The environment thread

[StrangeSox]

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?

 

How we already do, the Energy Assistance program?

 

Or something similar to EBT/food stamps? Or should we also give billionaire agribusiness tycoons billions in subsidies so that the poor can eat?

 

Increase the EIT?

 

Any of those options are better than "give the incredibly wealthy even more money and eat the crumbs that fall to their feet"

[southsider2k5]

How we already do, the Energy Assistance program?

 

Or something similar to EBT/food stamps? Or should we also give billionaire agribusiness tycoons billions in subsidies so that the poor can eat?

 

Increase the EIT?

 

Any of those options are better than "give the incredibly wealthy even more money and eat the crumbs that fall to their feet"

 

 

Good lord. You have no interest in getting past your religions talking points here.

[StrangeSox]

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.

 

You are advocating that we must give the wealthy money to sustain profit margins for wealthy shareholders.

 

Otherwise, they'll magically raise prices without consequence to demand to maintain margins which will affect the poor indirectly but potentially substantially and impact the middle class and wealthy directly.

 

For some reason, this redistribution of wealth to a small handful of people so that it may trickle down is the preferred solution to simply directly subsidizing fuel costs.

[StrangeSox]

Good lord. You have no interest in getting past your religions talking points here.

 

We'll pick one, energy assistance, which is already being cut.

 

Which will help the poor more, cutting oil subsidies to maintain or increase energy assistance, or cutting energy assistance to maintain or increase corporate profits?

 

Go.

[StrangeSox]

Why must oil companies receive subsidies to make fuel affordable for the poor but we can give the poor money directly for food?

[southsider2k5]

We'll pick one, energy assistance, which is already being cut.

 

Which will help the poor more, cutting oil subsidies to maintain or increase energy assistance, or cutting energy assistance to maintain or increase corporate profits?

 

Go.

 

So tell me in detail how that program is enabled to distribute funds to the 120 to 180 million people you are talking about, with a massive increase in size of our biggest business in the country?

 

Go.

[southsider2k5]

Why must oil companies receive subsidies to make fuel affordable for the poor but we can give the poor money directly for food?

 

There is a staffed governmental agency that does it already, complete with billions of dollars in budgets to do it. To change things you pretty much have to create a whole other group to do this.

[StrangeSox]

So tell me in detail how that program is enabled to distribute funds to the 120 to 180 million people you are talking about, with a massive increase in size of our biggest business in the country?

 

Go.

 

 

What are you missing about "use an existing program like energy assistance?" Also like the question-begging of "massive increase."

 

There is a staffed governmental agency that does it already, complete with billions of dollars in budgets to do it. To change things you pretty much have to create a whole other group to do this.

 

But it's a question of efficiency, right? If corporate tax subsidies that let corporations drop prices while maintaining or increasing profit margins is more efficient than government programs directly subsidizing the cost of necessities for the poor, shouldn't you be driving to replace food stamps with corporate tax cuts as well?

 

What's the efficiency of giving corporations tax breaks? What percentage is simply kept as additional profits versus actually lowering the price? How is this more efficient than direct subsidization? If demand is so inelastic, why aren't they simply charging the higher no-subsidies price now if demand will support it? Why does the threat of shrinking profits suddenly make it possible for the market to support higher prices?

[southsider2k5]

What are you missing about "use an existing program like energy assistance?" Also like the question-begging of "massive increase."

 

 

 

But it's a question of efficiency, right? If corporate tax subsidies that let corporations drop prices while maintaining or increasing profit margins is more efficient than government programs directly subsidizing the cost of necessities for the poor, shouldn't you be driving to replace food stamps with corporate tax cuts as well?

 

What's the efficiency of giving corporations tax breaks? What percentage is simply kept as additional profits versus actually lowering the price? How is this more efficient than direct subsidization? If demand is so inelastic, why aren't they simply charging the higher no-subsidies price now if demand will support it? Why does the threat of shrinking profits suddenly make it possible for the market to support higher prices?

 

The part where they are ready to register, track, and distribute funds for 40 to 60% of the country.

 

And all you have to do is look at supply and demand graphs to understand the pricing of monopolistic markets.

