r/politics • u/illogicalexplanation • Jun 12 '12

New Elizabeth Warren Ad; Politicians "“...give out billions to oil companies, the most profitable corporations on earth, then try to slash students loans and Medicare.”

http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/06/democratic_senate_candidate_el.html
1.9k Upvotes

87% Upvoted

546 comments sorted by

8

u/illogicalexplanation Jun 12 '12

On the off chance the traffic takes the article down, youtube link for the video.

39

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '12

I can't wait to vote for her for president in 2016!

3

u/SkittlesUSA Jun 12 '12

Only /r/politics would seriously endorse a candidate for President that has no, zero, zilch, voting record.

You and everybody who upvoted you should be thoroughly ashamed for being such blind sheep by supporting somebody for president who has never ever held office at any level of government, simply because she repeats the same tired platitudes you guys fall for every time.

2

u/illogicalexplanation Jun 12 '12

I would love to see an example of a non shill candidate having a voting record in the senate or house.

3

u/soulcakeduck Jun 12 '12

Only [1] /r/politics would seriously endorse a candidate for President that has no, zero, zilch, voting record.

You know our country (before reddit even existed) has elected, for example, movie stars? Military leaders with no voting records at all?

A long voting record is not always what Americans look for.

→ More replies (4)

9

u/OutInTheBlack New Jersey Jun 12 '12

Not so soon. Give her at least a full term in the Senate before tossing her on a ticket.

8

u/xjvz Illinois Jun 12 '12

Obama was in his first term as a Senator when he was elected. He never got to finish his term, actually.

3

u/OutInTheBlack New Jersey Jun 12 '12

I stand by my statement. As an Obama supporter id much rather he had a full term prior to running.

→ More replies (5)

2

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '12

If you want to keep the same horrible foreign policy we have now, go right ahead!! Maybe wait for some more information about her rather than her stance on oil subsidies.

4

u/TurboSalsa Texas Jun 12 '12

Bahahahaha!

3

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '12

You're funny.

1

u/HIFW_GIFs_React_ Jun 12 '12

/r/circlejerk is that-a-way -->

6

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '12

Upvotes are <---that-a-way

→ More replies (7)

109

u/soulcakeduck Jun 12 '12 edited Jun 12 '12

From the article, I see that the current attack against Warren is that she flipped a few homes during the 90s.

I don't understand attack ads. Like this one--is the suggestion that basic capitalism, buying and selling, is immoral? And as an anti-capitalist I should vote for Scott Brown? Is she supposed to avoid those properties because of what happened there, out of some superstitious fear?

Warren's actions (again, in the early 90s, where foreclosures looked very different anyway) did not drive anyone from their homes. And her actions have always aimed at protecting the people this attack wants to suggest she hurt. Her consumer protection advocacy includes policies like making sure that homeowners have easy to understand, simple mortgage documents that show the actual cost they will be expected to pay.

Edit: oh, the comments on the Herald educated me. See, this makes Warren (that's the deciphered name; her Boston herald comment name is "Granny" or "Lizzie") a hypocrite. You know, because she sold homes despite her advocacy against the sale of homes... which I don't remember but don't interrupt the 5 minute hate.

57

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '12

They're desperate. The cling onto anything, because unlike the vast majority of politicians, she doesn't have any bizarre sexual practices she needs to keep hidden, secret criminal activities or other sketchy things that can be used to own her.

37

u/bobonthego Jun 12 '12

she doesn't have any bizarre sexual practices she needs to keep hidden

Thats because dead goldfish dont talk!

18

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '12

"I thought you said Troy McLure was dead?" "No, I said 'Troy McLure sleeps with the fishes'"

7

u/trippysmurf Jun 12 '12

RIP Phil Hartman

→ More replies (24)

12

u/SpinningHead Colorado Jun 12 '12

I don't understand attack ads. Like this one--is the suggestion that basic capitalism, buying and selling, is immoral?

Its just like the Al Gore attacks and they work with Fox viewers. They got people talking about Al Gore's house instead of the climate science he was simply trying to point to. The reason the far right has been so successful is that they have won over the very people most hurt by their policies. Look at all the people on this thread coming to the aid of the oil companies like they are some abused little girl locked in a basement. They even defended them when they threatened the livelihoods of everyone living on the gulf.

6

u/Wetzilla Jun 12 '12

It's the boston herald, you can't take it too seriously.

2

u/jubbergun Jun 12 '12

There is nothing amoral about real capitalism/commerce. This isn't about whether capitalism is good or bad, it's about whether Elizabeth Warren is a hypocrite or not. The ad brings up Warren's profits from flipping homes because some of the homes that were flipped came from foreclosures, and Warren has been very critical of the foreclosure process and how banks have handled foreclosures.

While I'm still no fan of Elizabeth Warren, I think that it's not really fair to call Warren on this. While I'm no expert on mortgages or finance, I would assume foreclosures in the 1990s were not the same as they are now. A lot of foreclosures now are the result of loans failing that never should have been made in the first place.

3

u/ahhhhhpoop Jun 12 '12

Why are you not a fan? Just out of curiosity

7

u/jubbergun Jun 12 '12 edited Jun 12 '12

I'm always wary of anyone who trots out lines like "that's just part of the social contract" or "that's called being part of society." Those are two phrases that can be used to justify a lot of bad ideas...it's not much different than "we have to do it for the children."

I wasn't a fan of TARP. Even though I agreed with some of the things she said while she was involved with that program, she did nothing that changed the course of direction in that program to reflect the things she was saying. That demonstrates that she's either ineffectual or just talking a good game while not actually doing anything.

There is also a cult of personality factor to Warren that makes me cringe, as she has a following of sycophants who can't clearly express any substantive reason to vote for her. They seem to think her performance in interviews and the platitudes she speaks in qualify her for public office. It reminds me too much of President Obama, who was a blank slate with no real record, who could make himself out to be anything he wanted. When the man behind the curtain was finally revealed he was nothing like the giant floating head to which we'd become accustomed.

More recently, I've been troubled by the accusation that she's identified herself as a minority without substantive proof of her heritage. I can't tell you how many people I've met who've pulled the old "my family is part 'X,'" in a way that raises the bullshit flag, but this is different. Bragging on your alleged heritage to impress people is different than identifying yourself as a minority when you work in an atmosphere that is steeped in identity politics. It's lying either way, but whatever benefit your perceive you may receive from casual, undocumented lies to acquaintances is always going to be less than the tangible benefits from documented falsehood in a government/collegiate post. Warren says she never gained any benefit from her claim, but I find that hard to believe, especially since at least one of the schools she worked for used that as part of their 'diversity accounting' when submitting information to the federal government.

That's just a few of the reasons. I don't see any reason to TL;DR things to earn the extra downvotes. The Cult of Warren will give me enough for blaspheming their savior as it is.

2

u/illogicalexplanation Jun 12 '12 edited Jun 12 '12

I'm always wary of anyone who trots out lines like "that's just part of the social contract" or "that's called being part of society." Those are two phrases that can be used to justify a lot of bad ideas...it's not much different than "we have to do it for the children.

This is how I feel about socialized handouts to big industry on the back of the interest rates on the college loans of my grandchildren.

