Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Presidential Election Thread] Veto form Mtit!

17810121399

Posts

  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    So Santorum endorsed Romney.

    At night.

    Via e-mail.

    PSN: allenquid
  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    Which oil subsidies are we talking about, exactly?

    You're going to get a very wide range of estimates, from $50 billion + to the argument that it's the oil companies subsidizing the government.

    Here's a report from the U.S. Energy Information Administration that supports the $4 billion figure Obama was using.

    eia.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/subsidy/executive_summary.html

    Thanks for the link. I would be fine with the repeal, as I generally dislike subsidies (I would prefer stiff regulation to properly account for external costs). However, it looks like oil subsidies are only 10% of the $4 billion while renewables (and gas) are over $1 billion. So maybe energy subsidies would be a more accurate term.

    Politifact on the 4 billion figure
    The nonpartisan taxpayer watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense estimates the U.S. tax code currently contains about $5 billion in yearly tax breaks that are exclusive to the oil and gas industry, and says the industry also benefits from an extra $5.5 billion worth of general business tax provisions that companies in other industries also claim.

    "The oil and gas industry often argues the tax breaks they take advantage of are available to every industry," the group’s vice president, Steve Ellis, said in an email. "But obviously other industries can’t realistically claim the Intangible Drilling Costs tax credit (created in 1918) or the Expensing of Tertiary Injectants tax credit or the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit for blending ethanol into fuel."
    This CBO from 2011 lists at least 3.6 billion explicitly specific to oil and gas according to my math, which does not include ethanol mixing/development.

    Bottom line is its a substantial subsidy or series of tax breaks explicitly for a hugely profitable industry

    11793-1.png
    Spoiler:
  • UnknownSaintUnknownSaint Registered User
    V1m wrote: »
    V1m wrote: »
    Yeah, if we didn't give someone extra free money they wouldn't engage in the literally most profitable business on the planet. It's like the Republicans aren't even trying anymore.

    Most profitable legal* business.

    Sadly, no one seems to be discussing the possibility of removing price support and subsidy for the narcotics business.




    *For values of "Legal" equal or less than 'don't look too closely'.

    What? The oil market alone absolutely crushes the illegal drug trade in size. Like, so badly it's not even funny.

    But not, perhaps in profitability (As in dollars profit relative to dollars spent)

    I don't see the purpose of that metric. The profitability of reselling stolen goods is pretty good too, but it's not a better business to be in than the global oil market. It certainly doesn't make it more relevant for the purposes of discussing government subsidies than the size of an industry.

  • UnknownSaintUnknownSaint Registered User
    edited May 2012
    I love how that article leads with that misquote of Rick Santorum when he was talking about Romney on the issue of health care. NPR did the exact same thing this morning, and I was more than a little disappointed and annoyed. You don't have to chop the shit he says up to find something inflammatory.

    My favorite part though, the quote at the end.
    Santorum added in a post-script note that “very soon we will be making another big announcement, and I will be asking you to once again join forces with me to keep up the fight, together.”

    Translation: Oh God I'm irrelevant already, REMEMBER ME

    UnknownSaint on
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    V1m wrote: »
    Yeah, if we didn't give someone extra free money they wouldn't engage in the literally most profitable business on the planet. It's like the Republicans aren't even trying anymore.

    Most profitable legal* business.

    Sadly, no one seems to be discussing the possibility of removing price support and subsidy for the narcotics business.




    *For values of "Legal" equal or less than 'don't look too closely'.

    What? The oil market alone absolutely crushes the illegal drug trade in size. Like, so badly it's not even funny.

    But drugs, man.

    I wonder if there is an industry bigger than oil. I think corn is, but I'm not sure.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • AtomikaAtomika Hypercritical Queen Bitch of Cinema Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    So Santorum endorsed Romney.

    At night.

    Via e-mail.

    Yeah . . . he's going to have to do a lot better than that. The hounds will be loosed up him for sure if he doesn't schedule a press conference pretty soon.

    Once again proving his completely unfamiliarity with politics at all.

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    So Santorum endorsed Romney.

    At night.

    Via e-mail.

    Yeah . . . he's going to have to do a lot better than that. The hounds will be loosed up him for sure if he doesn't schedule a press conference pretty soon.

    Once again proving his completely unfamiliarity with politics at all.

    How Santorum failed this simple task just gives another example that he isn't ready for the big time in politics.

