Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Why I'm thinking the grapths...eerrr whatever are based off the value of the dollar of that time. Remember 50 cent cokes from the vending machine?

 whembly wrote:
You know... I don't thinks that accurate... but I'm willing to be wrong.

But, aren't these subsidies available to other non-oil businesses?

Now as for those subsidies itself... ya, we need to look at 'em if they're needed, but I suspect they're tax laws that oil companies chose to take advantage of.

The figure is accurate, it's the amount given to oil companies for a range of incentive schemes over a rougly twenty year period, 1985 to 2005 or something like that. Legislation went up to stop these subsidies a year or two ago and was prevented from being tabled on a nearly party line vote.

Basically the subsidies come in three forms - there's direct subsidies to oil companies to encourage them to invest in the US rather than elsewhere in the world, these are the kind of tax breaks available to every big company and suck, but are basically the price of doing business in a multinational world. Then there's subsidies that make oil cheap for low income people and other business, Low Income Energy Assistance, Fuel Tax Exemption for Farmers and other stuff like that. And then there's direct subsidy to oil industry, almost entirely tax bonuses for exploration spending and the like.

To be perfectly honest, I think the left wing overstates this issue by quite a long way.

That said, it is or at least should be, illustrative to the right wing about government and big business really do work together, and that the idea of an open market where companies grow and succeed without government involvement is basically a myth.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:
Is that with the dollar at its current value or does it actually protray the debt current with the value of dollar?

It's the percentage of the debt at the start of the President's term and what it was at the end. So if you owed $10 when you took office and $22 when you left office it'd be 120%.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:
Don't looks at the bars, they're essentially meaningless, just look at the numbers. Though its worth noting that the Pelosi graph provided above isn't wrong per se, just out of date.

Its also worth noting that percent change in debt relative to GDP is a much better statistic for comparison.

That is the most meaningful measure, but that also explains why neither party uses it. Instead Republicans use straight up dollar figures (and don't even show debt under previous Republican presidents) in order to get people shocked with 'wow that's a big number'. At the same time Democrats use 'debt at beginning of term to debt at end of term' and thereby take advantage of the fact that Obama started with a really huge base to make deficit growth under him look small comparatively.

Politicians tell halve truths... who would have thunk it


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 youbedead wrote:
Huh, I would have expected less of a decline from the Eisenhower through Johnson administrations. So what caused the upward trend since the mid 80's, what were we doing that cost us more then vietnam+war on poverty

Long story short Reagan cut taxes. The economy was in recovery so tax revenues still rose, but nowhere near what they would have increased under the old tax structure. This meant not only did you fail to post breakeven or even surplus budgets during the growth in the 80s, it also meant deficits were greater than they should have been when the economy performed poorly such as in the early 90s. It was a structural problem alleviated somewhat by the Republican Congress/Clinton presidency with their spending cuts to welfare, but one made worse again when Bush II pushed through further tax cuts.

 Jihadin wrote:
Why I'm thinking the grapths...eerrr whatever are based off the value of the dollar of that time. Remember 50 cent cokes from the vending machine?

The last one was adjusted for inflation.

 whembly wrote:
There were definately political shenanigans going on, but sebster, the Republicans retook the House in 2010.

They PASSED budget bills and sent it to the Senate. Usually, what happens is that it goes in conferences for further negotiations/tweaking before it even gets to the floor. Harry Reid refused to put those budgets on the Docket, thus filibustering (in his own way) the budget process.

So, Reid thought it was better to NOT work with the House Republicans and force Congress to pass the continuing resolution bills in order to keep the government running (status quo).

But the budgets put up by Republicans weren't even half way reasonable, so they could be tweaked into something more reasonable. It'd be like a Democratic controlled House passing a budget that said 'here's a 50% cut to defence, a doubling in taxes to everyone paying more than $100,000, and we're using that money on minority awareness campaigns', and then complaining when the Republicans didn't negotiate.

Basically, if you ask me, the country is in such a state right now that neither party could deliver a sensible budget that wouldn't have a massive deficit... let alone a budget that both parties negotiated to reach. As such, is not politically palatable for either party to actually pass a budget, so the only thing left to do is play a game about pretending to pass a budget to score political points. It's a game the Republicans have played better, but that shouldn't surprise anyone.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
There were definately political shenanigans going on, but sebster, the Republicans retook the House in 2010.

They PASSED budget bills and sent it to the Senate. Usually, what happens is that it goes in conferences for further negotiations/tweaking before it even gets to the floor. Harry Reid refused to put those budgets on the Docket, thus filibustering (in his own way) the budget process.

So, Reid thought it was better to NOT work with the House Republicans and force Congress to pass the continuing resolution bills in order to keep the government running (status quo).

But the budgets put up by Republicans weren't even half way reasonable, so they could be tweaked into something more reasonable. It'd be like a Democratic controlled House passing a budget that said 'here's a 50% cut to defence, a doubling in taxes to everyone paying more than $100,000, and we're using that money on minority awareness campaigns', and then complaining when the Republicans didn't negotiate.

Basically, if you ask me, the country is in such a state right now that neither party could deliver a sensible budget that wouldn't have a massive deficit... let alone a budget that both parties negotiated to reach. As such, is not politically palatable for either party to actually pass a budget, so the only thing left to do is play a game about pretending to pass a budget to score political points. It's a game the Republicans have played better, but that shouldn't surprise anyone.