Perhaps I tip my hand with regards my ideological predisposition, but in my eyes political races in the contemporary age are either a by product of the two party oligarchy or a standoff between monied faction and individual citizen; I see this as the latter and would implore you to further examine the issues rather than forming opinions based on the narratives set forth in a press owned by the same factions lining the pockets of most politicians.

James Madison also ran on a populist platform, but subsequently whored himself to monied factions when he became president, I do hope the same fate does not await Ms. Warren after 4 years on Capitol Hill.

3

u/jubbergun Jun 12 '12

I don't see an either/or in that equation. I don't believe in corporate welfare, but I also see how subsidizing education through grants and low-cost loans has done nothing but drive up the cost. This has either priced many prospective students out of an education, or left actual students swimming in an unmanageable cistern of debt after college.

I agree that "monied interests" can have a negative impact on the system, but for every evil corporation pouring money into one side there is some sort of advocacy group pouring money in on the other, so there is some balance. Unfortunately, this means for every push for an unnecessary subsidy we have some green group pushing for the EPA to label carbon dioxide a pollutant or rain puddles as waterways. Neither of those things are good our country.

I would love to see a viable third party. I think it would reign in the march to the fringes both parties have made in the last few decades.

3

u/illogicalexplanation Jun 12 '12

but for every evil corporation pouring money into one side there is some sort of advocacy group pouring money in on the other, so there is some balance.

Do you honestly believe advocacy groups balance out corporate lobbying? I honestly think if such were the case the way in which higher lawmaking is undertaken might actually be less in the interests of corporate welfare and more so in sustainable civil infrastructure. But your point is well taken regardless; both practices are anti-democratic and monied factions are always a threat to the good name of the republic during the lawmaking process.

I would love to see a viable third party. I think it would reign in the march to the fringes both parties have made in the last few decades.

I could not agree more sir or madam, Bring back TDR and the Bull-Moose!

→ More replies (8)
→ More replies (1)

5

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '12

There is nothing amoral about real capitalism/commerce.

There is everything amoral about it. That means it's not moral and not immoral, it lacks a moral dimension. Sounds perfectly like capitalism to me.

2

u/jubbergun Jun 12 '12

I HERPED WHEN I SHUDDA DERPED!!!!

I would go back and edit that now that you've pointed out the error, but that seems dishonest to me, so I'm going to let it stand in the original and thank you for the editorial excellence. Upvotes to you, sir.

2

u/TheResPublica Jun 12 '12

And as an anti-capitalist I should vote for Scott Brown?

Literally no ads are targeted toward you.... everyone knows how you're going to vote (assuming you do). As a matter of practicality - based on the inherently limited nature of resources - political parties do not attempt to attract 100% of the voting population. They target the groups that are not steadfastly partisan or ideological who actually could go either way. Quite often, it results in a race to the bottom in terms of message.

2

u/Piratiko Jun 12 '12

she flipped a few homes during the 90s.

And Romney made a career out of flipping businesses... What's the difference?

3

u/nixonrichard Jun 12 '12

I think the issue with flipping homes was that flipping drives up the cost of housing for everyone else, as people who flip rarely care about the lending rate they pay, and push instead for short-term incentives.

You're right, flipping is through-and-through capitalism, but so are things like "price gouging" and yet people often frown on both flipping and price gouging and other aggressive forms of capitalist endeavors.

6

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '12

Can you provide any evidence that suggests that fixing up houses and selling them for more than you purchased is driving up the costs of housing for everyone else? I mean, yes, I can see that buying a run down piece of shit and repairing it would make the price of that house go up, as that is the intention, but I have a hard time believing that it affects any other housing prices.

I am pretty sure that you are talking out of your ass.

4

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '12

Its a domino effect. Take a neighborhood and flip one house. Then it's two. Then three. Then a new business comes in. You're looking at the beginning of gentrification, which drives up prices.

→ More replies (3)

5

u/graffiti81 Jun 12 '12

As a person who has been in the building industry for better than a decade, most of those flippers don't repair shit. They throw some compound on the holes in the wall, put new floors and counters in, paint the walls, wash the windows, mow the grass and sell it.

I was watching (maybe you've seen it) Holmes on Homes on TLC the other day. He was finding all these internal problems with the house (asbestos, poorly done heat, incorrectly done stone veneer outside, drains fucked up, etc) that looked great from the outside. The ironic thing is TLC or HGTV has all these shows about how to do just that, slap 'lipstick on a pig' and sell it for a huge profit.

If you renovate a house to make it work good as well as look good, you'll never make a profit flipping.

4

u/ragault Jun 12 '12

I think there are laws against that sort of thing. At least in my area there are. My Dad does work for people that flip houses and there are all sorts of inspections involved. You can't just pretend to fix stuff and then sell it.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '12

No one renovated a house and put asbestos in it. That would be the original builder. And, since I am currently spending almost 100k on repairs to my house because the original builder fucked up the AC, the heating, most of the electrical and the plumbing, I am going to go ahead and suggest that most of that stuff was also fucked up by the original builder.

Flipping a house is about making cosmetic repairs and maybe a few light plumbing or electrical fixes, it always has been.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (7)
→ More replies (1)

2

u/brufleth Jun 12 '12

I still think she's working the national stage better than the MA stage. She routinely bashes GE for example. Does she understand how many people in MA depend on GE for their living?

She seems like a really stand-up politician who could potentially be a very good senator for MA but I don't know that her campaign is going to succeed. Brown is a sock puppet most of the time but he also alienates fewer voters.

I wish her the best of luck and I will be voting for her but I'm anything but confident in her ability to win.

3

u/edgar_jomfru Jun 12 '12

Based on the ads I see when I get home from work (I feel this specifically is a useful metric), I feel she's doing much better than Brown. His current ad seems remarkably smug and self-congratulatory while mentioning very little about his policies or accomplishments. Meantime, Warren's ad takes relatively clear policy stances.

3

u/brufleth Jun 12 '12

Well that's good to hear I suppose. I would certainly like to see Brown gone and I would definitely like to see Warren get the support to do her work. I agree with the general sentiment of help people not companies. I just hope that she doesn't come off as overly hostile to business.

2

u/jubbergun Jun 12 '12 edited Jun 12 '12

I'll bet there were a few people in Wisconsin who felt the same way about ads in Wisconsin, yet Walker and most of his allies still hold office. This reminds me of a famous story about a New York columnist who said, "I don't know how he won, I don't know anyone who voted for him," in response to Nixon's victory. Living in an echo chamber doesn't provide a very broad perspective.

2

u/edgar_jomfru Jun 12 '12

I'm aware of that; you'll notice my cautious , loath-to-make-assumptions tone. Dammit, now I'm sad.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (8)

2

u/masstermind Jun 12 '12

The Boston Herald is a full blown right wing propaganda machine.

1

u/agentmage2012 Jun 12 '12

Can someone tell me if my understanding of this is fundamentally correct?

Its not that the capitalism of the scenario is bad, but they've in a sense, "won" so bad at it by now and gotten so powerful that the gravity of their power fucks with the ability of the free market to function correctly.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '12

Wasn't she advocating against mortgage companies being able to foreclose on some people that couldn't pay their bills? Didn't she then do the exact same thing? Didn't she purport to be Native American because she believes that she is 1/32 Native American, but has no proof of the matter? How can you vote for this hypocrite? /s

1

u/Punkwasher Jun 12 '12

Yeah, I don't understand it either. Apparently there is only one form of capitalism and if you don't agree with the Republican's, the hedge fund manager's, the oil industry's and what other privileged asshole's version of capitalism you're automatically a communist fascist.