  • HotandnerdyHotandnerdy Registered User
    V1m wrote: »
    Yeah, if we didn't give someone extra free money they wouldn't engage in the literally most profitable business on the planet. It's like the Republicans aren't even trying anymore.

    Most profitable legal* business.

    Sadly, no one seems to be discussing the possibility of removing price support and subsidy for the narcotics business.




    *For values of "Legal" equal or less than 'don't look too closely'.

    What? The oil market alone absolutely crushes the illegal drug trade in size. Like, so badly it's not even funny.

    But drugs, man.

    I wonder if there is an industry bigger than oil. I think corn is, but I'm not sure.


    Dont forget about Big Coal. They stay under wraps but most electricity in thw US

    girl.jpg
  • MuddBuddMuddBudd Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    So Santorum endorsed Romney.

    At night.

    Via e-mail.

    Yeah . . . he's going to have to do a lot better than that. The hounds will be loosed up him for sure if he doesn't schedule a press conference pretty soon.

    Once again proving his completely unfamiliarity with politics at all.

    How Santorum failed this simple task just gives another example that he isn't ready for the big time in politics.

    I don't think he failed this. I think he just didn't want to.

    steam_sig.png
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    V1m wrote: »
    Yeah, if we didn't give someone extra free money they wouldn't engage in the literally most profitable business on the planet. It's like the Republicans aren't even trying anymore.

    Most profitable legal* business.

    Sadly, no one seems to be discussing the possibility of removing price support and subsidy for the narcotics business.




    *For values of "Legal" equal or less than 'don't look too closely'.

    What? The oil market alone absolutely crushes the illegal drug trade in size. Like, so badly it's not even funny.

    But drugs, man.

    I wonder if there is an industry bigger than oil. I think corn is, but I'm not sure.


    Dont forget about Big Coal. They stay under wraps but most electricity in thw US

    Aye, that's a big 'un, too. I think "Big Oil" is still bigger than coal because of how much its used outside of electricity.

    I think Coal is more evil, though.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • JarsJars Registered User regular
    V1m wrote: »
    Yeah, if we didn't give someone extra free money they wouldn't engage in the literally most profitable business on the planet. It's like the Republicans aren't even trying anymore.

    Most profitable legal* business.

    Sadly, no one seems to be discussing the possibility of removing price support and subsidy for the narcotics business.




    *For values of "Legal" equal or less than 'don't look too closely'.

    What? The oil market alone absolutely crushes the illegal drug trade in size. Like, so badly it's not even funny.

    drug dealers have the highest profit margins

  • AtomikaAtomika Hypercritical Queen Bitch of Cinema Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    So Santorum endorsed Romney.

    At night.

    Via e-mail.

    Yeah . . . he's going to have to do a lot better than that. The hounds will be loosed up him for sure if he doesn't schedule a press conference pretty soon.

    Once again proving his completely unfamiliarity with politics at all.

    How Santorum failed this simple task just gives another example that he isn't ready for the big time in politics.

    I kinda agree with MuddBudd; Santorum is just being Santorum, the same irascible prick with no concern for anything other than his own political agenda that he's been for a decade or more.

    He's a scary sort because he doesn't play by the old rules of conduct. He wants what he wants, and doesn't really care if he fucks the party over for it.

  • BurtletoyBurtletoy Registered User regular
    Jars wrote: »
    V1m wrote: »
    Yeah, if we didn't give someone extra free money they wouldn't engage in the literally most profitable business on the planet. It's like the Republicans aren't even trying anymore.

    Most profitable legal* business.

    Sadly, no one seems to be discussing the possibility of removing price support and subsidy for the narcotics business.




    *For values of "Legal" equal or less than 'don't look too closely'.

    What? The oil market alone absolutely crushes the illegal drug trade in size. Like, so badly it's not even funny.

    drug dealers have the highest profit margins

    Depends on which part of the line you are talking about.

    The guys on the street have incredible thin profit margins

  • V1mV1m Registered User regular
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    Jars wrote: »
    V1m wrote: »
    Yeah, if we didn't give someone extra free money they wouldn't engage in the literally most profitable business on the planet. It's like the Republicans aren't even trying anymore.

    Most profitable legal* business.

    Sadly, no one seems to be discussing the possibility of removing price support and subsidy for the narcotics business.




    *For values of "Legal" equal or less than 'don't look too closely'.

