• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump to ban Saudi Oil imports

Mac77

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 4, 2016
Messages
12,049
Reaction score
2,089
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Yeah. I understand economics.

Your answer does not address the whinng.

Why should we want to pay more for our gasoline?

The citizens of your counrty may be brainwashed into thinking higher energy prices are good but Americans know better
 

American

Trump Grump Whisperer
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
94,443
Reaction score
32,289
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Yeah. I understand economics.

Your answer does not address the whinng.

I'm not hearing any whining from anyone I know. I think you're reading the wrong papers.
 

code1211

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Messages
47,695
Reaction score
10,466
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I highly doubt Trump is going to do anything that might disgruntle the Saudis; after all, he registered 8 new companies in Saudi Arabia in August 2015, shortly after he kicked off his presidential campaign. Furthermore, in a rally in Alabama, he had the following to say about the Saudis:



The Hill

The Washington Post

Forgive me if I'm anything but skeptical with respect to anything Trump has to say about Saudi Arabia. As for the rest of you living in a velvet Trumpian dream, by all means, continue to be the fodder of his deceit.

I heard a pundit say something regarding statements from recent Liberal Politicians and from Trump.

With Obama and with Clinton, we were directed to take them literally, but not seriously.

This resulted in Obama being given a pass on his statements citing the Video tape causing the Benghazi Massacre and Clinton being lauded for informing that it depends on "is" is.

Trump says things that come in broad strokes and must be taken seriously, but not literally.

I have a feeling that when Trump draws a red line, crossing it will bring immediate, devastating and exemplary results to the crossers of the line. I think world leaders have the same feeling.

That feeling from world leaders is absent under Obama. He is taken literally but most definitely not seriously.
 

sangha

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
67,218
Reaction score
28,528
Location
Lower Hudson Valley, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
However, words have specific meanings!

Subsidy Definition | Investopedia

A subsidy is a benefit given by the government to groups or individuals, usually in the form of a cash payment or a tax reduction. The subsidy is typically given to remove some type of burden, and it is often considered to be in the overall interest of the public.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidy
A subsidy is a form of financial aid or support extended to an economic sector (or institution, business, or individual) generally with the aim of promoting economic and social policy.[1] Although commonly extended from government, the term subsidy can relate to any type of support – for example from NGOs or as implicit subsidies. Subsidies come in various forms including: direct (cash grants, interest-free loans) and indirect (tax breaks, insurance, low-interest loans, accelerated depreciation, rent rebates)

To convince people that other financial practices are subsidies is only dumbing down society. The left loves dumbing down their voters. They do this with so many other words too.

To try and convince anyone that Mirriam Webster is the final say on what a word means is only making you look foolish. Multiple sources show that the word subsidy is not limited to cash grants made by govt. It also includes actions like tax breaks and other cost offsets.

But I wont argue that your poor understanding of the english language is reflective of the entire rights desire to be stupid and make everyone else stupid

That would be too hackish for me
 

code1211

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Messages
47,695
Reaction score
10,466
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Is this Trump's master plan for reviving the flagging American economy? Protectionism?

Massive tariffs on Mexican, Chinese and God-know's-who-else's imports? Ban Saudi oil? Tear up all trade deals?

Protectionism has been tried many times before...it ALWAYS fails...miserably. Smoot Hawley for one...which many blame for largely causing the Great Depression. And it always hurts the poor/middle classes the most as prices shoot upwards while the rich get MUCH richer from the added profits and the new monopolies they enjoy.

If he actually believes this and it is just not pandering to ignorant voters who simply do not know better AND he manages to get these protectionist measures through Congress...kiss prosperity goodbye for many years for the masses (unless you are rich - then it's time to celebrate).


The more this guy talks since the election, the less confident I am that he has the remotest idea how to run a country...let alone one as powerful as America.

He seems to be using a very cause-effect, hammer and nail approach.

If you hit the nail with the hammer, it goes into the wood. You can debate the angle of the strike, the weight of the hammer and the density of the wood, but the action causes the effect.

