http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_195764.asp
Quote
House Republicans voted yesterday to protect corporate welfare for big oil companies while cutting to the bone programs average Americans depend on. While the U.S. House of Representatives was working on a stopgap funding bill to avert a government shutdown, House Democrats offered a motion that would have taken away tax subsidies from the five largest oil companies, saving tens of billions of taxpayer dollars. The motion was defeated with every Republican voting against it.
Even the CEO of Shell Oil said these subsidies weren't needed given the high price of oil. How can Republicans argue to cut vital government programs but then vote against ending subsidies to the most profitable companies in the world?
Subsidies to people? That's called welfare and welfare is bad.
Subsidies to corporations? That's just good business!
Seriously, though, it's indefensible when the companies say "we don't need your money" and we keep giving it to them all while complaining about budget problems.
Quote from: nathanm on March 03, 2011, 01:24:04 PM
Seriously, though, it's indefensible when the companies say "we don't need your money" and we keep giving it to them all while complaining about budget problems.
Well, their CEO says "no no no" but their lobbyists say "yes yes yes".
So not increasing taxes on a company is now giving it subsidies?
Wait, this is like my tax breaks being welfare isn't it!
All in the wording I guess.
Quote from: TeeDub on March 03, 2011, 02:08:05 PM
So not increasing taxes on a company is now giving it subsidies?
Wait, this is like my tax breaks being welfare isn't it!
All in the wording I guess.
Removing a deduction is not "increasing taxes on a company." We give them the deduction to incent a particular behavior or compensate them for some other cost we impose.
If you want to permanently decrease taxes for companies, you do that by lowering the tax rate, not by enacting some tax loophole.
Quote from: nathanm on March 03, 2011, 02:22:58 PM
Removing a deduction is not "increasing taxes on a company." We give them the deduction to incent a particular behavior or compensate them for some other cost we impose.
If you want to permanently decrease taxes for companies, you do that by lowering the tax rate, not by enacting some tax loophole.
I stand by my statement...
"Not raising taxes is now a subsidy?"
While I appreciate your creative doublespeak, just call it what it is.
Quote from: TeeDub on March 03, 2011, 02:32:48 PM
I stand by my statement...
"Not raising taxes is now a subsidy?"
While I appreciate your creative doublespeak, just call it what it is.
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Quote from: we vs us on March 03, 2011, 02:39:38 PM
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Or a thumb, depending on your skill level.
Quote from: TeeDub on March 03, 2011, 02:32:48 PM
I stand by my statement...
"Not raising taxes is now a subsidy?"
While I appreciate your creative doublespeak, just call it what it is.
The tax code once said "the tax rate for corporations ix
x%. Later, it was amended to add a tax break to help out the oil companies while oil prices were in the crapper. Oil prices are no longer in the crapper, but the special tax break continues to exist. You can think of it however you like, but let's be clear about what actually happened.
Edited to add: Also, taxes can't always go down. Sometimes, they must increase. Unless you'd like to return to the Articles of Confederation? If so, I suggest working towards a Constitutional convention.
Quote from: nathanm on March 03, 2011, 03:36:07 PM
The tax code once said "the tax rate for corporations ix x%. Later, it was amended to add a tax break to help out the oil companies while oil prices were in the crapper. Oil prices are no longer in the crapper, but the special tax break continues to exist. You can think of it however you like, but let's be clear about what actually happened.
Edited to add: Also, taxes can't always go down. Sometimes, they must increase. Unless you'd like to return to the Articles of Confederation? If so, I suggest working towards a Constitutional convention.
Which tax break are we referring to? The Oil Depletion Allowance or another one?
I thought this was a fair article on tax subsidies for oil companies...
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/business/04bptax.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
Nik,
You can't be surprised by this. After all this is the same party that thought it was a good idea to fight the wrong war and kill 4,000 of our kids at a cost of about a trillion dollars (depending on who you listen to.)
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on March 03, 2011, 07:37:40 PM
Nik,
You can't be surprised by this. After all this is the same party that thought it was a good idea to fight the wrong war and kill 4,000 of our kids at a cost of about a trillion dollars (depending on who you listen to.)
I know Eisenhower sent some early advisors but I believe LBJ escalated the situation in Viet Nam after defeating Goldwater by painting him as a warmonger. (LBJ was not a Republican for those here too young to remember.) I seem to remember losing a few of our "kids" there too.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on March 03, 2011, 07:37:40 PM
Nik,
You can't be surprised by this. After all this is the same party that thought it was a good idea to fight the wrong war and kill 4,000 of our kids at a cost of about a trillion dollars (depending on who you listen to.)
Don't worry. If you just vote for Obama he will close Guantanamo and bring the troops home.
Red,
When did you turn against the Viet Nam war?
Eisenhour "took over" from the French when Ho Chi Minh was kickin' their backside. We sent advisors. Then more. Then JFK took over and sent more. Then LBJ. And by 1968, we were at 500,000+.
LBJ built it up in about 3 years. And then we got Tricky. Who milked it through another 7 years. From his election in 1968 until early 1975. And it cost a few hundred billion. Was justified only by the "fight against Communism" argument.
And before any of that, the US, Britain, and Russia decided that the country would be split in half with north going to China, and the south going to Britain (Potsdam treaty).
