U.S. Presidential race - Democrat Discussion

[Dacien]

She almost sounds pleading at times, sincere. It was a good ad, or whatever it was.

[Deleted]

I'm from Finland. Fisker got DoE funding. Fisker is now building electric cars here in Uusikaupunki, Finland.
So I wouldn't say their claim is that "outrageous".

Finnish autoworkers making the $100k+ Fisker Karma luxury sports car in Uusikaupunki:

[Dacien]

Looking at the news surrounding that video, the impact is stronger. I haven't looked into the details of her rebuttals, but apparently it was a response ad to an attack by the Koch Brothers (makes sense). I'm kinda surprised I didn't hear about this.

[Deleted]

Looking at the news surrounding that video, the impact is stronger. I haven't looked into the details of her rebuttals, but apparently it was a response ad to an attack by the Koch Brothers (makes sense). I'm kinda surprised I didn't hear about this.

Yeah, it's this ad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUQdP...1&feature=plcp. I can't comment on the rest but the fisker part in that ad is absolutely factual.

[Dacien]

Yeah, it's this ad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUQdP...1&feature=plcp. I can't comment on the rest but the fisker part in that ad is absolutely factual.

I think they put far too much emphasis on dramatically listing specifics that may or may not have been accurate. If you're going to finance a multi-million dollar ad campaign, spare the fucking change for hard indisputable facts. Jesus.

But it occurs to me that they can both be true. I haven't delved into the specifics on the claims. I mean, is Mrs. or Ms. Cutter speaking about net jobs in her her first response? I thought I remember hearing that two million net jobs have been lost under Obama.

Haha! Oh wait, "clean energy jobs". A very controlled and micromanaged government experiment.

[Deleted]

But it occurs to me that they can both be true. I haven't delved into the specifics on the claims.

What she said about there being workers in Cali is also true, except they don't actually employ 700 workers like she said, but 500.

Also, the Fisker Karma has apparently been a massive failure. They can't turn a profit and because of the faulty U.S. built lithium batteries the car doesn't work properly either.

[Dacien]

Regardless of what the specifics are, I'm preoccupied with how well executed that Democratic response piece was. Right down to the tack of her ring when she talks about Tumblr. Very well fucking done.

[Jaxi]

I don't understand the hate on oil companies. They are not subsidized, they benefit from deductions and cost recovery like any other industry. The New York Times gets the same for every paper they print, or Starbucks for every imported coffee they grind under section 199 which is what they primarily site. If however you want the deductions and cost recoveries to be removed from the oil companies exclusively, that will generate about 21 billion dollars in revenue for the US Government a year. Compared to most nations our oil industries do not receive that big of treatment. Russia subsidizes over 30 billion a year to gasoline in their country, and china subsidizes 25 billion to oil. The oil industry also earns under the national average at only 5.6 cents per dollar sold (average is 13), and the big corporate management only own 1.5% of the stocks, most of the stocks are invested in the public. On top of all that, increasing domestic access to oil is estimated to provide 140 billion in tax revenue, and the oil companies have invested more money in zero carbon energy than both the government and private parties combined.

I just don't get it. It's as if logic was done away with and replaced by blind fanatical hatred. I suppose Obama needs to be a politician and cater to the needs of his supporters.

[Deleted]

EDIT - Personally I think the largest issue is that our oil produced here is sold globally, whereas other countries that are big oil producers give their citizens some kind of kickback. I suppose we get one compared to Europe, but look at other oil-producing nations like Saudi Arabia, where their gas prices are obscenely low.

That's not an issue. That's actually very positive. Giving your own citizens a "kickback" is only really possible when you nationalize the oil production. Which would be horrible.

Providing oil at much below market prices means you'll consume more oil than what would be desireable in regards to supply.

[Stanton Biston]

That's not an issue. That's actually very positive. Giving your own citizens a "kickback" is only really possible when you nationalize the oil production. Which would be horrible.

Providing oil at much below market prices means you'll consume more oil than what would be desireable in regards to supply.

You're ignoring elasticity.

[Jaxi]

I don't really see it as hate, though I'm sure some out there do hate them. I see it as why are we giving them subsidies to entice them to do something they're going to do anyway? These subsidies were probably beneficial in the older days, when it was a significant cost to build wells and get the stuff transported, etc etc. Nowadays, the infrastructure's in place, well building is nothing now, it's like picking up a lamp and plugging it into a socket now(yes I'm minimalizing it, but hopefully my point was made).

They aren't subsidized though. We don't give them anything. They receive the same tax breaks that other companies are privy to, the only difference between them and the other companies is they push a hell of a lot more product. All this talk about oil companies receiving unfair tax breaks (like that woman said in the video) is fabricated bogus.

[ptwonline]

They aren't subsidized though. We don't give them anything. They receive the same tax breaks that other companies are privy to, the only difference between them and the other companies is they push a hell of a lot more product. All this talk about oil companies receiving unfair tax breaks (like that woman said in the video) is fabricated bogus.

I think you're just playing with semantics here. The difference between a direct subsidy and an industry-specific deduction is that the deduction requires that certain activity takes place. But if they're going to be doing it anyway, then there is no effective difference between the two except perhaps for tax purposes.

Pointing out that other industries receive subsidies (or deductions) as well is an example of false equivalence. Other industries may actually need them. The relative amounts may differ. The subsidies may be temporary only to help them through a period of transition. Etc. But generally speaking I think most people would agree: there are too many handouts to corporations, and these should be reduced or eliminated especially when you can clearly show that the industry does not need them. Oil company subsidies should be pretty much the lowest-hanging fruit of them all and even THAT can't get done, and so the prospect of eliminating subsidies for anyone else looks bleak.

---------- Post added 2012-05-03 at 06:41 PM ----------

That's not an issue. That's actually very positive. Giving your own citizens a "kickback" is only really possible when you nationalize the oil production. Which would be horrible.

Providing oil at much below market prices means you'll consume more oil than what would be desireable in regards to supply.

It's definitely true that you'll consume more oil. It also makes it cheaper to produce things domestically which gives you all sorts of competitive advantages.

[Jaxi]

I think you're just playing with semantics here. The difference between a direct subsidy and an industry-specific deduction is that the deduction requires that certain activity takes place. But if they're going to be doing it anyway, then there is no effective difference between the two except perhaps for tax purposes.

Pointing out that other industries receive subsidies (or deductions) as well is an example of false equivalence. Other industries may actually need them. The relative amounts may differ. The subsidies may be temporary only to help them through a period of transition. Etc. But generally speaking I think most people would agree: there are too many handouts to corporations, and these should be reduced or eliminated especially when you can clearly show that the industry does not need them. Oil company subsidies should be pretty much the lowest-hanging fruit of them all and even THAT can't get done, and so the prospect of eliminating subsidies for anyone else looks bleak.

---------- Post added 2012-05-03 at 06:41 PM ----------



It's definitely true that you'll consume more oil. It also makes it cheaper to produce things domestically which gives you all sorts of competitive advantages.

I'm not playing semantics, I'm playing definitions. The actual definition of a subsidy is a grant or gift of money, but in economic terms it is merely assistance given to a company or economic sector. Just like Socialism should not be confused with Communism, tax deductions should not be confused with subsidies. These are two completely different concepts, and using them interchangeably shows a level of ignorance to their workings. We often confuse subsidies with tax deductions, which are exactly that, reductions to taxes payed in order to encourage more production or discovery in the given industry. Here in America we seem to have a focus on raw numbers, which if you look at then oil companies are making huge profits, but when we actually compare those profits with their profitability, we notice that they are notoriously lower than the industrial average: http://biz.yahoo.com/p/sum_qpmd.html. Knowing this, we should be able to determine that such tax deductions (which are allowed to others freely) being taken away from the oil companies could have drastic consequences, and since the American oil society estimates 50,000 jobs are created due to the tax deductions received from discovery, then I would say that making oil exempt from the same reductions available to countless others is not only unproductive, but incredibly unfair. I would only imagine that oil would take the fallout for that debacle as well.

I keep citing a tax section. This is it:
http://taxes.about.com/library/bl_IRC_Section_199.htm

[ptwonline]

I'm not playing semantics, I'm playing definitions. The actual definition of a subsidy is a grant or gift of money, but in economic terms it is merely assistance given to a company or economic sector. Just like Socialism should not be confused with Communism, tax deductions should not be confused with subsidies. These are two completely different concepts, and using them interchangeably shows a level of ignorance to their workings. We often confuse subsidies with tax deductions, which are exactly that, reductions to taxes payed in order to encourage more production or discovery in the given industry. Here in America we seem to have a focus on raw numbers, which if you look at then oil companies are making huge profits, but when we actually compare those profits with their profitability, we notice that they are notoriously lower than the industrial average: http://biz.yahoo.com/p/sum_qpmd.html. Knowing this, we should be able to determine that such tax deductions (which are allowed to others freely) being taken away from the oil companies could have drastic consequences, and since the American oil society estimates 50,000 jobs are created due to the tax deductions received from discovery, then I would say that making oil exempt from the same reductions available to countless others is not only unproductive, but incredibly unfair. I would only imagine that oil would take the fallout for that debacle as well.

I keep citing a tax section. This is it:
http://taxes.about.com/library/bl_IRC_Section_199.htm

No, you're 100% playing with semantics here. There is no real effective difference between a subsidy and a deduction for what you're going to be doing anyway. Either way it's the same thing: the industry ends up with public money in it's pocket at the end of the year for doing the same thing.

And you can't possibly believe that the only reason why oil companies are only doing discovery is because they receive subsidies to do so. I mean, really? Do we need to have a Business 101 discussion at this point? And if you believe that 50,000 job created figure then I have an oil derrick on the moon for you to buy.

When it comes to profit levels, keep in mind that this is a traded commodity and so you would normally expect profits margins to be quite low.

[Jaxi]

No, you're 100% playing with semantics here. There is no real effective difference between a subsidy and a deduction for what you're going to be doing anyway. Either way it's the same thing: the industry ends up with public money in it's pocket at the end of the year for doing the same thing.

No. It. Does. Not. I will repeat. No. It. Does. Not. No money is given from the government to the oil industry, however, less money is given from the oil industry to the government. They provide those deductions for everyone, why should the oil company be different? Because they make more money? They don't make more money on the dollar, however. They have become a diseconomy of scale, and cutting those reductions will force them to make cutbacks, often to labor. I don't know where you are getting your information but it is absolutely incorrect.

And you can't possibly believe that the only reason why oil companies are only doing discovery is because they receive subsidies to do so. I mean, really? Do we need to have a Business 101 discussion at this point? And if you believe that 50,000 job created figure then I have an oil derrick on the moon for you to buy.

They don't receive subsidies! Why is this such a difficult concept to understand? Of the 4 billion dollars in reduction to the oil companies, 1.7 of that derives from domestic manufacturing tax deductions. A.k.a., they pay less to keep people here, and another 850 million is the common tax code available to all companies. If we remove their tax deductions they can't keep the local jobs local and stay competitive. So yes, I believe the experts when they say something, and not Tim Kain when keeps accusing America of giving money to oil companies. We don't do that, plain and simple.

I'll give an example of the difference. California subsidizes desalinization of water for their agricultural irrigation at 2000 dollars per square acre foot. If that cost was incurred by the farmer, there is no way in hell they would be able to pay it, even if there were tax deductions at the end.

[Stanton Biston]

No. It. Does. Not. I will repeat. No. It. Does. Not. No money is given from the government to the oil industry, however, less money is given from the oil industry to the government. They provide those deductions for everyone, why should the oil company be different? Because they make more money? They don't make more money on the dollar, however. They have become a diseconomy of scale, and cutting those reductions will force them to make cutbacks, often to labor. I don't know where you are getting your information but it is absolutely incorrect.


They don't receive subsidies! Why is this such a difficult concept to understand? Of the 4 billion dollars in reduction to the oil companies, 1.7 of that derives from domestic manufacturing tax deductions. A.k.a., they pay less to keep people here, and another 850 million is the common tax code available to all companies. If we remove their tax deductions they can't keep the local jobs local and stay competitive. So yes, I believe the experts when they say something, and not Tim Kain when keeps accusing America of giving money to oil companies. We don't do that, plain and simple.

You can't really ship a job overseas that requires a geographical feature.

[Jaxi]

You can't really ship a job overseas that requires a geographical feature.

The manufacturing, the discovery, and the technical work do not. I recognize that some jobs simply can't move, but then again those aren't covered in the tax deduction code. "(2) ALLOCATION METHOD- The Secretary shall prescribe rules for the proper allocation of items of income, deduction, expense, and loss for purposes of determining income attributable to domestic production activities."

[ptwonline]

No. It. Does. Not. I will repeat. No. It. Does. Not. No money is given from the government to the oil industry, however, less money is given from the oil industry to the government. They provide those deductions for everyone, why should the oil company be different? Because they make more money? They don't make more money on the dollar, however. They have become a diseconomy of scale, and cutting those reductions will force them to make cutbacks, often to labor. I don't know where you are getting your information but it is absolutely incorrect.


They don't receive subsidies! Why is this such a difficult concept to understand? Of the 4 billion dollars in reduction to the oil companies, 1.7 of that derives from domestic manufacturing tax deductions. A.k.a., they pay less to keep people here, and another 850 million is the common tax code available to all companies. If we remove their tax deductions they can't keep the local jobs local and stay competitive. So yes, I believe the experts when they say something, and not Tim Kain when keeps accusing America of giving money to oil companies. We don't do that, plain and simple.

I'll give an example of the difference. California subsidizes desalinization of water for their agricultural irrigation at 2000 dollars per square acre foot. If that cost was incurred by the farmer, there is no way in hell they would be able to pay it, even if there were tax deductions at the end.

What's the difference between giving oil companies a billion dollars in cash, and taxing them for a billion less on their profits? Answer: Jaxi gets to claim that they are not receiving subsidies.

It is true that subsidies are not the same as deductions, since (as I originally stated) it requires that certain activities take place. However, oil companies are going to be doing those activities anyway because it is profitable for them to do so, and of course since it is the primary way for them to drive their business in the first place. The same likely cannot be said for agriculture subsidies in California, but I am not up-to-speed on that industry in that area.

You're also using a bit of a strawman argument. The subsidies (or deductions since are so hung up on it) in question are the ones for oil companies specifically and for activities that they would carry out regardless of subsidies/deductions, so talking about the general ones received by others is tilting at windmills.

Of course, there are other subsidies that we normally don't count or even think about. For example, going to war or having to maintain a military or diplomatic presence in certain regions in order to protect oil production and flow.

The reason why there is so much focus on oil companies is because they are seen as drivers of so much political corruption and expensive foreign policy decisions, while at the same time receiving so much gov't benefit and also making a lot of money. Some of their subsidies really should be among the easiest, low-hanging fruit to pick since this industry is so unpopular, but because money rules in politics it can't be done. By choosing to attack the oil companies you know that you probably can't get the reductions needed, but you can bring it to the attention of the public of WHY progress can't be made in this area. In that respect, it's very similar to the idea of taxing the wealthy: it probably won't be doable, but by pushing for it you can get the players to reveal their hands and who they are truly fighting for.

IMO, a lot of the subsidies that companies receive need to be reduced or outright eliminated. Do we really need to give tax breaks to Apple? Of course that would send a lot of manufacturing overseas, so it would need to be done in conjunction with fairer trade policy. It's absolutely INSANE to give away billions of dollars to companies already making huge profits because they might move their manufacturing elsewhere and then re-import the goods at very little cost to that company. That's the sort of spending that deficit hawks need to look at, not cutting people's health care coverage. But of course the deficit hawks are primarily conservatives in bed with big business, so it won't happen. Liberals aren't off the hook either.

[Bobdoletoo]

Not much movement on this thread? Everybody tired of obama already? Why is nobody raving about his ability to dodge the gay marriage question? What about the leon panetta osama memo? I guess everybody is to busy attacking Romney to care what obama does.

[Dacien]

Not much movement on this thread? Everybody tired of obama already? Why is nobody raving about his ability to dodge the gay marriage question? What about the leon panetta osama memo? I guess everybody is to busy attacking Romney to care what obama does.

It's quite clear from the number of replies that people are much more excited about Republicans than there are about dusty ol' Obama.


I kid, people! I kid.