That said, Trump is saying that goods produced in the USA by factories in the USA that employ people in the USA have greater benefit to the people and the communities of the USA than do the same products produced abroad.

The economics of the Carrier deal reveal this. The tax benefits to both the Country and the State of Indiana outweigh the tax incentives paid to Carrier.

The average taxable income of the jobs restored by the deal is about $77,000 per year for 1100 jobs. this includes the taxable benefits.

JFK worked the same deal in his administration but did so in response to a big price increase fro US Steel changing the government purchasing to Bethlehem Steel.

The USA is the Big Dog in most deals. It's time we had a guy who leveraged the advantages to the benefit of the population.

Donald Trump Carrier Deal: It Is a Good Deal
 

sangha

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
67,218
Reaction score
28,528
Location
Lower Hudson Valley, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Online references are not official, especially these editable public or group "Pedias.". Just because someone chooses to call ity a subsidy, does not make it correct.

I see I found the crowd "Oh... Its true because I read it on the internet."

Your choice...

People judge intelligence of others by factors like this.

tax subsidy Definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary

tax subsidy

a reduction in tax in order to reduce the cost of producing food, a product, etc. and to help to keep its price low:
 

sangha

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
67,218
Reaction score
28,528
Location
Lower Hudson Valley, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
But whether the subsidies were in the form of special tax breaks OR cash grants totalling $7 million over the same period makes absolutely no difference to anyone. Not to the company - they are indifferent between $7 million in tax savings or $7 million in cash grants - it's math. Not to investors. Not to the state of Indiana. Not to taxpayers.

It makes a difference to pendants and sophists
 

Bodi

Just waiting for my set...
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
114,400
Reaction score
24,581
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Why should we want to pay more for our gasoline?

The citizens of your counrty may be brainwashed into thinking higher energy prices are good but Americans know better

Who said you should want to?

I said it would benefit the world.

Think about global implications.
 

Mac77

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 4, 2016
Messages
12,049
Reaction score
2,089
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Who said you should want to?

I said it would benefit the world.

Think about global implications.

Sorry but America already gave at the office

The world will have to rattle its tin cup somewhere else

If you raise energy prices based on misplaced fear of the man-made-global-warming hoax you hurt America without helping anyone
 

DA60

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
16,386
Reaction score
7,793
Location
Where I am now
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
He seems to be using a very cause-effect, hammer and nail approach.

If you hit the nail with the hammer, it goes into the wood. You can debate the angle of the strike, the weight of the hammer and the density of the wood, but the action causes the effect.

That said, Trump is saying that goods produced in the USA by factories in the USA that employ people in the USA have greater benefit to the people and the communities of the USA than do the same products produced abroad.

The economics of the Carrier deal reveal this. The tax benefits to both the Country and the State of Indiana outweigh the tax incentives paid to Carrier.

The average taxable income of the jobs restored by the deal is about $77,000 per year for 1100 jobs. this includes the taxable benefits.

JFK worked the same deal in his administration but did so in response to a big price increase fro US Steel changing the government purchasing to Bethlehem Steel.

The USA is the Big Dog in most deals. It's time we had a guy who leveraged the advantages to the benefit of the population.

Donald Trump Carrier Deal: It Is a Good Deal

We don't know exactly what Carrier got in return for not moving the jobs. But considering they have stated that they would save $65 million by moving the jobs to Mexico, there is no way the tax savings could be that much. So the reason they are not moving is clearly PR related.

And, no offense, but you are naive if you think Carrier won't move the plant as soon as they believe the PR hit has diminished. They stand to save tens of millions by the move. Eventually they will do it...that is what smart corporations do - cut costs and maximize profits.
By then, Trump won't care and that will be that.

Although I totally agree with lowering taxes on businesses. That is not enough. And short of bribing companies to stay (always a bad idea), there is no way more corporations will not bolt. The production costs are simply too high in America...especially for relatively low tech jobs.
 
Joined
Feb 20, 2016
Messages
3,089
Reaction score
571
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Progressive
The US imports only about 11% of the oil supply from the Saudi's.

The US and other countries crushed the Saudi's a few years ago.

