PDA

View Full Version : We have hit our debt ceiling



John Smith
05-19-2011, 11:27 AM
As I understand it we are now running on our "emergency contingency" plan, which means we are using federal pension money to cover or finanacial committments. Depending on who one asks, this will keep us going as far as into August.

The republicans in the Senate successfully kept the oil company subsidies, which are a number of billions of dollars that, IMO, we need more than they do.

The Tea Party seems to think it would be a good idea to not raise the debt ceiling, and they claim we can pay our debt from current revenues. That would, of course, exclude from our "debt" such committments and social security benefits, Medicare benefits, and defense (paying our troops).

In that a lone senator has the ability to prevent raising this debt limit, my gut is telling me nothing as what to expect here. Only thing that seems reasonably certain is that whatever is going to happen is going to happen pretty soon.

It may be concern over raising the debt ceiling, or possibly failing to, will create problems before we actually vote.

Fasten your seatbelts.

peb
05-19-2011, 12:11 PM
The republicans in the Senate successfully kept the oil company subsidies, which are a number of billions of dollars that, IMO, we need more than they do.



The misinformation/ dishonest sure seems to work. The actual items in question were tax breaks, which are NOT the same as subsidies. More impotantly, these breaks the senate were trying to eliminate, part of the IRS section 199 apply to ALL companies, not just oil companies. They were inacted in order to stop off-shoring, or to encourage business to build plants, etc in the US. Its just that the oil companies, despite getting a smaller break than other business, have used the provisions more often doing domestic drilling. And of course the on-shoring incentives were only going to be removed from oil companies.

So what the democrats in the senate failed to pass were not elimination of subsidies for oil companies, they were specific tax hikes targeted at oil companies only. They were just too damn dishonest to present it that way.

Paul Pless
05-19-2011, 12:12 PM
We have hit our debt ceiling

as usual, a day late and a dollar short. . .

peb
05-19-2011, 12:53 PM
Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit?
Percentage Depletion Allowance?
Unconventional Fossil Technology Program?
Expensing of Tertiary Injectants?
Geological and Geophysical Costs Tax Credit?




Hmmmm... accessible to ALL companies? How can my technology startup use a 'Percentage Depletion Allowance?


I specifically referred to elimination of 199 specifically targeted to oil companies. The other one's are simply removing deductions for an oil company's legitimate cost of doing business.

For example: Intangible drilling cost deductions: has been in place since 1913 to recognize that these are likely not capital expenses in many instances for a oil company, so the expense can be recognized immediately upon drilling. Not unique in the tax code at all, many other businesses enjoy similar tax benefits with high-risk capital allocations, and if is is truly wrong, why is it only applied to "major integrated oil companies"

The depletion allowance is simply accepting the fact that as oil is pumped out of the ground, the asset of the company decreases, ie a legitimate expense. The special tax purpose only changes the rate which the depreciation is recognized. Once again, many business have specific rules for how depreciation of an asset is expensed for tax purposes. Once again, why only "major -integrated" oil company's. And its been in place for decades (WWII timeframe). This implies it is definitely a tax-hike, targeted only at specific companies.

wardd
05-19-2011, 12:55 PM
As I understand it we are now running on our "emergency contingency" plan, which means we are using federal pension money to cover or finanacial committments. Depending on who one asks, this will keep us going as far as into August.

The republicans in the Senate successfully kept the oil company subsidies, which are a number of billions of dollars that, IMO, we need more than they do.

The Tea Party seems to think it would be a good idea to not raise the debt ceiling, and they claim we can pay our debt from current revenues. That would, of course, exclude from our "debt" such committments and social security benefits, Medicare benefits, and defense (paying our troops).

In that a lone senator has the ability to prevent raising this debt limit, my gut is telling me nothing as what to expect here. Only thing that seems reasonably certain is that whatever is going to happen is going to happen pretty soon.

It may be concern over raising the debt ceiling, or possibly failing to, will create problems before we actually vote.

