Democrats & Liberals Archives

Tax Cuts for the Rich? Huh??

Below are a list of the top 10 corporations who either did not pay taxes, not much, or got a refund compiled by Senator Bernie Sanders, Independent from Vermont:

10. Carnival Cruise Lines:$11 billion in profits, federal income tax rate:1.1 percent.

9. ConocoPhillips: $16 billion in profits from 2007 through 2009, $451 million in tax breaks.

8. Citigroup: $4 billion in profit, paid no federal income taxes.

7. Goldman Sachs:$2.3 billion in 2008 but only paid 1.1 percent in taxes.

6. Valero Energy: $68 billion in sales last year got a $157 million tax refund check from the IRS.

5. Boeing: $124 million refund from the IRS last year.

4. Chevron: $19 million refund from the IRS last year after earning $10 billion in profits in 2009.

3. General Electric: $26 billion in profits over the last five years, paid no federal income tax, $4.1 billion refund.

2. Bank of America: $1.9 billion tax refund last year, profits of $4.4 billion.

1. Exxon Mobil: $19 billion in profits, paid no federal income taxes. $156 million rebate from the IRS.

Do you still want to extend tax cuts to the wealthy? Do you still want to give a $3.1 billion subsidy to oil companies?

Posted by CC at April 9, 2011 08:10 PM
Comments
Comment #321327


I knew that corporations are people, but I didn’t know they qualified for the Earned Income Credit.

Posted by: jlw at April 9, 2011 08:43 PM
Comment #321328

Ain’t that the truth. I was just looking at something that showed that if we don’t raise our taxes, this tax cut extension will cause the deficit to rise to 69% of the GDP!!

Posted by: CC at April 9, 2011 09:10 PM
Comment #321333


CC, the tax cuts were part 1 of the plan. Part two is being conducted in Congress now.

Posted by: jlw at April 9, 2011 09:47 PM
Comment #321334

and I feel simply desperate about it! I am glad the Democrats still have the majority in the Senate! Hopefully they can deflect the shameful actions and efforts of the Republicans long enough for the public to figure out what is going on.

I was just reading through some articles on the Paul Ryan plan for budget cuts and it is again providing tax cuts for the wealthy and taking away from the poor.

It is a shame people don’t do their homework and find out what is really going on. They just get information word of mouth and buy into it. I spend hours researching to make sure that I have the facts right. It doesn’t matter to some, they would refuse to believe the sky is blue if it was said by a liberal. :-)

Posted by: CC at April 9, 2011 09:55 PM
Comment #321339

CC

And Democrats held the Senate, House AND the Presidency when these firms incurred their taxes. Heck, the CEO of GE is a good friend of Obama’s.

We can rail against the unfairness of the taxes, but recall that Republicans just took over one part of congress a few months ago. Democrats won both the Senate and the House in 2006. The laws that allow this and all those bailouts were authorized during these times.

Maybe Bernie should have brought this up when all this stuff was happening.

Posted by: C&J at April 9, 2011 10:36 PM
Comment #321342

C&J, those laws were already in place at that time and put in place by the previous administration. I imagine the tax situation wasn’t addressed because of a little distraction like, oh, the total collapse of economic and financial systems world-wide.

You can say “what about those guys” all you want, but to allow this to go on from this point on is absolutely a slap in the face to the American people. It is total thievery. I don’t know how anyone could say otherwise. When are the corporations and wealthy people going to take it upon themselves and say thanks but we don’t need the money. They are insatiable. They are money vampires, it is what keeps them alive, even if it means killing off everyone else for their blood. The funny thing is, vampires are the un-living. Hmmmmmm. If I ever believed there was a Satan, it would be now.

Posted by: CC at April 9, 2011 10:56 PM
Comment #321349

Is this the same Senator Bernie Sanders, the avowed socialist from Vermont. I guess the term independent has real important meaning. You didn’t get this material from a liberal democrat. You impressed the crap out of me.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at April 10, 2011 12:00 AM
Comment #321350

CC, you forgot a few:

Why Are So Many Democrats Tax Cheats?

1) Tom Daschle
2) Geitner - Secretary of the Treasury
3) Gov. Richardson of New Mexico
4) Hillary/Bill Clinton
5) Leon Panetta
6) Eric Holder - Attorney General
7)Nancy Killefer- who was to be appointed Obama’s “performance czar,” withdraws after it’s revealed she didn’t pay taxes on domestic help for over a year.
8) Nancy Pelosi - she pushes Obama’s tax hikes and spending bills all across the “fruited plain” from her taxpayer bought private jet and she thinks abortion and contraception is great for the economy.
9)Harry Reid - one of the biggest Obama porkers in the Senate
10) Ron Kirk
11)Kathleen Sebelius
12)Linda Solis

and these are just a few of Obama’s cabinet picks..

13) And how can we forget Charlie Rangel, why he didn’t even know he had property in the Carribbean.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at April 10, 2011 12:05 AM
Comment #321351

CC

The economic “crash” came 2008. If Democrats were busy working on it for the two years before that, they didn’t do a great job, did they?

So they couldn’t be bothered to deal with the tax situation. in fact, they couldn’t be bothered last year to even pass a budget at all.

So what exactly it is that they were doing? I figure their lack of doing anything but talk trash about the country is a slap in the face.

Conservative thinker

You found the core reason Democratic leaders want to raise taxes. They don’t pay them anyway.