The Saudi's and other Opec countries are not the biggest kids on the block anymore


doesn't matter. the sooner we pump their oil dry, the sooner they lose power. and we use less of our own oil.
 

Bob N

Weekend Political Pundit
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
3,848
Reaction score
1,801
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
...AND he manages to get these protectionist measures through Congress...
This is going to be the only wall he is going to actually run in to. ;) :lol:
 

Bodi

Just waiting for my set...
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
114,400
Reaction score
24,581
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Sorry but America already gave at the office

The world will have to rattle its tin cup somewhere else

If you raise energy prices based on misplaced fear of the man-made-global-warming hoax you hurt America without helping anyone

I thought you might latch onto warming when that is far from the point...
 

Bodi

Just waiting for my set...
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
114,400
Reaction score
24,581
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed

Gaztopian

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 26, 2015
Messages
1,476
Reaction score
481
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I heard a pundit say something regarding statements from recent Liberal Politicians and from Trump.

With Obama and with Clinton, we were directed to take them literally, but not seriously.

This resulted in Obama being given a pass on his statements citing the Video tape causing the Benghazi Massacre and Clinton being lauded for informing that it depends on "is" is.

Trump says things that come in broad strokes and must be taken seriously, but not literally.

I have a feeling that when Trump draws a red line, crossing it will bring immediate, devastating and exemplary results to the crossers of the line. I think world leaders have the same feeling.

That feeling from world leaders is absent under Obama. He is taken literally but most definitely not seriously.

I literally have no idea what you said there. I have a feeling it's meant to malign Obama and defend Trump, but beyond that, I'm without recourse.
 

code1211

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Messages
47,695
Reaction score
10,466
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
We don't know exactly what Carrier got in return for not moving the jobs. But considering they have stated that they would save $65 million by moving the jobs to Mexico, there is no way the tax savings could be that much. So the reason they are not moving is clearly PR related.

And, no offense, but you are naive if you think Carrier won't move the plant as soon as they believe the PR hit has diminished. They stand to save tens of millions by the move. Eventually they will do it...that is what smart corporations do - cut costs and maximize profits.
By then, Trump won't care and that will be that.

Although I totally agree with lowering taxes on businesses. That is not enough. And short of bribing companies to stay (always a bad idea), there is no way more corporations will not bolt. The production costs are simply too high in America...especially for relatively low tech jobs.

Along with the incentives that seem to amount to about a tenth of what would be saved by the move, Carrier also talked about the impact of the possible changes in the operating landscape possible under Trump.

Trump seems to be saying that companies are leaving for two reasons:

1. The operating costs in Mexico and elsewhere outside the US are rewarding those companies that move.
2. The tax structure in the USA is punishing those companies that stay.

In horribly simple terms, this is the the thought process:

Good things offered by staying in the US from a cost perspective are the infrastructure including reliable and consistent supplies of energy and fuels, great distribution arteries, a relatively well educated work force and a predominately peaceful and well policed plot of ground on which to conduct operations.

The bad things from a cost perspective are the tax structure and the higher labor rates.

If the the bad things can be reduced enough to allow the good things to rise to prominence in the minds of the CFO's, that will cause jobs to both stay and come back. That is the logic involved.

Previously, the government's approach was to raise the taxes as high as possible and then express outrage that the targeted victims tried to evade the lash.

The previous approach has proven to be ineffective.

Isn't it time to try something else? Carrier seems willing to give it a shot.
 

code1211

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Messages
47,695
Reaction score
10,466
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I literally have no idea what you said there. I have a feeling it's meant to malign Obama and defend Trump, but beyond that, I'm without recourse.

Obama is all show and no go. All talk and no walk.

Trump is a man of action.

Obama is a word smith that carefully constructs every statement read with passion from a written script to create an impression and not have binding effect. Red Line? Arab Spring? Nice words.

Trump is a chief executive the sets a direction and assigns experts to execute the vision.

To criticize Obama, you examine the outcomes and compare them to his threats and promises. In so doing you find that his words are mushy, his rhetoric is empty and his word is trash.

