I agree with Obama on stopping oil company subsidies!

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from sk8ter2008. Show sk8ter2008's posts

    I agree with Obama on stopping oil company subsidies!

    I also think we should stop all other corporate subsidies!

    Including farm subsidies except to small farmers (less than 250,000 in revenue)

    They are outdated and cost tax payers 10's of billions a year!!
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThinkSnow99. Show ThinkSnow99's posts

    Re: I agree with Obama on stopping oil company subsidies!

    Agreed
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from whatnow4. Show whatnow4's posts

    Re: I agree with Obama on stopping oil company subsidies!

    How can a company get tax credits and subsidies from our government and then go and make 35 billion in profits?  It makes no sense. 

    I understand that they pay payroll taxes and the workers end up paying sales taxes and income taxes, but at some point in time we have to say enough is enough. 

    Will companies honestly leave the United States?

    If so, we should tax the c r a p out of their imports. 
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhichOnesPink. Show WhichOnesPink's posts

    Re: I agree with Obama on stopping oil company subsidies!

    I'm ok with that
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from sk8ter2008. Show sk8ter2008's posts

    Re: I agree with Obama on stopping oil company subsidies!

    the Government subsidies were intended to invite and create exploration and production for oil companies but, they make enough now and some of the subsides are way outdated ie: they get paid for clearing out old non-producing wells.

    The farm subsidies are a little more sensitive but, in some cases the govt uses subsidies to control prices. The claim is to keep prices at a desired amount creates revenue for the farmer and improves the rural community economic activitiy. This is likely true but, the free market and supply and demand will do the same thing with time. The govt should not be involved in this day and time.

    There are also subsides for wind power, solar power ect that have been going on for decades with little or no reward and they should be stopped also!
     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from whatnow4. Show whatnow4's posts

    Re: I agree with Obama on stopping oil company subsidies!

    I said this before, but I went to school with a girl who was from IL.  Her parents were being paid by the Gov to not farm.  She claimed the payment was more than 6 figures.

    And that had been going on for several years.  Now, why would the government pay people not to farm?

    She told me it had to do with oil under their farm.  And yet they never drilled for the oil.

    I am at a loss.   
     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhichOnesPink. Show WhichOnesPink's posts

    Re: I agree with Obama on stopping oil company subsidies!

    So that's one against small farmers.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from sk8ter2008. Show sk8ter2008's posts

    Re: I agree with Obama on stopping oil company subsidies!

    In Response to Re: I agree with Obama on stopping oil company subsidies!:
    [QUOTE]In Response to I agree with Obama on stopping oil company subsidies! : Why protect small farmers? Shouldn't the free market crush the inefficient?
    Posted by WhatDoYouWantNow[/QUOTE]

    The inefficient yes but, not the smaller competition just because they are smaller.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from beKool. Show beKool's posts

    Re: I agree with Obama on stopping oil company subsidies!

    In Response to Re: I agree with Obama on stopping oil company subsidies!:
    [QUOTE]I said this before, but I went to school with a girl who was from IL.  Her parents were being paid by the Gov to not farm.  She claimed the payment was more than 6 figures. And that had been going on for several years.  Now, why would the government pay people not to farm? She told me it had to do with oil under their farm.  And yet they never drilled for the oil. I am at a loss.   
    Posted by whatnow4[/QUOTE]

    "And that had been going on for several years. Now, why would the government pay people not to farm?"

    Cost control. If to much is on the market the prices go down too low to support growing the food be it beef to corn. Any oil below any farm if thats the case is also to protect prices. Why do you think they shut down most small refineries in the country back in the day and limited our or their storage capacity.  
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from KittyDuke. Show KittyDuke's posts

    Re: I agree with Obama on stopping oil company subsidies!

    Ahh the single mother violin... Maybe she should get a job.. oops, that's still on Obamas list but obviously not near the top.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from beKool. Show beKool's posts

    Re: I agree with Obama on stopping oil company subsidies!

    Now all you ones on the right get your representatives in the republican party to do it. You know thats not going to happen and its more proof the president can say anything he wants its the congress that has the responsibility to enact what he talks . But hey its Obama's fault right ?
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhichOnesPink. Show WhichOnesPink's posts

    Re: I agree with Obama on stopping oil company subsidies!

    1 + 1 apparently =  F*ck the single mother who's on welfare because she cannot afford day care and must care for her young child, BUT, spend my tax dollars to subsize a farmer making $225,000? 


