Trump to ban Saudi Oil imports

[DA60]

Banning saudi oil would be unwise which is why I do not think trump will do it

But greatly increasing US oil production will naturally reduce Saudi oil imports

Maybe, but at only $51 a barrel, that is much easier said than done.

 

[trouble13]

There is an advantage to deplete other nations oil before our own.

Kind of hard to say that when we dont know how much we have or how long we will be dependent on it.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[Mac77]

Kind of hard to say that when we dont know how much we have or how long we will be dependent on it.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

We have a lot.

And contrary to what the environmentalists have been claiming for years more oil is being discovered faster than we are using it

 

[Lord of Planar]

The Afghan and Iraqi governments certainly weren't yet they got stomped

Nonetheless 9/11 was planned financed and executed by the Saudis. The US knew this but they also knew that attacking them was impossible not just for reasons of oil but that it would mean being at war with 1.4 BILLION Muslims worldwide for decades. The sight of US tanks in Mecca or Jedda would have inflamed even moderate Muslims

Saudi citizens, perhaps. The government, no.

 

[calamity]

We have a lot.

And contrary to what the environmentalists have been claiming for years more oil is being discovered faster than we are using it

If we only used oil in this Hemisphere, there would be more than enough to last hundreds of years and the price would be more than manageable. I read recently that Saudi's need us to buy there oil more than we need to buy it. Much of that is because they need our dollars and military weapons.

 

[flogger]

Saudi citizens, perhaps. The government, no.

So what did the Iraqi or Afghan governments have to do with it then much less the hundreds of thousands of their citizens who paid the ultimate price so that US vengeance could be sated ?

 

[Mac77]

If we only used oil in this Hemisphere, there would be more than enough to last hundreds of years and the price would be more than manageable. I read recently that Saudi's need us to buy there oil more than we need to buy it. Much of that is because they need our dollars and military weapons.

Dont assume there is no more oil to be found in the rest of the world just like the vast oil field just discovered in Texas a few weeks ago

But either way we have plenty of oil in the US

 

[calamity]

Dont assume there is no more oil to be found in the rest of the world just like the vast oil field just discovered in Texas a few weeks ago

But either way we have plenty of oil in the US

US, Mexico, Canada and Venezuela...actually, if Trump can find a way to make the VZ oil fields great again, that would be great.

 

[JasperL]

Because people then have a misunderstanding when someone like me says they want to eliminate all subsidies.

But you're not answering the question.

There is no numbers/economics based analysis you can do of government "subsidies" that draws any meaningful distinction between a grant of cash, or the cash equivalent of tax credits.

If you disagree, please explain. And when you cannot, explain where the misunderstanding happens?

It's a win-win for those imposing the misinformation, and dumbing down, that you are a willing participant of.

The dumbing down has been done by conservative propagandists who have convinced their base that a targeted tax 'concession' is "taxpayers keeping more of their hard earned money" but an equivalent in every possible way cash grant is a presumably bad TAXPAYER SUBSIDY. It's you and the propaganda experts like Frank Luntz who are dumbing down America.

It's not just for corporate America. For example, allowing employers to compensate their employees in tax-free employee health benefits is a HUGE subsidy of employer provided health insurance. I don't have a problem with that subsidy, but calling it something other than a subsidy is dishonest. Etc.

Do you like being a pawn of the left?

The relevant question is do you like being a pawn of those seeking to justify corporate welfare and crony capitalism by calling arrangements like the Carrier deal something other than taxpayer subsidies of a Fortune 500 company?

 

[Lord of Planar]

So what did the Iraqi or Afghan governments have to do with it then much less the hundreds of thousands of their citizens who paid the ultimate price so that US vengeance could be sated ?

Do you seriously not know the arguments over all this time?

Wow...

If you have forgotten what must have been on threads dozens of times, why should I try to convince you?

 

[Lord of Planar]

But you're not answering the question.

Or is it that you don't understand my response?

Words have meaning. Just because similar results can come from different actions, does not mean the actions are the same, or should use the same word.

We have several synonyms in our language to be more specific on verbal intent.

How can I convey specific meanings in my words, when a dumbed down society is incapable of seeing the nuances between words?

You can shove your intent of dumbing down society. I will have no part of such disgraceful actions. It does nothing but play into the hands of authoritarian punditry.

