The environment thread

[southsider2k5]

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.

 

At the end of the day keep energy prices down benefits the poor. Creating a whole new governmental agency, and paying all of those extra billions of dollars, to do what is already being done, it just stupid in my opinion. Why shift the money from billions dollar corporations to trillions dollar government who would waste a significant chunk of the money anyway? That isn't a compelling argument to me. Spending more to achieve the exact same thing is just a waste.

 

You have found all of the high end stuff, but have done zero actual research into what the effect of five dollar gas would have on a family of four in poverty. There is nothing you pulled up that showed what doubling the price of electricity would do for a middle class family.

[StrangeSox]

I find it odd that Republicans use "help the poor!" mantra to protect multinational corporate subsidies but also turn around and gut programs that are actually designed specifically to help the poor.

[southsider2k5]

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?

 

When your income is small, it doesn't take much of a change to put you out on the street. You understand that right? Don't let the propaganda of total dollars make you lose sight of what even something like $100 a month would mean to a family making less than $20k a year.

[southsider2k5]

I find it odd that Republicans use "help the poor!" mantra to protect multinational corporate subsidies but also turn around and gut programs that are actually designed specifically to help the poor.

 

The stereotyping is so productive here.

[StrangeSox]

At the end of the day keep energy prices down benefits the poor. Creating a whole new governmental agency, and paying all of those extra billions of dollars, to do what is already being done, it just stupid in my opinion. Why shift the money from billions dollar corporations to trillions dollar government who would waste a significant chunk of the money anyway? That isn't a compelling argument to me. Spending more to achieve the exact same thing is just a waste.

 

You have found all of the high end stuff, but have done zero actual research into what the effect of five dollar gas would have on a family of four in poverty. There is nothing you pulled up that showed what doubling the price of electricity would do for a middle class family.

 

Well, we're back to shoveling money at the wealthy being the best solution to helping the poor. And we're relying on the rather dubious assumption that directly subsidizing the poor would somehow be more expensive than subsidizing the wealthy so that fuel costs are driven down, which again primarily helps the wealthy but also helps the poor.

 

I've found the high end stuff laying out that oil subsidies benefit the wealthy by a large margin. I've found that if we really care about helping the poor, we'd cut oil subsidies instead of cutting energy assistance aid to the poor.

 

 

Which of these is more beneficial to the poor? the wealthy?

oil subsidies or energy assistance?

 

Edited March 11, 2011 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

When your income is small, it doesn't take much of a change to put you out on the street. You understand that right? Don't let the propaganda of total dollars make you lose sight of what even something like $100 a month would mean to a family making less than $20k a year.

 

I don't. I also think part of the problem is that there are so many families making low wages, and I don't think the answer is to continue to widen the wealth chasm that's grown in this country over the last several decades by shoveling more money at the wealthy in hopes that they'll drop some change we can pick up off the ground.

 

$100 is going to hurt that family? Give them $100. Don't give the billionaire $1,000,000 and hope enough trickles down to the poor family.

[StrangeSox]

In this thread, we learn that the solution to poverty is to give the wealthy more money.

 

Sorry for the snark, but this is what you're arguing here. We must continue to give tax breaks to the wealthy so that they can sustain their record profits. If we don't, they'll simply raise prices because demand is inelastic (so why not raise prices now?!). This will hurt the poor not through direct fuel prices since they don't have cars but indirect price increases of goods which they can barely afford now. It's unconscionable to think of simply subsidizing the poor and doing something to fix the wealth gap.

[StrangeSox]

If we were to eliminate food stamps and instead gave those dollars to ADM and such, would the poor have more or less food? Would the wealthy have more or less money? What would happen to ADM's stock upon that announcement? Would it go up, down or stay the same?

[Y2HH]

In this thread, we learn that the solution to poverty is to give the wealthy more money.

 

Sorry for the snark, but this is what you're arguing here. We must continue to give tax breaks to the wealthy so that they can sustain their record profits. If we don't, they'll simply raise prices because demand is inelastic (so why not raise prices now?!). This will hurt the poor not through direct fuel prices since they don't have cars but indirect price increases of goods which they can barely afford now. It's unconscionable to think of simply subsidizing the poor and doing something to fix the wealth gap.

 

Do you want to know the sad truth of this? If we fixed everything...I mean everything, every single complaint you could possibly have about wealth...I'm talking COMPLETE social justice here, and took all the money in the US, and divided it equally to every citizen...

 

Within 10 short years, 95% of the people that are broke now...would be broke again...

 

And 95% of the people that are ultra rich now...would be ultra rich again.

 

The other 5% would be the few individuals in-between that actually make something of their opportunity.

 

Now, you can dismiss what I'm saying all you want...but it'd happen.

 

It's as sure as death and taxes.