Posted by: C&J at April 10, 2011 12:18 AM
Comment #321355


CC, just about everything they said about the Democrats is true. If I were you, I wouldn’t put any faith in the Democrats in the Senate or Obama. The majority of the Democratic politicians have been actively engaged and committed to the agenda that has been the priority of the government for several decades.

They have supported, even been engaged in writing the tax laws that these corporations abuse to their advantage. In addition, nearly the entire Bush/Republican agenda had the majority support of the Democrats.

What these people didn’t say was that they applaud the fact that these corporations are getting away with this and that what they say about the Democrats is doubly true of the Republicans.

More tax cuts for the wealthy, more cuts for the poor. That got a standing ovation from these fellas.

The goal now is more tax cuts for the top and wage stagnation and austerity for the other 80%. They can get away with that here and in other industrial nations that have a high standard of living relative to the third world for a while. But, they are having major problems pushing this agenda on countries who’s standards of living are much lower to start with.

The majority of the people are thoroughly disgusted with the Congress, but both parties have a big ace up their sleeves. Would you rather see a Democrat win. Would you rather see a Republican win.

The reason the Republicans can push their agenda is because most Americans today don’t have a clue about the sacrifices made by their great grand parents on behalf of the progressive era or the respect that the majority of their parents and grand parents had for F.D.R.

It has taken wealth a while but no one should have thought that they would not counter attack against the Progressive Era and the New Deal. It just needed the right mix of constituents, like socially conservative Christians and baby boomer investors.

Posted by: jlw at April 10, 2011 03:50 AM
Comment #321359

conservativethinker-
Oh, so you’re pulling the tu quoque argument out.

So, a few Democrats, individuals might not have properly paid their taxes. So that makes it utterly okay that the corporations aren’t pulling their weight on taxes?

No, it doesn’t. To the degree that some of those issues about individuals taxes reflect an attempt to flout the law (that’s questionable if you look at some of the situations) that only remains relevant to their wrong, their mistakes. It doesn’t make the corporation’s willing to evade taxation any less offensive, when the rest of us are being asked to take hits on jobs and government benefits.

Shared sacrifice it’s not.

The truly intellectually honest position is to say both sides of the dilemma you set up are wrong to the extent they deliberately escaped their obligation to pay their fair share. Only what you seem to be arguing is, “The Democrats should stop beating up on corporate tax cheats because they’re tax cheats.”

You’re trying to help those corporations get away with it. Unfortunately, you don’t realize that your argument concedes the offensiveness of the Corporations’ conduct, even while it tries to impugn the morals of those asking the questions about that conduct.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 10, 2011 08:34 AM
Comment #321363

Well said, Stephen D.

I find Republicans use diversionary tactics in a debate and never answer the topic issue. Facts are facts, the corporations are shamelessly legally stealing money from the American people.

I was reading on the RNC website last night and the defense of the Paul Ryan budget plan was that corporations have a 35% tax rate. Yes they do, but with all the cost shifting and loopholes, and outsourcing, their actual tax rate is 15% or less.

What is this love affair with corporate greed?

Posted by: CC at April 10, 2011 09:01 AM
Comment #321364

“CC, the tax cuts were part 1 of the plan. Part two is being conducted in Congress now.”

jlw, well said. Simple and to the point.

Representative Ryan’s budget proposal is a perfect example of the plan in action. Make the tax cuts permanent and even add a few for good measure. Then a decade down the road when the deficit is actually worse than doing nothing (CBO), whallop the middle class and the poor by transferring the deficit producing portion of expenditures for Medicare/Medicaid to private individuals, the private insurance market and the states. Presto! The federal government is then in surplus. Unfortunately, seniors on fixed incomes, the poor and the states are stuck with the bill.

Posted by: Rich at April 10, 2011 09:11 AM
Comment #321365

By the way, adding up all the refunds and rebates from these top 10 offenders totals $25,751,000,000. Add to that 1 year of subsidies to the oil companies you have $28,851,000,000.

Posted by: CC at April 10, 2011 09:14 AM
Comment #321367

Apparently, while the so-called “Conservatives” hate government, they don’t mind corporations taking over that role. They must know something about the compassion and empathy of the corporate mentality that the rest of us have missed.

There is nothing happening in this nation so much as a corporate takeover of just about everything (the US Supreme Court and half of the Congress are just openers). Just give them time. I have no clue why this is acceptable to anyone, but to try and argue with those who do, is like pissing in the wind. All they know is that the liberals are evil, as are social entitlement programs (that people have paid into) which help anyone. But, the insane social agenda of the extreme right wing wackos in our society is just fine; and if while they are being diverted by this nonsense, the corporations just happen to take over control of the nation, oh well, who cares. Hell, the corporations are all about money, and they know that Mammon is the true God, so all is well in heaven and on earth. Hail Mammon!

Charles Dickens would be so enamored. His naivity about “Mankind was my business,” is just more liberal/progressive bunk. The original Scrooge had the right idea all along — screw anyone you can for a buck, and ignore the suffering of anyone and everyone else. Heaven is for sissies! That’s why the new business model is, “screw anyone you can as long as you don’t get caught.” Ask the former angels of Enron who laughed while little old ladies in California got reamed with energy bills they couldn’t afford.

This is what is transpiring in this nation, no matter how many are in terminal denial about same. The political and corporate hucksters have accomplished stage one of the program. Divide the American people by making up stuff about the true role of government, and keep them distracted with a bunch of ideological nonsense while they slowly infiltrate every crack and crevice of the power structure. When more do finally wake up, it’ll be too late. Great!

Talk about insane.

Posted by: Stephen Rose at April 10, 2011 12:43 PM
Comment #321368

Indeed, we should cut subsidies to energy companies, but then not complain when the price of gas goes up.

Stephen et al - what are you planning to sacrifice in this shared sacrifice thing? It seems to me that liberals are saying that people like you (and them) won’t be paying more taxes, nor will they tolerate any cuts to programs that benefit them.

It is really interesting the moral outrage you guys can work up in the attempt to get somebody else to pay for things you want to get.

There is a public policy debate about the size of taxes and spending. But unless you all have some skin in the game on the paying side and you already give more than 10% of your income to good causes, you are in no moral position to argue the indignation side. So let’s keep it on the public policy talk.

Do you want to expand the size and scope of the Federal government and are you willing to increase taxes to do it? This is the real question. All the others are just outbursts of emotion.

Posted by: C&J at April 10, 2011 12:47 PM
Comment #321370

C&J, Yes, I am ready and willing to pay more taxes. Bring it on. This is how I contribute to my society.

You sound like the typical “fat cat”, if in fact you are one. Everything in your world is measured by money. I guess I am not rich because money is not my gauge of success.

We all do things in ways that are meaningful to us. I would rather have my taxes go up to make sure the social services are sound than to have my taxes go down.

What are your solutions to take care of the low income, elderly, sick, and needy at a nationwide level? You still haven’t answered this question. Do you not have an answer or are you spending too much time patting yourself on the back for your generous local donations while knocking the pilings out from under the larger national low-income population? If you have a better solution to reach all the people who need help, let’s hear it.

Posted by: CC at April 10, 2011 02:01 PM
Comment #321371

CC wrote; “It is a shame people don’t do their homework and find out what is really going on. They just get information word of mouth and buy into it. I spend hours researching to make sure that I have the facts right.”

CC listed 10 companies, identified by someone other than herself, that made good profits but were taxed little. I would ask cc if her information wasn’t also “word of mouth”. It certainly didn’t come from her own research by her own admission.

Those who make lists general choose who will be on the list to make their political point. Those who blindly refer to someone elses list are usually too lazy or incompetent to make their own based upon what they have researched.

Does CC know why the corporations on the list she provided paid such a low rate of tax? Was it tax evasion? If so, it should be prosecuted.

Just as private taxpayers who itemize deduction can legally reduce their tax bill by applying those deductions, corporations can do much the same.

A loss in an investment, cost of doing business, business expenses, losses due to perils, and many other perfectly legal deductions can lower ones private and corporate tax bill.

For example, BP took a huge loss in the oil spill in the Gulf. For illustration, let’s suppose their profit for the year is $20 billion and their clean up costs were $17 billion. Do you think they would pay taxes on the $20 billion?

When both houses of congress were controlled by a large majority of democrats with a president willing to sign nearly any legislation they passed, why…if there is such vehement disagreement with our corporate tax code among dems and libs writing here, did they do nothing to amend it?

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 10, 2011 02:15 PM
Comment #321373

“conservativethinker-

Oh, so you’re pulling the tu quoque argument out.

So, a few Democrats, individuals might not have properly paid their taxes. So that makes it utterly okay that the corporations aren’t pulling their weight on taxes…You’re trying to help those corporations get away with it.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 10, 2011 08:34 AM”

Stephen, these are not just common everyday democrats who are cheating at their taxes; it is the leadership of the Democratic Party. Why don’t we pass a law requiring all the liberal democrats, who have their “old money” invested in tax sheltered trust funds, to pay taxes on their fortunes? Since there is a relation between inherited “old money” and liberal democrats.

Where I live, the company that picks up our trash adds a fuel surcharge on our quarterly bills. Why, because the cost of fuel cuts into their profits. Airlines charge a fuel surcharge when the price of fuel goes up. Why, because the cost of fuel cuts into their profits. This point has been brought up many times and yet no liberal is willing to give an answer. When companies pay taxes; the companies don’t pay the taxes… The consumer does. The left wants to scream and cry about corporations not paying their fair share of taxes, but the corporations don’t pay the taxes. They are passed on to the stock holder in the form of lost investments and to the consumer, who pays the taxes of the corporation through a “surcharge” on the product. Meaning an inflated price. When we buy a new car, for example, we are paying a profit to GM, we are paying for a wage and benefit package for the employee, and we are paying the corporate taxes. It is a fact of life. Most corporations are owned by stockholders, and the stockholders are not individuals, they are retirement funds and pension funds. Why is it so hard for liberals to understand these simple points? When we tax corporations, we are double taxing the working Americans, we are taking money that could be used to expand the businesses.

Since the left has such hatred for Corporations; what would happen in America if we just outlawed or made it illegal for them to exist? What would that do for the American worker? There are unions, who have driven corporations out of business, and I suggest there are liberal democrats who would love to run corporations out of business. You talk about corporations as if they are the enemy of mankind. I worked my whole life for a corporation and am happy I did. It’s called the mentality of “us against them”. We have unions who hate the corporations who provide them a living; we have liberals who try to drive a wedge between the employees and the corporations who provide them a paycheck. It’s sour grapes and class warfare, and when is it going to end?