The history really goes back to about 1910 or so. And we have a long history of being wrong there, too.
It killed 55,000+ of us. Which segues into the Traveling wall Viet Nam War Memorial, coming to Tulsa in September, 2011. All who have not seen it owe it to themselves and their kids/grandkids to visit this when it gets here. It will be during the week of 9/11. Mark your calendars!! Sponsored by the Union schools JrROTC.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on March 04, 2011, 01:56:12 PM
Red,
When did you turn against the Viet Nam war?
About 1966. I was against the war, not our guys there. Also, micro management of the war was is something we were supposed to have learned about Viet Nam. (Disclaimer: Draft lottery number 38)
QuoteEisenhour "took over" from the French when Ho Chi Minh was kickin' their backside. We sent advisors. Then more. Then JFK took over and sent more. Then LBJ. And by 1968, we were at 500,000+.
Eisenhower, not Eisenhour.
Trying to preserve French colonialism. I felt no duty to
my country to go to Nam.
As I remember from a PBS special on the Viet Nam War, Ho Chi Minh came to us for help before he went to the Communists. They wanted the French out. We sided with the left over government in the south because the French were our "buddies". I'm sure it wasn't quite that simple. The "War against Communism" was the final excuse.
QuoteLBJ built it up in about 3 years. And then we got Tricky. Who milked it through another 7 years. From his election in 1968 until early 1975. And it cost a few hundred billion. Was justified only by the "fight against Communism" argument.
We were pulling out by spring 1973, just as I was graduating from Navy Electronics School.
QuoteAnd before any of that, the US, Britain, and Russia decided that the country would be split in half with north going to China, and the south going to Britain (Potsdam treaty).
The history really goes back to about 1910 or so. And we have a long history of being wrong there, too.
It killed 55,000+ of us. Which segues into the Traveling wall Viet Nam War Memorial, coming to Tulsa in September, 2011. All who have not seen it owe it to themselves and their kids/grandkids to visit this when it gets here. It will be during the week of 9/11. Mark your calendars!! Sponsored by the Union schools JrROTC.
Yes, Eisenhower. (Lottery #364. )
How about that - about the same time I figured it out! We got more in common every day! Did you make it to the 1968 moratorium demonstrations at the "U"? (TU) (To paraphrase a movie, "I love the smell of tear gas in the morning. It smells like....victory!)
Ho Chi Minh was a communist back as early as the twenties. Very much a nationalist who wanted the French out no matter who helped. He would have taken our help as well as China.
And I will keep inserting this about the traveling wall at every opportunity. If one hasn't seen it, one should. (I've seen the traveling wall 3 times and the full memorial is on the bucket list.) Take your kids.
Traveling wall Viet Nam War Memorial, coming to Tulsa in September, 2011. All who have not seen it owe it to themselves and their kids/grandkids to visit this when it gets here. It will be during the week of 9/11. Mark your calendars!! Sponsored by the Union schools JrROTC.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on March 06, 2011, 09:56:51 PM
Yes, Eisenhower. (Lottery #364. )
I would have loved Lottery #364. My brother was about 150 or so. Fortunately for mom and dad, only I had to go. My college roomie (fall 1969) had #1, until he found out he was a year too young. The next year he drew 300+. There was a LOT of alcohol involved that first evening of the first lottery. The youngsters of today wouldn't understand.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on March 06, 2011, 09:56:51 PM
Did you make it to the 1968 moratorium demonstrations at the "U"? (TU) (To paraphrase a movie, "I love the smell of tear gas in the morning. It smells like....victory!)
I thought the big moratorium was '69 but maybe not. University of Delaware called a day off. Mom and I went fishing on the Chesapeake Bay where we kept our boat. I bought a frying pan and really stunk up the common cooking area.
It was 1969. Tet was 68.
Friend out of high school got a mid range number, so he went ahead and enlisted in Navy so he could ride around on a boat, instead of walking. Had a good deal. Spent his time base in Subic Bay. Rode up and down the coast in a boat (LST, I think?) and shot machine guns from time to time. Sank every little boat they could find. Then back to Subic for a little more R & R.
He got pretty easy duty.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on March 06, 2011, 10:22:49 PM
It was 1969. Tet was 68.
Friend out of high school got a mid range number, so he went ahead and enlisted in Navy so he could ride around on a boat, instead of walking. Had a good deal. Spent his time base in Subic Bay. Rode up and down the coast in a boat (LST, I think?) and shot machine guns from time to time. Sank every little boat they could find. Then back to Subic for a little more R & R.
He got pretty easy duty.
I was even luckier. We started getting out in the spring of '73. Thank you Tricky Dicky.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on March 06, 2011, 10:22:49 PM
It was 1969. Tet was 68.
Friend out of high school got a mid range number, so he went ahead and enlisted in Navy so he could ride around on a boat, instead of walking. Had a good deal. Spent his time base in Subic Bay. Rode up and down the coast in a boat (LST, I think?) and shot machine guns from time to time. Sank every little boat they could find. Then back to Subic for a little more R & R.
He got pretty easy duty.
I knew I was going to be drafted. I thought it would be better to serve on an Aircraft Carrier that in an unit that had to carry their toilet paper in their helmets.