|
|
On October 28 2012 10:00 Danglars wrote:Of course you'll have to find the left sources that make those allegations. I gave it a read. Here's one source from the right analyzing what poverty assistance means today.Show nested quote +
New data compiled by the Republican side of the Senate Budget Committee shows that, last year, the United States spent over $60,000 to support welfare programs per each household that is in poverty. The calculations are based on data from the Census, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Congressional Research Services.
"According to the Census’s American Community Survey, the number of households with incomes below the poverty line in 2011 was 16,807,795," the Senate Budget Committee notes. "If you divide total federal and state spending by the number of households with incomes below the poverty line, the average spending per household in poverty was $61,194 in 2011."
This dollar figure is almost three times the amount the average household on poverty lives on per year. "If the spending on these programs were converted into cash, and distributed exclusively to the nation’s households below the poverty line, this cash amount would be over 2.5 times the federal poverty threshold for a family of four, which in 2011 was $22,350 (see table in this link)," the Republicans on the Senate Budget Committee note.
To be clear, not all households living below the poverty line receive $61,194 worth of assistance per year. After all, many above the poverty line also receive benefits from social welfare programs (e.g. pell grants).
But if welfare is meant to help bring those below the poverty line to a better place, it helps demonstrate that numbers do not add up.
As for the welfare programs, the Republicans on the Senate Budget Committee note:
A congressional report from CRS recently revealed that the United States now spends more on means-tested welfare than any other item in the federal budget—including Social Security, Medicare, or national defense. Including state contributions to the roughly 80 federal poverty programs, the total amount spent in 2011 was approximately $1 trillion. Federal spending alone on these programs was up 32 percent since 2008.
The U.S. Census Bureau estimated that almost 110 million Americans received some form of means-tested welfare in 2011. These figures exclude entitlements like Medicare and Social Security to which people contribute, and they refer exclusively to low-income direct and indirect financial support—such as food stamps, public housing, child care, energy assistance, direct cash aid, etc. For instance, 47 million Americans currently receive food stamps, and USDA has engaged in an aggressive outreach campaign to boost enrollment even further, arguing that “every dollar of SNAP benefits generates $1.84 in the economy… It’s the most direct stimulus you can get.” (Economic growth, however, is weaker this year than the two years prior, even as food stamp “stimulus” has reached an all-time high.)
Spending $60,000 per household in welfare programs, administered by both federal government and states? And these people are said to be in poverty? (Note that it includes state contributions to federal programs, and not every dime is to the poor since some, like pell grants, affect both. Still, it's a starting point for a conversation on spending cuts). I don't know if Romney is a guy I'd trust to fight the fight on this, but his pick of Ryan gives me hope that they'll come in there with serious plans of reform. As stupid as it sounds, cut the middleman and give something like a $50,000+ check from the government to every poor household! Ridiculous.
So this study takes:
All welfare money spent by the government(not all welfare spent on those in poverty, ALL the welfare spending, which has increased anyway thanks to the recession lowering incomes) and divides it up among the households in poverty, with the sole purpose of making it look like $60,000 is spent per household in poverty? While keeping in mind that today, we have about 46 million Americans in poverty while the study itself states 110 million Americans receive some form of said welfare(over double the amount of the people living in poverty)?
Sounds like a great study. It's also not related to what DoubleReed posted at all.
|
On October 28 2012 10:14 Josealtron wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2012 10:00 Danglars wrote:Of course you'll have to find the left sources that make those allegations. I gave it a read. Here's one source from the right analyzing what poverty assistance means today.
New data compiled by the Republican side of the Senate Budget Committee shows that, last year, the United States spent over $60,000 to support welfare programs per each household that is in poverty. The calculations are based on data from the Census, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Congressional Research Services.
"According to the Census’s American Community Survey, the number of households with incomes below the poverty line in 2011 was 16,807,795," the Senate Budget Committee notes. "If you divide total federal and state spending by the number of households with incomes below the poverty line, the average spending per household in poverty was $61,194 in 2011."
This dollar figure is almost three times the amount the average household on poverty lives on per year. "If the spending on these programs were converted into cash, and distributed exclusively to the nation’s households below the poverty line, this cash amount would be over 2.5 times the federal poverty threshold for a family of four, which in 2011 was $22,350 (see table in this link)," the Republicans on the Senate Budget Committee note.
To be clear, not all households living below the poverty line receive $61,194 worth of assistance per year. After all, many above the poverty line also receive benefits from social welfare programs (e.g. pell grants).
But if welfare is meant to help bring those below the poverty line to a better place, it helps demonstrate that numbers do not add up.