    What? The oil market alone absolutely crushes the illegal drug trade in size. Like, so badly it's not even funny.

    drug dealers have the highest profit margins

    Depends on which part of the line you are talking about.

    The guys on the street have incredible thin profit margins


    And the guys who pump gas aren't usually considered "part of the oil industry" by anyone except their grandmothers.

  • BurtletoyBurtletoy Registered User regular
  • Dark_SideDark_Side Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    So Santorum endorsed Romney.

    At night.

    Via e-mail.

    Yeah . . . he's going to have to do a lot better than that. The hounds will be loosed up him for sure if he doesn't schedule a press conference pretty soon.

    Once again proving his completely unfamiliarity with politics at all.

    How Santorum failed this simple task just gives another example that he isn't ready for the big time in politics.

    I kinda agree with MuddBudd; Santorum is just being Santorum, the same irascible prick with no concern for anything other than his own political agenda that he's been for a decade or more.

    He's a scary sort because he doesn't play by the old rules of conduct. He wants what he wants, and doesn't really care if he fucks the party over for it.

    It's not really surprising. He's been on the political fringe for a long time now and got unceremoniously booted out of PA when his radical rhetoric finally caught up with him, only to suddenly find his 15 min of political fame on the primary trail. Not easy to walk away from that chance, especially to cede his support to a boring wallflower like Romney.

  • Magus`Magus` Registered User regular
    Santorum will be back, in one way or another. I'd bet even money he starts saying God demands he run.

  • KalTorakKalTorak Registered User regular
    Wonder what his big announcement will be.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Who has a big announcement?

    Lh96QHG.png
  • KalTorakKalTorak Registered User regular
    Santorum said he had a big announcement coming in a PS to the endorsement email.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Huh.

    Oh, it can't be, but god do I hope it is.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • BagginsesBagginses __BANNED USERS regular
    V1m wrote: »
    Yeah, if we didn't give someone extra free money they wouldn't engage in the literally most profitable business on the planet. It's like the Republicans aren't even trying anymore.

    Most profitable legal* business.

    Sadly, no one seems to be discussing the possibility of removing price support and subsidy for the narcotics business.




    *For values of "Legal" equal or less than 'don't look too closely'.

    What? The oil market alone absolutely crushes the illegal drug trade in size. Like, so badly it's not even funny.

    But drugs, man.

    I wonder if there is an industry bigger than oil. I think corn is, but I'm not sure.


    Dont forget about Big Coal. They stay under wraps but most electricity in thw US

    Aye, that's a big 'un, too. I think "Big Oil" is still bigger than coal because of how much its used outside of electricity.

    I think Coal is more evil, though.

    Porn.

  • Sir LandsharkSir Landshark resting shark face Registered User regular
    I think Sir Landshark has fallen victim to the GOP framing of 'everything that makes one pay more is a tax or increase in taxes'. Lower taxes has proven a winning narrative for them, so they apply it to everything.

    Also the least you could do is read the very report I linked you to. I actually had to spend an extra 20 seconds on Google to get through all the partisan bullshit so as not to give you numbers directly from a petroleum lobbying firm.

    I did read the report you linked. It has a very nice little table that breaks down energy subsidies by industry. That's where I got the $300 million number for oil subsidies.

    @Burtletoy: So sorry that I assumed "oil subsidies" meant "just oil subsidies" and didn't go and lump in coal, nuclear power and natural gas while leaving out renewables for some arbitrary reason.

    At any rate, Pants had a much better and more current source, which bumps the number up to $3.1b assuming I can do basic math.

    http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/03-06-FuelsandEnergy_Brief.pdf

    The section titled "Reducing External Costs Through the Tax System" is actually a really good read, and provides a much better rationale for removing the subsidies than "Hey, they're too profitable."
    CBO wrote:
    Many of the tax preferences provided in 2011 were directed toward technologies that have the potential to lower the external costs of energy production and use. Of those preferences, 78 percent were for energy efficiency or renewable energy: Energy efficiency lowers external costs by reducing the total consumption of energy; renewable energy can lower external costs because, in most cases, it produces lower emissions than do fossil-fuel alternatives. Historically, however, tax preferences have been targeted toward encouraging, not discouraging, the use of fossil fuels, particularly oil. Under current law, most of the tax preferences for energy efficiency and renewable energy will expire, but preferences for fossil fuels are permanent.