Fasten your seatbelts.

it's not nice to come between sociopaths and what they want

wardd
05-19-2011, 02:17 PM
So, let me get this straight: if a company has received a subsidy or special tax preference for a while, taking it away constitutes a 'tax hike'? :):)

This is only ONE of the items. For a complete list, try the following site:

http://www.taxpayer.net/user_uploads/file/Energy/OilandGas/2011/Oil_and_Gas_Report_05-17-2011.pdf

Check out pages 4,5,6,and 7 for the lengthy list of subsidies/preferences/credits enjoyed either exclusively, or primarily, by oil and gas companies... and THEN tell me that these have not been purchased by big money, influence peddling, lobbying, campaign contributions, and bribery (in the form of lucrative employment for former regulators).

if peb wants to pay more so the oil companies can pay less, it's his right

peb
05-19-2011, 02:38 PM
So, let me get this straight: if a company has received a subsidy or special tax preference for a while, taking it away constitutes a 'tax hike'If you change the law, which results in higher taxes, that would be a tax-hike. Yea, you have it straight.

Let's just suppose you own a home, with a mortgage and the government deletes the mortgage interest dedection. Would you not call that a tax hike? Lets suppose the government reduces the amount of charitable contributions you can deduct, would you not call that a tax hike?

The law changes which results in my taxes going up, yep thats a tax-hike. Boggles the mind, I simply cannot understand how some people's mind works.

Calling it a removal of a subsidy is what is disingenuous.

peb
05-19-2011, 02:39 PM
So, let me get this straight: if a company has received a subsidy or special tax preference for a while, taking it away constitutes a 'tax hike'? :):)

This is only ONE of the items. For a complete list, try the following site:

http://www.taxpayer.net/user_uploads/file/Energy/OilandGas/2011/Oil_and_Gas_Report_05-17-2011.pdf

Check out pages 4,5,6,and 7 for the lengthy list of subsidies/preferences/credits enjoyed either exclusively, or primarily, by oil and gas companies... and THEN tell me that these have not been purchased by big money, influence peddling, lobbying, campaign contributions, and bribery (in the form of lucrative employment for former regulators).

I addressed two of the others. I think I left out one. I went to the text of the law for my list. You rely on your left-wing pundit sources, I like primary sources for my research.

wardd
05-19-2011, 02:54 PM
peb has over $200 to give to the oil companies

peb
05-19-2011, 04:03 PM
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.940:

Norman here is the bill that failed, look at title i and ii and you will see 6 items listed.

The first 2 are changes to laws that currently apply to all companies, specifically targeting major oil companies for different treatment.

The second 2 I addressed. I could the also address 105 and 201, but I don't have time.

John Smith
05-19-2011, 04:16 PM
The misinformation/ dishonest sure seems to work. The actual items in question were tax breaks, which are NOT the same as subsidies. More impotantly, these breaks the senate were trying to eliminate, part of the IRS section 199 apply to ALL companies, not just oil companies. They were inacted in order to stop off-shoring, or to encourage business to build plants, etc in the US. Its just that the oil companies, despite getting a smaller break than other business, have used the provisions more often doing domestic drilling. And of course the on-shoring incentives were only going to be removed from oil companies.

So what the democrats in the senate failed to pass were not elimination of subsidies for oil companies, they were specific tax hikes targeted at oil companies only. They were just too damn dishonest to present it that way.

I stand corrected. I knew that. I just mispoke. Either way, the oil companies don't need them anymore, and, according to the republicans, it's our money.

I'm also not so sure that a tax break or a subsidy is a fine distinction. Either way it's money either going out of the treasury or not coming in.

John Smith
05-19-2011, 04:20 PM
I fear this thread is going off more on the oil company tax breaks than I had wished.

I'm really more interested in thoughts about increasing the debt ceiling or not increasing it and what problems just hesitating to increase it may bring.

This is, conceivably, the most important issue of the year.

wardd
05-19-2011, 04:28 PM
lots confuse the debt ceiling with increasing the debt

it's like you buy something on credit and then decide not to pay for it

the debt has already been uncured

skuthorp
05-19-2011, 04:31 PM
Quote Norman Bernstein: " This doesn't require a genius certification to figure out. Investing hundreds of millions in campaign contributions and lobbying, to preserve $55 billion on a whopping 'tax gift', just makes good business sense.


