Memo to Mitt: 5 Ways the Government Gives Money to Rich People...
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...
Top Opinion
-
Kaleokualoha 2012/09/19 18:36:00+14There 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)






















Errr, feeling a tad bit desperate more than usual?
“Republicans say they don’t believe in government. Sure they do. They believe in government to help themselves and their powerful friends.”
She's absolutely correct with this statement..
http://www.businessinsider.co...
More than 35,000 of American households who make over $200,000 annually, paid no income tax to the federal government in 2009, according to a new study by the IRS.
For 2009, of the 3,975,288 tax returns with expanded
income of $200,000 or more, 35,061 (0.882
percent) had no U.S. income tax liability; and 19,551
(0.492 percent) had no worldwide income tax liability.
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...
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.
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.
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...
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...
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...
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.
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...
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.
Republicans will always put profits above all else, while Democrats focus on other considerations like the environment.
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.'
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 ...
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%.
just a quick link...
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/0...
things change. the economy is squeezing in all over...
take away depreciation and see what happens to our source of supply AND domestic drilling.
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.
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%.
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.