    Please consider the environment before printing this post.
  • Warlock82Warlock82 Never pet a burning dog Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    So Santorum endorsed Romney.

    At night.

    Via e-mail.

    Honestly I see this as nothing but a good thing for Romney. Does he really want to be strongly associated with Santorum? :P

    Nintendo Network ID: Warlock
    3DS Friend Code: 4983-4927-6699
    Steam ID: warlock82

    WarlockSoL.jpg
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Warlock82 wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    So Santorum endorsed Romney.

    At night.

    Via e-mail.

    Honestly I see this as nothing but a good thing for Romney. Does he really want to be strongly associated with Santorum? :P

    Hahaha, that's a great mental image.


    ROMNEY: Okay, so you'll send out a message to get your supporters on side?
    SANTORUM: Sure thing, Mitt, sure thing. Want me to have a big press conference? I bet we can make a lot of noise on this one.
    (ROMNEY looks nervous.)
    ROMNEY: We've, uh, already typed something up for you.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • BurtletoyBurtletoy Registered User regular
    edited May 2012
    So sorry that I assumed "oil subsidies" meant "just oil subsidies" and didn't go and lump in coal, nuclear power and natural gas while leaving out renewables for some arbitrary reason.

    So you admit it is not an arbitrary reason?

    Burtletoy on
  • UnknownSaintUnknownSaint Registered User
    edited May 2012
    I think Sir Landshark has fallen victim to the GOP framing of 'everything that makes one pay more is a tax or increase in taxes'. Lower taxes has proven a winning narrative for them, so they apply it to everything.

    Also the least you could do is read the very report I linked you to. I actually had to spend an extra 20 seconds on Google to get through all the partisan bullshit so as not to give you numbers directly from a petroleum lobbying firm.

    I did read the report you linked. It has a very nice little table that breaks down energy subsidies by industry. That's where I got the $300 million number for oil subsidies.

    @Burtletoy: So sorry that I assumed "oil subsidies" meant "just oil subsidies" and didn't go and lump in coal, nuclear power and natural gas while leaving out renewables for some arbitrary reason.

    At any rate, Pants had a much better and more current source, which bumps the number up to $3.1b assuming I can do basic math.

    http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/03-06-FuelsandEnergy_Brief.pdf

    The section titled "Reducing External Costs Through the Tax System" is actually a really good read, and provides a much better rationale for removing the subsidies than "Hey, they're too profitable."
    CBO wrote:
    Many of the tax preferences provided in 2011 were directed toward technologies that have the potential to lower the external costs of energy production and use. Of those preferences, 78 percent were for energy efficiency or renewable energy: Energy efficiency lowers external costs by reducing the total consumption of energy; renewable energy can lower external costs because, in most cases, it produces lower emissions than do fossil-fuel alternatives. Historically, however, tax preferences have been targeted toward encouraging, not discouraging, the use of fossil fuels, particularly oil. Under current law, most of the tax preferences for energy efficiency and renewable energy will expire, but preferences for fossil fuels are permanent.

    I thought everyone understood the arguments for and against any kind of industry subsidy - talking about the profitability of the industry in question serves to highlight the absurdity, not stand in for the logic itself.

    Maybe you don't understand those arguments though, which is why you would consider excluding renewables from the discussion 'arbitrary'. Let me detail it for you.

    A relatively acceptable justification for subsidizing a particular industry is to encourage the growth and development of that industry. We were probably right in doing that for fossil fuels decades ago when it was just beginning to provide the benefits it does to humanity, not so much a century later when the industry can take care of itself pretty damn well. Renewable energy still has quite a few innovations ahead of it though, and some would say giving money to the company that may develop a better kind of battery is better than further contributing towards the profit margins of an industry that accounts for like 15% of all global trade.

    So like I've said before, with all the deficit hawk Teapers that regularly give the older party-Republicans a hard time on these matters, I think it would be wise for the Dems to push this issue. I really doubt that the GOP will cross the oil interests, but you can at least undermine their credibility and steal some of the spotlight as the party that cares about the budget.

    UnknownSaint on
  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Harrisonburg, VARegistered User regular
    Wait, since when is "they make ludicrous amounts of money already" not a good reason to stop giving someone more money?

