Quantcast

Memo to Mitt: 5 Ways the Government Gives Money to Rich People...

luvguins 2012/09/19 18:10:30

By Zaid Jilani:

Yesterday, video emerged of Republican presidential nominee essentially telling donors that 47 percent of Americans are lazy and just want to be dependent upon the governor. In Romney’s world, these are all Obama voters (watch the full video here):



ROMNEY: There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it.


Romney’s words are rightly being condemned as offensive. But here’s the interesting part about his remarks. He talks about Americans who believe they are entitled to basic goods like health care and food. In Romney’s mind, this probably means the poor.


But government actually spends a relatively small amount of its budget on assisting the poor, while it hands over an extraordinary amount of money to the already-rich. Here’s five ways that Republicans like Romney use government to give even more money to the already-rich (who finance the party):



Supporting The Oil Subsidies: The newest line among Republicans is that they despise “crony capitalism.” But House Republicans havevoted unanimously time and time again to give billions of dollars to the oil industry. Paul Ryan’s budget maintains $40 billion in subsidies for Big Oil over ten years. The oil industry is giving approximately ten times as much cash to Republicans this year as it is giving to Democrats.


Providing Federal Funding For Rip-Off For-Profit Colleges: The for-profit college industry has abused students and veterans while ripping off taxpayers, while getting $32 billion in federal aid every single year. The Obama administration moved to cut off funding to schools with the worst performance, but every single House Republican voted to block these reforms. The industry gives twice as much money to Republicans as Democrats (unfortunately many members of both parties serve the for-profit college agenda).


Protecting And Subsidizing The Drug Industry: The big pharmaceutical companies have one of the best deals in the country. First, the government lavishly funds the industry’s research. It then artificially boosts prices by banning the re-importation of drugs from Canada while at the same time barring Medicare from negotiating for drug prices. Most Republicans have supported this arrangement (although there are a few dissenters like Senator David Vitter). Slightly more industry money goes to Republicans (far too many Democrats do the drug companies’ bidding as well).


Boosting The Insurance Industry’s Profits: Romney likes to peddle the misleading claim that Obama severely cut Medicare to finance the Affordable Care Act. But what Obama’s health care law actually does iscut back on private insurance subsidies through the Medicare Advantage program. What’s more, Romney and Ryan also want to hand the entire Medicare program to the health insurance industry, which would cost seniors an extra $60,000 for their health care. The insurance industry has given almost twice the dollars to Republicans this cycle.


Bailing Out The Big Banks And Then Failing To Regulate Them:Although a number of congressional Republicans did not vote to bail out the banks, Mitt Romney heartily supported the bailout programs. And both Romney and almost all Republicans in Congress opposed the Dodd-Frank financial reform law and are working to repeal large sections of it in the future. In the current campaign cycle, the Big Banks have shifted their giving to the Republicans, and have donated almost twice as much money ($81 million) to them as compared to the Democrats.


Americans shouldn’t fall for the false dichotomy of one party wanting to use government to help people and the other wanting to rely only on the free market. As bold progressive candidate Elizabeth Warren said, “Republicans say they don’t believe in government. Sure they do. They believe in government to help themselves and their powerful friends.”

Read More: http://www.cagle.com/2012/09/memo-to-romney-5-ways...

You!
Add Photos & Videos

Top Opinion

  • Kaleokualoha 2012/09/19 18:36:00
    Kaleokualoha
    +14
    There you go again! Confusing conservatives with concrete facts. Shame on you!

    "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
    - Arthur Schopenhauer (1788 - 1860)

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • findthelight2000 2012/09/20 03:10:27
    findthelight2000
    +4
    Corporations are the "people" that Romney represents.

    corporations people romney represents corporations are people corporations are people
  • ruru 2012/09/20 02:38:18
    ruru
    Today a video emerged with Obama saying he believed in redistributing the wealth. In other words Obama admits he is a socialist.
  • luvguins ruru 2012/09/20 03:46:40
    luvguins
    +1
    Yeah, a ten year old video. He could be flip flopping now like the king of flip flops, Romney.
  • ruru luvguins 2012/09/21 02:13:15
    ruru
    No he is not flip flopping. That is what he believed 14 years ago and that is what he still believes.
  • luvguins ruru 2012/09/21 02:42:51
    luvguins
    Only in your mind my dear. At least he isn't writing off 1/2 of the country like Worthless Willard. Obama was talking about priorities of a city, and the video was taken out of context by the Drudge report. NBC posted the unedited version and busted Drudge.
  • ruru luvguins 2012/09/21 05:01:51
    ruru
    Romney is not writing off 1/2 the people. He will work for the poor just the same as the rich. He was just saying that 47% of the voters will not vote for him because of how Obama plays to them.
  • luvguins ruru 2012/09/21 17:39:42
    luvguins
    Um, he was saying they all were "victims" looking for handouts, and not personal responsibility. That is lots of his own base living in the red states who are more on the dole than other states.
    Red states not paying taxes
  • Sissy ruru 2012/09/20 11:06:45
    Sissy
    +3
    That video was done 14 years ago when he was a state senator. Its just terrible isn't it that some leaders actually believe that everyone should be given a shot?