As for the welfare programs, the Republicans on the Senate Budget Committee note:
A congressional report from CRS recently revealed that the United States now spends more on means-tested welfare than any other item in the federal budget—including Social Security, Medicare, or national defense. Including state contributions to the roughly 80 federal poverty programs, the total amount spent in 2011 was approximately $1 trillion. Federal spending alone on these programs was up 32 percent since 2008.
The U.S. Census Bureau estimated that almost 110 million Americans received some form of means-tested welfare in 2011. These figures exclude entitlements like Medicare and Social Security to which people contribute, and they refer exclusively to low-income direct and indirect financial support—such as food stamps, public housing, child care, energy assistance, direct cash aid, etc. For instance, 47 million Americans currently receive food stamps, and USDA has engaged in an aggressive outreach campaign to boost enrollment even further, arguing that “every dollar of SNAP benefits generates $1.84 in the economy… It’s the most direct stimulus you can get.” (Economic growth, however, is weaker this year than the two years prior, even as food stamp “stimulus” has reached an all-time high.)
Spending $60,000 per household in welfare programs, administered by both federal government and states? And these people are said to be in poverty? (Note that it includes state contributions to federal programs, and not every dime is to the poor since some, like pell grants, affect both. Still, it's a starting point for a conversation on spending cuts). I don't know if Romney is a guy I'd trust to fight the fight on this, but his pick of Ryan gives me hope that they'll come in there with serious plans of reform. As stupid as it sounds, cut the middleman and give something like a $50,000+ check from the government to every poor household! Ridiculous. So this study takes: All welfare money spent by the government(not all welfare spent on those in poverty, ALL the welfare spending, which has increased anyway thanks to the recession lowering incomes) and divides it up among the people in poverty, with the sole purpose of making it look like $60,000 is spent per person in poverty? While keeping in mind that today, we have about 46 million Americans in poverty while the study itself states 110 million Americans receive some form of said welfare(over double the amount of the people living in poverty)? Sounds like a great study. It's also not related to what DoubleReed posted at all.
The first number is households, not people. It's $60,000 per household.
But yea, welfare problems isn't corruption. It's waste. Not really related.
|
On October 28 2012 10:11 DoubleReed wrote:
Wow, that does look concerning.
I don't know why it singles out food stamps, considering food stamps is probably not what's increasing that value at all. Why doesn't it tell the breakdown of what the $60,000 is? I feel like it's kind of a useless study if I don't have that. Is it Healthcare? Public Housing? What's blowing up the figure?
THe mysterious middle man.
It actually is always that way. Money going from taxpayers very rarely arrive even in half to the people they were destined to.
|
On October 28 2012 10:17 naastyOne wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2012 10:11 DoubleReed wrote:
Wow, that does look concerning.
I don't know why it singles out food stamps, considering food stamps is probably not what's increasing that value at all. Why doesn't it tell the breakdown of what the $60,000 is? I feel like it's kind of a useless study if I don't have that. Is it Healthcare? Public Housing? What's blowing up the figure? THe mysterious middle man. It actually is always that way. Money going from taxpayers very rarely arrive even in half to the people they were destined to.
Evidence, please.
|
Northern Ireland23767 Posts
That said, I still don't feel the point about the oil industry being subsidised that was raised earlier has really been addressed. I mean to subsidise such a lucrative industry that would be profitable without such intervention seems, on the face of it to be somewhat against the whole free market rhetoric.
Is there any particular reason these subsidies exist, i.e to maintain competitiveness internationally or what?
|
On October 28 2012 10:16 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2012 10:14 Josealtron wrote:On October 28 2012 10:00 Danglars wrote:Of course you'll have to find the left sources that make those allegations. I gave it a read. Here's one source from the right analyzing what poverty assistance means today.
New data compiled by the Republican side of the Senate Budget Committee shows that, last year, the United States spent over $60,000 to support welfare programs per each household that is in poverty. The calculations are based on data from the Census, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Congressional Research Services.
"According to the Census’s American Community Survey, the number of households with incomes below the poverty line in 2011 was 16,807,795," the Senate Budget Committee notes. "If you divide total federal and state spending by the number of households with incomes below the poverty line, the average spending per household in poverty was $61,194 in 2011."
This dollar figure is almost three times the amount the average household on poverty lives on per year. "If the spending on these programs were converted into cash, and distributed exclusively to the nation’s households below the poverty line, this cash amount would be over 2.5 times the federal poverty threshold for a family of four, which in 2011 was $22,350 (see table in this link)," the Republicans on the Senate Budget Committee note.
To be clear, not all households living below the poverty line receive $61,194 worth of assistance per year. After all, many above the poverty line also receive benefits from social welfare programs (e.g. pell grants).
But if welfare is meant to help bring those below the poverty line to a better place, it helps demonstrate that numbers do not add up.