Yeah, I agree with this.

The art of compromise is lost now... and, it doesn't look like that's going to change. Pity...

 whembly wrote:

The fact that he's associated with Rev Write and Ayers...
- - - I know someone who does security background checks... and Obama wouldn't pass.

I'm losing my faith in the OT subforum. Why did no one jump on this?

 motyak wrote:

 whembly wrote:

The fact that he's associated with Rev Write and Ayers...
- - - I know someone who does security background checks... and Obama wouldn't pass.

I'm losing my faith in the OT subforum. Why did no one jump on this?

What? The Ayers/Wright associates?

Or the Security background test? Have you ever participated in a high security clearance? (I have... it's daunting).

Meh, there is a good chance Obama wouldn't pass a security check for say the military because of that. Those guys are nutters.

The security background check.

What counts as high security clearance?

And wouldn't he have had to go through security checks to become president? Admittedly I'm not a seppo so I don't pay as much attention to how you guys do things over there.

 motyak wrote:
The security background check.

What counts as high security clearance?

And wouldn't he have had to go through security checks to become president? Admittedly I'm not a seppo so I don't pay as much attention to how you guys do things over there.

Nope. If you're elected President, you don't go through the same security clearance as if you wanted to work for some other federal agency (ie, FBI). I'm pretty sure that's true for all elected official (not sure though).

It was my friend's opinion (who does this for a living), no one officially said it.

 whembly wrote:

 motyak wrote:
The security background check.

What counts as high security clearance?

And wouldn't he have had to go through security checks to become president? Admittedly I'm not a seppo so I don't pay as much attention to how you guys do things over there.

Nope. If you're elected President, you don't go through the same security clearance as if you wanted to work for some other federal agency (ie, FBI). I'm pretty sure that's true for all elected official (not sure though).

It was my friend's opinion (who does this for a living), no one officially said it.

Ha that is awesome. In a weird way. I'm sure he'd have to be vetted in some way, it wouldn't make sense if there was 0 checks, I mean, he still has to be cleared for certain level briefings and what not, they won't just go 'Everyone in the room is cleared for what-have-you-level-clearence apart from this guy. But he's cool. Trust me.'

But if your mate does it, who am I to gainsay him. I'm just surprised is all, I would have expected it to be really stringent.

 motyak wrote:

I'm losing my faith in the OT subforum. Why did no one jump on this?

Because it's blatant horsegak? I mean, hell, I've passed a background check and my past is far, far more questionable than that.

If you get right down to it, no one who posts on this board should be able to pass one, as gaming is seen as a negative.

 motyak wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 motyak wrote:
The security background check.

What counts as high security clearance?

And wouldn't he have had to go through security checks to become president? Admittedly I'm not a seppo so I don't pay as much attention to how you guys do things over there.

Nope. If you're elected President, you don't go through the same security clearance as if you wanted to work for some other federal agency (ie, FBI). I'm pretty sure that's true for all elected official (not sure though).

It was my friend's opinion (who does this for a living), no one officially said it.

Ha that is awesome. In a weird way. I'm sure he'd have to be vetted in some way, it wouldn't make sense if there was 0 checks, I mean, he still has to be cleared for certain level briefings and what not, they won't just go 'Everyone in the room is cleared for what-have-you-level-clearence apart from this guy. But he's cool. Trust me.'

But if your mate does it, who am I to gainsay him. I'm just surprised is all, I would have expected it to be really stringent.

Believe... I was surprised too...

And Amaya... he'd probably be cleared to join certain branches of the military. Not likely with intelligence though... (I've know folks who were 16 and joined the services... how'd that get thru I have no idea).

To be fair, I doubt Romney would either. Very few politicians would be.

 whembly wrote:

 motyak wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 motyak wrote:
The security background check.

What counts as high security clearance?

And wouldn't he have had to go through security checks to become president? Admittedly I'm not a seppo so I don't pay as much attention to how you guys do things over there.

Nope. If you're elected President, you don't go through the same security clearance as if you wanted to work for some other federal agency (ie, FBI). I'm pretty sure that's true for all elected official (not sure though).

It was my friend's opinion (who does this for a living), no one officially said it.

Ha that is awesome. In a weird way. I'm sure he'd have to be vetted in some way, it wouldn't make sense if there was 0 checks, I mean, he still has to be cleared for certain level briefings and what not, they won't just go 'Everyone in the room is cleared for what-have-you-level-clearence apart from this guy. But he's cool. Trust me.'

But if your mate does it, who am I to gainsay him. I'm just surprised is all, I would have expected it to be really stringent.

Believe... I was surprised too...

And Amaya... he'd probably be cleared to join certain branches of the military. Not likely with intelligence though... (I've know folks who were 16 and joined the services... how'd that get thru I have no idea).

I'd say believe is too strong a word. But its interesting.

 Melissia wrote:
To be fair, I doubt Romney would either. Very few politicians would be.

Yup... true.

Strange eh?

They have the keys to the "football"! (do they even call that still?)

/tinfoil off

 whembly wrote:

/tinfoil off

Don't! They'll read your mind!