The environment thread

[Y2HH]

Grow?

 

If the problem is "we need to reduce fuel prices because it would impact the poor and middle class too much," why does the solution have to be "give money to the super-wealthy so that they can reduce costs slightly while still making record profits?" Why does that require less government than "give money to the people who need it?"

 

I'm not talking about spending any more money here. I'm talking about not subsidizing profits for the wealthy.

 

Well if they do need to hand out new subsidies, they'd have to hire people to evaluate how much to give, who needs to receive it, etc. You don't believe they'd have the people they already hired do this, do you? No, they'd hire more! That's what they do! For every new project, new funds are allocated, and depending on how much is allocated, they spend it...otherwise they don't get it again!

 

As for removing subsidies for the wealthy, we've heard them talking about this for how long now? 20+ years? Whatever the case may be, they've shown that they will never actually do it. In light of the recent super-majority in the house/senate for 2 years and no action was taken to remove these subsidies that the democrats claim to hate so much...I beg the question...why'd they wait until they knew they couldn't get it done to try?

 

I'm sick of giving them all a pass on stuff like this.

 

The had the opportunity to do exactly this...and didn't. To pretend they did nothing but work on HCR is bulls***, too...since they passed COUNTLESS laws while holding that super majority, but these subsidy cuts...nothing. Not a peep.

 

But now it's suddenly in the news.

[StrangeSox]

I won't disagree that Democrats are generally spineless cowards just as beholden to their corporate masters as Republicans.

[southsider2k5]

Grow?

 

If the problem is "we need to reduce fuel prices because it would impact the poor and middle class too much," why does the solution have to be "give money to the super-wealthy so that they can reduce costs slightly while still making record profits?" Why does that require less government than "give money to the people who need it?"

 

I'm not talking about spending any more money here. I'm talking about not subsidizing profits for the wealthy.

 

At the end of the day that argument doesn't hold water with me. Corporations are going to make their profits. Even if you eliminate subsidies, that isn't going to come out of profits. Because energy is extremely inelastic, the loss of subsidies will just get passed along in higher prices. You aren't going to punish the evil corporations that everyone wants to target. You are going to punish the people who can't handle higher prices.

[Y2HH]

I won't disagree that Democrats are generally spineless cowards just as beholden to their corporate masters as Republicans.

 

See and I think this is part of the problem. They have this kind of two ring circus going on, where on the public front, they spew hate for one another...but privately, they use each other to get things done/not get things done through back room deals, etc... It's the millionaires club, all pretending to be on our side...

 

It's like we are watching this two-ring circus between the parties, thinking they're the show...but if you pull the camera back further, it's actually them watching us, and we're the show. :/

[southsider2k5]

Well that wouldn't be necessary. This is pretty clearly DOE-centered.

 

The DOE is not equipped to manage subsides for individuals.

[southsider2k5]

Even if it would require a new department within the DOE, so what? Is someone actually going to try to argue that this new agency and giving the necessary fuel subsidies directly to the poor and middle class would somehow be more expensive than subsidizing profits enough to reduce fuel prices? It's not like these corporations are just passing through these tax breaks to the consumer.

 

It would be a bet I would make.

[StrangeSox]

At the end of the day that argument doesn't hold water with me. Corporations are going to make their profits. Even if you eliminate subsidies, that isn't going to come out of profits. Because energy is extremely inelastic, the loss of subsidies will just get passed along in higher prices. You aren't going to punish the evil corporations that everyone wants to target. You are going to punish the people who can't handle higher prices.

 

Well, s***, then I guess we just need to keep subsidizing their profits forever. Why not even bigger subsidies! If we give the corporation enough money, they'll give us free gas eventually! They'd never just pocket the money for themselves!

 

They are making record profits. There's no reason they need any subsidies at all. Holding the country hostage with threats of "we'll raise your gas prices if you don't continue to redistribute billions of dollars to us!" is even more reason to end the subsidies immediately.

[StrangeSox]

It would be a bet I would make.

 

Explain, economically, how that would even be possible. Unless these benevolent multinationals are just giving us these tax subsidies as pure pass-through to fuel prices??

 

We must continue to give the super wealthy more money so that the poor can still barely afford to live!

[StrangeSox]

How many programs for the needy are being proposed for massive cuts or elimination right now? Would it be more beneficial to the poor to stop giving billionaires billions of dollars in tax subsidies and to keep funding those programs at current or increased levels?

[StrangeSox]

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/.../06/picture.htm

 

Hmmm....

 

Who benefits?

Although subsidies are commonly believed to help the poorest, most of the benefit actually accrues to the highest-income households, which use more petroleum products. For example, in Africa, 65 percent of all fuel subsidies go to the richest 40 percent of households. But the distribution of subsidies also differs substantially across fuel products. The benefits of gasoline subsidies are the most regressive, with more than 80 percent of total benefits going to the richest 40 percent of households.