As for the welfare programs, the Republicans on the Senate Budget Committee note:
A congressional report from CRS recently revealed that the United States now spends more on means-tested welfare than any other item in the federal budget—including Social Security, Medicare, or national defense. Including state contributions to the roughly 80 federal poverty programs, the total amount spent in 2011 was approximately $1 trillion. Federal spending alone on these programs was up 32 percent since 2008.
The U.S. Census Bureau estimated that almost 110 million Americans received some form of means-tested welfare in 2011. These figures exclude entitlements like Medicare and Social Security to which people contribute, and they refer exclusively to low-income direct and indirect financial support—such as food stamps, public housing, child care, energy assistance, direct cash aid, etc. For instance, 47 million Americans currently receive food stamps, and USDA has engaged in an aggressive outreach campaign to boost enrollment even further, arguing that “every dollar of SNAP benefits generates $1.84 in the economy… It’s the most direct stimulus you can get.” (Economic growth, however, is weaker this year than the two years prior, even as food stamp “stimulus” has reached an all-time high.)
Spending $60,000 per household in welfare programs, administered by both federal government and states? And these people are said to be in poverty? (Note that it includes state contributions to federal programs, and not every dime is to the poor since some, like pell grants, affect both. Still, it's a starting point for a conversation on spending cuts). I don't know if Romney is a guy I'd trust to fight the fight on this, but his pick of Ryan gives me hope that they'll come in there with serious plans of reform. As stupid as it sounds, cut the middleman and give something like a $50,000+ check from the government to every poor household! Ridiculous. So this study takes: All welfare money spent by the government(not all welfare spent on those in poverty, ALL the welfare spending, which has increased anyway thanks to the recession lowering incomes) and divides it up among the people in poverty, with the sole purpose of making it look like $60,000 is spent per person in poverty? While keeping in mind that today, we have about 46 million Americans in poverty while the study itself states 110 million Americans receive some form of said welfare(over double the amount of the people living in poverty)? Sounds like a great study. It's also not related to what DoubleReed posted at all. The first number is households, not people. It's $60,000 per household. But yea, welfare problems isn't corruption. It's waste. Not really related.
My bad. I don't think that really negates my point, though.
|
|
|
On October 28 2012 09:59 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2012 09:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 28 2012 09:27 DoubleReed wrote:On October 28 2012 09:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 28 2012 09:09 DoubleReed wrote:On October 28 2012 09:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 28 2012 08:59 DoubleReed wrote:On October 28 2012 08:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 28 2012 08:36 DoubleReed wrote:On October 28 2012 07:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Be more corrupt than Obama.
Honestly, I don't know how else to respond to random partisan blathering. Partisan blathering? Don't do that. Don't shut down the conversation like that. That's not a serious answer, and I have no idea what that means. Where are you disagreeing? Do you honestly think Obama is more corrupt than Romney? Do you think Romney will do more to try to rid corruption out of Washington than Obama? And I'm asking a serious question. What would a politician have to do to lose your vote simply because you were convinced they were completely bought off? If you have evidence of corruption, show the evidence. Otherwise you are connecting whatever dots exist in your head and I have no idea what you are talking about. Oh really? You just don't think he's corrupt. All right, well I guess I'll start with the oil/energy policy thing. I'm just doing quick google searches here... http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/24/us/romney-would-give-reins-to-states-on-drilling-on-federal-lands.html?_r=2&hp"An individual close to the Romney campaign said that Mr. Romney’s staff drafted the proposal in consultation with industry executives, including Harold Hamm, an Oklahoma billionaire who is the chairman of the campaign’s energy advisory committee and chief executive of Continental Resources, an oil and gas driller." The tax plan. Well, that he's been touting forever. 20% flat decrease. That favors the wealthy by definition. Corporate Personhood: http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/mitt-romney-doubles-down-corporate-peObama's at least said that he favors an amendment against Citizen's United: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_CommissionFlip-flopping... do I really need to go into it? Yeah, consulting an industry that you want to change regulations on is standard form. That's what regulators themselves do. So I don't see how that on its face equates to corruption. It seems like you are calling policies you disagree with corruption. You know, I think that's a change in politics. I think back in the day a politician would have been immediately called out on being corrupt if he said that he just met with oil executives and they gave him his energy policy. Nowadays it's standard issue. I don't know where I'd go to find out if that's true. Either way, no, that is not 'standard form.' Okay, but I understand that you are not convinced of him being corrupt from that. So again, I ask you: What would a politician have to do in order for you to just refuse to vote for him because he is so corrupt? I'm asking you because I don't know what evidence I could possibly provide that would convince you. So give me an example or something. Did the energy industry really just hand him an energy policy? There's a difference between seeking input (entirely appropriate!) and doing as told. That's certainly what I'm claiming. I don't know if I could possibly give you a source that doesn't look horrendously biased considering what the charge is. Edit: Here's a more general article: http://www.thenation.com/blog/167594/meet-mitt-man-big-oilEdit 2: Here's an Obama article meeting with top executives. It shows that Obama said a lot of positive things and there was also bits of discord. That sounds less corrupt to me. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/16/business/16obama.html Skimming through these articles... it just looks like disagreement over the policy. You don't consider tax subsidies for the most profitable companies in the world corruption? YOUR money is being paid to companies who make billions in profit. I would think that as a conservative, you would be pissed. http://priceofoil.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/FIN.USCapitolSubsidyGraphicFlyer.pdf
Sure they suck but they've been in place for years and they are very small ~$3B. They are also mainly targeted at drilling companies - not the oil majors (Exxon, etc. though they still get them). I also don't recall Romney saying he's for keeping them, just that he's not for specifically targeting them for elimination.
