Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
it isn't good news when our administration blocks oil drilling in our own country, and the ban has to be lifted by court order. can't you see what is happening?
Yes, it appears that in the wake of one of the most careless environmental disasters in the planet's history a temporary moratorium on drilling was imposed, which was challenged by financially interested parties, and ultimately lifted by the Obama administration.
Fortunately, the oil companies can use tax break dollars to satisfy the newly imposed regulations, leaving plenty of money available for executive compensation.
The Tax Foundation has received funding from Exxon Mobil and the Koch Family Foundations. Hardly credible or unbiased "facts".
Also, read carefully, I said "so they don't have to use their massive profits to reinvest in their companies future."
Funny how folks wanted the free market to deal with our financial system and GM and Chrysler, but that doesn't apply to oil companies.
Still, I thank you for shilling for my investments.
I don't see the simialrity in borrowing billion sto loan GM and Chrysler and gving taxbreaks for business. Certainly much different than not just allowing Gm and Chrysler to go thru the legal remedy of bankrupsy. I those instqances governamnt picked the winners and losers by politcs as mnay taxpayers were losers who shouldn;t have losss so much.The txaes that the oil comnaies paid were introduced in senate by democratic senator just the other day from the IRS records i the34 billionhs.But if people want to stop tax breaks include individual :I am all for it but not just one industry ;all of them. There are mnay in which they truely payout money to individauals and companies that pay nothig i the end or get back money they never paid in.
the dopey part was that GM got the bailout money and still went through bankruptcy. all that federal money and they still had to declare bankruptcy-go figure.
a GM bailout rewarded malinvestment, which our administration seems to be doing a lot of.
I don't see the simialrity in borrowing billion sto loan GM and Chrysler and gving taxbreaks for business. ..
Well, if you're one of the folks who believe that a company should succeed or fail on its own merits without government intervention or assistance (true free market) then it would be hypocritical to refuse to save the auto industry on those grounds while providing tax breaks to multinational oil conglomerates. In the same vein, gasoline should be allowed to seek its own level without government gerrymandering.
Also, where is the proof that gasoline prices at the consumer level are affected by the tax breaks being given to these corporations? OPEC knows that if oil rises beyond a certain point it stimulates alternative energy development and curtails usage. So, they try and maintain certain price point when possible. And OPEC basically controls the price per barrel of oil. After that it comes down to the refining process and various taxes imposed by federal and local governments.
In truth, I supported saving the auto industry and would support targeted tax breaks that were used to offset the high cost of oil exploration and well development in lean years where oil company profits could not get the job done. I just find the ideas of allowing the auto industry to self destruct while helping the oil industry to be hypocritical.
Both industries have funneled huge amounts of profits to employees, executives and shareholders in the good times and then looked to the American taxpayer in leaner times. They should both be treated equally and any tax breaks should come with major strings attached. I can't shake the image of the various auto executives showing up at congress in private jets with their hands out for taxpayer dollars. And I certainly don't trust that those oil company designated tax breaks are not going to provide golden parachutes and private jets for executives who fail to allocate funds for a rainy day!
Last edited by shaker281; 06-03-2011 at 01:56 AM..
the dopey part was that GM got the bailout money and still went through bankruptcy. all that federal money and they still had to declare bankruptcy-go figure.
a GM bailout rewarded malinvestment, which our administration seems to be doing a lot of.
Political rhetoric aside, GM and Chrysler could not have survived reorganization without government support, now they can. And the reason Chrysler paid off the government loans early was they were able to get better terms privately, which they could not have gotten if they were not seen as viable. Clearly, the administration made the right moves by salvaging an American industry, earning the taxpayers a great rate of return and providing an incentive for them to seek private financing. Let it go, you were wrong, it all worked out.
We are talking here about the difference between providing assistance where necessary to stimulate exploration and development vs. usury taxation (which is the substance of that article).
Quote:
Originally Posted by floridasandy
as i said before, when in history was the elimination of a tax break not passed onto the customers eventually? (or right away).
the idea is to have the government HELP the people, not hurt them.
Where do you draw the line on giving tax breaks to companies to lower prices? Should the government (which you have stated many times is incompetent) be making those decisions? Or should we just trust the word of corporate CEOs? Passing on the cost of doing business to consumers is the heart and soul of free market economic policies. Many would argue "moral hazard" at the first sign of government intervention. I believe that artificially suppressing prices via an infusion of tax dollars should only be done where necessary to protect the overall economy. Some here have proposed never at all and would have let the banks fail with no intervention and the auto industry too, but now you take the opposite view to save money on gasoline? Where is the consistency in that? And since rising gas prices invoke all kinds of "fear based" scenarios, it is easy to manipulate public opinion by painting pictures of economic collapse. I would not put it past the oil industry to capitalize on that fear to get added incentives, all the while lining their pockets with record profits!