 

[Lord of Planar]

There is no numbers/economics based analysis you can do of government "subsidies" that draws any meaningful distinction between a grant of cash, or the cash equivalent of tax credits.

The difference are clear to someone knowledgeable of them.

If you disagree, please explain. And when you cannot, explain where the misunderstanding happens?

In a simple form via the government, a subsidy takes other people's money and gives to others. A tax break simple gives the government less of other people's money to spend.

The dumbing down has been done by conservative propagandists who have convinced their base that a targeted tax 'concession' is "taxpayers keeping more of their hard earned money" but an equivalent in every possible way cash grant is a presumably bad TAXPAYER SUBSIDY. It's you and the propaganda experts like Frank Luntz who are dumbing down America.

You are pretty general in what you say, and it appears you are being partisan instead of blaming both parties.

It's not just for corporate America. For example, allowing employers to compensate their employees in tax-free employee health benefits is a HUGE subsidy of employer provided health insurance. I don't have a problem with that subsidy, but calling it something other than a subsidy is dishonest. Etc.

Those are called "benefits." Another word with it's own specific meaning.

Words have meaning!

The relevant question is do you like being a pawn of those seeking to justify corporate welfare and crony capitalism by calling arrangements like the Carrier deal something other than taxpayer subsidies of a Fortune 500 company?

Why are you so ignorant as to assume I want that?

Don't be surprised if I don't answer any more of your questions. You seem incapable of understanding rather important nuances.

 

[Lord of Planar]

It's you and the propaganda experts like Frank Luntz who are dumbing down America.

I had to look up who that is, because I don't belong to the republicans or democrats.

What about his counterparts on the left?

Are you also blind when it comes to partisan motive?

 

[Risky Thicket]

Liberals should be thrilled because it will spur investment in Green Energy. Obama was too much of a corporate toady and a coward to make such an announcement.

Corporate toady? Compared to what?

 

[American]

Good. We pay over $8/gallon here. The US could really use higher gas prices so that they drive more fuel efficient cars and we stop seeing every other 17 year old kid driving a monster pick up truck around that gets 8 miles to the gallon.

Our cars are just as efficient as yours. Don't kid yourself.

 

[Risky Thicket]

Do you seriously not know the arguments over all this time?

Wow...

If you have forgotten what must have been on threads dozens of times, why should I try to convince you?

Arguments for going were not reasons for going. Even then, even today, there was/is no specific agreement even within the two ruling corpgov parties as to why we went and what the mission was.

 

[JasperL]

Or is it that you don't understand my response?

Words have meaning. Just because similar results can come from different actions, does not mean the actions are the same, or should use the same word.

They are the same results, not "similar." Please explain any difference to anyone (investors/taxpayers/Carrier/State of Indiana/economists/ANYONE) whether Carrier got a cash grant of $7 million, or, a cash equivalent (tax credits) of $7 million. When you cannot, please explain why the former is a "subsidy" but the latter is not.

We have several synonyms in our language to be more specific on verbal intent.

How can I convey specific meanings in my words, when a dumbed down society is incapable of seeing the nuances between words?

If the "nuances" indicate no meaningful difference (and you cannot identify any), why should anyone care? How is anyone deceived or misinformed if I call special tax credits to Carrier a 'subsidy'?

You can shove your intent of dumbing down society. I will have no part of such disgraceful actions. It does nothing but play into the hands of authoritarian punditry.

LOL. The dumbed down population are those who insist that distinctions without a meaningful difference matter.

 

[JasperL]

The difference are clear to someone knowledgeable of them.

Then explain ANY difference without relying entirely on definitions. What is any practical difference? I've got a BA in economics, a masters degree in accounting and do taxes for a living. I'm fairly knowledgeable on the related subjects. What am I missing?

In a simple form via the government, a subsidy takes other people's money and gives to others. A tax break simple gives the government less of other people's money to spend.

But you are avoiding the question by focusing on form over substance. If Indiana had agreed to pay cash to Carrier totaling $7 million instead of tax credits totaling $7 million, nothing changes to anyone. Carrier is in both cases better off by $7M, Indiana's budget (if balanced before) is now showing a $7M deficit, so with both options, Indiana has to cut government spending by $7M, and/or raise taxes by $7M, meaning the effect on Indiana taxpayers is identical with either option.

You are pretty general in what you say, and it appears you are being partisan instead of blaming both parties.

