Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Big Oil or Facebook?


  • Please log in to reply
33 replies to this topic

#1 stirs

stirs

    I Reckon So

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,284 posts

Posted 16 February 2013 - 04:51 PM

Big Oil should not get tax breaks, has been the opinion here for awhile, but Facebook?

Hmmmm

http://www.foxnews.c...record-profits/

#2 Gazi

Gazi

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,831 posts

Posted 16 February 2013 - 05:43 PM

Neither. Hmmm

#3 pstall

pstall

    Gazebo Effect

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,446 posts
  • LocationMontford

Posted 16 February 2013 - 06:30 PM

one has a much higher and easier proftit margin.

#4 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,486 posts

Posted 16 February 2013 - 07:45 PM

As a supporter of a free market no one should get special treatment regardless of business model.

Imperialistic proponents would argue that self-sustainability as a nation with respect to natural resources and infrastructure are important to maintaining the standing of the USA as a lone world superpower.

The flip side of the coin is that the reality of a federal government spending us into extinction deserves no more money from any source. 3.8 trillion dollars a year should be easily triple the amount of what is required to perform its function as laid out by the Constitution.

#5 Jase

Jase

    Kuechold Fantasies

  • Administrators
  • 17,332 posts
  • LocationMatthews, NC

Posted 16 February 2013 - 08:26 PM

Facebook just poked you.

Bend over.

#6 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,301 posts

Posted 16 February 2013 - 09:11 PM

Fwiw, I don't have an issue with the government providing breaks to some industries, as long as there is a benefit to the public interest in doing so and that benefit outweighs the cost of the benefit. But they should have to have quite a justification for providing said benefit. .

#7 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,486 posts

Posted 17 February 2013 - 03:31 AM

Fwiw, I don't have an issue with the government providing breaks to some industries, as long as there is a benefit to the public interest in doing so and that benefit outweighs the cost of the benefit. But they should have to have quite a justification for providing said benefit. .


I believe that would be fine except for two things:

1) What may be deemed as a public good for some people is inherently not for others. If we were to look at a list of things that have been done on behalf of the American public, government doesn't have a great track record... especially over the past century. Native Americans and Pacific Islanders come to mind off the top of my head.

2) At the federal level, a politician is essentially in charge of someone else's credit card where their children will be responsible for the bill. Hence, if you are in the business of making promises via future accountability, you've set the stage for corruption that reads exactly like what Bastiat had laid out.

#8 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,301 posts

Posted 17 February 2013 - 08:39 AM

I was thinking along the lines of providing incentives to the domestic oil industry in order to increase domestic production or finding alternative energy sources. Anything that reduces our dependence on foreign oil is a benefit to our national security imo.

Also, I was thinking about local governments providing incentives to industries that provide jobs. These are usually beneficial to the population of the state or local area.

#9 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,486 posts

Posted 17 February 2013 - 12:08 PM

Local government is much more accountable than the leviathan that currently exists as Mordor on the Potomac.

Regarding dependence on foreign resources: I honestly believe that the issue would take care of itself if we were actually allowed the existence of a free market. Counting on the federal government to deliver on something like that has failed to the nth degree. Their primary charge to protect the freedoms of the American citizen is failing spectacularly. If they can't even do that, why trust them with anything else?

#10 Happy Panther

Happy Panther

    Now even funnier.

  • ALL-PRO
  • 17,896 posts

Posted 17 February 2013 - 12:41 PM

Oil subsidies were designed specifically with Big Oil in mind. Facebook is simply following tax accounting laws not receiving specific subsidies aimed at facebook. Unless I misread the article.

#11 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,301 posts

Posted 17 February 2013 - 01:37 PM

Local government is much more accountable than the leviathan that currently exists as Mordor on the Potomac.

Regarding dependence on foreign resources: I honestly believe that the issue would take care of itself if we were actually allowed the existence of a free market. Counting on the federal government to deliver on something like that has failed to the nth degree. Their primary charge to protect the freedoms of the American citizen is failing spectacularly. If they can't even do that, why trust them with anything else?


How so?

I mean we have more freedom now than at any point in our history imo.

#12 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,486 posts

Posted 17 February 2013 - 02:24 PM

If I'm free, why must I relinquish 25% of what I earn for government programs that do not represent my views? Why must I then be taxed again and again throughout the life of services and goods to feed an entity that can't find a way to make 3.8 trillion dollars per year work?

The 2nd amendment was not a law in place for people to own firearms. It was for any armament. At that time, if you wished to own a cannon, you could. People flippantly talk about no assault weapons existing during that time, but muskets were as advanced as what the American militia had at the time. There was a reason the founding fathers put that in as they did.

I don't have any say in the debt that my son's generation is incurring without benefit nor counsel on their behalf. I cannot opt out of programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. I can't vote myself a raise, but Congress has no issue with doing exactly that with our money. They refer to it as "revenues" as if we have a choice in the matter of purchase or price.

Government decides which items are worthy of a "sin tax" by virtue not of a rights' perspective, but of a moral majority. Due process continues to erode for the fight against terror. Enforcement of Constitutional mandates are no longer law, but subject to the whims of a judiciary that applies it as it sees fit. The very fact that victim-less crimes exist is an affront to freedom.

I can't start a business without a gambit of government agencies to submit to. Hell, under Bush, they began naming the heads of said agencies czars. Government will mandate with whome you must do business if they must.

A simple look at where the wealth of this nation has been amassed will tell you everything you need to know about where the modern day lords and ladies of this country reside. 7 of the 10 richest counties in the union reside around DC. They're doing great, and they have no qualms about taking from the rest of the country to ensure that they remain doing great. They'll just bundle it up into new stimulus program and do the least amount possible to keep an ignorant public at bay.