Last edited by shaker281; 06-03-2011 at 03:23 AM..
you seem to be combing different issues in your answer.
issue #1, for the record, an italian company now owns US chrysler:
Fiat Buys Rest of U.S.’s Chrysler Stake
all of that bailout money didn't actually prevent the bankruptcies or the buyouts. how did that work out for us then? some of that bailout money went to FOREIGN investment.
issue #2, i do think a society needs to be practical and not do a "one size fits all" approach to the economy.
i notice that you don't address government's share of taxation on the energy issue at all.
tax breaks are not the same as not paying taxes. i have already posted (several times) the amount of taxes that are paid by the energy companies. if you want to talk about economic "recovery" you absolutely have to address the energy issue and the price of gasoline. high gas prices hurt the transportation of goods around our country and hurt the average american, forcing them to withdraw possible spending elsewhere, leading to further destruction of the private sector.
for the record, destruction of the private sector isn't going to be too good long term for the government sector-because guess how the government gets ALL its revenue? (and don't forget the union pension issue...)
i guess the government can keep on collecting its own high share of taxes on fuel (where is the complaint about the government's share of taxation on energy????)and tax energy even more, but they really punish the citizens by doing so.
if you want to talk about economic "recovery" you absolutely have to address the energy issue and the price of gasoline. high gas prices hurt the transportation of goods around our country and hurt the average american
The high price of gas should create the incentive to innovate efficient techniques. During the 2000~2008 exuberance, truckers were driving around the country with 1/2, or even 1/4 loads, to stay working--waste of gas & other expenses.** Another example: If shipping a product overseas (back & forth) were more expensive, it may not have been worth the costs to offshore jobs--too late now!
**I empathize with the truckers during this time & I realize that there's more to this story!
Quote:
Originally Posted by shaker281
And the reason Chrysler paid off the government loans early was they were able to get better terms privately, which they could not have gotten if they were not seen as viable.
My understanding is, just like the BANKs, the US Taxpayers gave GM/Chrysler a low interest rate loan so they would have enough time to pay the money back without hurting their bottom line? By paying the loans off early, the Banks/Car companies’ saved lots of money. In other words, the US taxpayer took a financial risk & was not compensated enough for it.
Last edited by DSOs; 06-03-2011 at 01:32 PM..
Reason: changed would to may
The high price of gas should create the incentive to innovate efficient techniques. During the 2000~2008 exuberance, truckers were driving around the country with 1/2, or even 1/4 loads, to stay working--waste of gas & other expenses.** Another example: If shipping a product overseas (back & forth) were more expensive, it may not have been worth the costs to offshore jobs--too late now!
**I empathize with the truckers during this time & I realize that there's more to this story!
My understanding is, just like the BANKs, the US Taxpayers gave GM/Chrysler a low interest rate loan so they would have enough time to pay the money back without hurting their bottom line? By paying the loans off early, the Banks/Car companies’ saved lots of money. In other words, the US taxpayer took a financial risk & was not compensated enough for it.
the US taxpayers didn't voluntarily give GM anything-the government forced it upon them.
ditto with the banking bailout.
i guess the same people who want to pay more for their light bulbs, more for cap and trade, and more for gasoline think that all of these payments will somehow succeed in creating energy innovation.
what it will actually succeed in is making very wealthy people even wealthier.
My understanding is, just like the BANKs, the US Taxpayers gave GM/Chrysler a low interest rate loan so they would have enough time to pay the money back without hurting their bottom line? By paying the loans off early, the Banks/Car companies’ saved lots of money. In other words, the US taxpayer took a financial risk & was not compensated enough for it.
"Chrysler ... simply swapped out the government loan with private investor equity lines with far preferable terms. They still owe the same amount, only with much less interest in the future."
The government loan had terms favorable to the taxpayer and encouraged Chrysler to seek private financing.
Last edited by shaker281; 06-06-2011 at 01:24 AM..
issue #1, for the record, an italian company now owns US chrysler:
all of that bailout money didn't actually prevent the bankruptcies or the buyouts. how did that work out for us then? some of that bailout money went to FOREIGN investment.
You clearly do not understand that there are different types of bankruptcy and different outcomes based on ability to reorganize and survive vs. total collapse with all assets sold at auction for pennies on the dollar. Chysler, while majority owned by Fiat, remains a company based in the US, with a huge benefit to our economy through employment, taxes and supplier partnerships. Better to be 52% owned by Fiat, than replaced by automakers 100% foreign owned and based in Japan or Germany.
Quote:
Originally Posted by floridasandy
tax breaks are not the same as not paying taxes.
What? You are kidding, right?
Since every single oil company is a multinational with shareholders and investors worldwide, then by your logic those oil "tax breaks" are going to profit foreign owners/ investors as well. That must be a real dilemma for you.
In the end, you clearly support propping up one industry while others are tossed on the trash heap regardless of consequences. I support looking at each individual situation and basing potential action on likely outcomes.
Chrysler survives today (along with many jobs) because drastic action was taken and it appears it was the correct action. The only reason Fiat bought a larger stake was because Chrysler is now viable. This benefited everyone from the taxpayers who profited on the deal, to the employees who still hold their jobs, to the stockholders who are still liquid, to the suppliers who are still in business employing many thousands of US workers.
You can try and defend your position with whatever rationalizations you want, but the end result is a viable employer providing a benefit to the economy. The loan was repaid with interest, no way around that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