|
On October 28 2012 10:00 Danglars wrote:Of course you'll have to find the left sources that make those allegations. I gave it a read. Here's one source from the right analyzing what poverty assistance means today.Show nested quote +
New data compiled by the Republican side of the Senate Budget Committee shows that, last year, the United States spent over $60,000 to support welfare programs per each household that is in poverty. The calculations are based on data from the Census, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Congressional Research Services.
"According to the Census’s American Community Survey, the number of households with incomes below the poverty line in 2011 was 16,807,795," the Senate Budget Committee notes. "If you divide total federal and state spending by the number of households with incomes below the poverty line, the average spending per household in poverty was $61,194 in 2011."
This dollar figure is almost three times the amount the average household on poverty lives on per year. "If the spending on these programs were converted into cash, and distributed exclusively to the nation’s households below the poverty line, this cash amount would be over 2.5 times the federal poverty threshold for a family of four, which in 2011 was $22,350 (see table in this link)," the Republicans on the Senate Budget Committee note.
To be clear, not all households living below the poverty line receive $61,194 worth of assistance per year. After all, many above the poverty line also receive benefits from social welfare programs (e.g. pell grants).
But if welfare is meant to help bring those below the poverty line to a better place, it helps demonstrate that numbers do not add up.
As for the welfare programs, the Republicans on the Senate Budget Committee note:
A congressional report from CRS recently revealed that the United States now spends more on means-tested welfare than any other item in the federal budget—including Social Security, Medicare, or national defense. Including state contributions to the roughly 80 federal poverty programs, the total amount spent in 2011 was approximately $1 trillion. Federal spending alone on these programs was up 32 percent since 2008.
The U.S. Census Bureau estimated that almost 110 million Americans received some form of means-tested welfare in 2011. These figures exclude entitlements like Medicare and Social Security to which people contribute, and they refer exclusively to low-income direct and indirect financial support—such as food stamps, public housing, child care, energy assistance, direct cash aid, etc. For instance, 47 million Americans currently receive food stamps, and USDA has engaged in an aggressive outreach campaign to boost enrollment even further, arguing that “every dollar of SNAP benefits generates $1.84 in the economy… It’s the most direct stimulus you can get.” (Economic growth, however, is weaker this year than the two years prior, even as food stamp “stimulus” has reached an all-time high.)
Spending $60,000 per household in welfare programs, administered by both federal government and states? And these people are said to be in poverty? (Note that it includes state contributions to federal programs, and not every dime is to the poor since some, like pell grants, affect both. Still, it's a starting point for a conversation on spending cuts). I don't know if Romney is a guy I'd trust to fight the fight on this, but his pick of Ryan gives me hope that they'll come in there with serious plans of reform. As stupid as it sounds, cut the middleman and give something like a $50,000+ check from the government to every poor household! Ridiculous.
Without a model of distribution to go along with these numbers, it is impossible to glean the specific nature of the cost inflation, given the huge number of possible factors. Systemic inefficiencies are likely to blame here, but where do they manifest and how might they best be fought? You mention cutting a 50,000$ check to poor households. Now, I realize you were being facetious, but what if that 50,000 in services ends up costing low income families 70,000 due to discrepancies in access and quality? Healthcare and food provision require idiosyncratic measure of efficacy given their additional factors. The fact of the matter is that many government programs require long overdue revision and analysis (Obamacare), not line item gutting and privatization. Ryan's economic policies amount to fundamental indictments of the government welfare system; we need some fundamental evidence, not basic numbers without nuance nor context of provision.
|
That article is a combination of state and federal aid. It doesn't tell you how much comes from where, or what it is spent on. It's also from the weekly standard. Forgive me if I am skeptical.
|
Wow, the Des Moines Register is endorsing Romney. First time that they have backed a republican since Nixon.
|
On October 28 2012 10:27 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2012 10:00 Danglars wrote:Of course you'll have to find the left sources that make those allegations. I gave it a read. Here's one source from the right analyzing what poverty assistance means today.