[BigSqwert]

Do you want to know the sad truth of this? If we fixed everything...I mean everything, every single complaint you could possibly have about wealth...I'm talking COMPLETE social justice here, and took all the money in the US, and divided it equally to every citizen...

 

Within 10 short years, 95% of the people that are broke now...would be broke again...

 

And 95% of the people that are ultra rich now...would be ultra rich again.

 

The other 5% would be the few individuals in-between that actually make something of their opportunity.

 

Now, you can dismiss what I'm saying all you want...but it'd happen.

 

It's as sure as death and taxes.

 

I just stumbled upon a picture of you online.

[Y2HH]

I just stumbled upon a picture of you online.

 

[StrangeSox]

Do you want to know the sad truth of this? If we fixed everything...I mean everything, every single complaint you could possibly have about wealth...I'm talking COMPLETE social justice here, and took all the money in the US, and divided it equally to every citizen...

 

Within 10 short years, 95% of the people that are broke now...would be broke again...

 

And 95% of the people that are ultra rich now...would be ultra rich again.

 

The other 5% would be the few individuals in-between that actually make something of their opportunity.

 

Now, you can dismiss what I'm saying all you want...but it'd happen.

 

It's as sure as death and taxes.

 

This assumes that people are wealthy or poor due mainly to merit and ability. That's a pretty s*** assumption.

 

Or maybe the assumption is that the ultra-rich are unscrupulous, immoral bastards who will backstab their way right back to the top, convincing everyone below to fight each other while they laugh once again?

 

Also, I want to be very clear here: I'd never advocate for simply redistributing wealth equally per capita. I don't eschew private enterprise. I'm not a communist here, even if I've hyperbolically approached that line lately with some of the rhetoric.

[Y2HH]

This assumes that people are wealthy or poor due mainly to merit and ability. That's a pretty s*** assumption.

 

Or maybe the assumption is that the ultra-rich are unscrupulous, immoral bastards who will backstab their way right back to the top, convincing everyone below to fight each other while they laugh once again?

 

Also, I want to be very clear here: I'd never advocate for simply redistributing wealth equally per capita. I don't eschew private enterprise. I'm not a communist here, even if I've hyperbolically approached that line lately with some of the rhetoric.

 

I repeat, what I predicted, would happen, almost to a T.

[Cknolls]

Cutting off every cent in energy company subsidies would require a new agency?

 

 

If not a new agency, definitely a new Czar or Czarina.

[BigSqwert]

If not a new agency, definitely a new Czar or Czarina.

Can you pull out a more lame one liner? Probably not.

[StrangeSox]

I repeat, what I predicted, would happen, almost to a T.

 

so is it assumption 1 or assumption 2?

[StrangeSox]

Can you pull out a more lame one liner? Probably not.

 

We need more Communist Russia Czars!

[BigSqwert]

We need more Communist Russia Czars!

I mean what was the point of that line? That Obama's administration, like Republican ones in the past, use the word czar? Oh my goodness!?!?!?

[StrangeSox]

I mean what was the point of that line? That Obama's administration, like Republican ones in the past, use the word czar? Oh my goodness!?!?!?

 

I think Obama has had quite a large number of "czar" administrative positions, more than previous admin's.

[BigSqwert]

I think Obama has had quite a large number of "czar" administrative positions, more than previous admin's.

I do recall Cknoll's anger with that title prior to 2008. It's all he would talk about. Thank goodness he's consistent.

[StrangeSox]

I do recall Cknoll's anger with that title prior to 2008. It's all he would talk about. Thank goodness he's consistent.

 

Eh, it's just a lame joke, about as lame as laughing at tea party people with "communist czar" signs. Harmless and completely partisan.

[Y2HH]

StrangeSox is harmless and completely partisan.

 

Fixed.

[StrangeSox]

Fixed.

 

[southsider2k5]

I don't. I also think part of the problem is that there are so many families making low wages, and I don't think the answer is to continue to widen the wealth chasm that's grown in this country over the last several decades by shoveling more money at the wealthy in hopes that they'll drop some change we can pick up off the ground.

 

$100 is going to hurt that family? Give them $100. Don't give the billionaire $1,000,000 and hope enough trickles down to the poor family.

 

So tell me how exactly you are going give 60 to 90 million people to give that $100 a month, or whatever it works out to?

[southsider2k5]

In this thread, we learn that the solution to poverty is to give the wealthy more money.

 

Sorry for the snark, but this is what you're arguing here. We must continue to give tax breaks to the wealthy so that they can sustain their record profits. If we don't, they'll simply raise prices because demand is inelastic (so why not raise prices now?!). This will hurt the poor not through direct fuel prices since they don't have cars but indirect price increases of goods which they can barely afford now. It's unconscionable to think of simply subsidizing the poor and doing something to fix the wealth gap.

 

All the snark tells me is that you have no idea what I am saying here. Like I said earlier, I feel like you felt the other day with evolution and the like.