More money for welfare!

[TexasTiger 13,016]

Corporate welfare, that is. Yes, it is just coincidence that the moneyed interest groups that purchased Bushco, Inc., a few years back have done extremely well.

Democrats criticize oil industry subsidies

By Julie Vorman

Reuters

Saturday, October 29, 2005; 11:52 AM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - House Republicans recently pushed through legislation that would give more federal subsidies to the oil industry instead of trying to help U.S. consumers cope with sharply higher energy prices, the top Democrat on the House Commerce Committee said on Saturday.

Rep. John Dingell of Michigan said Congress should focus on Democratic proposals to punish gasoline profiteering, invest in new energy technology, and encourage more energy efficiency.

"We must respond to the needs of the American consumers who are seeing the prospect of $4 a gallon gas and $1,000 monthly heating bills," he said in the Democrats's weekly radio address.

On October 7, the U.S. House of Representatives narrowly passed a bill that would give federal insurance to oil refiners whose expansion projects are delayed by lawsuits or regulatory snags. It also put the Energy Department in charge of permits for new refinery projects as a way to speed up approvals.

The bill was approved, 212-210, after Republican leaders held a five-minute vote open for more than 40 minutes to persuade some party members to change their votes.

Democrats opposed the bill, saying the industry had plenty of its own money to pay for new refineries and did not deserve a government hand-out.

A similar Senate bill was blocked by Democrats.

"What was the Republican answer to the hurricanes? More subsidies to the oil industry," Dingell said, referring to the bill's sponsors who said the help was needed because of damage to refineries from recent Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

Democrats are targeting "the immediate problems of gasoline prices and the anticipated increases in natural gas and home heating oil prices," Dingell said.

Long an ally of the energy industry, senior Republican lawmakers reversed direction during the past week and began calling for possible new controls on oil companies.

Their change in views came the same week that Exxon Mobil reported a $9.9 billion quarterly profit and other major oil companies also saw big increases.

The head of the Senate Budget Committee, Republican Judd Gregg said he look at some kind of windfall profit tax on the oil industry.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist ordered a November 8 hearing for top executives of major oil companies to explain why prices are so high. Frist also said he might endorse a bill banning oil price profiteering -- an approach favored by Democrats -- if evidence of wrongdoing was found.

U.S. President George W. Bush has said he opposed any new tax on the oil industry. But his energy secretary, Sam Bodman, said the energy industry had a "responsibility" to expand refineries to make more U.S. gasoline and heating oil.

Dingell said Democrats were concerned that high crude oil, natural gas, gasoline, and heating oil prices have a ripple effect throughout the U.S. economy.

"To meet our energy needs, we do not need to weaken protections for clean air and clean water, or spend your tax dollars to help out the oil companies," he said.

"We need to start investing more in energy innovation and stop showering tax cuts upon the wealthy. And we must protect consumers against price gouging ... while fully funding the low-income home energy assistance program," he said.

The U.S. government recently forecast that natural gas heating costs in the U.S. Midwest this winter will soar by 61 percent to an average $1,377. Heating oil bills in the Northeast will rise by nearly 30 percent to an average $1,607.

Less than three months ago, the president signed into law a Republican-written energy bill giving $14.5 billion in tax breaks and incentives to the energy industry.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5102900573.html

[Bottomfeeder 244]

It's called fascism, plain and simple.

Harper's Magazine: We Now Live in a Fascist State

[AURaptor 1,126]

It's called fascism, plain and simple.

Harper's Magazine: We Now Live in a Fascist State

193598[/snapback]

Lotta wild accusations in that article. Sorry, but one paranoid article does not equate to us living under fascism. Nice try.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

It's called fascism, plain and simple.

Harper's Magazine: We Now Live in a Fascist State

193598[/snapback]

Lotta wild accusations in that article. Sorry, but one paranoid article does not equate to us living under fascism. Nice try.

193611[/snapback]

red-state fascism

Here are some more originating from Auburn Alabama:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul274.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/red-state-fascism.html

"In common with the more unhinged elements of the far left, LewRockwell.com is committed to propagating the notion that the U.S. is in the grip of a fascist government. Again, Rockwell himself is among the more ardent spokesmen for that view. His political opponents, he insists, are 'fascisti,' while anyone with the temerity to voice support for American policies is dismissed as one of the 'storm troopers of the regime.' As for the 62 million Americans who voted to reelect George W. Bush, they are—you guessed it—the proponents of 'red-state fascism.' Lest such comments be dismissed as mere overheated sloganeering, Rockwell stresses that this 'not just rhetoric.' Rather, Rockwell urges his readers 'to recognize that fascism is a reality, not just a smear term.'”

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo85.html

The road to serfdom is littered with road signs pointing toward “the information superhighway,” “health security,” “national service,” “managed trade,” and “industrial policy.”