What if I don't wish to support rehab programs, public education, abortions, space exploration, NATO warlords, imperialist foreign policy, assorted foreign aid, etc? Do I have a choice for any of that? In some places in the country, you can't even grow your own garden for subsistence, order a soda more than 20oz in size, engage in mutual consensual sex for monetary transactions, gamble (unless it's for the children's education through... that's right, government).

As a citizen that has done nothing wrong in all counts, I am now treated like a criminal because someone in power decided these things needed to be put into law for our own good.

No thanks. I can take responsibility for my own life and actions. I don't need to be held accountable for things I might do. I don't need someone else enforcing a cradle-to-grave set of regulations to protect me from myself.

#13 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,301 posts

Posted 17 February 2013 - 04:01 PM

No thanks. I can take responsibility for my own life and actions. I don't need to be held accountable for things I might do. I don't need someone else enforcing a cradle-to-grave set of regulations to protect me from myself.


I think you need to take a closer look at our history. Some people tend to have an idealized view of our history that isn't realistic. You only had responsiblity for your own life and actions if you were white and male, and a landowner. Otherwise, you were at the mercy of others.

Taxes in some form have always existed, and the government has always done things some people didn't like. The colonials didn't go to war with GB to stop taxes, they went to war to stop taxation without representation. You are represented, that doesn't mean you have to like their decisions.

In 1789, you could vote only if you were white and male. That means that about a 1/3 of the population could vote then. Now adays, the only people that can't vote are those that are not yet 18.

Up until 1865, a significant portion of our population was enslaved.

In the 1950's, blacks couldn't drink out of the same water fountain as whites in many states.

Freedom of speech rules are pretty much the same as they were back in the days of Washington and Adams, but the ability to get your views heard is much greater today than it was back those days due to the Internet. Sadly, that ability has lead to many people putting out a skewed view of our history, so I am not sure this particular freedom doesn't have some drawbacks.

Btw, you can legally own a cannon today if you want one. Of course, no one owned a cannon back in the early days of the US, except for those equipping militia groups. Well maybe a few individuals did, but my guess is that only a few eccentric individuals. Some people that owned private ocean going vessels did to defend from pirates and such but they did have to get permission from government. And the same thing is true today.

#14 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,486 posts

Posted 18 February 2013 - 02:02 AM

I think you need to take a closer look at our history. Some people tend to have an idealized view of our history that isn't realistic. You only had responsiblity for your own life and actions if you were white and male, and a landowner. Otherwise, you were at the mercy of others.

Taxes in some form have always existed, and the government has always done things some people didn't like. The colonials didn't go to war with GB to stop taxes, they went to war to stop taxation without representation. You are represented, that doesn't mean you have to like their decisions.

In 1789, you could vote only if you were white and male. That means that about a 1/3 of the population could vote then. Now adays, the only people that can't vote are those that are not yet 18.

Up until 1865, a significant portion of our population was enslaved.

In the 1950's, blacks couldn't drink out of the same water fountain as whites in many states.

Freedom of speech rules are pretty much the same as they were back in the days of Washington and Adams, but the ability to get your views heard is much greater today than it was back those days due to the Internet. Sadly, that ability has lead to many people putting out a skewed view of our history, so I am not sure this particular freedom doesn't have some drawbacks.

Btw, you can legally own a cannon today if you want one. Of course, no one owned a cannon back in the early days of the US, except for those equipping militia groups. Well maybe a few individuals did, but my guess is that only a few eccentric individuals. Some people that owned private ocean going vessels did to defend from pirates and such but they did have to get permission from government. And the same thing is true today.


I understand what you say, and it is true. However, it does not take away from the purpose of the constructs laid out by the Constitution being a foundation.

If the states would have followed the Constitution, slavery would have been a virtual non-issue as it outlined a clause of article 1. It was later that Amendment 14 was put in to formally execute the intent of said clause. It was a major contention when the Constitution was drafted, and it was supported wrongly by jurisprudence in the highest court before the amendment. Even after the 14th amendment was ratified, the execution of said laws were still ignored/corrupted by said governmental entities.

Technically, one could not vote unless they owned land. The reason for that is because only landowners paid taxes. If you had no skin in the game, then you had no say in how things were conducted. Compared to today, it is a race of who can vote themselves the most stuff while politicians are happy to charge an administrative fee.

That brings me to your next point. Taxation without representation is exactly what we have today. We have a group of people that are paying taxes being represented by a close majority of persons that effectively do not pay taxes. Moreover, so-called representation has done nothing for many of us to address many serious concerns about how said taxes are spent.

The Constitution was laid out as a form of government called a Republic, not a Democracy. The difference is that a Republic lays out rights that cannot be voted away by a majority of the masses. We are clearly no longer that at all. Effectively, more and more, regular people have less rights to their property than ever before. I never claimed a utopia existed.

I simply pointed out the failings of man in executing the intent of what was originally laid out. Of course it wasn't perfect. The founding fathers knew it wasn't perfect. Hence, they put in an amendment process. Their wisdom remains though with respect to how government as a body of politics works. Those arguments were laid out pretty elegantly in the federalist papers. It is even more elegantly laid out in Bastiat's The Law and Hayek's Road to Serfdom. I say that because it is happening here just as it has happened everywhere else throughout history.

#15 Delhommey

Delhommey

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 12,560 posts

Posted 18 February 2013 - 05:55 AM

Telling how a good chunk of people idolize a time when black people were (poorly maintained) property and women and poor people had no vote.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com