    Errr, feeling a tad bit desperate more than usual?
  • Tea in ... ruru 2012/09/20 15:19:03
    Tea in the Harbor
    +2
    He said he believed in redistributing enough that all Americans had a fair shot at success. The GOP has been redistributing wealth upwards for several decades, so it isn't redistribution they object too, could you tell me what it is?
  • hayesml47 2012/09/20 00:00:03
    hayesml47
    +4
    The way I see it is if a company/corporation receives any subsidies from the American people then We, the People are entitled to a complete disclosure of where our money went and that companies complete financials records, particularly as to why they need a subsidy!
  • luvguins hayesml47 2012/09/20 00:05:48
  • wtf hayesml47 2012/09/24 15:28:38
    wtf
    +1
    GM would be a good place to start.
  • mich52 2012/09/19 22:22:06
  • luvguins mich52 2012/09/19 23:47:33
  • trentinafur 2012/09/19 20:33:08
    trentinafur
    +4
    Mitt's $cratching the backs of the people who are $ratching his. Big donors know who will give them the biggest DIRECT return on their candidate investment.

    Harold Hamm is one of Romney's biggest donors. And oh...look...he is also Mitt's top Energy Policy Advisor! Could they be any more obvious if they tried?!?

    "Harold Hamm, Romney Adviser, Demands More Tax Breaks For His Low-Tax Corporation"
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

    "Harold Hamm, Mitt Romney Energy Adviser, Exceeded Federal Campaign-Donation Limits"
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
  • beavith1 2012/09/19 20:33:04
  • luvguins beavith1 2012/09/19 21:07:27
    luvguins
    +4
    As usual, beavy, you are FOS. Billions add up to trillions over all the years that the Plutocrat GOP had anything to do with it. Another reason for the greatest disparity in wealth in history.

    To see nothing wrong with this indicates your support of corporatism and fascism, and Romney's your man for the job. You think billionaires are financing his campaign with millions out of the goodness of their heart? Keep trying to make excuses for Mitt and the GOP. They don't pass the smell test.
  • beavith1 luvguins 2012/09/19 21:41:25
    beavith1
    +1
    you just go on believing that $4B in 'savings' that do more damage than good will make any sort of dent in $1.2T in deficit spending. you're only off by a couple orders of magnitude.

    Your 'plutocrats' LOVE spending OPM. even when we can't afford it.

    only YOU can see corporatism and fascism in his comments. or this article. hell, you've fired, aimed and ready at yourself!

    excuses? you don't like it when a spade is called a spade? oh. of course not. that exposes Obama as the failure he is. complete. utter. abject.
  • luvguins beavith1 2012/09/19 21:48:52
    luvguins
    +6
    Keep whining, beavy. Looks like you will be until January, 2017. Your boy is going down with a foot in his mouth. Lamest candiate since Bob "Viagra" Dole. cheese with your whine
  • beavith1 luvguins 2012/09/20 17:05:52
    beavith1
    11/6.... 11/6...
  • luvguins beavith1 2012/09/20 22:15:47
    luvguins
    On 11/6 it will be sweet to say goodbye to Worthless Willard, and send him to one of his mansions.
  • beavith1 luvguins 2012/09/21 03:10:27
    beavith1
    a new one at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
  • luvguins beavith1 2012/09/23 04:47:11
    luvguins
    Not going to happen unless they go on a tour.
  • beavith1 luvguins 2012/09/23 04:53:39
    beavith1
    via Air Force 1
  • luvguins beavith1 2012/09/23 05:04:42
    luvguins
    That will never happen. Your boy is toast. Romney toast
  • beavith1 luvguins 2012/09/23 05:06:22
    beavith1
    keep thinking that, if that's what makes you happy.
  • luvguins beavith1 2012/09/23 05:14:25
    luvguins
    That is reality which you are having a problem with.
  • StarWar... beavith1 2012/09/19 22:42:00
    StarWarsBob
    +3
    Nice try. Just to address your first point.
    In the last ten years, the top five big oil companies (BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Shell) made nearly $1 trillions in profits. Meanwhile, these five companies have enjoyed $24 billions in government subsidies over the last ten years. These subsidies include provisions that allow Big Oil to claim foreign royalty payments as a credit against U.S. taxes, take a manufacturing deduction for oil production, take a deduction for the cost of developing wells, take a deduction of oil and gas revenues, immediately deduct the cost of materials used to recover oil from wells, and receive relief from royalties owed on production from the Outer Continental Shelf. The only depreciation issue is their ability to deduct the cost of materials used to recover oil from wells.