 

Promoting better options

Many countries that provided fiscal support to buffer the effects of the global economic crisis now face rising fiscal deficits. Cutting tax-inclusive subsidies in half would decrease the average projected fiscal deficit in subsidizing countries by 1 percent of GDP. In addition, a limit on subsidies could have substantial benefits for the environment: cutting subsidies by half could mean close to a 10 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

However, the elimination of even badly targeted subsidies could seriously hurt poor households. Transfers targeted to those who are neediest would be a feasible alternative. For example, countries could eliminate gasoline subsidies while maintaining subsidies on kerosene, which is more important in poor households’ budgets. In addition, some of the budgetary savings from reducing subsidies could be redirected to existing programs that better help the poor, including school meals, lowering education and health fees, and cash transfers. Improving the design of social safety net programs over time can reduce the pressure for fuel subsidies.

 

Public information campaigns need to emphasize that fuel subsidies are inefficient, inequitable, and costly. Transparently recording subsidies in government accounts can reinforce reform by making fuel subsidies compete with higher-priority uses of public funds. Although a liberalized market-based approach to petroleum pricing is best, countries can adopt an automatic pricing mechanism (a system that adjusts prices regularly in response to changes in international prices) while they develop a competitive supply system and effective means of regulation. Well-designed pricing mechanisms can prevent sharp retail price increases in the short term while incorporating international price changes over the medium term and managing fiscal volatility.

 

 

But I guess you're right ss2k5, the only way for the poor to continue to scrape by is for billionaires to get billions in tax subsidies.

[Y2HH]

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/.../06/picture.htm

 

Hmmm....

 

But I guess you're right ss2k5, the only way for the poor to continue to scrape by is for billionaires to get billions in tax subsidies.

 

I know, the world is so unfair...but in the end, the very politicians that claim to be looking out for you and I do nothing about these subsidies when they have the chance to do it.

 

We can go back and forth on this all day long...in the end, the politicians aren't going to change it, no matter how unfair it is.

 

Congress/Senate/Presidents are all rich people these days...in and of itself, that's part of the problem. They're not removing these subsidies...because they'd be removing them from themselves. When lowly aldermen make more money and have better benefits than most of the people you know in the private sector, there's a problem.

Edited March 11, 2011 by Y2HH

[southsider2k5]

Well, s***, then I guess we just need to keep subsidizing their profits forever. Why not even bigger subsidies! If we give the corporation enough money, they'll give us free gas eventually! They'd never just pocket the money for themselves!

 

They are making record profits. There's no reason they need any subsidies at all. Holding the country hostage with threats of "we'll raise your gas prices if you don't continue to redistribute billions of dollars to us!" is even more reason to end the subsidies immediately.

 

I'll try this again.

 

The inelasticity of energy pretty well states that you can't punish the energy companies by taking away subsidies. I get the whole demonization going on here, but the emotion here loses the reality of it. They aren't going to come out and say that, but that sure as heck is the reality.

 

You will only punish the poor and middle class. No amount of anger or reaction changes that.

[StrangeSox]

I know, the world is so unfair...but in the end, the very politicians that claim to be looking out for you and I do nothing about these subsidies when they have the chance to do it.

 

We can go back and forth on this all day long...in the end, the politicians aren't going to change it, no matter how unfair it is.

 

Congress/Senate/Presidents are all rich people these days...in and of itself, that's part of the problem. They're not removing these subsidies...because they'd be removing them from themselves. When lowly aldermen make more money and have better benefits than most of the people you know in the private sector, there's a problem.

 

I do not disagree with your cynicism. I whole-heartedly support it.

 

I very strongly disagree that it means we've got to willingly submit to and embrace the fact that almost all of the wealth created in this country for decades has gone to a very small number of people. We don't need to make excuses for that and continue to advocate subsidizing their record earnings by pretending it's really about helping the poor.

[southsider2k5]

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/.../06/picture.htm

 

Hmmm....

 

 

 

 

But I guess you're right ss2k5, the only way for the poor to continue to scrape by is for billionaires to get billions in tax subsidies.

 

Again, this isn't about total dollars. This is about per capita income.

 

Jesus, I feel like a Democrat in an evolution thread.

[southsider2k5]

Again, this isn't about total dollars. This is about per capita income.

 

Jesus, I feel like a Democrat in an evolution thread.

 

Let me try it this way... Are you opposed to environmental policy because almost all of the dollars for it go directly to corporations?

[StrangeSox]

I'll try this again.

 

The inelasticity of energy pretty well states that you can't punish the energy companies by taking away subsidies. I get the whole demonization going on here, but the emotion here loses the reality of it. They aren't going to come out and say that, but that sure as heck is the reality.