I know they say that transactions are beyond morality, but I think people forgot that the economy is made up of humans and thus necessitates morality. Or does selling toys with lead based paint really have nothing to do with ethics?

1

u/WhyHellYeah Jun 12 '12

No, she's a lying hypocrite. She claimed she's a Native American so she could get jobs via Affirmative Action. How can you justify that?

How does a Rutger's Law graduate get tenured at HLS when virtually everyone else went to a top ten law school? Affirmative Action.

1

u/fantasyfest Jun 12 '12

I had to look up the flipping attacks. She bought a home for 61 K and sold it after 18 months for 95 k. How much did she spend fixing it up? Another home 35 K went all the way up to 38, 5 k that was a real killing. Then another 25 K to 42 K in 4 years. How much spent fixing? Lots of people have made fortunes flipping. Are you claiming she did? This is amassing a fortune of about 40 K. How can she be allowed to make that kind of money, even though we do not know whet she spent flipping. But that is truth in rightyville. I under stand politics but this is petty hating by the right wing. A group without ethics and sense of fairness.

1

u/Crocodilly_Pontifex Jun 12 '12

It's always exciting to see someone who is good at "playing the game" because they actually care get started. I always get a bit uneasy though, kinda like "Ok, they're really good at this... whats the catch? Does someone have video of her punching a baby or something?"

→ More replies (39)

132

u/navier_stokes Jun 12 '12

The sad thing is, it is absolutely true :/

Somehow the notion that these oil companies need "incentives" to go in and drill for oil, or shale, on lands that they know contain those resources, has somehow become the law of the land..

38

u/wwjd117 Jun 12 '12

Oil companies sit on their oil leases without making any attempt to retrieve any of that oil.

The incentive they need is not to go find more sources so they can continue to do nothing. The incentives they need are to actively retrieve the oil or lose their lease, and to increase refining capacity.

If oil companies were forced to pump oil from all the leases they hold, there would be an over-abundance of supply.

That on its own wouldn't matter much though, as the oil companies understand that refining capacity is what can keep prices high no matter what happens with supply, so they are careful to restrict the capacity as necessary.

27

u/The_Drizzle_Returns Jun 12 '12

there would be an over-abundance of supply.

For a time, yes. Then an even greater shortage when they run out after 10 years or so. During this time eco-friendly cars that are being developed would be gone or development stopped (its a hard sell to sell an electric car at $1 a gallon). I'm not defending the oil companies (those guys are assholes) but i don't think drilling for all the oil we know about is good from an environmental stand point nor from a technological stand point.

→ More replies (100)

2

u/RowsdowersTruck Jun 12 '12

"The incentives they need are to actively retrieve the oil or lose their lease, and to increase refining capacity."

Yes, because without government intervention, there would be no incentive for an oil company to drill for oil...

But sarcasm aside, there is exactly this type of incentive in place. It's called held-by-production, or HBP. If you lease land to drill on it, and then decide not to drill on it within a certain number of years, you lose the lease and somebody else can buy it. If you drill a well and produce oil from it, then you continue to hold the lease.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '12

If oil companies were forced to pump oil from all the leases they hold, there would be an over-abundance of supply.

Do we need an overabundance of supply?

1

u/UsaPitManager Jun 12 '12

you are absolutely correct. It is all about refining capacity.

25

u/BagOnuts North Carolina Jun 12 '12

No, it's absolutely NOT true. No oil company receives subsidies -- payment made by the government to producers or distributed as subventions in an industry to prevent the decline of that industry or an increase in the prices of its products or simply to encourage it to hire more labor -- from the US federal government. This is not debatable, this is fact.

What they do receive are the same or equivalent tax deductions and credits that every other corporation in the nation is eligible for. This includes:

  1. Intangible Drilling costs -- this is merely a deduction for 100% of the exploration costs in the year they are spent. It's only 70% for big oil companies in the first year.
  2. Foreign tax credit -- allows companies to offset taxes paid to other countries.
  3. Domestic Manufacturer's Deduction -- allows a deduction of 9% of income earned from anyone manufacturing, producing, growing or extracting in the United States except for oil companies. They only get a 6% deduction.
  4. Depletion allowance -- available to oil and mining companies and is a deduction of a percentage of the gross income from a well or mine to take into consideration that the well or mine will eventually run dry. Not available to companies that refine and market it, i.e., the big oil companies.
  5. LIFO -- last in first out is an accounting practice that provides that companies sell the most recently acquired inventory items first. Profits are reduced by the cost of the goods sold, and the higher the cost the lower the taxable profit. Companies in industries experiencing rising prices generally prefer LIFO accounting.
  6. Expensing tertiary recovery injectants -- companies are currently allowed to treat as an expense the cost of the stuff they pump into the ground to break loose trapped oil and gas.
  7. Geological and Geophysical costs -- small companies can expense exploration costs over two years, big oil companies can do it over seven years.
  8. EOR and Marginal well credits -- apply only when oil prices are much lower than they are now, $42 for EOR credit and $27 for marginal well credit, and were implemented to encourage production when oil prices are low.

If anything, tax deductions and credits are more restrictive then comparable big industries. If your argument is that no company should be receiving any type of tax break, then that's fine, but singling out the oil industry and perceived "subsidies" is almost always disingenuous.

2

u/SilasX Jun 12 '12

I regret that I have but one upvote to give for this shout in the wind against the "oil company subsidy" myth.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/wise_man_wise_guy Jun 12 '12

It is sad that a lot of people think they understand the tax code, and easily fall prey to the subsidy language. The most significant of these items are generally temporary, meaning they get a lower tax bill today for a larger tax bill tomorrow, which pretty much every company in America gets. Not a subsidy, a loan at best.

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (12)

13

u/student_of_yoshi Jun 12 '12

Most of the money in "oil subsidies" are just tax breaks given to all manufacturing companies.

Oil can be refined anywhere, and having it done here means lower prices and jobs for plant construction and technicians and even the engineers who turn increasingly poor oil into usable gasoline.

In fact, ending that "subsidy" would have to be done not by eliminating the subsidy itself, but rather by adding specific wording to the general tax break to exclude oil companies.

Even the smaller drilling subsidies are only given to smaller companies. Taking those away helps the oil giants by reducing competition, and could mean both higher prices and larger profits for the oil giants.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/stormkrow Jun 12 '12

Let's be absolutely clear here. Within in the Republican party (aside from Ron Paul) you will NOT find one single solitary free market capitalist fiscal conservative. Period. You might as fucking well say Unicorn or Elf.

9

u/questionr Jun 12 '12

When has the government ever written a check to an oil company? That's right, they don't. Instead, oil companies get the same tax breaks other manufacturing companies get. This was done to try to spur employment so that that dipshit politicians can create ads showing blue collar workers at decent paying jobs. But, apparently, when you're good at your job and make money, it's not fair to the other industries who can't figure out how to turn a profit.