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/fascism.html

"But let us not deceive ourselves into thinking that we are dealing by this means with the problem of fascism. Fascism will come at the hands of perfectly authentic Americans, as violently against Hitler and Mussolini as the next one, but who are convinced that the present economic system is washed up and that the present political system in America has outlived its usefulness and who wish to commit this country to the rule of the bureaucratic state; interfering in the affairs of the states and cities; taking part in the management of industry and finance and agriculture; assuming the role of great national banker and investor, borrowing millions every year and spending them on all sorts of projects through which such a government can paralyze opposition and command public support; marshaling great armies and navies at crushing costs to support the industry of war and preparation for war which will become our greatest industry; and adding to all this the most romantic adventures in global planning, regeneration, and domination all to be done under the authority of a powerfully centralized government in which the executive will hold in effect all the powers with Congress reduced to the role of a debating society. There is your fascist. And the sooner America realizes this dreadful fact the sooner it will arm itself to make an end of American fascism masquerading under the guise of the champion of democracy.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/fontova6.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/herbener-...ireeconomy.html

At first, the fascists used state spending, mainly for war, to eliminate business fluctuations. Only after they became dependent on the state did the leaders of big business and labor realize that they had merely traded consumer sovereignty for state sovereignty. Soon after they learned which one was the more exacting taskmaster.

To extend their control, the fascists bolstered fiscal expenditures with debt and monetary inflation. Not only did they hope thereby to dominate more and more industries with their expenditures, but also to boost public support for their regimes by generating economic prosperity. Instead, their reckless spending and inflating set in motion the boom-bust cycle. They took the depression as an opportunity to extend their power further by socializing investment with regulations while claiming that such measures would stabilize the business cycle.

The fascists found a readymade theoretical justification for stabilization policies in the work of John Maynard Keynes.[2] Keynes claimed that the instability of capitalism emanated from the free play the system gave to the "animal spirits" of investors. Driven by bouts of over-optimism and over-pessimism, investors alternate between bullish spending and bearish hoarding sending the economy into fits of boom and bust.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/decoster/decoster80.html

Mom mused over world events and the possible outcomes of the war on Iraq. She hinted that she felt like she was living under some sort of Communist regime, where the State was all-powerful and its subjects were at the whim and decrees of their appointed masters. She worried that her grandson could grow up in an environment where his every movement and action is monitored under an Orwellian state of affairs.

The Evil of Standing Armies

http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp...der=articledate

http://www.google.com/u/Mises?hl=en&lr=&ie...S.+&btnG=Search

Ludwig von Mises Institute

518 West Magnolia Avenue

Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528

334.321.2100 · Phone

334.321.2119 · Fax

contact@mises.org

AOL-IM MainMises

[AURaptor 1,126]

moveon.org has some competition for the title of most out of touch, whacked out group.

[TrueBlue72 0]

As a conservative, I do not favor subsidies for ANY group or industry. Let free market forces determine supply, demand and price. Having said that, subsidies have been a staple of congress for longer than I have been on this earth and likely will be long after I'm gone.

US government policy has kept gasoline prices at half the world price for as long as I can remember. I don't agree with that policy, either; let free market forces work.

I don't know the wording of the subsidy bill, but would expect the subsidies to be used to further domestic exploration and investment in domestic refining capacity. I cannot believe that they were simply handouts; congress never gives anything without strings.

The timing of the hurricanes and the subsequent shortages and price increases brought to light the subsidy issue. I hope congress has the guts to repeal it and let free market forces work.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

As a conservative, I do not favor subsidies for ANY group or industry.  Let free market forces determine supply, demand and price.  Having said that, subsidies have been a staple of congress for longer than I have been on this earth and likely will be long after I'm gone. 

US government policy has kept gasoline prices at half the world price for as long as I can remember.  I don't agree with that policy, either; let free market forces work. 

I don't know the wording of the subsidy bill, but would expect the subsidies to be used to further domestic exploration and investment in domestic refining capacity.  I cannot believe that they were simply handouts; congress never gives anything without strings. 

The timing of the hurricanes and the subsequent shortages and price increases brought to light the subsidy issue.  I hope congress has the guts to repeal it and let free market forces work.

193684[/snapback]

Market Forces:

I agree 100%. The free market would also have not allow for so many gas guzzling SUVs, in that, market forces would have had gas prices well over $5.00 a gallon thus forcing the Big 3 to produce vehicles accordingly. No American, in their right mind, would accept what Detroit is dishing out. We would have demanded more efficient vehicles by purchasing Hondas instead, at $5.00 plus a gallon for unleaded.

[AURaptor 1,126]

  The free market would also have not allow for so many gas guzzling SUVs, in that, market forces would have had gas prices well over $5.00 a gallon thus forcing the Big 3 to produce vehicles accordingly. No American, in their right mind, would accept what Detroit is dishing out. We would have demanded more efficient vehicles by purchasing Hondas instead, at $5.00 plus a gallon for unleaded.

Would not have allowed? Sorry sir, but that is EXACTLY what the market HAS allowed. Don't know what planet you're living on , but it sure isn't the same one where I live.

