable in the marketplace. Trying to force that product into the marketplace with it's current cost/benefit is simply wasting wealth. That's why all these solar companies are failing or struggling.

At some point, ethanol, solar, wind etc have to be able to stand on their own two feet within reason. The issue to me is how much distortion (increased cost while trying to incubate an industry) in both size and time frame is appropriate.

Yes, the market should be "free within reason" not absolutely free. I think we've gone a bit too far with the distortions in the renewable energy industry. When the economy is suffering, let's focus on the cheapest energy we can get (natural gas in the U.S.) and pump money into alternatives when times are good. Maybe that is the quickest route to recovery.

 

[Pesqueeb]

At some point, ethanol, solar, wind etc have to be able to stand on their own two feet within reason. The issue to me is how much distortion (increased cost while trying to incubate an industry) in both size and time frame is appropriate.

So, 100 or so years just like the oil industry? Or just the 50 ish years that nuclear power has gotten?