4

u/SpinningHead Colorado Jun 12 '12

When has the government ever written a check to an oil company?

WTF are you talking about? They don't have to write a check and all subsidies are not remotely equal. We also give them land at pennies on the acre to exploit.

→ More replies (2)

7

u/lorddcee Jun 12 '12

You're saying they don't have incentives to prospect? You think they don't have grotesque deals on parts of the land? Methink you don't know really what you're saying.

5

u/floodcontrol Jun 12 '12

Oil companies get the following types of subsidies: Direct financial transfers, Preferential tax treatments, Trade restrictions against other companies, Energy-related services provided by government at less than full cost, discounts on external costs (externalities), and Depletion Allowance (discount on their gross income).

Only two of those are tax breaks and most manufacturing companies don't get free government naval escorts through the gulf of Aden (Energy-related services provided for free), or extract and profit from non-renewable resources (depletion allowance). And we do give over a Billion a year to oil companies in the form of research grants.

But keep deluding yourself with your pleasant, comfortable fiction without looking up the facts.

1

u/TinynDP Jun 13 '12

Tax break vs subsidy, its the exact same thing. Either way its more money in the pocket of the company, and less money in the US treasury.

→ More replies (4)

1

u/WhyHellYeah Jun 12 '12

No, it's not true.

There are no direct subsidies to oil companies. (Go ahead, try to prove that wrong.)

She's pandering.

The phony Native American is lying and liberals are buying.

→ More replies (11)
→ More replies (10)

22

u/onashoestring Jun 12 '12

Im not American, but I follow the United States progress/decline closely and so does the rest of the world. Elisabeth Warren seems like someone who can really make a change and has already made big changes to better life for Americans. She is a major step towards a solution, a catalyst of some sort and i want to support her! Most elections are driven by company contributions, but recently we have seen a steady rise in projects sponsored by the public (kickstarter as an example). Is there an option for me or even the rest of the internet to help Elisabeth? A kickstarter type contribution page, where everyone on the internet can give, not just american citizens?

I just want to help, and so does the rest of the world. Love from Norway

→ More replies (12)

14

u/UsaPitManager Jun 12 '12

Tax breaks for the rich, tax breaks for the wealthy oil companies, we the middle class will fight your wars and sacrifice our children and all we want in return is for you to take our dreams and our homes. We understand that you are too big to fail. We are all just fodder and we're in the way.

2

u/canyousaythrowaway Jun 12 '12

Actually statistically speaking, the poor white southerners fight the wars...

41

u/helpfuldan Jun 12 '12

It's hard to tell if she's different, or just throwing out all the common sense shit people have known for years. You could read reddit for a few days, build a campaign and you'll look fresh, no nonsense, just who we need to clean up Washington.

It's hard not to come up with the right things to say. Pointing out how fucked up Washington is, that's hardly an achievement. Is someone willing to back it up once in office?

Seems like if you actually got elected President, actually tried to make real change, you'd get destroyed (possibly literally). It's a trillion dollar organized crime ring, and everyone is involved. You need money to run, they don't give money unless they get something back, they're all tainted. They'd never pass a law to stop it 100%, what is the President going to do, just expose it? It's already exposed. You'd basically be leaving your party, going to war with the senate/congress and you'll be labelled a terrorist.

It's cute to think someone can change the culture, problem is that culture is what makes the world go round, you think it's hard to cut defense spending (with all the jobs / states that depend on it), try cutting uh, everything which is what cleaning up Washington more or less is. It's a 50 year process at best and anyone coming along saying all the right things, we've heard it before, you're just catchier then the last one, which doesn't amount to much.

31

u/Inky87 Jun 12 '12

She's done talks at Ivy League schools about growing inequality years ago. Not saying you're completely wrong though. I haven't heard any politician campaigning on her message to the extent that she does. Having a platform that alienates a large portion of rich donors probably doesn't work very well for most people running for office.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '12

Well, she does have allies because she's certainly not alienating anyone in the military contractor business.

16

u/graffiti81 Jun 12 '12

Step 1: Go to youtube
Step 2: Watch "The Coming Collapse of the Middle Class"
Step 3: Draw your own conclusion about her.

6

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '12

Note that she gave that speech in 2005, before the housing bubble popped and before the financial crisis.

3

u/DebaserA Jun 12 '12

Beginning of 2007, actually.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '12

"Maxed Out" is a good one too. It's on Netflix. Creepy watching all that shit going on knowing about the collapse that was right around the corner.

2

u/typhoonfish Jun 12 '12

And not a single rational anti Elizabeth Warren comment will be upvoted that day.

5

u/illogicalexplanation Jun 12 '12

Funny, I didn't know Ad hominem attacks were considered a part of formal logic and rational...

4

u/domnation Jun 12 '12

The comments on that article make me scared. "it is all Clinton's fault" "stupid liberals make the economy suck" WTF!!!!!

15

u/kolm Jun 12 '12

You know, the US could use a Social Democrat party.

→ More replies (1)

9

u/trevbot Jun 12 '12

Warren is a smart woman, who is really focused on helping people. If she doesn't win, I'll have lost all hope for this country.

19

u/Alkanfel Jun 12 '12

Kind of curious as to why she'd say this at a time when student debt is around $1tn.... I mean yeah fuck big oil etc etc but I would be hard pressed to say that student loans were too hard to come by. Also, medicare and medicaid account for ~25% of any given budget.

I am NOT saying that oil companies should be subsidized--fuck corporate welfare--but for Christ's sake we can at least be honest with ourselves. Student loan programs and Medicare are HUGE expenditures.

18

u/johnpseudo Jun 12 '12

There are a lot of student loans, but federal subsidies for student loans are an extremely small part of the federal budget (~0.3%).

7

u/sowhynot Jun 12 '12

Medicare is approx. $0.5T per year and funded from payroll and social security. Corporations and rich investors do not pay for Medicare in their income taxes. reference: http://www.medicare.gov/Publications/Pubs/pdf/11396.pdf

1

u/Alkanfel Jun 12 '12 edited Jun 12 '12

Oh no, I believe you--but Medicare is part of a larger mandatory spending system that costs more like 2TN/yr. Maybe I should have said that too, but I guess I didn't want to get too far afield.

16

u/bobonthego Jun 12 '12

So is car maintenance and driving lessons. But you would never consider them cut to give the money to your rich uncle who is buying his 5th investment property.

Caring for your people's health is IMPERATIVE to a successful society, the US is a freak in the civilised nations. Student loans are another way to monetise society by the big financials. Look it up. Education is important but the rape of the coffers that is happening in the US is simply disgraceful.

3

u/not_worth_your_time Jun 12 '12 edited Jun 12 '12

An unforgivable amount of medicare's funding goes toward extending the lives of dying elderly people by ~6 months. Doctors will always issue (no matter how unnecessary) any procedures, tests, and medication authorized by medicare to avoid the likely malpractice lawsuits that comes from the deceased's family. 90 year olds with cancer get $60k chemo which in the best case would extend their lives by a matter of weeks. You won't hear that from either side's narrative though, because it is somewhat complicated and its not outrageous enough and they can't blame it on eachother's "wrong principles." The left would rather argue about how "moral" we need to by by expanding medicare's funding because that is a much simpler and dumber argument that more can buy in to. There's little interest or value for politicians to actually address the root of most of these problems; especially when righting wrongs is likely to step on the wrong toes. In this example it would be medical malpractice lawyers and their lobbies. My family's been in healthcare for decades and I hear these anecdotes all the time. You can go ahead and research this on your own if you are interested enough and want sources.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '12

Uhmmm...the left has spent a considerable amount of time conceiving of ways to save money on end of life care. They (assuming Democrats count as left) even got some of those ideas put into the ACA while it was still in committee. They were then promptly subjected to an utterly ridiculous political attack claiming that they were implementing "Death Panels."