 

I would argue that food subsidies are more efficient than food stamps for sure.

[StrangeSox]

You honestly believe that giving money to the wealthy is the best means of helping the poor?

[StrangeSox]

What's the efficiency of these subsidies of actually reducing prices versus driving profits higher, by the way?

[StrangeSox]

You've also eschewed significant investment in alternatives as pipe dreams, even though you're now arguing that we're completely at the whim of monopolistic suppliers of a limited energy source. Hmm.

[southsider2k5]

You've also eschewed significant investment in alternatives as pipe dreams, even though you're now arguing that we're completely at the whim of monopolistic suppliers of a limited energy source. Hmm.

 

No I haven't. I have eschewed GOVERNMENT investment in alternatives. I have always argued private investment.

[southsider2k5]

You honestly believe that giving money to the wealthy is the best means of helping the poor?

 

I believe it is more efficient for sure. Not only are people getting the subsides on demand, instead of being weekly, month, or even annually as a tax return, but they are also getting it without paying billions for the same service.

[StrangeSox]

No I haven't. I have eschewed GOVERNMENT investment in alternatives. I have always argued private investment.

 

But you are a strong proponent of GOVERNMENT investment in fossil fuels.

 

Either way, I want to be clear: you think the poor would be better served by eliminating funding for food stamps and energy assistance and instead giving those funds to multi-billion dollar corporations?

 

[southsider2k5]

What's the efficiency of these subsidies of actually reducing prices versus driving profits higher, by the way?

 

This simply isn't true, no matter how many times you say it and close your eyes.

[StrangeSox]

I believe it is more efficient for sure. Not only are people getting the subsides on demand, instead of being weekly, month, or even annually as a tax return, but they are also getting it without paying billions for the same service.

 

Where's your source for food stamps and energy assistance administrative costs being in the billions?

 

How much of those subsidies are pocketed by executives as bonuses and shareholders as dividends? What do those costs, which simply redistribute wealth from all Americans to the already wealthy, amount to?

[southsider2k5]

But you are a strong proponent of GOVERNMENT investment in fossil fuels.

 

Either way, I want to be clear: you think the poor would be better served by eliminating funding for food stamps and energy assistance and instead giving those funds to multi-billion dollar corporations?

 

Not new investment. Again you are comparing programs that are already in place, to things that don't exist, or are made up. You are all over the place here.

 

[StrangeSox]

This simply isn't true, no matter how many times you say it and close your eyes.

 

All subsidies are passed on directly to the consumer through price breaks?

 

Help me understand. To me it simply looks like an insane argument.

[southsider2k5]

Where's your source for food stamps and energy assistance administrative costs being in the billions?

 

How much of those subsidies are pocketed by executives as bonuses and shareholders as dividends? What do those costs, which simply redistribute wealth from all Americans to the already wealthy, amount to?

 

For the 97th time, those costs would be there anyway. Your uptopia does not exist in reality.

[southsider2k5]

All subsidies are passed on directly to the consumer through price breaks?

 

Help me understand. To me it simply looks like an insane argument.

 

Honestly it depends on elasticity of which products we are comparing.

[StrangeSox]

Not new investment. Again you are comparing programs that are already in place, to things that don't exist, or are made up. You are all over the place here.

 

It's new investment every year they approve the subsidies.

 

Why is continuing status-quo subsidies for a fuel controlled by monopolistic forces and shaky dictatorships ok, but shifting subsidies or creating new subsidies for alternatives are such terrible ideas?

[StrangeSox]

For the 97th time, those costs would be there anyway. Your uptopia does not exist in reality.

 

 

Honestly it depends on elasticity of which products we are comparing.

 

Your argument is that the shareholders of oil companies see no financial benefit from these subsidies, then?

 

Why do the economists at the IMF completely disagree with your argument?

[StrangeSox]

How does passing money through a for-profit corporate structure not result in any of that money being pulled out on the way through?

[StrangeSox]

Do any of you other financial guys here agree with Mike? Am I just missing something in this "the best way to help the poor is to give money to the rich to give to the poor" argument?