    "elimination of depreciation will dis-incent domestic drilling and turn 'big oil' into nothing but brokers of overseas oil."
    This statement is truly laughable. In 2011, for the first time since 1949, the US exported more gasoline, diesel and other fuels than it imported. Shipments abroad of petroleum products exceeded imports by 439,000 barrels a day according to the Energy Department.
    In 2012 the US will export 350,000 more barrels a day than it imports, and the proje...






    Nice try. Just to address your first point.
    In the last ten years, the top five big oil companies (BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Shell) made nearly $1 trillions in profits. Meanwhile, these five companies have enjoyed $24 billions in government subsidies over the last ten years. These subsidies include provisions that allow Big Oil to claim foreign royalty payments as a credit against U.S. taxes, take a manufacturing deduction for oil production, take a deduction for the cost of developing wells, take a deduction of oil and gas revenues, immediately deduct the cost of materials used to recover oil from wells, and receive relief from royalties owed on production from the Outer Continental Shelf. The only depreciation issue is their ability to deduct the cost of materials used to recover oil from wells.

    "elimination of depreciation will dis-incent domestic drilling and turn 'big oil' into nothing but brokers of overseas oil."
    This statement is truly laughable. In 2011, for the first time since 1949, the US exported more gasoline, diesel and other fuels than it imported. Shipments abroad of petroleum products exceeded imports by 439,000 barrels a day according to the Energy Department.
    In 2012 the US will export 350,000 more barrels a day than it imports, and the projection for 2013 is 320,000 barrels a day.
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news...

    In March, 2012 Senator Bob Menendez (D-New Jersey) proposed senate bill S.2204, the Repeal Big Oil Tax Subsidies Act, and as usual the Republicans filibustered the bill not allowing it to get to the floor for a vote. 47 Democrats and 2 Republicans and 2 Independents voted to end the filibuster, but of course that was 9 votes short of the 60 required to invoke cloture.
    http://www.govtrack.us/congre...

    If you read the bill, specifically Title II--Repeal of Oil and Gas Subsidies, Subtitle A--Close Big Oil Tax Loopholes, and Subtitle B--Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Natural Gas, you can see what the bill does. Most of the bill repeals sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, while subtitle B repeals some of the provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
    http://www.govtrack.us/congre...
    (more)
  • beavith1 StarWar... 2012/09/20 18:25:41
    beavith1
    oooo. $24 BILLION over 10 years? WOW. (EYES ROLLING) the whole extraction system is based around depreciation. you clearly point out all the lines OF that depreciation process, but leave out depletion. don't try and defend bloody shirt waving, because Obama has chosen to accuse big oil of being a problem.

    they aren't. HE is.

    laughable? really? then keep chuckling. refined products are sold in any market that will buy them. US demand is off so much that free time to process more oil permits the refineries to produce product for sale somewhere else.

    you're talking about REFINED product. that simply means that we are now a net exporter of refined goods.

    where's the problem? its a benefit to our balance of trade and permits the refineries to make money in a field where refinery margins are very tight.

    of course a democrat proxy for the president proposed that bill. its a democrat Christmas present that packages a lot of idiocy in one bill. he'll damage what he doesn't understand, but that's just the way he is.

    interesting link. it extends the tax credit for politically mandated cellulosoic ethanol which doesn't exist. then it goes on to permit algal biofuel. another pie in the sky Obama 'green' initiative that does nothing, more incentives for biofuel and 'refined' coa...

    oooo. $24 BILLION over 10 years? WOW. (EYES ROLLING) the whole extraction system is based around depreciation. you clearly point out all the lines OF that depreciation process, but leave out depletion. don't try and defend bloody shirt waving, because Obama has chosen to accuse big oil of being a problem.

    they aren't. HE is.

    laughable? really? then keep chuckling. refined products are sold in any market that will buy them. US demand is off so much that free time to process more oil permits the refineries to produce product for sale somewhere else.

    you're talking about REFINED product. that simply means that we are now a net exporter of refined goods.

    where's the problem? its a benefit to our balance of trade and permits the refineries to make money in a field where refinery margins are very tight.