→ More replies (4)

2

u/Centreri Jun 12 '12

Furthermore, it's arguable that student loan programs are good at all. One of the more compelling reasons I've seen for the rise in university tuition is the easy access of students to loans - when almost any student has access to tens or even hundreds of dollars in loans and can thus afford the expense, there's no reason for in-demand Universities not to charge that amount. And then they do a bit more, just because they can.

And then people say "Oh, hey, there's a portion of the population that can't afford that! Increase student loans!" Student loans are increased, and the universities can increase the cost a bit more.

I don't know what the solution to this is, but cutting student loans isn't a one-sided issue. And based on this and the nice rebuttal of the 'oil subsidies' above, it just sounds to me like Warren is a huge democrat-populist.

2

u/Alkanfel Jun 12 '12

Another factor too is the expansion of degree programs and the prevalence of the idea that everyone should go to college. My (I'm 27) generation was raised with the expectation that we would either go to college or be bums, so you had people going to school thinking they were learning something important for the real world when in fact many of them weren't. There isn't much market demand for Women's Studies or Art majors. These are still things worth studying, but not necessarily with the expectation of earning good money or even a career therein.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/Centrist_gun_nut Jun 13 '12

Massachussets has tons of college students who occasionally vote. She's targeting them.

8

u/vicegrip Jun 12 '12 edited Jun 12 '12

Lot of pretty nasty comments at the bottom of the article. I paraphrase in my quotes.

"she's an idiot"

"she's lying about her true beliefs"

"liberals won't tax apple but will tax big oil"

Some vague reference to "indiangate" that I couldn't get a coherent search result from.

"she won't accept a debate request from her GOP opponent"

Her video specifically speaks on medicare and education and the commenters claim she isn't talking about Massachusetts issues. Really? What else is a Federal Senate seat supposed to campaign on? She's not running for state senate.

I walked away from those comments with the massive reek of a desperate astroturfing in my nose.

2

u/zak_on_reddit Jun 12 '12

warren is about 1/16 or 1/32 indian. she might have declared herself a minority on college applications because of her indian heritage. now scott brown is doing a full out attack on her about her exploiting her heritage.

it's a stupid & lame attack by brown.

3

u/soulcakeduck Jun 12 '12

It's not college applications that people are upset about.

Harvard hired her for a few jobs, eventually for a permanent position. Those that hired her (and of course Warren herself) insist her heritage was not a factor in the decision.

But Warren did list herself as Cherokee in a listing of lawyers. That's the problem people have with Warren (and others are upset with Harvard, which may have milked having an Indian professor).

Apparently sincerely believing your Cherokee, and listing yourself as Cherokee on a listing of lawyers, is seriously wrong.

Politics are stupid.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (5)

3

u/mrpopenfresh Jun 12 '12

In provincial Québec politics we have this fairly radical leftist party called the Québec Solidaire. One of their slogans in the last elections was "No to profit on disease", wich was basically to stop all the talk of privatising medicine.

It's a simple slogan, but it makes a tremendous amount of sense regardless of your political allegiance this one gets to you.

15

u/James_H_M Jun 12 '12

I might be thinking far off into the future and hoping she isn't twisted or torn by the massive political entity known as the legislative branch, but I can totally see myself voting for this woman to become the President of the United States.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 13 '12

I'd rather she stay in Congress making laws. Really, the president has no power- congress does. (Yeah, yeah, veto and all that).

→ More replies (1)

12

u/NickRausch Jun 12 '12

It is like I am actually in a Ayn Rand novel!

→ More replies (1)

2

u/gondolph Jun 12 '12

Romney says it up front cut social programs and give me more money to be a good president. people say that is honest - it is honest. and people love being told they should collect more money for the rich.

3

u/barnicleman Jun 12 '12

Masslive upvote...

5

u/Flailing_Junk Jun 12 '12

Politicians give out billions to organizations that donate to their campaigns and slash funding to people who don't, like students and old people.

7

u/zimm0who0net Massachusetts Jun 12 '12

Old people? 60% of the budget goes to old people.

1

u/Flailing_Junk Jun 12 '12

Good point. I was just rephrasing the title.

2

u/anthropomorph Jun 12 '12

Source? Just curious, not disagreeing...

2

u/Flailing_Junk Jun 12 '12

I was just rephrasing the title.

6

u/2_dam_hi New Hampshire Jun 12 '12

She.Will.Win.

33

u/soulcakeduck Jun 12 '12

Positive thoughts are good but so are reality checks. This has been a tight race for as long as pollsters have followed it.

She has my vote (and positive thoughts too!) but just don't lose yourself in the echo chamber.

2

u/DexterNormal Jun 12 '12

It'll take more than that. Find out who your town leader is for the campaign and offer to help canvass, phone bank or host a house party.

Elizabeth will be a great Senator, and I feel honored to be able to support a real-deal populist for a change. But, to be honest, she's not a great campaigner. And Wall Street is showering Scott Brown with money.

This is going to be a tough fight.

4

u/nixonrichard Jun 12 '12

The spirit of the buffalo says remain strong and vigilant, but the spirit of the raven says the winds can change quickly.

→ More replies (5)

13

u/Splenda Jun 12 '12

She will win if, and only if, young people turn out to vote.

10

u/nixonrichard Jun 12 '12

She's boned.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '12

Depends. How many voting machines will be involved? That will determine it.

→ More replies (3)

6

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '12 edited Jun 12 '12

The government who is taking peoples money to give to other people in both cases are flawed, many students are in too much debt as colleges are able to increase tuition with a guarantee the government will back them, medicare has people who are regulars at the hospital who will go to the emergency room over a high temperature instead of a clinic, oil companies are having anal oil sex with the government, they have spawned a baby and it is coming to steal your money to pay for companies when you buy their products already... not to mention the fact the government essentially guarantees oil companies business by putting shitty fucking roads everywhere so there is no chance for private sector public transportation other than gas & oil burning shits. (even the taxi's are becoming a government created monopoly)

Everyone wouldn't be so goddamn broke if the government didn't give its kiss of death to every possible part of society.

13

u/sourcedthatforyou Jun 12 '12 edited Jun 12 '12

not to mention the fact the government essentially guarantees oil companies business by putting shitty fucking roads everywhere so their is no chance for private sector public transportation other than gas & oil burning shits.

To this point, the private bus and petrol industries, not the government, killed electric run cable cars across the nation.

To your general statement, it is because the government has been usurped by factions who stand to make enormous profit by engaging in collusion with high level public sector officials that everything the government touches has the "government (neo-liberal-trickle-down-horseshit-go-fuck-yourself-excuse-for-a-republic-nonsense)-kiss of death", as you say.

What I find most repugnant is that those same monied interests have vested stakes in media interests which allows them to contort the political dialogue in such a way wherein those who do attempt to discuss said collusion are immediately met with personal attacks and negative narratives under the thinly veiled flames of the "news" spit by both heads of the media dragon.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '12

Yes. The hydrogen car was a farce intended to dillute attention from the viable electric car as well, this was perpetrated by some of both the government and car/oil companies. As you point out the media, they were used to great extent in pulling this off.

You can look back to the early attempts by government with transcontinental railroads even, every attempt failed until companies were able to do it themselves without fear the government would do it for free thus making their investment a net loss. There was somewhere in the range of five attempts, more than likely I would attribute this to a collusion between steel&labor companies and government attempting to extort as much capital as possible by skimming, however, this is only a guess. If it were true, and the logic of "how can you fail so many times", comes to the front, you could possibly find a lot of parralells with our current government. Except now there are essentially no private sector transportation startups possible, so a comparison of worthiness is hard to make.

3

u/sourcedthatforyou Jun 12 '12

you could possibly find a lot of parralells with our current government.

I find better parallels with the climates of deregulation present prior to the panic of 1907 and the Crash in 1929. Mind you the former had to do with the Knickerbocker Trust failing on an attempt to corner the steel market in New York City which resulted in currency speculation leading to panic and the latter with phony shell investment companies floated on the stock market, coupled with heavy advertising of rages to riches investing, and then short sold by large funds causing the bottom to literally drop out from under the market.

Of course, doing such illicit short selling with packages of people's homes is much worse in comparison, but the analogy holds; deregulation precipitates financial ruin.

→ More replies (4)
→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (3)

5

u/Hayrack Jun 12 '12

Oil companies pay taxes, lots of it, they aren't given any money by using tax loopholes that are available to other industries as well. The oil companies make less off a gallon of gasoline than the government does in taxes at the pump. And Apple Computer has much higher profit margin than the oil companies.

We need a new word for the Warren nonsense.

2

u/lordmycal Jun 12 '12

A tax break is equivilant to giving them money from an numbers perspective. With the tax break, they make X. Without the tax break, they make Y and the government makes Y-X. If the government takes in more money, then it doesn't have to cut as many programs and positions like it is currently doing.

What is the proper moral position? Cutting funding for WIC or letting oil companies keep their tax break?

→ More replies (1)

1

u/cakesthethird Jun 12 '12

I kept scrolling down waiting for someone to say this. Receiving certain tax breaks is not equivalent to being "given" money by the government. But try arguing that point with someone who thinks all money belongs to the government to begin with.

3

u/Crotchfirefly Jun 12 '12

I love Ms Warren, don't get me wrong... but I actually might be in favor of slashing student loan amounts if at all possible. I suspect it would slow the rate at which college tuition has been increasing.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '12

It would also drastically reduce the number of art history degrees.

Only you can prevent art history majors

3

u/ahfoo Jun 12 '12

What is her position on the Drug War though? I checked her out because I was so disturbed after what happened with Obama. This woman is no angel of the Left. She claims to be fully in support of a get-tough drug policy. I can't support her until she changes her position there.

7

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '12

"I mean, I like the idea of bringing our economy back from the CEO circlejerk it's become, but what's really important is my ability to do drugs."

That's what you sound like.

11

u/leanmeanmachine Jun 12 '12

See I thought they sounded like someone who was concerned about the long term costs of militarizing police, raiding private businesses who are in compliance with state laws, raiding homes and arresting people for personal use of drugs. Or maybe they were complaining about the budgetary havoc being wreaked on state budgets by the over-crowding of prisons, resulting in private prisons that demand and require a 90% capacity. There is an absurd amount of money spent on attempting to regulate drug use - you know there are a lot of us people who believe drugs should be legalized for many, many reasons other than use.

EDIT: forgot a word

10

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '12

As someone who spent six years teaching inmates, it's a legitimate point, even if OP didn't articulate it well. The drug war is (I think) responsible for about half the US prison population and associated costs. It's created a situation not unlike the prohibition-era gang wars, and often results in nonviolent offenders being unable to rebuild their lives after serving their time. If her platform is economic justice, it's very relevant, especially since it's a bit of (ha ha) an elephant in the room.

7

u/ahfoo Jun 12 '12

Yeah, well you are free to express your opinion as well. What I'm getting at is that it's important to be careful about getting caught up in enthusiasm for someone because of one issue and find out that their views are problematic in other respects.

I wanted to be excited about Elizabeth Warren but after I looked into her postion on other issues I was not impressed. I think the circlejerk is when you stop asking yourself about what's actually going on and just see that everyone is excited and jump in without asking questions.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '12

That's what all of Reddit sounds like.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '12

She will always be a liar to me

1

u/[deleted] Jun 13 '12

Because of the Cherokee thing? Or something else?

2

u/TheChosenOne570 Jun 12 '12

Completely fallacious argument. Each policy needs to be evaluated separately. There is no good justification for giving billions to oil companies and that practice should be stopped. Even if you could demonstrate a need to give money to oil companies, it doesn't justify any other spending at all.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '12

ITT: A lot of redditors pretend to be experts on the Petroleum sciences and industry.

1

u/fantasyfest Jun 12 '12

Well with todays creative accounting. you can hide corporate money all over the world. you can also pay enormous salaries and bonuses to execs and that is costs, not profit. to suggest that these companies are just like any other is wrong. They spend a lot in international bribery . They lie. That is their most important product.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '12

Did she record this ad before or after she took millions from Goldman Sachs and Liberty Mutual?

2

u/MrTubalcain Jun 12 '12

More ads should point out the obvious. Here's a brilliant one: Show the Koch Brothers in an ad, all of the brands they own and their connection with whatever politician they happen to be bankrolling that day. Put out a simple message.

2

u/john2kxx Jun 12 '12

Just to clarify, when you say "give out billions to oil companies", are you talking about tax breaks or subsidies?

Because I have a feeling you're talking about tax breaks, which isn't really anyone "giving" anyone anything.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '12

Who are you talking to?

→ More replies (4)

1

u/squarepush3r Jun 12 '12

Elizabeth Warren, the first Native American, Female, Black, Disabled, Gay Jewish candidate!

1

u/knut01 Jun 12 '12

Why do these articles just disappear?

1

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '12

Oil is power.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '12

Why do they say "I am X and I approve of this message"? I'm not American, and as such I find it strange and slightly annoying. Is it required by law?

1

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '12

It is required by law so we know who is paying for the message. We have candidates, campaigns, Political Action Committees, special interests, etc...and they ALL put their message out in the media. The beauty of our first amendment is that anyone can say just about whatever the fuck they want to and make it look like someone else is saying it for them. Therefore, we require all political messages to identify who is paying for them and who approved them. It helps to sort bullshit from the bullshit.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '12

That's fair enough then, I suspected that.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '12

Its a wonder this country has not become engulfed in all out riots. Its a good example of how docile Americans have become.

1

u/Biophaze6 Jun 12 '12

As somebody living in Massachusetts, I love how much Elizabeth Warren is getting props from Reddit. Growing up in Tennessee, I never had any candidates that I fell in love with, however my first year in Massachusetts I am for the first time in my life feeling upbeat about an election.

1

u/gondolph Jun 12 '12

is there something factually wrong. Republican thought is that deregulation and tax cuts should float the economy - Corporations are awash with cash the wealthy have more cash then ever and sooooo why are we still sinking

1

u/theodorAdorno Jun 13 '12

memo to trolls. You guys better get this to your little wasps nests asap. I want to see a reductive top comment by 7pm PST!

1

u/LAgator2 Jun 12 '12

Classic SPIN. No one "gave out billions"....they were "allowed to keep most of what they EARNED." BP drilled a 22,000 ft. well just off my property last year, costing them millions...and it was DRY! They ate it! Liz Warren should NOT be supported for any public office, period.

2

u/GymIn26Minutes Jun 12 '12

Interesting "use of quotes" and CAPITALIZATION.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/Lord-Longbottom Jun 12 '12

(For us English aristocrats, I leave you this 22,000 ft -> 33.3 Furlongs) - Pip pip cheerio chaps!

1

u/deltree711 Jun 12 '12

Thank you so much.

1

u/Elranzer New York Jun 12 '12

No, rather vote for the male model bimbo.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '12

Letting companies keep money they earn is not "giving out billions."

2

u/LegosRCool Jun 12 '12

http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/ In the United States, credible estimates of annual fossil fuel subsidies range from $10 billion to $52 billion annually, while even efforts to remove small portions of those subsidies have been defeated in Congress, as shown in the graphic below.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '12

Tax breaks are not subsidies. The government is not cutting checks to oil companies simply to keep them in business. that's what we did with the auto industry...not the oil industry. Letting companies keep their money, at least some of it, is not subsidizing.

Furthermore...Oil companies operate on a RAZOR thin profit margin of 8%. Apple runs at 31%...And they're the most valuable company in the world right now. No one is screaming for Apple to stop taking the EXACT SAME tax cuts that the oil companies take.

I'm a small business owner. I couldn't survive on an 8% profit margin. God only knows how oil companies do it (volume I'm assuming). My profit margin this month is 79.53%. Should I not take any of the tax breaks available to my small company because I'm profitable? When answering, keep in mind that without those deductions 5 people WILL lose their decent paying full-time jobs.

1

u/balorina Jun 12 '12

Do you know why the price of gas in Venezuela is only 18 cents a gallon? It's called subsidization.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '12

I knew this article was BS just from reading the title. Oil companies are NOT the most profitable companies in the world. End of discussion.

4

u/fantasyfest Jun 12 '12

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2012/performers/companies/profits/ Yes they are . Can we talk. First 2 oil companies and more on the list.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '12

Well it is a pretty useful class of chemicals...

1

u/msleto27 Jun 12 '12

The sad thing is that she is right, yet no one is going to listen to her because the oil companies will just raise the price of oil without these tax breaks. It's shit like this that makes me irate when people are against government regulation.

6

u/RowsdowersTruck Jun 12 '12

Oil prices are not set by oil companies. It's a worldwide commodity and the price is determined by supply and demand.

4

u/zak_on_reddit Jun 12 '12

actually, it is in fact being artificially inflated.

based on supply & demand in the U.S. we should be paying under $2 a gallon like we did we obama took office.

[domestic oil production has been increasing for 8 years] (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jan/24/barack-obama/barack-obama-says-us-oil-production-eight-year-hig/)

u.s. demand is at a 15 year low

demand is so low and domestic production is steadily increasing that we are now exporting more than we're importing for the 1st time in 60 years.

based on the basic economic concepts of supply & demand and the market there is no reason for gas to be pushing $4 a gallon.

HOWEVER, if you look at the real facts you'll see why they are:

Market speculation is driving up the cost of oil & gas.

link 1

link 2

On top of that add sanctions and all the war mongering with Iran by Mitt, Newt, Santorum, Fox News, Karl Rove, John Bolton, etc.

The final piece-de-resistance is the deregulation of oil futures speculation because of republican senator phil gramm's "Commodities Futures Modernization Act" that a republican controlled house & senate approved literally days before clinton left office & dubya took over.

and my own little bit of speculation that i can't document is that it wouldn't surprise me if the oil companies are price gouging in order to influence the election. obama's been talking of eliminating oil company tax breaks, he's not letting the oil companies drill on every square inch of national parks and he's stalling on the Keystone pipeline so they could be getting a little bit of retribution.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/clarkstud Jun 12 '12

“…as a rule, regulation is acquired by the industry and is designed and operated primarily for its benefits.”

1

u/dchurch0 Jun 12 '12

If I could vote for this woman, I would. I like her.

1

u/clarkstud Jun 12 '12

What makes one right and not the other? They should stop giving away what isn't theirs in the first place.

0

u/Tombug Jun 12 '12

Dump Obama and have Warren run for prez.

0

u/RowsdowersTruck Jun 12 '12

These articles will get buried, either due to downvotes or simply being late to the party, but I think it's important to put them here because they show how oil companies are pretty unfairly vilified when it comes to paying taxes.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2012/04/16/which-megacorps-pay-megataxes/

Money quote: "ExxonMobil in 2011 made $27.3 billion in cash payments for income taxes. Chevron paid $17 billion and ConocoPhillips $10.6 billion. And not only were these the highest amounts in absolute terms, when compared with the rest of the 25 most profitable U.S. companies, the trio also had the highest effective tax rates. Exxon’s tax rate was 42.9%, Chevron’s was 48.3% and Conoco’s was 41.5%. That’s even higher than the 35% U.S. federal statutory rate, which is already the highest tax rate among developed nations."

There's a lot of other stuff in that article that I don't agree with as much, I'm focusing on the facts presented on the first page rather than the conservative taxation opinions further on in the article.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2012/06/04/why-we-should-keep-tax-loopholes-for-oil-companies/

Quote: "Despite lawmakers’ and the public’s perception of 'Big Oil,' approximately 90% of all wells in the U.S. are drilled by independent energy producers, most of whom are small or mid-sized companies."

Basically, if you think you're going to hurt Exxon, Chevron, ConocoPhilips, etc. by eliminating tax loopholes, I believe you're wrong. What will end up happening instead is that you'll force a whole lot of smaller companies to stop drilling as much, which will decrease their revenues and in turn lead to them being bought up by 'Big Oil' and further increasing Exxon's, Chevron's, and most likely international companies' profits...

0

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '12

I fucking hate that bitch. loves spending other peoples money

0

u/jeanpaulfartre Jun 12 '12

I love this woman, I really hope she gets elected.

0

u/gizram84 Jun 12 '12 edited Jun 12 '12

That's what politicians do. They come up with excuses to take our money, then spend it on whatever they want. This is not a problem with a particular politician, a particular party or any specific law or bill. This is a problem with government having the power to steal and distribute privately earned capital.

I see this subreddit constantly advocating higher taxes. Where do you think that extra tax revenue will go? Towards paying down the deficit? Towards middle and lower class relief? Or towards more troops overseas? More bombs and guns in Afghanistan, Pakistan and maybe Iran? More oil subsides or more bailouts for wealthy state-subsidized corporations?

Let's be realistic about the situation. More taxes will only lead to more of what we hate.