The lobbying by corporations upon political leaders is upon democrat and republican politicians. How many democrat and republican politicians end up lobbying congress as paid corporation lobbyists? How many politicians have spouses who work in DC as full time lobbyists? The money that flows from corporations to political campaigns leans more toward democrats than it does republicans. And yet the left still cries foul at the very corporations who are funneling them re-election money. The left cries about the financial institutions, but which of the democrat politicians got the sweetheart loans from the institutions? Biden, Dodd, Rangel, and others. As C&J said, the democrats have had years to correct the finacial problems, but we only seem to get into deeper problems.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at April 10, 2011 02:26 PM
Comment #321374

Royal Flush,

I was wondering where you were. Just get back from church?

“When both houses of congress were controlled by a large majority of democrats with a president willing to sign nearly any legislation they passed, why…if there is such vehement disagreement with our corporate tax code among dems and libs writing here, did they do nothing to amend it?”

I think both sides of the isle are responsible for the oil rip-off. Oil interests reach far and wide.

Posted by: CC at April 10, 2011 02:33 PM
Comment #321376

“”C&J, Yes, I am ready and willing to pay more taxes. Bring it on. This is how I contribute to my society.

You sound like the typical “fat cat”, if in fact you are one. Everything in your world is measured by money. I guess I am not rich because money is not my gauge of success.

We all do things in ways that are meaningful to us. I would rather have my taxes go up to make sure the social services are sound than to have my taxes go down.”

Perhaps CC is part of the 49% of American “non-fat cats” who pay no taxes at all. In that case, if one did not pay any taxes, they would not be concerned about taxes going up.

As for the “low income, elderly, and sick”; in the words of the as of late de-throned Queen Pelosi, “let them eat cake”.

Posted by: 1776 at April 10, 2011 02:37 PM
Comment #321377

“Oil rip-off”?

If the democrats had their way, we would’nt be involved in oil at all.

Posted by: 1776 at April 10, 2011 02:40 PM
Comment #321378

Royal Flush,

I was wondering where you were. Just get back from church? CC

Yes, I attended church services this morning as I do nearly every Sunday. While I can and do praise God and speak with Him (commonly called praying) frequently every day, Sunday adds the benefit of being with a religious community joined together for a common purpose.

Thank you for asking.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 10, 2011 02:51 PM
Comment #321379

Conservativethinker,

I don’t think anyone here is advocating the demise of corporations. As for myself, I want them to act ethically and quit trying to always game the system. I want them to have a moral compass, which most don’t these days.

BUT….you ARE indulging in “tu quoque”.

“It’s sour grapes and class warfare, and when is it going to end?”

It will end when corporations start acting more responsibly and realize that everything is not the bottom line. This country (the non-corporate part) is starting to see the light now concerning corporations.

I lived in a rural area of California for most of my life (I like the Midwest better, BTW) where Walmart actually came in, promised a bunch of money and perks to city councils of small towns and promised the citizens to save them money as consumers. They then built their superstores causing mom & pop shops to close down and employed all their employees, then decided there wasn’t enough business to make a big enough profit. As a result they then pulled up and left town. Not only did they leave town, but they closed down most of the commerce in town and left hundreds unemployed…in other words left the town worse off than it was originally. The blight caused property values to go down, and because there were no longer many businesses left, if any at all, to service the needs of the community the citizens had to drive to nearby cities to get basic commodities. Oh, but they did get a few streets resurfaced and a stop light on Main Street.

This is nothing to be proud of, and this is only one example of the immorality and dehumanizing business practices of large corporations. They put on a pretty face, make popular promises, then rape the citizenry. There is nothing redeeming about the way corporations are operating these days. Not at all! And we are to see them as our saviour???? Sheesh!

Posted by: CC at April 10, 2011 02:53 PM
Comment #321381


Royal, I don’t think BP should have paid taxes on the whole $20 billion. I think they should have been required to pay $4 billion in taxes because they certainly deserved to take a loss for last year.

What these corporations are doing is legal.

“did they do nothing to amend it?”

Many of the Democrats are still in denial about a number of their politicians. I am not one of those Democrats.

Many Democrats in Georgia still think Zell Miller was a Democrat.

Sherrod Brown wants me to send money to help elect more progressive Democrats. Why, so Obama and Pelosi can beat them into submission?

What kind of legislation should Democrats expect if they give a home to conservatives in the party?

I am not proclaiming Obama a conservative, but there is a reason why corporate donors are willing to give him $800 million to a $1 billion or more for his reelection campaign.

Obama’s people are bragging. Is that just gross or does it cross over to grotesque.

Posted by: jlw at April 10, 2011 03:10 PM
Comment #321383

“As for the “low income, elderly, and sick”; in the words of the as of late de-throned Queen Pelosi, “let them eat cake”.”

So there you go.

“If the democrats had their way, we would’nt be involved in oil at all.”

You got that right.

Posted by: CC at April 10, 2011 03:54 PM
Comment #321384

Tell ya what C&J, I didn’t want the Bush tax cuts extended for anybody last year. I was all in favor of allowing those tax cuts to fade into history, and content to see the tax rates go back to where they were under Clinton. That way, everyone shared in some sort of sacrifice. I also wanted oil subsidies discontinued, and lots of loop holes plugged. Instead, we now have people on the right wanting to get rid of the IRS. Yeah, that’ll work.

Posted by: Stephen Rose at April 10, 2011 04:10 PM
Comment #321386

CC;

“BUT….you ARE indulging in “tu quoque”.

Θα προτιμούσα δεν διαδραματίζουν δική σας και ο Stephen τη λέξη αγώνες.

You said,

“Conservativethinker,
I don’t think anyone here is advocating the demise of corporations. As for myself, I want them to act ethically and quit trying to always game the system. I want them to have a moral compass, which most don’t these days.”

