First and foremost - thank you for an intelligent, well thought out response that has nothing to do with hate or slander... That's rare in today's political scene and I have
SO MUCH RESPECT for you for being able to discuss opinions respectfully.
I'm going to just make quick hits because I think this is getting a little "deep" for an online football game thread! ROFL!
But please trust that none of it is just me throwing kool-aid at it (I use that term for shallow opinions based on nothing more than propaganda.)
brwnbear wrote:
I noticed that you have made this connection that corporations = rich people. I dont know why you have come to that conclusion but its really not very accurate. Corporation employ a large % of the middle class. Corporations like Google and Apple create a lot of wealth for the middle class and create a massive amount of tax revenue that didnt exist before. Those things are good.
Unfortunately, the executive pay in America has exploded into a skewed model which results in a reduction of those positive benefits - hence the job loss and recession despite the wealthy getting richer. Giving subsidies to corporations has never = giving money to the rich moreso than in today's economy.
brwnbear wrote:
Let me first clear up my point about "corporate welfare." I use it in quotes because the U.S. gov. doesnt have an itemized line called that and it is a made up word with no clear definition. Under the most extreme definition, which is the one you mentioned regarding spending vs. social welfare, it includes tax breaks afforded to every corporation. Let me work through why this is a problem.
Lets say you own a S-Corporation and you remodel kitchens. Lets say I hire you to remodel my kitchen and I write you a check for $35,000. You then go to the store and buy new cabinets, a new sink, drywall, trim, tile, counter-top, stainless steel appliances, hire a contractor to do some plumbing, a new window, screws, and a new tile saw. In all you spend $30,000. Would you consider it welfare if you only had to pay taxes on your net gain and got to write off the $30,000 of expenses? How would you feel if you didnt receive this so called welfare and had to pay taxes at 15% on the full $35,000 ($5,250) and ended up netting a loss of $250 for all your work? What incentive would you have to find another client? Best case scenario, you would have to pass on the cost to your client and end up charging me upwards for $40,000 just to make it feasable for you.
I'm not arguing "taxable income" (which is really all this is). Corporate "Welfare" (I agree w/ the quotes) and Subsidies are in addition to our normal tax code. Loopholes, Subsidies, bailouts, etc. I've never argued that taxable income or the tax code should be changed and I didn't mean to insinuate it was part of Corporate Welfare. Tax Code is fine (for this debate)
brwnbear wrote:
Regarding subsidies, most are used to control cost or to make an industry more competitive. There are those that are a direct abuse of power to reward political allies, but these are actually a relatively small percentage and I think everyone (except for the guy getting the cash) wants to see these done away with. Regarding the subsidies that are used to control costs, this is more of a social benefit vs. a corporate benefit. If you are a farmer and are experiencing a drought the reduces the available amount of corn, in a free market (of which the majority of the world is a part of) prices will rise making it very difficult for the poor to afford the food they need. Subsidies provide breaks for farmers so they can offset a natural tendency to raise prices as supply drops.
brwnbear wrote:
In terms of subsidies to help non-competitive industries, you are right, in a free market we should allow them to fail. Companies like Synerga and AAA1 and Fisker should not be getting cash to create an industry that doesnt exist. Playing devils advocate though, you have to remember that if the U.S. wants to develope an alternative energy industry (again you can debate if its the right path), then you have to be realistic and realize that these companies cannot compete on a global scale. China, because is fixes its currency and allows slave like working conditions and funds companies with cash, will produce less expensive products that the US simply cant compete with without some sort of assistance. If it works, then you have created an entire industry that provides good jobs for the middle class. Do some people end up getting rich at the same time. Probably.
brwnbear wrote:
Now I notices you used the term bailouts, which is commonly used to describe the loans that where given to banks. I thought it would be worth examinig what the net affect of those bailouts has been. If you combine the original TARP distributions and compare it to the net payments (this includes loans given to AIG which we will never recover), are you aware that taxpayers actually made a PROFIT? At the same time, it possibly saved hundreds of thousands of middle class jobs (8,000 at AIG alone). Isnt that a perfect scenario - send out money to save jobs and earn back the taxpayers a profit. I am in favor of that bailout 100% of the time. Now, of course, a lot of the money once received was redirected at other companies that where not the original intent of TARP. People also received ridiculous salaries while their companies where receiving TARP. Unfortunately, those companies made employemnt contracts - enforced by federal law - that require payment, or be subject to additional employer penalties. But that is a whole other discussion.