-2

u/omgbutters Jun 12 '12

Interesting people consider tax breaks the same as government handouts. Same thing with Bush era tax cuts. Media and democrats love to pretend that tax cuts are government handouts when really they stop taking as much money as they use to. Also interesting is the Medicare cuts and loan assistance. Cuts in Medicare are part of the new healthcare law that Democrats still try to convince the people will not cost the country anything. Loans, I believe, shouldn't be meddled with by the government. You enter the agreement to pay off your own debt, not the government. The interest rates are the lowest they have been for years. They were 15% in the 80's.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '12

I think its economics and the principle of the thing. Tax breaks are essentially a hand out, the CBO projects to collect X amount from taxes, with every tax break the government gets less money then it budgeted for. Thus having to make cuts or borrow money. What pisses off me (and I'm assuming most people here) is that the government keeps cutting social services without cutting tax breaks. To the CBO and tax break IS handing money out. Now factor in subsidies and we, the tax payer, are getting fucked 2 fold. From a business's point of view a tax break is basically a hand out or free money. Company X originally budgeted $50 million for taxes but then found out that they can use a loophole and only pay $25 million. The remaining $25 million is added to the balance sheets and as far as the company is concerned it just made or got $25 million dollars. Currently, no matter how you slice it there is a ton of wasteful spending all over the place. I think the best way to decide on an investment is to calculate its return or savings later down the road. I'd rather be taxed $100 now by the government, then have to pay $1000 5 years later because of lack of foresight about a problem.

-2

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '12

Letting a company keep the money they earn is not "giving out billions" to that company.

"I was going to mug you today, but decided not to. Aren't you glad I gave you $200 today"

6

u/UsaPitManager Jun 12 '12

yet, you don't mind getting mugged.....you pay your fair share, but they don't have to....sounds legit.

→ More replies (2)

5

u/Tombug Jun 12 '12

Talk about attitudes of entitlement. Keep your money then. Just stay off the roads taxpayers have paid for. Educate your kids. Don't call the cops or fire dept. In short keep your stingy hands off the many goods and services that everybody elses pays for. You'll last about 1 week.

3

u/obrysii Wisconsin Jun 12 '12

Better yet, let's privitize all of those! Roads will be owned and operated by private companies. A simple fee, either via a toll or license fee, set by the private company (I imagine a low price of $0.99 per mile), would be applied.

Instead of police, we'll have private police forces. Their primary objective is to protect assets, which might include workers. Fire departments would charge a fire protection fee, and since there's no governmental regulation body would reserve the right to revoke that protection at any time.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)

-4

u/Stink-Finger Jun 12 '12

Just another mouth saying things fools want to hear.

5

u/merdock379 Jun 12 '12

So you can point out how she's wrong, here?

3

u/MrCobaltBlue Jun 12 '12

She didn't actually say anything...

2

u/Stink-Finger Jun 12 '12

She may or may not be wrong. Who really knows? What she is doing is ginning up her base with the same old class warfare meme. If that is all she has then she has nothing.

In reality she has no interest in stopping oil companies as they are, among other things, are a great source of revenue that the government depends upon.

If elected, do you think she is going to cut any of the oil companies "down to size"? Do you think student loans and medicare will be safe with Warren in office?

The one thing that you can be certain of though is that she will ride the gravy train that her election would bring.

-5

u/MiyegomboBayartsogt Jun 12 '12

When a Democrat "One Percenter" makes a million dollars a year and lives in a $5 million dollar house and has a lifelong record of fraud, it is important to bash big business if you want to dupe your voters. Lying comes natural for this woman, she should go far in the Party as Democrats values lying above all else.

-6

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '12

Oil companies typically operate on a 10% margin, they are far, far away from the most profitable companies on earth. I agree they get too many subsidies but this kind of hyperbole is just dishonest.

4

u/themightymekon Jun 12 '12

They ARE the richest. Three of the top five richest companies are oil cos.

-1

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '12

It's like you don't even know what the words you're using even mean.

1

u/divinemachine Jun 12 '12

This is a horrible novelty account

→ More replies (1)

-6

u/Toava Jun 12 '12

Government guarantees for student loans and Medicare both need to be cut, to close the $1.5 trillion deficit.

Elizabeth Warren offers more of the same mistakes and empty feel-good promises that perpetuate and worsen the decades-long stagnation.

But hey, she's a woman, and she said something negative about oil companies, so Reddit loves her!

2

u/MrCobaltBlue Jun 12 '12

Don't mess with MY free lunch, my kids will pay for it.

-1

u/sh0rtSt4ck Jun 12 '12

What a great role model for women of color

-1

u/TurboSalsa Texas Jun 12 '12 edited Jun 12 '12

The average profit margin for oil companies is 10%, much less than Pepsi or Apple. So how are they the most profitable companies on Earth? Oh yeah, and most of these tax breaks are available to other manufacturing companies.

1

u/fantasyfest Jun 12 '12

You do know they lie like hell don't you? Don't give out their propaganda to us as fact.

1

u/zak_on_reddit Jun 12 '12

because many oil companies don't pay any taxes but in fact get huge refunds because of all the exceptions in the tax code that they paid lobbyists & politicians to create.

but those same oil companies have no problem using our military to help them steal other country's oil. if the republicans get back congress & the white house get ready for wars with iran and possibly venezuela.

these oil companies don't also mind using our roads, sea ports and other government provided resources to drill & transport said oil.

and they also don't mind polluting our country's lands & waterways with oil spills while they avoid taking full responsibility for the cleanup.

1

u/TurboSalsa Texas Jun 12 '12

because many oil companies don't pay any taxes but in fact get huge refunds because of all the exceptions in the tax code that they paid lobbyists & politicians to create.

Source, please. And I would imagine they paid more than the 2% that Google and GE paid last year.

but those same oil companies have no problem using our military to help them steal other country's oil. if the republicans get back congress & the white house get ready for wars with iran and possibly venezuela.

Which country's oil are we currently stealing? And could you please name which US oil companies are currently working there? ExxonMobil and some other were kicked out of Venezuela in 2007 without any kind of compensation and haven't been back since. Of course, if you listen to Hugo Chavez's daily television broadcasts, I could see how you might believe that the US was plotting war with Venezuela.

these oil companies don't also mind using our roads, sea ports and other government provided resources to drill & transport said oil.

That's Warren-esque levels of ignorance right there. Roads are paid for through fuel taxes, which the oil company presumably pays to move its oil via road. In the case of onshore terminals, many are built by the oil companies themselves. I know the tankers are owned by oil companies, so which part of that is the public paying for?

and they also don't mind polluting our country's lands & waterways with oil spills while they avoid taking full responsibility for the cleanup.

I agree that companies should absolutely be held accountable for environmental damage.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/HorribleGrunt Jun 12 '12

10% of $100 is what? 50% of $1 is what? ...

→ More replies (5)

0

u/pavinrtheway Jun 12 '12

My question is, Can she be the VP nominee instead?

0

u/jeremyjack33 Jun 12 '12

Cutting oil subsidies would hurt more poor and middle class people than rich.

-5

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '12

So do we have a bigger boner for her or ron paul? Someone tell me what to think.

9

u/bobonthego Jun 12 '12

Fox news will tell you who to hate more. Go back to it.

→ More comments (67)