And then you say to 17,

“If the democrats had their way, we would’nt be involved in oil at all.”
“You got that right.”
Posted by: CC at April 10, 2011 03:54 PM

So what is your answer, do you want to destroy corporations or don’t you? Your sending a mixed message. What exactly do you think the loss of oil will do to corporations?

So now we understand CC: “you can take the girl out of the liberal state of CA, but you can’t take the liberal state of CA out of the girl.” Another Californian liberal posting her perverse views.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at April 10, 2011 04:31 PM
Comment #321390

CT,

…When companies pay taxes; the companies don’t pay the taxes… The consumer does. The left wants to scream and cry about corporations not paying their fair share of taxes, but the corporations don’t pay the taxes. They are passed on to the stock holder in the form of lost investments and to the consumer…

You are exploiting the ambiguities of a corporation to make your point. If corporations are legal persons, then by all means they can be taxed just like any other person. If a corporation makes a $1 billion in profits we can tax that at a 25% rate. Now the corporation has $750 million to spend as it pleases and the government has $250 million to spend. If we ignore the legal personhood of the corporation (and the ability of a corporation to buy and sell assets), then of course we discover that other people end up paying the $250 million in taxes; namely the shareholders who see reduced dividends. If the management doesn’t want to reduce dividends, they may raise prices to compensate. But that’s their prerogative, the government certainly doesn’t force them to do anything. Shareholders benefit from the existence of the corporation, which in turn depends on an adequately funded government for a plethora of services. Those services don’t come free, so it only makes sense that the beneficiaries of those services must pay for them.

Let’s return to the idea that a corporation may raise prices on its products in response to an increased tax burden. Let’s keep in mind that there are several other options for the corporation to avoid reducing shareholder dividends. The corporation can reduce costs by reducing salaries, the corporation can also reduce costs through other means such as finding a cheaper supplier of raw materials or developing a more efficient method for making their product.

However, none of these situations are unique to a corporation. And any of these may backfire. Increasing prices may drive away customers. Demanding lower prices from a supplier may drive away those suppliers. Likewise, an individual facing an increased tax burden can make similar demands. If a person making $100,000 is now taxed at a 25% rate that person has the same choices to make that a corporation has. That person can ask his employer to pay a higher salary to compensate for the taxes, that person can decrease personal consumption from $100,000 to less than $75,000 (either by decreasing standard of living or by spending money more efficiently). But in any case the results are the same.

So what does this exercise teach us? If we ignore the legal fiction that corporations are people, we see that the costs of corporate taxation are indeed spread throughout the entire economy. However, this is nothing unique to corporations. Any income tax will have a similar result, with the burden being spread throughout the economy. In any case the decision regarding how that burden is spread is dictated by the free market.

Posted by: Warped Reality at April 10, 2011 05:05 PM
Comment #321391

cc

Give me a list of all the Wal-Mart stores that closed their doors in CA in the last 10 years. Should be a considerably small list and take very little effort to compile. Just want to compare my list to yours.

Posted by: tom humes at April 10, 2011 05:17 PM
Comment #321392

tom humes,

I am not going to do your homework for you. Look it up.

Posted by: CC at April 10, 2011 05:46 PM
Comment #321393

and tom, while your at it, look up all the closings in the USA, not that it would change your mind or anything.

Posted by: CC at April 10, 2011 05:47 PM
Comment #321395

“Perhaps CC is part of the 49% of American “non-fat cats” who pay no taxes at all. In that case, if one did not pay any taxes, they would not be concerned about taxes going up.”

Nope, I paid more than my fair share because I don’t have the corporate loopholes or subsidies.

Boy, you really hate liberals don’t you? It’s a shame, we are really very nice people. You should just think of us as misguided if it makes you feel better. :-)

But I am wondering why YOU are getting so upset when we are talking about people we don’t even know, and politicians, and corporations, we are talking about ideologies…but then you told me you rant and rave at home, so I believe it. :-) Surely you can’t believe I put my faith in everything Democrats do. Their ideology is just closer to mine than any other party. I do have some very strong principles that I am unwavering on and so do you, so let’s not let this devolve into ugliness. It is too easy to get more caught up in that than the issues at hand, and I myself am not innocent either, OK? However, if that is just the way you “fight” then I can deal with it. :-)

Posted by: CC at April 10, 2011 06:06 PM
Comment #321402

CC

I’m not going to do your homework for you either.

Your answer tells me you don’t know the number of walmart stores that have closed in ca in the last 10 years. I will give you a clue. The number is a single digit number. I had that number before you posted your error above.

Posted by: tom humes at April 10, 2011 08:06 PM
Comment #321405

Wrong.

Posted by: CC at April 10, 2011 08:49 PM
Comment #321407

Corporate shills posting here casually dismiss the multibillions being paid out by our government to International Corporations. These foreign entities have no conscience for the debt. Discretionary spending can in no way compete with the volume of these pay outs. Do Corporations and their shills think we are that stupid, or maybe they understand our government will do nothing about this rape!?

Posted by: Marvin Geer at April 10, 2011 09:00 PM
Comment #321409

Marvin Geer, I don’t know that much about what you are saying except that I have read reports along the lines of what you say, and I agree with you. Could you elaborate more?

Posted by: CC at April 10, 2011 09:27 PM
Comment #321414


“If Democrats had their way, we wouldn’t be involved in oil at all.”

“You got that right.”

That is not true at all. What most of the people on the left want is the same thing that some on the right want. That is a recognition that humans have been creating climate change and we want to plan a better future and meet the energy needs of that future.