    Who is saying this? It's not as black and white as you want to pretend. I'm all for helping out the single mother. It's those single mothers who decide to have more kids in order to get more money that people have issue with.
    It's those people who CAN work but decide not too and feed off the system that we have issue with.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from beKool. Show beKool's posts

    Re: I agree with Obama on stopping oil company subsidies!

    In Response to Re: I agree with Obama on stopping oil company subsidies!:
    [QUOTE]1 + 1 apparently =  F*ck the single mother who's on welfare because she cannot afford day care and must care for her young child, BUT, spend my tax dollars to subsize a farmer making $225,000?  Who is saying this? It's not as black and white as you want to pretend. I'm all for helping out the single mother. It's those single mothers who decide to have more kids in order to get more money that people have issue with. It's those people who CAN work but decide not too and feed off the system that we have issue with.
    Posted by WhichOnesPink[/QUOTE]

    All welfare cases as well as SSI cases and SSD cases get reevaluated every six months today. You must prove your case every six months or you lose the benifits. You get caught you get charged with fraud. The problem is a certain party keeps cutting the funding for oversight of these porograms , and lets face it any program that takes a hit its the worker who gets hit first. less oversight more problems catching the ones you are crying about. Its that simple and many people take advantage of any situation to keep money coming in its the capitalist way .
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from sk8ter2008. Show sk8ter2008's posts

    Re: I agree with Obama on stopping oil company subsidies!

    In Response to Re: I agree with Obama on stopping oil company subsidies!:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: I agree with Obama on stopping oil company subsidies! : Well that's where things get murky then. If I take people's words at face value, at least on these boards, most of the criticism/hatred heaped on "Obama and the Democrats" is aimed at their desire to help the "small" folk, motivated by a desire to protect them from being crushed simply because they are small. This gets lambasted as "entitlements" and "handouts." - the evil "Liberal Welfare State" that is supposedly so cushy with it's handouts that people like staying poor. So I do a little math and reach an odd result. 1 + 1 apparently =  F*ck the single mother who's on welfare because she cannot afford day care and must care for her young child, BUT, spend my tax dollars to subsize a farmer making $225,000?  Say what? How is helping the single mother out subsidizing a culture of laziness, but subsidizing an inefficient small farmer not? I don't get this. Again, it seems to be not a question of whether "entitlements" or "handouts" are best....  but simply which group(s) each individual speaker is willing or unwilling to help.
    Posted by WhatDoYouWantNow[/QUOTE]

    strawman argument.

    The single mother on welfare is a choice and her life decisions put her where she has to make certain choices. "Individual accountability"

    The small family farmer will be vulnerable to large coporate farms that can sell more bulk at lower prices and still make margins.

    another "strawman" what about the single mother who works at the small family farm!?
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from beKool. Show beKool's posts

    Re: I agree with Obama on stopping oil company subsidies!