New data compiled by the Republican side of the Senate Budget Committee shows that, last year, the United States spent over $60,000 to support welfare programs per each household that is in poverty. The calculations are based on data from the Census, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Congressional Research Services.
"According to the Census’s American Community Survey, the number of households with incomes below the poverty line in 2011 was 16,807,795," the Senate Budget Committee notes. "If you divide total federal and state spending by the number of households with incomes below the poverty line, the average spending per household in poverty was $61,194 in 2011."
This dollar figure is almost three times the amount the average household on poverty lives on per year. "If the spending on these programs were converted into cash, and distributed exclusively to the nation’s households below the poverty line, this cash amount would be over 2.5 times the federal poverty threshold for a family of four, which in 2011 was $22,350 (see table in this link)," the Republicans on the Senate Budget Committee note.
To be clear, not all households living below the poverty line receive $61,194 worth of assistance per year. After all, many above the poverty line also receive benefits from social welfare programs (e.g. pell grants).
But if welfare is meant to help bring those below the poverty line to a better place, it helps demonstrate that numbers do not add up.
As for the welfare programs, the Republicans on the Senate Budget Committee note:
A congressional report from CRS recently revealed that the United States now spends more on means-tested welfare than any other item in the federal budget—including Social Security, Medicare, or national defense. Including state contributions to the roughly 80 federal poverty programs, the total amount spent in 2011 was approximately $1 trillion. Federal spending alone on these programs was up 32 percent since 2008.
The U.S. Census Bureau estimated that almost 110 million Americans received some form of means-tested welfare in 2011. These figures exclude entitlements like Medicare and Social Security to which people contribute, and they refer exclusively to low-income direct and indirect financial support—such as food stamps, public housing, child care, energy assistance, direct cash aid, etc. For instance, 47 million Americans currently receive food stamps, and USDA has engaged in an aggressive outreach campaign to boost enrollment even further, arguing that “every dollar of SNAP benefits generates $1.84 in the economy… It’s the most direct stimulus you can get.” (Economic growth, however, is weaker this year than the two years prior, even as food stamp “stimulus” has reached an all-time high.)
Spending $60,000 per household in welfare programs, administered by both federal government and states? And these people are said to be in poverty? (Note that it includes state contributions to federal programs, and not every dime is to the poor since some, like pell grants, affect both. Still, it's a starting point for a conversation on spending cuts). I don't know if Romney is a guy I'd trust to fight the fight on this, but his pick of Ryan gives me hope that they'll come in there with serious plans of reform. As stupid as it sounds, cut the middleman and give something like a $50,000+ check from the government to every poor household! Ridiculous. Without a model of distribution to go along with these numbers, it is impossible to glean the specific nature of the cost inflation, given the huge number of possible factors. Systemic inefficiencies are likely to blame here, but where do they manifest and how might they best be fought? You mention cutting a 50,000$ check to poor households. Now, I realize you were being facetious, but what if that 50,000 in services ends up costing low income families 70,000 due to discrepancies in access and quality? Healthcare and food provision require idiosyncratic measure of efficacy given their additional factors. The fact of the matter is that many government programs require long overdue revision and analysis (Obamacare), not line item gutting and privatization. Ryan's economic policies amount to fundamental indictments of the government welfare system; we need some fundamental evidence, not basic numbers without nuance nor context of provision.
I'll throw this in there - not all the spending in limited to households specifically in poverty and that inflates to 'per household' number. In other words, the denominator is too small.
|
On October 28 2012 10:18 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2012 10:17 naastyOne wrote:On October 28 2012 10:11 DoubleReed wrote:
Wow, that does look concerning.
I don't know why it singles out food stamps, considering food stamps is probably not what's increasing that value at all. Why doesn't it tell the breakdown of what the $60,000 is? I feel like it's kind of a useless study if I don't have that. Is it Healthcare? Public Housing? What's blowing up the figure? THe mysterious middle man. It actually is always that way. Money going from taxpayers very rarely arrive even in half to the people they were destined to. Evidence, please.
For US?
For other countries, that is more or less the fact.
You think US is different?
Again, that doesn`t nececerely meaned that the money are stolen, they are just spent in wages, studies, ex, and the amount that actually arrives to the people is lower.
Besides, most goverment people know how to write papers.
On October 28 2012 10:19 Wombat_NI wrote:
That said, I still don't feel the point about the oil industry being subsidised that was raised earlier has really been addressed. I mean to subsidise such a lucrative industry that would be profitable without such intervention seems, on the face of it to be somewhat against the whole free market rhetoric.