The plutocrats can buy whatever legislation they want. They don't spend this money for 'educational' purposes, nor for the greater good of American society.This doesn't require a genius certification to figure out. Investing hundreds of millions in campaign contributions and lobbying, to preserve $55 billion on a whopping 'tax gift', just makes good business sense.


The plutocrats can buy whatever legislation they want. They don't spend this money for 'educational' purposes, nor for the greater good of American society."

This is the bones of it, our super profitable mining industry still get's tax breaks on fuel and new developments that will bring them more profits. And attempts to reign that in have been met by the same sort of campaign by a few private individual owners.

wardd
05-19-2011, 06:09 PM
Hmmmm... let's see. If I was the benificiary of 17 different tax reduction programs which applied only to me, and gave me $55B in tax savings, and the gov't decided that the gravy train was about to be over, then that would not be a tax hike... that would be a 'yeah, our millions of lobbying dollars bought off congress for a while, but it's come to an end".

From the perspective of every other big business who wasn't able to buy their tax breaks, it would be 'serve's em right...if I can't get those sweetheart deals, they shouldn't either.'

I don't understand how some people's minds work, either.

the concept of taxes confuse them

the concept of money flow confuses them

the concept that it's not really their money and the nation mints it for a social reason confuses them

Waddie
05-19-2011, 08:08 PM
If you change the law, which results in higher taxes, that would be a tax-hike. Yea, you have it straight.

Let's just suppose you own a home, with a mortgage and the government deletes the mortgage interest dedection. Would you not call that a tax hike? Lets suppose the government reduces the amount of charitable contributions you can deduct, would you not call that a tax hike?

The law changes which results in my taxes going up, yep thats a tax-hike.

This time, on this issue, you are correct. Any time the government takes more money it's a (defacto) tax (hike). And Econ 101 says that all taxes are ultimately paid by the consumer--in this case it will be at the gas pump, and all of the thousands of products derived from oil. Good news--it's only about 3%, so it won't hurt the consumer much.

Back to the deficit as John Smith requests;
Both of the political parties agree that the spending must be cut, and they even agree on how much. What they don't agree on is where to make the cuts. Both parties are against raising taxes, except the Dems want to raise taxes on the rich an incremental amount, (just to hold on to what self-respect they have left). What we have here is a difference without a distinction. The basic argument about the importance of the deficit is over, and the Republicans won--just ask Dem Senator Claire McCaskill (Missouri)!! (She sounds just like a Republican on the deficit, as do many Democrats). If they can work out where to make the cuts, then we may see a balanced budget eventually. That's how the Republicans forced Bill Clinton into becoming Republican-lite regarding balancing the budget, and he's proudly taken credit for a surplus ever since. Ironic, ain't it?

regards,
Waddie

wardd
05-19-2011, 08:14 PM
This time, on this issue, you are correct. Any time the government takes more money it's a (defacto) tax (hike). And Econ 101 says that all taxes are ultimately paid by the consumer--in this case it will be at the gas pump, and all of the thousands of products derived from oil. Good news--it's only about 3%, so it won't hurt the consumer much.

Back to the deficit as John Smith requests;
Both of the political parties agree that the spending must be cut, and they even agree on how much. What they don't agree on is where to make the cuts. Both parties are against raising taxes, except the Dems want to raise taxes on the rich an incremental amount, (just to hold on to what self-respect they have left). What we have here is a difference without a distinction. The basic argument about the importance of the deficit is over, and the Republicans won--just ask Dem Senator Claire McCaskill (Missouri)!! (She sounds just like a Republican on the deficit, as do many Democrats). If they can work out where to make the cuts, then we may see a balanced budget eventually. That's how the Republicans forced Bill Clinton into becoming Republican-lite regarding balancing the budget, and he's proudly taken credit for a surplus ever since. Ironic, ain't it?

regards,
Waddie

the price of gas is only indirectly related to taxes

if the oil companies see that you will buy gas at 4 a gallon that will be the price, so if taxes go down they will maintain 4 and keep the profit

if taxes go up they will take less profit to maintain the $4 price

peb
05-20-2011, 04:58 AM
if the oil companies see that you will buy gas at 4 a gallon that will be the price, so if taxes go down they will maintain 4 and keep the profit

if taxes go up they will take less profit to maintain the $4 price

Really? Do you really believe this? It is patently absurd.