    In Response to Re: I agree with Obama on stopping oil company subsidies!:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: I agree with Obama on stopping oil company subsidies! : The single mother violin? Ugh. Yuck. Vomit. Shut it, you worthless lying twit/tw*t. There are any number of statistical breakdowns demonstrating that the single mother category is a major, if not the major, one. __________________________________________________ Traits of families on AFDC (1) Race -------------- White 38.8% Black 37.2 Hispanic 17.8 Asian 2.8 Other 3.4 Time on AFDC --------------------------- Less than 7 months 19.0% 7 to 12 months 15.2 One to two years 19.3 Two to five years 26.9 Over five years 19.6 Number of children ------------------- One 43.2% Two 30.7 Three 15.8 Four or more 10.3 Age of Mother ------------------ Teenager 7.6% 20 - 29 47.9 30 - 39 32.7 40 or older 11.8 Status of Father 1973 1992 ------------------------------------- Divorced or separated 46.5% 28.6 Deceased 5.0 1.6 Unemployed or Disabled 14.3 9.0 Not married to mother 31.5 55.3 Other or Unknown 2.7 5.5 Endnotes: 1. Overview of Entitlement Programs, Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of Representatives (U.S. Government Printing Office, 1994). 2. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Characteristics and Financial Condition of AFDC Recipients, Fiscal Year 1992 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1992); 1994 Green Book, p. 47. 3. Paul Taylor, "When Safety Nets Leave the Needy in Free Fall," Washington Post National Weekly Edition, September 9-11, 1991. 4. All statistics charts on teen sex taken from Where We Stand, by Michael Wolff, Peter Rutten, Albert Bayers III, eds., and the World Rank Research Team (New York: Bantam Books, 1992), pp. 242-55. _______________________________________________________ Brief history On August 22, 1996, President Clinton signed into law the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, a welfare reform law that established the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program (TANF replaced the government's Aid to Families with Dependent Children [AFDC] program). Under this legislation, states are now responsible for implementing their own welfare programs to assist welfare recipients. However, the federal government has provisions for states related to moving families into work and self-sufficiency. Some of the provisions: —A lifetime limit of five years on receiving Aid to Families with Dependent Children. —Requires an able-bodied adult to work after two years of receiving welfare assistance. —Gives the states block grants to run the programs and lets them set many of the rules, such as terminating benefits sooner than five years. —Requires that states require 90 percent of two-parent households receiving welfare to have jobs or be enrolled in job-readiness programs by 1999. —Empowers states to cut Medicaid coverage to adults who lose welfare benefits through not going to work within two years. —Requires that people ages 18 to 50 without children--including people laid off from jobs—work to be eligible for food stamps. —Denies most federal benefits to noncitizens, even those here legally, on the assumption that their sponsors arranged work for them. —Reduces Supplemental Security Income assistance to handicapped children.   ____________________________________________________________________   Welfare critics rarely search the Social Security rolls for "welfare cheats," but train their sights on people getting Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), Medicaid and food stamps, the relief programs with the most Black clients. Yet government figures show that Whites not Blacks make up the bulk of clients on these public aid programs; a fact that dispels the notion that Blacks are scheming for a free lunch courtesy of the American taxpayer. Among the poorest of the poor--single mothers, living below the poverty line with minor children to support 39.7 percent of AFDC clients are Black single mothers and 38.1 percent are White women with children. Food stamp recipients are 37.2 percent Black and 46.2 percent White. Medicaid benefits are paid to 27.5 percent Black recipients compared to 48.5 percent White clients. Although the numbers show that Whites get the biggest chunk of public aid dollars, welfare critics still charge that Blacks shouldn't collect 33 percent of welfare benefits when they only make up 12 percent of the general population. They say the imbalance proves their case that Blacks are too busy complaining and blaming racism for their plight to look for a job. But racism is at the heart of the standard-of-living gap between Blacks and Whites, welfare advocates argue. Unlawful race-based hiring practices, they contend, keep Blacks from getting jobs that pay enough to lift them out of poverty. Until more blue-collar jobs open up to Black workers, Blacks will continue to battle poverty and the freeloader misconception. "Public and congressional deliberations over... welfare reform in the last few years have been fueled by distortions and outright falsehoods about poverty," the National Urban League asserted in its 1988 report, Black Americans and Public Policy. "Welfare reform is not solely a Black issue, but one in need of immediate attention." Turning welfare reform into a "Black issue" makes racial scapegoating easy and allows stereotypes, like the Reaganera "welfare queen," to go unchallenged, public aid supporters say. Rightwing reformers cast Whites as "deserving" clients who are legitimately unable to pay their own way through no fault of their own. Blacks are labeled "undeserving" recipients who are looking for the feds to subsidize their slothfulness. Attaching a moral value to work is not a new convention; it is a philosophy deeply rooted in the religious beliefs and social welfare laws that Anglo-Saxon settlers brought to the New World. These values were imposed upon poor immigrants from other European countries who later perpetuated them after moving into mainstream society. The Puritanical work ethic faced its greatest challenge following the stock market crash of 1929 and the Great Depression of the 1930s. The nation was forced to re-think its social welfare conventions when it realized that economic forces--not misplaced values--could lead to financial disaster. President Franklin D. Roosevelts New Deal programs and the adoption of the Social Security Act of 1935 symbolized the country's commitment to protecting family and personal incomes. President Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society anti-poverty programs of the 1960s ushered in some of the programs of today's welfare system.
    Posted by WhatDoYouWantNow[/QUOTE]

    Good post .
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from KittyDuke. Show KittyDuke's posts

    Re: I agree with Obama on stopping oil company subsidies!

    The single mother violin?

    Ugh. Yuck. Vomit.

    Shut it, you worthless lying twit/tw*t. There are any number of statistical breakdowns demonstrating that the single mother category is a major, if not the major, one.

    So are you saying that the best course of action is to simply dole out the cash?
    Is that best for the mother and the child?
    I don't remember any time I read about some 3rd generation welfare queen going down for fraud. It does NOT happen !!
    ..or maybe you deny there is abuse with our money in the freebie department?
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from KittyDuke. Show KittyDuke's posts

    Re: I agree with Obama on stopping oil company subsidies!

    Butthead... You are sooo precious.

    Did mock hurt your little feeeelings? That was not mocking.