Is there any particular reason these subsidies exist, i.e to maintain competitiveness internationally or what?
One, it is extreemly hard to repeal something in US, AFAIK, the FDR laws subsidising farmers during the great depression, are still in force. OR so i heard, so oil subsidies could be just very old thing.
Then. THe question is what oil companies are subsidiesed, big or small or reguardless? What is subsidised? New equipment? Searching new deposits?
If the goverment subsidieses small energy companies, to keep the energy market from being monopolised, and prices hiked, that is fine.
Also, any industry will be "profitable" if it is almost impossible to replace it`s products, the uestion is, what price do others will have to pay for the goods.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 28 2012 10:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2012 09:59 DoubleReed wrote:On October 28 2012 09:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 28 2012 09:27 DoubleReed wrote:On October 28 2012 09:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 28 2012 09:09 DoubleReed wrote:On October 28 2012 09:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 28 2012 08:59 DoubleReed wrote:On October 28 2012 08:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 28 2012 08:36 DoubleReed wrote:
[quote]
Partisan blathering? Don't do that. Don't shut down the conversation like that. That's not a serious answer, and I have no idea what that means. Where are you disagreeing?
Do you honestly think Obama is more corrupt than Romney? Do you think Romney will do more to try to rid corruption out of Washington than Obama? And I'm asking a serious question. What would a politician have to do to lose your vote simply because you were convinced they were completely bought off? If you have evidence of corruption, show the evidence. Otherwise you are connecting whatever dots exist in your head and I have no idea what you are talking about. Oh really? You just don't think he's corrupt. All right, well I guess I'll start with the oil/energy policy thing. I'm just doing quick google searches here... http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/24/us/romney-would-give-reins-to-states-on-drilling-on-federal-lands.html?_r=2&hp"An individual close to the Romney campaign said that Mr. Romney’s staff drafted the proposal in consultation with industry executives, including Harold Hamm, an Oklahoma billionaire who is the chairman of the campaign’s energy advisory committee and chief executive of Continental Resources, an oil and gas driller." The tax plan. Well, that he's been touting forever. 20% flat decrease. That favors the wealthy by definition. Corporate Personhood: http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/mitt-romney-doubles-down-corporate-peObama's at least said that he favors an amendment against Citizen's United: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_CommissionFlip-flopping... do I really need to go into it? Yeah, consulting an industry that you want to change regulations on is standard form. That's what regulators themselves do. So I don't see how that on its face equates to corruption. It seems like you are calling policies you disagree with corruption. You know, I think that's a change in politics. I think back in the day a politician would have been immediately called out on being corrupt if he said that he just met with oil executives and they gave him his energy policy. Nowadays it's standard issue. I don't know where I'd go to find out if that's true. Either way, no, that is not 'standard form.' Okay, but I understand that you are not convinced of him being corrupt from that. So again, I ask you: What would a politician have to do in order for you to just refuse to vote for him because he is so corrupt? I'm asking you because I don't know what evidence I could possibly provide that would convince you. So give me an example or something. Did the energy industry really just hand him an energy policy? There's a difference between seeking input (entirely appropriate!) and doing as told. That's certainly what I'm claiming. I don't know if I could possibly give you a source that doesn't look horrendously biased considering what the charge is. Edit: Here's a more general article: http://www.thenation.com/blog/167594/meet-mitt-man-big-oilEdit 2: Here's an Obama article meeting with top executives. It shows that Obama said a lot of positive things and there was also bits of discord. That sounds less corrupt to me. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/16/business/16obama.html Skimming through these articles... it just looks like disagreement over the policy. You don't consider tax subsidies for the most profitable companies in the world corruption? YOUR money is being paid to companies who make billions in profit. I would think that as a conservative, you would be pissed. http://priceofoil.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/FIN.USCapitolSubsidyGraphicFlyer.pdf Sure they suck but they've been in place for years and they are very small ~$3B. They are also mainly targeted at drilling companies - not the oil majors (Exxon, etc. though they still get them). I also don't recall Romney saying he's for keeping them, just that he's not for specifically targeting them for elimination.