  • iowaiowa Registered User regular
    edited May 2012
    I'm calling it. McCain will switch to D. it is now inevitable. in fact, i already got a peek at the press conference:
    Spoiler:

    iowa on
    you man the island and the cocaine and the elegant cars
    http://steamcommunity.com/id/iowa
    signature.png
  • UnknownSaintUnknownSaint Registered User
    edited May 2012
    Wait, since when is "they make ludicrous amounts of money already" not a good reason to stop giving someone more money?

    It's a pretty damn good one, but not really good enough for some.

    It also doesn't help that a lot of industries will essentially hold jobs hostage in a particular area to put pressure on members of Congress to follow their political agenda. You vote to end this subsidy, we close down a plant in your district. Welcome to politics! It's things like that that are often behind some of the more mystifying factoids when you really get down into who's getting money from where.

    UnknownSaint on
  • HeirHeir Registered User regular
    What's with the McCain title? What'd I miss?

    camo_sig2.png
  • override367override367 Registered User regular
    edited May 2012
    Jars wrote: »
    V1m wrote: »
    Yeah, if we didn't give someone extra free money they wouldn't engage in the literally most profitable business on the planet. It's like the Republicans aren't even trying anymore.

    Most profitable legal* business.

    Sadly, no one seems to be discussing the possibility of removing price support and subsidy for the narcotics business.




    *For values of "Legal" equal or less than 'don't look too closely'.

    What? The oil market alone absolutely crushes the illegal drug trade in size. Like, so badly it's not even funny.

    drug dealers have the highest profit margins

    While true, in terms of total profits, the collective oil industry brings in something like $250,000,000,000 each year (out of somewhere between 1 and 2 trillion in revenue). They have just a ludicrous amount of money.

    override367 on
    XBLIVE: Biggestoverride
    League of Legends: override367
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Heir wrote: »
    What's with the McCain title? What'd I miss?

    Some crazy woman called Obama a traitor, Mitt Romney smiled and nodded.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • HandgimpHandgimp Registered User regular
    Heir wrote: »
    What's with the McCain title? What'd I miss?

    Some lady at a Romney town-hall meeting accused Obama of treason, and Romney just smiled and nodded; when confronted with a similar incident in the 2008 campaign, McCain had the basic decency to confront the person.

  • UnknownSaintUnknownSaint Registered User
    Heir wrote: »
    What's with the McCain title? What'd I miss?

    During the 2008 election, some woman at a town hall meeting called Obama a Muslim. I don't recall if she called him a foreigner, too. McCain displayed some class and corrected her, saying that he knew him to be a good man and a Christian.

    Fast forward to just now, when some woman at a town hall for Mittens declares that Obama should be tried for treason. Mittens does nothing to set her straight.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    That's unfair of me. He may not have nodded.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • KalTorakKalTorak Registered User regular
    Heir wrote: »
    What's with the McCain title? What'd I miss?

    I think it's a reference to Romney not correcting the town-hall questioner who said that Obama should be tried for treason. Compare to McCain refuting a questioner's assertion that Obama was a Muslim/Arab (I forget which) to her face.

  • Magus`Magus` Registered User regular
    Since there apparently isn't one, just make a law that says a company (private or otherwise) cannot needlessly punish its citizens or customers (via firing, unnecessary price increases and so on) in response to a government action unless said action has a direct and proven by fact effect on said companies ability to work and profit 'reasonably'.

    Then if they complain, you could just be like "Big Oil said they couldn't afford to keep Plant #213 open, and yet somehow Big Oil just gave over 2 billion dollars in bonuses to their top executives. You don't have to be a math teacher to know that the numbers don't match." in a commercial.

  • MvrckMvrck Registered User regular
    edited May 2012
    That's unfair of me. He may not have nodded.

    It was just his servos running a diagnostic.

    RomneyBot Apologizes if this was misconstrued as an affirmation in human body language. RomneyBot would like to remind all humans that directly confirming things is against Romneybots nature, and as such, any direct support or decrying of a topic should reported as a bug immediately using form RB7501-J. Thank you and have a <Insert Adjective> day.

    Mvrck on
    mvrck.png
  • TheCanManTheCanMan Registered User regular
    edited May 2012
    Heir wrote: »
    What's with the McCain title? What'd I miss?

    Remember when McCain told some crazy lady at a town hall meeting to tone down her crazy rhetoric? A different crazy lady at a town hall meeting just told Romney she thinks Obama should be tried for treason and he just ignored it.

    EDIT: Holy hell. That'll teach me to respond without hitting F5 first.

    TheCanMan on
Sign In or Register to comment.