    Ordering the 'usual' ?? .. like not answering a single question. Translation.. you have nothing to bring to the party. Just keep repeating yourself.

    So are you saying that the best course of action is to simply dole out the cash?
    Is that best for the mother and the child?
    I don't remember any time I read about some 3rd generation welfare queen going down for fraud. It does NOT happen !!
    ..or maybe you deny there is abuse with our money in the freebie department?
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: I agree with Obama on stopping oil company subsidies!

    No person, no comapny should receive a subsidy from the federal government, period.  It is not their constitutional mandate.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhichOnesPink. Show WhichOnesPink's posts

    Re: I agree with Obama on stopping oil company subsidies!

    Insulting my point didn't help you either.


    Pot. Kettle. Black.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from sk8ter2008. Show sk8ter2008's posts

    Re: I agree with Obama on stopping oil company subsidies!

    In Response to Re: I agree with Obama on stopping oil company subsidies!:
    [QUOTE]You're doing backflips to defend your inconsistent position. Insulting my point didn't help you either. I can simply rephrase what you said to support my view. The small farmer on welfare (subsidy) is a choice. He didn't have to be a farmer. He chose to be a farmer, and a small one at that, even in an environment where agribusiness behemoths already occupied the field entirely. His life decision put him where he was to make certain choices - competing against more efficient producers that "can sell more bulk at lower prices and still make margins." The single mother, before she became single, will be vulnerable to lying cheating men that can fool her into thinking he will spend the rest of his life with her. Being a lone woman, she has no way of forcing him to do that. She has a child with this would-be husband and is vulnerable to having to care for the child if he leaves. She cannot pay for daycare and cannot force him to pay, as he has dissapeared or landed himself in prison. They're both welfare. They're both subsidizes.  To say the farmer didn't make a choice that made him vulnerable, but the single mother did, is BS. Grade AA BS, fresh and steaming. You can say it ain't so, but that does not make it not so. Anyone lambasting welfare as a liberal handout but defending subsidies to small farmers is a hypocrit. No more, no less.
    Posted by WhatDoYouWantNow[/QUOTE]

    BS!

    The small farmer is usually an employer as well. They are largely family owned for generations. Yes, it is his choice to work that business to provide for his family and workers but, unlike the single mother he did not make a bad choice he just made a tough choice that he can work hard to overcome. The single mom can also work hard to overcome it, or she caan have more kids and get more money!!

    If, the choice is leave it for all or cut it completely for all I would vote cut it completely for every company that gets subsidies.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from sk8ter2008. Show sk8ter2008's posts

    Re: I agree with Obama on stopping oil company subsidies!

    In Response to Re: I agree with Obama on stopping oil company subsidies!:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: I agree with Obama on stopping oil company subsidies! : You are attempting to defeat my argument by calling the single mother's choice "bad" and the farmer's choice "tough." They both made choices, indirect results of which are now that they receive government largesse to help them - as "small" folk - against the "big" folk. It's just that one was a Reagan target and the other wasn't.
    Posted by WhatDoYouWantNow[/QUOTE]

    If, you can't defferentiate between the economical and social difference in a single mother on welfare and a small family farm that receives govt subsidies then we're done here.

    How many single moms go on to become employers who add jobs to the economy?

    When we add jobs to the economy what does that do to govt reciepts?

    when govy reciepts go up that means we can pay down the what?
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from BobinVa. Show BobinVa's posts

    Re: I agree with Obama on stopping oil company subsidies!

    There should be a flat simple tax, with no more complicated deductions,  credits, subsidies for anyone .  All companies and individuals should pay.

    Having said that, it is wrong to say oil companies get "subsidies" . 
    What oil companies get is tax breaks;  they get to keep more of their own  revenue they earned by selling their oil. That is a critical difference.
     
    That is different than farmers getting a check for doing nothing; and welfare recipients, who get a check and are encouraged by the government, and by social workers,  to remain helpless and victimized. 
    To progressives, there are no property rights; it is all one big pot, from which the government decides who gets what.A recipe for failure.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: I agree with Obama on stopping oil company subsidies!

    Yes, cut all energy subsidies.

    Renewables have suffered because they're not subsidized at even close to the level of oil, coal or gas.  If they're all on the same playing field, they can let the market properly determine value to the consumer.

    Corporate subsidies are socialistic anyway.

    Bobin is wrong to say they're not subsidies, because of the damage they cause and their appropriation of public lands for commercial benefit.  Revenue stolen or colluded is not nearly the same as revenue earned.
     

Share