To criticize Trump, you examine his statements and pick out one of the many stray statements as he thinks out loud at a microphone meandering toward an idea. That is how one misstatement of the Mexican rapists and criminals is blown up to be a policy statement by the devious trying to mislead the uninformed. Never mind that this idea has been refined and better focused as time moved forward.

Obama said that he is trying to save jobs. In the meantime, the household income suffers and the number of the unemployed in the USA is at an all time high. As an aside, there are more unemployed right now than the total population of the country in 1900.

Trump wandered around the idea of keeping jobs in the USA and, before even taking office, he has convinced Carrier to keep some jobs in the US.

That is walking the walk after talking the talk.

Better?
 

calamity

Privileged
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
160,900
Reaction score
57,797
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Obama is all show and no go. All talk and no walk.

Trump is a man of action.

Obama is a word smith that carefully constructs every statement read with passion from a written script to create an impression and not have binding effect. Red Line? Arab Spring? Nice words.

Trump is a chief executive the sets a direction and assigns experts to execute the vision.

To criticize Obama, you examine the outcomes and compare them to his threats and promises. In so doing you find that his words are mushy, his rhetoric is empty and his word is trash.

To criticize Trump, you examine his statements and pick out one of the many stray statements as he thinks out loud at a microphone meandering toward an idea. That is how one misstatement of the Mexican rapists and criminals is blown up to be a policy statement by the devious trying to mislead the uninformed. Never mind that this idea has been refined and better focused as time moved forward.

Obama said that he is trying to save jobs. In the meantime, the household income suffers and the number of the unemployed in the USA is at an all time high. As an aside, there are more unemployed right now than the total population of the country in 1900.

Trump wandered around the idea of keeping jobs in the USA and, before even taking office, he has convinced Carrier to keep some jobs in the US.

That is walking the walk after talking the talk.

Better?

It's deeper than that even. Obama is a try to make everyone happy without offending anyone kind of guy. Trump is the opposite. Trump does what he thinks is right, based on his success in the past--the hell with what anyone thinks of him. Obama is a blank slate, with no history of accomplishment except walking that fine line which I outlined in the second sentence.

One man is a man of action. The other weighs his options, sometimes to the point of doing nothing. If anything, we know this--Trump will not be a man who does nothing.

I'm not sure that will make for us a good leader in this time of conflicting interests. But, he will make it interesting. :)
 

code1211

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Messages
47,695
Reaction score
10,466
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
It's deeper than that even. Obama is a try to make everyone happy without offending anyone kind of guy. Trump is the opposite. Trump does what he thinks is right, based on his success in the past--the hell with what anyone thinks of him. Obama is a blank slate, with no history of accomplishment except walking that fine line which I outlined in the second sentence.

One man is a man of action. The other weighs his options, sometimes to the point of doing nothing. If anything, we know this--Trump will not be a man who does nothing.

I'm not sure that will make for us a good leader in this time of conflicting interests. But, he will make it interesting. :)

Excellent points all around!

I'm almost daily reminded of the Chinese Curse which wishes for the recipient that they live in "Interesting" times.

In my so far unremarkable life, I find that those times that have been "interesting" have also been filled withy uncertainty, worry, and challenges of various difficulty.

I hope that the parts of the upcoming Trump years that promise to be "interesting" produce great advance and not great disappointment.
 

calamity

Privileged
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
160,900
Reaction score
57,797
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Excellent points all around!

I'm almost daily reminded of the Chinese Curse which wishes for the recipient that they live in "Interesting" times.

In my so far unremarkable life, I find that those times that have been "interesting" have also been filled withy uncertainty, worry, and challenges of various difficulty.

I hope that the parts of the upcoming Trump years that promise to be "interesting" produce great advance and not great disappointment.

Trump was part of the transformation of NYC, played a big roll in it, actually. So, if he can take his vision and push it across all the decaying metro areas in the nation, we will be better for it.
 

Bodi

Just waiting for my set...
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
114,400
Reaction score
24,581
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
That's 2012

So? I see news stories regularly that show that Americans worry about rising gas prices. Do you think it is a secret or something?
 
Top Bottom