[AUloggerhead 2,253]

  The free market would also have not allow for so many gas guzzling SUVs, in that, market forces would have had gas prices well over $5.00 a gallon thus forcing the Big 3 to produce vehicles accordingly. No American, in their right mind, would accept what Detroit is dishing out. We would have demanded more efficient vehicles by purchasing Hondas instead, at $5.00 plus a gallon for unleaded.

Would not have allowed? Sorry sir, but that is EXACTLY what the market HAS allowed. Don't know what planet you're living on , but it sure isn't the same one where I live.

193693[/snapback]

The only reason gas prices exceed $5.00/gal is because of govt taxation. In Great Britain, for example, 75% of the price is due to taxes. Other Eurotrash countries have the same mentality and tax gasoline in the same manner (+70%) because they can get away with it. In the US the average govt tax (fed + state + local) is around 31%. You will see another revolution happen before the American people accept a doubling of their gas taxes.

[Auburn85 432]

bread riots?

House sales have been booming, especially in the african-american community. The economy continues to grow despite high gas prices.

the poverty rate at last check was 12.7%

In 1996, under Clinton, it was 13.7%

The only thing holding Alabama back is the GOOD OLE BOY politics. Despite that, we had a $150 million surplus in the education budget, the unemplymetn rate is hovering around 5%

Yeah, Alabama isn't the only state of the union, but not all states did well during the "economic boom"

But to say Fascism? That's funny.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

  The free market would also have not allow for so many gas guzzling SUVs, in that, market forces would have had gas prices well over $5.00 a gallon thus forcing the Big 3 to produce vehicles accordingly. No American, in their right mind, would accept what Detroit is dishing out. We would have demanded more efficient vehicles by purchasing Hondas instead, at $5.00 plus a gallon for unleaded.

Would not have allowed? Sorry sir, but that is EXACTLY what the market HAS allowed. Don't know what planet you're living on , but it sure isn't the same one where I live.

193693[/snapback]

The low gas prices of the 90's deceived many. I was thinking, I know it's hard to believe, back in 1999 "How long do people believe that OPEC would allow crude prices to remain low with the economy we had busting at the seams?" I shared my thought with others in the break room, and to my disbelief not one considered it a problem. I figured what the heck, buy crude futures. And guess what? It paid off. Detroit is obviously in bed with the petroleum companies and public concerns were at an all time low, so produce SUVs, bigger and faster, regardless of MPG. So, the market did dictate that then. I was saying that if gasoline prices had not been so low, the free market would have required automobile manufacturers to produce more efficient vehicles. Americans, for the most part, are shortsighted. Their only concern is for the immediate future, not the long run of an economic policy that creates inflation and/or hyperinflation. Question to all of you college graduates: What's next? What will be the next big surprise in the commodities market? And, if not the commodities market, then let's say technology, or any other major market affecting our national security (national security does include financials). Will it be the bird flu pandemic killing off a bunch young and old people, to which the U.S. government could care less about? Or a "nukular"/ biological terrorist attack conspired by the PNAC to thwart Dubya as prez forever, in other words martial law?

Thanks for the memories

To all of the conservative War Eagles here, I'm truly sorry ol' Dubya, has worked out to be the conservative you all thought he was. It's the "bait and switch" of the Neo-conservative party. They were liberals at one time, and still carry that spending mentality. Only problem is they give the money to companies like Halliburton and United Defense instead taking care of the People of the United States they take care of the defense contractors from overseas. They create the spending problems to which our sons and daughters are dying for. It's sad to see a people, especially the kind of people I grew up around, so deceived by the ruling elite.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Only problem is they give the money to companies like Halliburton and United Defense instead taking care of the People of the United States they take care of the defense contractors from overseas. They create the spending problems to which our sons and daughters are dying for. It's sad to see a people, especially the kind of people I grew up around, so deceived by the ruling elite.

Yeah, cause it's not like Haliburton is actually doing anything w/the money they get, right? And it's not like companies like Boeing and McDonald Douglas actually MAKE anything w/the $$ they get either. 2 things :

1. The people of the United States don't need 'taking care of' nearly as much as they need Gov't to stay out of the way.

2. The 'spending problems' as you call them weren't caused by Bush, but by Islamic terrorist who murdered thousands in cold blood. Might make a note of it for further reference, and save yourself the trouble of looking like a useful idiot of the Left.

[TexasTiger 13,016]

The 'spending problems' as you call them weren't caused by Bush, but by Islamic terrorist who murdered thousands in cold blood. Might make a note of it for further reference, and save yourself the trouble of looking like a useful idiot of the Left.

194371[/snapback]

Any real conservative not on the delusional Koolaid knows how absurd this statement is. Research Bush's spending habits to see how relatively little it has to do with Islamic terrorists murdering thousands.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Any real conservative not on the delusional Koolaid knows how absurd this statement is. Research Bush's spending habits to see how relatively little it has to do with Islamic terrorists murdering thousands.

Read the post in context. BF was talking about spending for defense instead of free stuff for deadbeats. Of course, it is a fact that the Iraq war on the War on Terror do not make up the bulk of W's spending excesses. I was merely commenting on what was posted. Chill.

[Auburn85 432]

well, in the defensive spending, he is right