What we want is finally happening and it is accelerating rapidly.

Here are a few examples:

The U.S. military is a leader in alternative energy use and plans to reduce the militarise carbon foot print by at least 20% by 2020.

If Texas were an independent country it would be the 6TH largest producer of wind power in the world.

Houston, Texas uses more alternative energy than any city in the country.

Is the Mayor of Houston a woman? Says Houston is a car city and those cars are going to be electric.

PBS show—- Earth: The Operators Manual. The presenter—-Richard Alley, Penn State Geologist.

He lets people know right off the bat that he is a Republican and goes to church on Sunday.

I urge everyone to watch this show. Find out what is happening in the U.S., China, Brazil, and around the world.

It is a very informative show. google Earth: The Operators Manual.

Posted by: jlw at April 10, 2011 11:27 PM
Comment #321418

“That is not true at all. What most of the people on the left want is the same thing that some on the right want.

That is a recognition that humans have been creating climate change and we want to plan a better future and meet the energy needs of that future.”

You are right, I was overgeneralizing as a response to those who bait for arguments with liberals, then get upset when liberals don’t buy it.

Personally, I would like to see the $3.1 billion in annual subsidies given to oil companies ended and use the money to subsidize consumers to buy “green” cars. It would not only put the money where it belongs, help the cause environmentally, but would also help stimulate and contribute to a more positive GDP. I would put the oil companies on notice that if they don’t stop trying to suck people dry, they may end up with much reduced business.

To me it doesn’t have to be about liberal or conservative at all, I am married to one, afterall…but it is about fairness and responsibility. We simply cannot keep letting all decisions about peoples’ lives be made through the lens of money. I could agree to just about anything IF it was responsible.

I do put people before money, although I don’t like the current deficit numbers. I would like to see them lowered, but not at the expense of the population. We are taking a non-human factor (money) and applying it to humans. It is like mixing water and oil. You have to have both to make a good dressing but it has to be in the proper balance.

I am optimistic that there are solutions at hand, but there may be some rough seas ahead as people, through the vast information available now are beginning to realize what has been happening and how they have been duped…by both parties!

Posted by: CC at April 10, 2011 11:55 PM
Comment #321425
use the money to subsidize consumers to buy “green” cars.

Bad Idea! The government does not have the ability to dictate how the economy runs in the manner that you describe. Merely eliminating oil company subsidies and putting an accurate price on carbon should do the job. The risk with following your proposal is that we might end up with an inefficient system. Maybe it’s cheaper to increase population densities and rely on mass transportation for most travel instead of doing anything with “green” cars. If you subsidize “green” cars you might put us into a less than optimal situation. Instead, let the free market figure things out.

You are right, I was overgeneralizing as a response to those who bait for arguments with liberals, then get upset when liberals don’t buy it.
The rightists here like to use straw man arguments and you fell for one just now. If I were you, I’d watch out and try not to legitimize those straw men.

jlw, thanks for the tip about the TV program. Since I started a new job in February, I really haven’t been able to watch any TV, but I’ll try to see if I can make an exception for this one.

Posted by: Warped Reality at April 11, 2011 01:08 AM
Comment #321428


Warped Reality, The first part of the show covers the science findings on global warming/climate change. The second half deals with how the market is responding.

There is nothing wrong with government subsidizing desired results. They do it all the time, they are subsidizing oil. I think mass transit is going to grow but at least for the foreseeable future the market will prefer cars IMO.

The Chancellor of Germany has announced that the country will phase out nuclear energy.

The government of England is reducing incentives for large scale solar energy and wind farms to concentrate on assistance for home based systems. China will be cornering the market on much of the alternative energy.

England, Germany, and I believe the Dutch have also announced that they will be cutting their defense budgets.

C&J, how much does the Ryan budget plan cut defense?

Posted by: jlw at April 11, 2011 07:30 AM
Comment #321434

Well this is interesting: we have CC who wants to shut down all oil production in the US, no matter the consequences, and subsidize the auto industry by $3.1 billion. We have jlw who disagrees but accepts GW as absolute fact. And we have WR, who disagrees with the sudsidies for the auto industry, but wants to inact a “cap and trade” tax. If you three liberals represent a cross section of the deomcratic party, then I would say there is no divisions in the Republican Party.

WR, I read through your post #321390, and this is my response: I don’t believe you can have results both ways. It seems your answer is the same as mine. The difference is that I don’t think it is right for the American people to be double taxed and you seem to say it is inevitable and a fact of life. At any point, it takes away the wealth of the consumer, and in this case, the middle and low income people lose about 25% of their purchasing power. Which means, people are losing wealth at the expense of increasing government income, who in turn use this money to redistribute wealth. And there is no guarantee the wealth is redistributed to the population. As the left has stated, much of the redistribution is to corporations, of which the Republican Party is blamed, but the Democratic Party is also guilty of, and has never done anything to stop the process.

Posted by: 1776 at April 11, 2011 10:27 AM
Comment #321437

jlw, thanks for the tip about the rightists in this room. :-)

“Bad Idea! The government does not have the ability to dictate how the economy runs in the manner that you describe. Merely eliminating oil company subsidies and putting an accurate price on carbon should do the job. The risk with following your proposal is that we might end up with an inefficient system. Maybe it’s cheaper to increase population densities and rely on mass transportation for most travel instead of doing anything with “green” cars. If you subsidize “green” cars you might put us into a less than optimal situation. Instead, let the free market figure things out.”

I disagree with you to some degree about the free market. Although there is some validity to the free market concept, as we have seen in the recent economic debacle, it does not work well. In theory, I believe in public transportation, but we are a nation of convenience, and the reality is that Americans love their cars. They will have them, “green” or otherwise.

Here is the problem, if we just eliminate the subsidies and put an accurate price on carbon without being able to mitigate the oil company blackmail of resultant higher prices, it is not going to get the support of most of the people in this nation. Most people are price driven especially in this economy, and want the cheaper price regardless of the “cost”. You can’t just say we are cutting subsidies and putting a high price on carbon to save the environment so you will have to pay a lot more for gas, without having an incentive to do so…and you can’t force people to use public transportation.

The last thing we need to do is encumber the mobility of this country. This is a large factor in people finding and getting to jobs. It is a large factor in transporting goods. This will cause a price hike in some manufactured goods and air travel, but maybe this is a good argument for high speed rails.

I have yet to hear an explanation as to why we are subsidizing companies who threaten our environment, take our tax revenues off shore, find any excuse warranted or not
to exploit prices, and have record profits. The problem is, so many people have an investment interest in oil, either directly or indirectly. It is an issue that we need to start addressing and stop pandering to oil barons.

Posted by: CC at April 11, 2011 11:00 AM
Comment #321438

jlw…interesting.

Posted by: CC at April 11, 2011 11:02 AM
Comment #321440

CC said, “Here is the problem, if we just eliminate the subsidies and put an accurate price on carbon without being able to mitigate the oil company blackmail of resultant higher prices,”

What is it with the left? Are they so stupid that they cannot goggle, “Who sets crude oil prices”? For the last time, it is not the greedy, blackmailing, oil companies that set the price of crude. You are beating a dead horse, and to continue the same mantra is nothing more than liberal talking points. I’m not an economist, but I have enough sense to understand who sets the oil prices.

“Who sets crude oil prices?
by Joseph Mann
04-10-05 Question: Who sets crude oil prices? The big oil companies? OPEC?
Answer: At different stages of our history, they both did. Even today, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries often influences prices by producing more or less crude oil, or by announcing it will raise or lower production.
Some people will never be convinced, but it’s the petroleum market, with its volatility and sometimes crazy gyrations, that determines crude oil prices.
Big oil companies lost their power to control prices partly because of antitrust legislation, and mostly because OPEC began setting prices for its oil in the early 1970s.
OPEC members took control of huge crude oil reserves when they nationalized the operations of companies like Exxon, Royal Dutch Shell, Mobil and Gulf. By the early 1980s, though, OPEC nations began losing control of pricing power and the market took over.
Every day, traders, buyers and sellers of oil, evaluate supply and demand, look at the outlook foroil producers and consumers, analyse political and economic risks, and look for any news that could impact the market, such as a hurricane heading toward the Gulf of Mexico.
Using sophisticated mathematical models, the day’s news, rumours and gut feelings, they bid crude prices up or down.
Source: businessnews@sun-sentinel.com “

http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/features/fex54345.htm

You might add to this the falling dollar, which is the result of an out of control debt.

Posted by: 1776 at April 11, 2011 11:25 AM
Comment #321447
Here is the problem, if we just eliminate the subsidies and put an accurate price on carbon without being able to mitigate the oil company blackmail of resultant higher prices, it is not going to get the support of most of the people in this nation. Most people are price driven especially in this economy, and want the cheaper price regardless of the “cost”. You can’t just say we are cutting subsidies and putting a high price on carbon to save the environment so you will have to pay a lot more for gas, without having an incentive to do so…and you can’t force people to use public transportation.

The last thing we need to do is encumber the mobility of this country. This is a large factor in people finding and getting to jobs. It is a large factor in transporting goods. This will cause a price hike in some manufactured goods and air travel, but maybe this is a good argument for high speed rails.

So basically you are saying we can’t put an accurate price on carbon because people like you throw tantrums when transporation costs increase. Grow up, please.

I have yet to hear an explanation as to why we are subsidizing companies who threaten our environment
You just answered your own question. We subsidize today’s fossil fuel use with tomorrow’s tax dollars in order to keep people like you from throwing temper tantrums over fuel costs. Maybe if you thought of someone other than yourself maybe you’d understand why higher prices on fossil fuels are necessary. It’ll take time, but the free market will adjust to the higher (and more realistic price) of fuel. People did just fine without cars in the past and people might be able to do just fine without cars in the future. I don’t know which solution is optimal, and neither do you, which is why both of should just shut up and let the markets take their course. Posted by: Warped Reality at April 11, 2011 01:30 PM
Comment #321472

I am not talking about price, I am talking about strategy. The free market hasn’t worked thus far with oil companies, with the exception of a boycott on buying gas for 1 day several years ago. Unless bold steps are taken, we will continue our dependence on fossil fuels, which must at some point all but come to a stop.

I did not say, by the way, there should not be a higher price for carbon, I said IN ADDITION to cutting their subsidy AND raising the cost of carbon, we should help consumers purchase “green” cars IF they are going to be buying cars anyhow.

Posted by: CC at April 11, 2011 06:36 PM
Comment #321473
The free market hasn’t worked thus far with oil companies,

With all the subsidies granted from the government, oil companies have never experienced the free market.

we should help consumers purchase “green” cars IF they are going to be buying cars anyhow.

As I already said, this could be counterproductive. It shouldn’t be up to the government to decide the best solution for a post-carbon economy. Subsidizing “green” cars means “green” cars have an unearned competitive advantage over alternatives such as mass transit. This is the same sort of thinking that got us into this mess. If the government hadn’t built infrastructure for automobiles 50 to 100 years ago, we might have been much better off with our preexisting rail infrastructure.

Posted by: Warped Reality at April 11, 2011 06:51 PM
Comment #321476

Warped,

Truth be told, people didn’t use railroads. They bought cars. I agree, I hope they do end up riding the rails.

But what you need to understand is that there is a difference between idealism and reality. What exists now is reality, so your choices are, do we continue to pander to fossil fuel production companies or do we take the next step?

I think high-speed rails are an interesting concept, but I am concerned about the environmental impact. I need to do some more research, but I will repeat, we cannot force people to use other means of transportation.

I lived in California all my life until we moved here to Missouri last year. In the metropolitan areas, mass transit is used a lot. In the San Francisco bay area, people who work in the city but who live in outlying cities and towns ride the BART mass transit system. In Los Angeles, that is a whole other world. EVERONE has cars, not just one, but several! It’s nuts down there. Where I live now, I have to drive 25 miles if I want to take the only Amtrak, but if it went where I wanted to go, I would take it.

The key is dealing with what is real now while working toward a more efficient solution. :-)

Posted by: CC at April 11, 2011 07:35 PM
Comment #321480
In Los Angeles, that is a whole other world. EVERONE has cars, not just one, but several! It’s nuts down there. Where I live now, I have to drive 25 miles if I want to take the only Amtrak, but if it went where I wanted to go, I would take it.

With time, any of these behaviors can change. You will move to a house near a rail station and your employer will move his/her establishment to a location accessible by transit. Or maybe not; that’s the brilliance of the free market. If left to its own devices, the free market usually will find the most efficient way of doing things as long as government is there to regulate things and prevent externalities or exploitation. It could be that “green” cars are more efficient than mass transit, but we won’t know which is better if we subsidize one or another with government funds.

Truth be told, people didn’t use railroads. They bought cars.
100 years ago, no one drove except the wealthiest echelon, and even then the wealthy could not drive far beyond urban areas. At that time, rail was the dominant mode of transportation and remained that way until after WWII. It wasn’t until Ike built the interstate highway system that passenger rail declined. Posted by: Warped Reality at April 11, 2011 08:10 PM
Comment #321482

Well, I think on the subsidy issue we disagree, but I think we are in agreement on most of the rest. :-)

Posted by: CC at April 11, 2011 08:19 PM
Comment #321486
Well, I think on the subsidy issue we disagree, but I think we are in agreement on most of the rest. :-)

Well duh!

However, our disagreement regarding subsidies reveals a profound difference in political philosophies. You are a progressive and I am a liberal; you believe in governmental central planning and I for the most part don’t believe that such things can work.

Posted by: Warped Reality at April 11, 2011 09:35 PM
Comment #321487

Yeah, it sounds like you are pretty far right.

Posted by: CC at April 11, 2011 09:38 PM
Comment #321488

Read my comments for a few months and you’ll see that I’m not a rightist. Government intervention is the hallmark of both conservatism and progressivism, and I follow neither of those ideologies.

Posted by: Warped Reality at April 11, 2011 09:41 PM
Comment #321594


Warped, corporations like GM, Firestone, and Standard Oil had a lot to do with the governments decision to concentrate on road building rather than mass transit and buses rather than electric trains.

1776, man made global warming is a fact. You can choose to ignore or dispute that fact, but it is still a fact. When you account for possible contributors of increased CO2 in the atmosphere, the huge spike up in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere is directly attributed to the burning of carbon. Humans are the carbon burners on this planet.

Consumer spending went up in March, gas prices.

Posted by: jlw at April 13, 2011 07:49 PM
Comment #321600

I’d agree, if the facts as stated originally were true, it would be unfair to put it generously - and certainly would provide an impetus for imposing an alternative manditory minimum corporate tax, presumably as an alternative to the alternative minimim tax.

However, over in the Third Party & Independent section, somebody else noted the same thing on 4/10 (it’s under something about a flat tax, if you want to read it and check the sources referenced). In the case of GE, at least, the “paid no taxes” part is simply not true, nor is there any multi-billion dollar tax refund. GE made estimated tax payments on 2010 income, and tax payments on previous years’ income to boot.

Remember, Bernie Sanders is a politician. You always have to remember to add the phrase “Not intended to be a factual statement” to anything any politician says…it does make much more sense that way.

Posted by: Kevin L at April 13, 2011 11:14 PM
Comment #321629
Warped, corporations like GM, Firestone, and Standard Oil had a lot to do with the governments decision to concentrate on road building rather than mass transit and buses rather than electric trains.

I’m aware of this. However, the decision to shift infrastructure spending from rail to autos was a complicated one built upon the interests of many factions including corporations, racial bigotry and wishful thinking/naivete.

Posted by: Warped Reality at April 14, 2011 10:15 PM
Comment #321630
Warped, corporations like GM, Firestone, and Standard Oil had a lot to do with the governments decision to concentrate on road building rather than mass transit and buses rather than electric trains.

I’m aware of this. However, the decision to shift infrastructure spending from rail to autos was a complicated one built upon the interests of many factions including corporations, racial bigotry and wishful thinking/naivete.

Posted by: Warped Reality at April 14, 2011 10:16 PM
Comment #321641

My apologies for the double post.

Posted by: Warped Reality at April 15, 2011 09:35 AM
Post a comment