The Bailout making the taxpayers a "profit" is kool-aid bro. First, the money was taxpayer money and it's being repaid to the government (not the taxpayers) in a manner which hits the books as profit. It's not going back to the taxpayers (did you get a check?) and you have to ignore the incredible moral hazard that it promotes/allows to continue/encourages which is ultimately bad for the economy in order to call it anything positive.
It's basically bailing out the crack dealer when he was down, and he hit a big score and repaid you with interest... but he didn't even really repay "you" and so now he's able to continue dealing crack... and that's somehow supposed to be the "perfect scenario"? No thanks. Yes, we are the crackheads who need the product in our current model - I get it... but personally I'd rather we go through the shakes, and actually get better than to just rejoice because the crack dealer is back with our "fix".
We gave the money players more money and you're surprised that they'd figure out how to make it look like a "profit"? Sorry, we got drunk and already had one hangover on that kool-aid - I'll pass.
brwnbear wrote:
I dont dissagree with you that we should remove the subsidies, but you have to understand the side affects. No alternative energy plan, its just not cost affective. Higher gasoline prices (no ethenal subsidy), higher natural gas and electric prices (no subsidies for upgrading the electrical grid), massive price increases on food during droughts (no farm subsidies), no affordable housing for the poor (no affordable home subsidies) and so on and so on.
These side affects are all addressed (and it's an argument to be had for sure) by a Free Market. Example: higher gasoline prices -> more urgency to move away from oil both personally and as a gov -> more investments in other energy/lower demand for oil -> lower gas prices. The farm subsidies are one of the few that make some sense, but they are so badly abused (by the sugar industry mainly) they are just as problematic as they are helpful.
brwnbear wrote:
Regarding taxes for the rich, i dont oppose responsibly raising the tax rate for those that receive a high amount of compensation. I dont think it should be at a rate that de-motivates someone from making more money (94%). Keep in mind that starting in 2014, those making over $250,000 will be already be paying 4.9% more through ObamaCare. But lets be honest on who the rich really are. I will never be convinced that someone that makes $250,000 is now someone who is rich? With student loan payments, college costs for 3 kids, local Real Estate taxes, local sales tax - $250,000 is not a ton of money. Are you doing better than most people, yes, but I wouldnt describe those people as rich. You want to raise taxes, fine, raise it for those earning above $1M and do it responsibly. By the way, raising taxes to the levels proposed by our president will only raise $20B per year in additional revenue, around 2% of our $1T annual deficit. If you apply 100% tax rate to every dollar earned above $1M (along with completely de-motivating anyone to earn more, and drying up the tax base) you would still only collect $617M or only 67% of the amount needed to cover our deficit.
We agree that taxes should be raised on the rich, and we agree that $250k is not rich. I'd question those numbers as possible kool-aid, but regardless - it takes a new-age republican to say "fiscally conservative" and "bah, $20B what difference is that gonna make." in the same sentence. (Side Note: for interesting trends, take a look at the historical tax rate and the economic state of the union.)
brwnbear wrote:
By the way, the vast majority of republicans are nice people who like to help those in need in their community. They believe in having a level playing field, with minimal government intrusion, when appropriate, and responsible spending. We are not threatend by others who are educated and hold different values than ours as you suggested (something about being in my nightmares). We understand that there are people who are born without the means to provide for themselves and are willing to help them (next friday I will be spending a day working for habitat for humanity). But like you want to minimize corruption on the corporate side, we want to limit corruption on the social side by reducing those on welfare that take advantage of the system.
I would COMPLETELY AGREE that most Republicans tend to be amazing, traditional, well intentioned people with exceptional values. I have several life-long friends who are staunch Republicans. But I have also noticed that they - individually and collectively - tend to be stubborn to a fault and not very open-minded about ANY situation until it applies directly to them. Examples: Only my Republican friend with 2 gay kids sympathizes with equal rights for gays; only my Republican friend who just got out of a horrible marriage didn't completely TORCH Newt for his dirt; only my Republican friend who has a wife that was raped believes pro-life should have limits... If they have no direct experience with a topic, they tend to be VERY black and white on it and stubborn to a fault... and once they do have experience their opinion tends to become much more grey.
This movement to grey - in my opinion - should enlighten them to the possibility of other mistakes in their "blindly" adhered to values (I say blindly not to be disrespectful, but to imply that it is an issue with no direct experience.)