 

You will only punish the poor and middle class. No amount of anger or reaction changes that.

 

Then why does the IMF disagree with pretty much everything in your post?

 

I'm not looking to punish energy companies. I'm simply looking to stop subsidizing their record profits. Most of the subsidy benefits goes to the top quintile. The bottom three combined barely eclipse their share. And, if you're truly concerned about the poor and middle class, we can shift the subsidies to them instead of relying on the completely broken idea of trickle-down economics.

 

No amount of apologia changes that the data do no support any of your claims here. Even logically, it makes no sense. Because if taking subsidies away from the wealthy doesn't hurt them, well, it must not be helping them. So why are they necessary?

[Y2HH]

Then why does the IMF disagree with pretty much everything in your post?

 

I'm not looking to punish energy companies. I'm simply looking to stop subsidizing their record profits. Most of the subsidy benefits goes to the top quintile. The bottom three combined barely eclipse their share. And, if you're truly concerned about the poor and middle class, we can shift the subsidies to them instead of relying on the completely broken idea of trickle-down economics.

 

No amount of apologia changes that the data do no support any of your claims here. Even logically, it makes no sense. Because if taking subsidies away from the wealthy doesn't hurt them, well, it must not be helping them. So why are they necessary?

 

The IMF can disagree with reality all it wants...if they lose these subsidies, they're not going to just swallow the losses and call it a day.

 

They WILL pass these losses onto the consumers, not their shareholders.

[StrangeSox]

Let me try it this way... Are you opposed to environmental policy because almost all of the dollars for it go directly to corporations?

 

That doesn't fly.

 

You are arguing that we need to keep shoveling money at the rich to help the poor. That doesn't analogize to environmental impact.

 

If the end goal is affordable fuel prices for, say, the bottom 3/5's of the economy, why do we need to funnel that money to the top 1/5 first? Why not go directly to the problem?

[StrangeSox]

The IMF can disagree with reality all it wants...if they lose these subsidies, they're not going to just swallow the losses and call it a day.

 

They WILL pass these losses onto the consumers, not their shareholders.

 

Then we subsidize the consumers instead of shareholders.

 

Or maybe their margins will just have to shrink a little, now that they're not sucking at the government teat! Lazy deadbeat government welfare corporations.

Edited March 11, 2011 by StrangeSox

[southsideirish71]

Then we subsidize the consumers instead of shareholders.

 

Or maybe their margins will just have to shrink a little, now that they're not sucking at the government teat! Lazy deadbeat government welfare corporations.

 

Because thats how it works. Corporations will just shrink margins and annoy their shareholders. Its not like they will say f*** it and raise the price to keep that same profit margin. I mean they never have raised prices before.

[StrangeSox]

Using that logic, why not just raise prices right now to increase margins?

 

I mean, apparently we've nothing to do but submit to the whims of Exxon and BP, so why are our benevolent masters gracing us with somewhat affordable fuel right now? How can we stop from angering them so that they don't punish us? More ^{animal sacrifice} subsidies?

Edited March 11, 2011 by StrangeSox

[southsider2k5]

That doesn't fly.

 

You are arguing that we need to keep shoveling money at the rich to help the poor. That doesn't analogize to environmental impact.

 

If the end goal is affordable fuel prices for, say, the bottom 3/5's of the economy, why do we need to funnel that money to the top 1/5 first? Why not go directly to the problem?

 

Why not? The vast majority of money for environmental everything is going to people who are ultra-rich to just plain rich.

[southsider2k5]

Then why does the IMF disagree with pretty much everything in your post?

 

I'm not looking to punish energy companies. I'm simply looking to stop subsidizing their record profits. Most of the subsidy benefits goes to the top quintile. The bottom three combined barely eclipse their share. And, if you're truly concerned about the poor and middle class, we can shift the subsidies to them instead of relying on the completely broken idea of trickle-down economics.

 

No amount of apologia changes that the data do no support any of your claims here. Even logically, it makes no sense. Because if taking subsidies away from the wealthy doesn't hurt them, well, it must not be helping them. So why are they necessary?

 

Because it helps the poor. That is my whole point.

[StrangeSox]

Why not? The vast majority of money for environmental everything is going to people who are ultra-rich to just plain rich.

 

I'm not arguing that environmental subsidies are necessary expenses because otherwise it would be too expensive for the poor.

 

Oil subsidies primarily benefit the wealthy by a large margin. They subsidize corporations that have record profits. They are unnecessary, and you've yet to present anything for why giving money to the wealthy is more effective at helping the poor than just giving money to the poor.

[StrangeSox]

Because it helps the poor. That is my whole point.

 

Marginally. It helps the wealthy much, much more.

 

Why do we need subsidies that benefit the top 1/5 more than the bottom 3/5's in order to help the bottom 3/5's? Why not just give subsidies to the bottom 3/5's?