Pretty funny - your original post that I responded to said this: "Only when you use the liberal dictionary for the word "subsidy." The left loves to take words with a distinct meaning, and add new meaning to suit their agenda." And that's not the only time in this discussion you've referred to "liberals" or "the left."

You can't start out being partisan, then complain about others being partisan....

Those are called "benefits." Another word with it's own specific meaning.

Not really - can't get more general than "benefits." Some "employee benefits" are taxed (e.g. an employer provided car used for personal purposes), other benefits aren't. The term subsidy applies to a subset of benefits that receive favorable tax treatment because Congress has decided to encourage them via subsidies, and tax free employer provided health insurance is the Big Daddy of all individual tax subsidies. There isn't an economist on the planet who doesn't recognize that tax benefit as a HUUUUGGGE subsidy of employer provided insurance.

Words have meaning!

Yes, and you've yet to demonstrate why using subsidy for transactions with identical effects is misleading, or what would be gained using a different term.

Why are you so ignorant as to assume I want that?

For the same reason you asked if I liked being a pawn, I guess. What's good for the goose...

And IMO, the broader purpose of treating tax breaks differently using different terms than a cash grant serves only one purpose, which is to reduce taxpayer objections to handing out these crony capitalism/corporate welfare taxpayer giveaways. If the public doesn't see targeted tax breaks as "subsidies" but as benign "tax cuts" although identical in every way that matters to cutting them a check, they don't care that their government is subsidizing large and extremely profitable businesses with their tax dollars. It works. Government "spending" is bad, but handing out tax credits is good, although in cases like Carrier, the effect on everyone is identical.

Don't be surprised if I don't answer any more of your questions. You seem incapable of understanding rather important nuances.

It would help if you could explain where my understanding is flawed other than on a purely semantic basis, or why these important nuances you cannot identify matter.

 

[JasperL]

I had to look up who that is, because I don't belong to the republicans or democrats.

What about his counterparts on the left?

Are you also blind when it comes to partisan motive?

I'm sure there are counterparts but Frank Luntz has the highest profile and he's very visible, on TV doing his focus groups to gauge their reaction to different words and then advising his GOP clients on which ones they should use, and a several of his memos have been leaked to the press. A famous (or infamous) one is "death tax" versus estate tax.

And I'm not blind to partisan motive. There is no doubt a 'partisan' advantage to labeling tax incentives to targeted businesses (e.g. Carrier) taxpayer "subsidies." But that 'framing' is also entirely accurate, and the alternative 'framing' that a tax cut for Carrier is different than a cash grant is inaccurate and misleading.

I don't have a problem "subsidizing" U.S. employers to keep jobs here. We waste a LOT of money on less noble pursuits. It's just my view we should as voters and a citizenry be honest about what's going on - Indiana is shifting $7 million in taxpayer wealth to a publicly traded behemoth of a company to 'keep' 700 good jobs, aka a subsidy. Let citizens make up their own minds if that is a good thing.

When we describe the arrangement properly, we can also then have INFORMED discussions, comparing apples to apples, about why, for example, subsidies of solar energy are 'bad' but subsidies of air conditioner manufacturers like Carrier are 'good' - or vice versa. A more important debate is why taxpayers should 'subsidize' politically connected behemoths like Carrier that spend $millions lobbying, but little businesses in Indiana cumulatively employing probably 100s or 1000s of times that of Carrier don't get the same subsidies. Call it what is IS and we can have INFORMED discussions - pretend the tax deal offered them isn't a subsidy and we cannot. Seems obvious to me...

 

[Bodi]

Our cars are just as efficient as yours. Don't kid yourself.

I'm not. I just get tired of hearing Americans complain about gas prices.

 

[Mac77]

I'm not. I just get tired of hearing Americans complain about gas prices.

Have you tried plugging your ears?

 

[American]

I'm not. I just get tired of hearing Americans complain about gas prices.

We don't import as high a percentage as you, that's why. And we buy in quantities that you don't. It should cost less.

 

[Mac77]

We don't import as high a percentage as you, that's why. And we buy in quantities that you don't. It should cost less.

His country may tax the oil more than we do

 

[Bodi]

Have you tried plugging your ears?

Yes. Americans just whine louder then.

 

[Bodi]

We don't import as high a percentage as you, that's why. And we buy in quantities that you don't. It should cost less.

Yeah. I understand economics.

Your answer does not address the whinng.