    of course a democrat proxy for the president proposed that bill. its a democrat Christmas present that packages a lot of idiocy in one bill. he'll damage what he doesn't understand, but that's just the way he is.

    interesting link. it extends the tax credit for politically mandated cellulosoic ethanol which doesn't exist. then it goes on to permit algal biofuel. another pie in the sky Obama 'green' initiative that does nothing, more incentives for biofuel and 'refined' coal (another product that doesn't exist), extends the wind production tax credit, which is the only thing propping up that industry, along with a RAFT more of bogus green subsidies, credits and carve outs before we get to title 2 where he wails on 'Big Oil'. for which see section 204, 211, 301 and 302.

    its a stupid bill.
    (more)
  • StarWar... beavith1 2012/09/20 20:41:12
    StarWarsBob
    +1
    We disagree - big surprise. It's not a stupid bill. Why should the US government give tax breaks to an industry that is making record profits? Exxon-Mobile made $15.9 billions in profits for 2nd Qtr. 2012, more profits than any corporation in the history of this country.

    I never said that the US being a net exporter of fuel is a problem. I was countering your statement "elimination of depreciation will dis-incent domestic drilling and turn 'big oil' into nothing but brokers of overseas oil." Oil production has increased every year in the US since 2005.
    http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g...
    The US is the third largest oil producer in the world behind Russia and Saudi Arabia, and we're not that far behind them. In 2011 the US produced 9.688 million barrels a day, behind Russia's 10.270 m/bbl/day and Saudi Arabia's 10.520 m/bbl/day.
    http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r...

    And oil consumption is coming back in the US. Our consumption peaked in 2005 with 20.8 m/bbl/day to a recent low of 18.7 m/bbl/day in 2009, and went back up to 19.18 m/bbl/day in 2010.
    http://www.indexmundi.com/ene...
  • beavith1 StarWar... 2012/09/21 03:15:34
    beavith1
    because profits are a measure of success, not something to be punished as a part of a political game. the oil companies, last quarter would have all lost money if it weren't for Exxon making a large asset sale.

    i'm talking where we get oil from, whether its domestic or foreign. you're talking refined products.

    you should probably find 2011 and 2012 before you draw any conclusions.
  • StarWar... beavith1 2012/09/21 05:23:04
    StarWarsBob
    The political game comes from the difference in ideology between Republicans and Democrats. As mentioned in an earlier post, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 gave oil companies tax breaks that they didn't need. While the legislation had provisions that were helpful for the US to become more energy efficient, it also gave energy companies a free hand to extract natural gas without regulation in a provision known as the "Halliburton loophole" with hydraulic fracturing. It should be of no surprise that the sponsor of the bill HR-6 was a Texas Republican, Rep. Joe Barton, and the two other co-sponsors were also Republicans, Rep. Richard Pombo and Rep. Bill Thomas of California.

    Republicans will always put profits above all else, while Democrats focus on other considerations like the environment.
  • beavith1 StarWar... 2012/09/21 15:50:45
    beavith1
    -'...they didn't need.' that's easy for you to say, but if we can see oil pricing exploding, which it did, what would you recommend? demanding they produce more? it doesn't work like that.

    i agree that the politics are ugly.

    -becoming energy efficient IS a good thing. throwing federal tax subsidy, credit or carve out, at wind and solar, ethanol, biodiesel is ludicrous.

    -are you saying that fracking is bad?

    -a clearly false statement, but one the democrats need you to believe.

    here. let me try one.

    'the republicans stand for personal responsibility and the democrats stand for what's popular.'
  • StarWar... beavith1 2012/09/21 22:05:58
    StarWarsBob
    With oil prices exploding, so did oil company profits. When the Energy Policy Act of 2005 was passed and signed into law by President Bush, oil was trading at $60 a barrel. Today it closed at $93.08 a barrel.

    In 2002, Exxon-Mobile made $15.3 billions in profits, the most profitable company in the country that year.
    In 2003, Exxon-Mobile made $11.4 billions in profits, the third most profitable company in the country that year.
    In 2004, Exxon-Mobile made $21.5 billions in profits, the most profitable company in the country that year.
    In 2005, Exxon-Mobile made $25.3 billions in profits, the most profitable company in the country that year.
    In 2006, Exxon-Mobile made $36.1 billions in profits, the most profitable company in the country that year.
    In 2007, Exxon-Mobile made $39.5 billions in profits, the most profitable company in the country that year.
    In 2008, Exxon-Mobile made $40.6 billions in profits, the most profitable company in the country that year.
    In 2009, Exxon-Mobile made $45.2 billions in profits, the most profitable company in the country that year.
    In 2010, Exxon-Mobile made $19.2 billions in profits, the most profitable company in the country that year. (That year Exxon-Mobile bought XTO Energy for $41 billions).
    In 2011, Exxon-Mobile made $30.4 billions in profits, the ...