I know you're comparing it to the bigger picture, but please don't ever say $3 billion is "very small." Also, it's beside the point: there's no reason to subsidize them as far as I can tell. If there are legitimate reasons, please explain. Weren't Republicans against this kind of stuff in the first place?
|
On October 28 2012 11:04 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2012 10:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 28 2012 09:59 DoubleReed wrote:On October 28 2012 09:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 28 2012 09:27 DoubleReed wrote:On October 28 2012 09:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 28 2012 09:09 DoubleReed wrote:On October 28 2012 09:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Yeah, consulting an industry that you want to change regulations on is standard form. That's what regulators themselves do. So I don't see how that on its face equates to corruption. It seems like you are calling policies you disagree with corruption. You know, I think that's a change in politics. I think back in the day a politician would have been immediately called out on being corrupt if he said that he just met with oil executives and they gave him his energy policy. Nowadays it's standard issue. I don't know where I'd go to find out if that's true. Either way, no, that is not 'standard form.' Okay, but I understand that you are not convinced of him being corrupt from that. So again, I ask you: What would a politician have to do in order for you to just refuse to vote for him because he is so corrupt? I'm asking you because I don't know what evidence I could possibly provide that would convince you. So give me an example or something. Did the energy industry really just hand him an energy policy? There's a difference between seeking input (entirely appropriate!) and doing as told. That's certainly what I'm claiming. I don't know if I could possibly give you a source that doesn't look horrendously biased considering what the charge is. Edit: Here's a more general article: http://www.thenation.com/blog/167594/meet-mitt-man-big-oilEdit 2: Here's an Obama article meeting with top executives. It shows that Obama said a lot of positive things and there was also bits of discord. That sounds less corrupt to me. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/16/business/16obama.html Skimming through these articles... it just looks like disagreement over the policy. You don't consider tax subsidies for the most profitable companies in the world corruption? YOUR money is being paid to companies who make billions in profit. I would think that as a conservative, you would be pissed. http://priceofoil.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/FIN.USCapitolSubsidyGraphicFlyer.pdf Sure they suck but they've been in place for years and they are very small ~$3B. They are also mainly targeted at drilling companies - not the oil majors (Exxon, etc. though they still get them). I also don't recall Romney saying he's for keeping them, just that he's not for specifically targeting them for elimination. I know you're comparing it to the bigger picture, but please don't ever say $3 billion is "very small." Also, it's beside the point: there's no reason to subsidize them as far as I can tell. If there are legitimate reasons, please explain. Weren't Republicans against this kind of stuff in the first place?
About a billion and a half of the current oil subsidies are worthwhile expenditures, with some of it going to the Strategic Oil Reserve and the other to the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. The rest of them are absolute garbage, with farm fuel being a large culprit.
Source
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 28 2012 11:13 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2012 11:04 Souma wrote:On October 28 2012 10:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 28 2012 09:59 DoubleReed wrote:On October 28 2012 09:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 28 2012 09:27 DoubleReed wrote:On October 28 2012 09:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 28 2012 09:09 DoubleReed wrote:On October 28 2012 09:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Yeah, consulting an industry that you want to change regulations on is standard form. That's what regulators themselves do. So I don't see how that on its face equates to corruption. It seems like you are calling policies you disagree with corruption. You know, I think that's a change in politics. I think back in the day a politician would have been immediately called out on being corrupt if he said that he just met with oil executives and they gave him his energy policy. Nowadays it's standard issue. I don't know where I'd go to find out if that's true. Either way, no, that is not 'standard form.' Okay, but I understand that you are not convinced of him being corrupt from that. So again, I ask you: What would a politician have to do in order for you to just refuse to vote for him because he is so corrupt? I'm asking you because I don't know what evidence I could possibly provide that would convince you. So give me an example or something. Did the energy industry really just hand him an energy policy? There's a difference between seeking input (entirely appropriate!) and doing as told. That's certainly what I'm claiming. I don't know if I could possibly give you a source that doesn't look horrendously biased considering what the charge is. Edit: Here's a more general article: http://www.thenation.com/blog/167594/meet-mitt-man-big-oilEdit 2: Here's an Obama article meeting with top executives. It shows that Obama said a lot of positive things and there was also bits of discord. That sounds less corrupt to me. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/16/business/16obama.html Skimming through these articles... it just looks like disagreement over the policy. You don't consider tax subsidies for the most profitable companies in the world corruption? YOUR money is being paid to companies who make billions in profit. I would think that as a conservative, you would be pissed. http://priceofoil.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/FIN.USCapitolSubsidyGraphicFlyer.pdf Sure they suck but they've been in place for years and they are very small ~$3B. They are also mainly targeted at drilling companies - not the oil majors (Exxon, etc. though they still get them). I also don't recall Romney saying he's for keeping them, just that he's not for specifically targeting them for elimination. I know you're comparing it to the bigger picture, but please don't ever say $3 billion is "very small." Also, it's beside the point: there's no reason to subsidize them as far as I can tell. If there are legitimate reasons, please explain. Weren't Republicans against this kind of stuff in the first place? About a billion and a half of the current oil subsidies are worthwhile expenditures, with some of it going to the Strategic Oil Reserve and the other to the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. The rest of them are absolute garbage, with farm fuel being a large culprit. Source
Thanks for that. I thought fiscal conservatives were against things like that on principle? Shouldn't, at the very least, some of the more sketchy subsidies be targeted vehemently?
|
On October 28 2012 11:28 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2012 11:13 farvacola wrote:On October 28 2012 11:04 Souma wrote:On October 28 2012 10:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 28 2012 09:59 DoubleReed wrote:On October 28 2012 09:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 28 2012 09:27 DoubleReed wrote:On October 28 2012 09:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 28 2012 09:09 DoubleReed wrote:On October 28 2012 09:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Yeah, consulting an industry that you want to change regulations on is standard form. That's what regulators themselves do. So I don't see how that on its face equates to corruption.
It seems like you are calling policies you disagree with corruption. You know, I think that's a change in politics. I think back in the day a politician would have been immediately called out on being corrupt if he said that he just met with oil executives and they gave him his energy policy. Nowadays it's standard issue. I don't know where I'd go to find out if that's true. Either way, no, that is not 'standard form.' Okay, but I understand that you are not convinced of him being corrupt from that. So again, I ask you: What would a politician have to do in order for you to just refuse to vote for him because he is so corrupt? I'm asking you because I don't know what evidence I could possibly provide that would convince you. So give me an example or something. Did the energy industry really just hand him an energy policy? There's a difference between seeking input (entirely appropriate!) and doing as told. That's certainly what I'm claiming. I don't know if I could possibly give you a source that doesn't look horrendously biased considering what the charge is. Edit: Here's a more general article: http://www.thenation.com/blog/167594/meet-mitt-man-big-oilEdit 2: Here's an Obama article meeting with top executives. It shows that Obama said a lot of positive things and there was also bits of discord. That sounds less corrupt to me. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/16/business/16obama.html Skimming through these articles... it just looks like disagreement over the policy. You don't consider tax subsidies for the most profitable companies in the world corruption? YOUR money is being paid to companies who make billions in profit. I would think that as a conservative, you would be pissed. http://priceofoil.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/FIN.USCapitolSubsidyGraphicFlyer.pdf Sure they suck but they've been in place for years and they are very small ~$3B. They are also mainly targeted at drilling companies - not the oil majors (Exxon, etc. though they still get them). I also don't recall Romney saying he's for keeping them, just that he's not for specifically targeting them for elimination. I know you're comparing it to the bigger picture, but please don't ever say $3 billion is "very small." Also, it's beside the point: there's no reason to subsidize them as far as I can tell. If there are legitimate reasons, please explain. Weren't Republicans against this kind of stuff in the first place? About a billion and a half of the current oil subsidies are worthwhile expenditures, with some of it going to the Strategic Oil Reserve and the other to the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. The rest of them are absolute garbage, with farm fuel being a large culprit. Source Thanks for that. I thought fiscal conservatives were against things like that on principle? Shouldn't, at the very least, some of the more sketchy subsidies be targeted vehemently?
Certainly and absolutely, in any order you like 
|
Does farm fuel get subsidised or is it just not taxed?
Like here we pay 1.20/litre for diesel oil.
Thats maybe like 60 cents for the oil and 60 cents for the tax,for watersports we had something called "red" diesel.
Wich was not taxed and only 60 cents (they removed that now btw).
If farm fuel is "subsidised" this way its not realy a subsidise and its not that unreasonable to exclude them from some of the taxes the public has to pay for its diesel, farm vehicles is something completely different then private cars, they make less use of public roads for example.
|
Far as the Southern Strategy goes...
Well, it doesn't mean Republicans are racist. It was a deal with the devil essentially. It merely means they were willing to take racists into their fold in order to gain control over a traditionally Democratic region. I think it was a little disgusting (e.g.: what will you do to win?), but hey, that's politics.
A quote that really resonates here is about us electing the best and brightest of us to do what we need, not what we want. That's what happened with the Civil Rights Act (and for once, let's ignore the thing about Democrats/ Republicans supporting the CRA). Unfortunately, that process has been co-opted by a desire for parties to gain power, no matter what the means. Representatives more often than not don't do what we need, but simply what they need to stay in power. Southern Strategy, in a way, was a step back for our nation.
|
On October 28 2012 11:37 Rassy wrote:
Does farm fuel get subsidised or is it just not taxed?
Like here we pay 1.20/litre for diesel oil.
Thats maybe like 60 cents for the oil and 60 cents for the tax,for watersports we had something called "red" diesel.
Wich was not taxed and only 60 cents (they removed that now btw).
If farm fuel is "subsidised" this way its not realy a subsidise and its not that unreasonable to exclude them from some of the taxes the public has to pay for its diesel, farm vehicles is something completely different then private cars, they make less use of public roads for example.
Uhh... it not being taxed would be a subsidy. What's the difference? They aren't a religion. They make money for profit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