    With oil prices exploding, so did oil company profits. When the Energy Policy Act of 2005 was passed and signed into law by President Bush, oil was trading at $60 a barrel. Today it closed at $93.08 a barrel.

    In 2002, Exxon-Mobile made $15.3 billions in profits, the most profitable company in the country that year.
    In 2003, Exxon-Mobile made $11.4 billions in profits, the third most profitable company in the country that year.
    In 2004, Exxon-Mobile made $21.5 billions in profits, the most profitable company in the country that year.
    In 2005, Exxon-Mobile made $25.3 billions in profits, the most profitable company in the country that year.
    In 2006, Exxon-Mobile made $36.1 billions in profits, the most profitable company in the country that year.
    In 2007, Exxon-Mobile made $39.5 billions in profits, the most profitable company in the country that year.
    In 2008, Exxon-Mobile made $40.6 billions in profits, the most profitable company in the country that year.
    In 2009, Exxon-Mobile made $45.2 billions in profits, the most profitable company in the country that year.
    In 2010, Exxon-Mobile made $19.2 billions in profits, the most profitable company in the country that year. (That year Exxon-Mobile bought XTO Energy for $41 billions).
    In 2011, Exxon-Mobile made $30.4 billions in profits, the most profitable company in the country that year.
    So far in 2012, Exxon-Mobile made $40.1 billions in profits, the most profitable company in the country this year.
    http://money.cnn.com/magazine...

    In the last decade, Exxon-Mobile has made $324.6 billions in profits, and by the end of the year, it will be more than ⅓ of a trillion dollars in profits.
    EXXON-MOBILE DOES NOT NEED A TAX BREAK.
    In 2009, Exxon-Mobile paid no federal income taxes on its listed $2.6 billions in domestic profits. They avoided the tax man that year by legally funneling their profits through wholly owned subsidiaries in countries like the Cayman Islands, and reinvesting their earnings overseas.

    Exxon-Mobile's average effective federal tax rate for 2008 - 2010 was at 17.6%, well below the average American's effective federal tax rate of 20.4%.
    (more)
  • beavith1 StarWar... 2012/09/22 02:54:04
    beavith1
    historical perspective is nice, but NOW is the only time period that is relevant.

    just a quick link...

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/0...

    things change. the economy is squeezing in all over...
  • luvguins beavith1 2012/09/22 05:11:28
    luvguins
    Oh, I feel so sorry for Exxon who has enough profit to make it through the end of this century.
  • beavith1 luvguins 2012/09/23 04:24:02
    beavith1
    so what? buy Exxon stock and quit whining about what you don't seem to understand.

    take away depreciation and see what happens to our source of supply AND domestic drilling.
  • StarWar... beavith1 2012/09/22 15:14:03
    StarWarsBob
    +1
    Exxon-Mobile is still the most profitable company in the country today, and has been in the last nine out of ten years.

    I keep hearing Republicans complain that this country has the highest corporate tax rate of any industrial country at 35%, yet I am hard pressed to find a major US corporation that actually pays 35% in federal taxes. Many large US corporations (30) pay more on Washington DC lobbyists than they do in federal taxes. For 2008-2010, FedEx's effective federal tax rate was at 1%.
    http://www.dailyfinance.com/2...

    Mitt Romney wants to lower the federal tax rate for US corporations from 35% (which they don't pay now) to 25%. The whole system is insane.
  • beavith1 StarWar... 2012/09/23 04:21:59
    beavith1
    profit is not bad! no matter what that nutcase Obama says!

    your point about our broken tax code is well taken.

    if we lowered it to 12%, we'd get to tax 100% of the 12%, because there is nowhere else on the world to shelter that profit, which is far better that 0% of that overseas money at 35%.
  • StarWar... beavith1 2012/09/23 19:10:21
    StarWarsBob
    +1
    No, profit is not bad. But tax avoidance is, and it's a game that corporations and millionaires are playing all the time. They can afford the lawyers and lobbyists to get the rules bent to their advantage.

    Tax breaks and incentives have their place, and they are useful in some circumstances. The mortgage tax deduction for an example helps stimulate the housing market. But the deductions that oil companies get from the Energy Policy Act of 2005 is ridiculous.
    Exxon-Mobile gets tax breaks for drilling new wells, and about two-thirds of those wells pay off, but the vast majority of those wells are overseas. They do nothing to held the oil dependence problem that the US has, and does everything to enhance their profit margins.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/09/22 02:18:32

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals