If amercia was europe id get more paid vacation, a better wage, and there would be a middle class.

tax breaks are not welfare.

MichChamp02 said:

tax breaks are not welfare.

Click to expand...

Exactly.

It's an opinion piece, and by piece; I mean of shit.

well then what the fuck, time to go on Holiday for 5 weeks. portugal, here we come!!

MichChamp02 said:

tax breaks are not welfare.

Click to expand...

So you're not one to claim that the gov subsidizes big oil then?

The point isn't that we have just as much wellfare, it's that we have just as much government involvement in our economy. We just spend it on huge companies instead of poor people.

from a constitutional standpoint, welfare/subsidy is anything that requires a payment from the government to a person or industry.

the oil companies (and the auto-companies) are essentially subsidized by the massive amounts of money the government pays to build and maintain roads. Without those, fewer people would drive cars, using less gas & oil. There are other subsidies too, but that's one of the biggest; tax breaks are not part of it.

David Brooks is an idiot.

MichChamp02 said:

from a constitutional standpoint, welfare/subsidy is anything that requires a payment from the government to a person or industry.

the oil companies (and the auto-companies) are essentially subsidized by the massive amounts of money the government pays to build and maintain roads. Without those, fewer people would drive cars, using less gas & oil. There are other subsidies too, but that's one of the biggest; tax breaks are not part of it.

David Brooks is an idiot.

Click to expand...

And I am speculating that your assessment of Brooks is based on more than this article.

I think David Brooks is on some channel on my television right now, actually, either ABC or NBC, something like that.

smayschmouthfootball said:

MichChamp02 said:

from a constitutional standpoint, welfare/subsidy is anything that requires a payment from the government to a person or industry.

the oil companies (and the auto-companies) are essentially subsidized by the massive amounts of money the government pays to build and maintain roads. Without those, fewer people would drive cars, using less gas & oil. There are other subsidies too, but that's one of the biggest; tax breaks are not part of it.

David Brooks is an idiot.

Click to expand...

And I am speculating that your assessment of Brooks is based on more than this article.

Click to expand...

it's based on this article and other articles he's written.

he's basically a lazy pseudo-intellectual. he writes as though his articles are well-researched and academic, but they're not, and typically just a bunch of a nice sounding platitudes that seem agreeable, but are largely meaningless when you try to apply them to real life. they don't hold up to factual analysis.

most recently was his yarn about high unemployment here being due to poor education among Americans.

his whole premise there is absurd; jobs are moving to china not because Americans aren't educated; it's because the chinese can get away with paying their employees shit, and treating them like shit. they couldn't do that here anymore because of the unions. There is high unemployment across the spectrum in America, not only among the uneducated.

but that's his typical conceit: you (the little people) have your own selves to blame for your predicament. If you just mind your business and work hard, the "adults" in Brooks mythical moderate conservative party will take care of the big picture stuff.

Krugman took him to task for this (and a few other columns he's written) with no response (predictably) from Brooks.

It drives me nuts when people post his crap on Facebook (along with Tom Friedman) with some comment like "Great column, check it out." or "This really makes you think."

sorry, Red.

this is simply ridiculous: <blockquote>But instead of writing a $10 billion check to the manufacturer, the government just issued a $10 billion

MichChamp02 said:

[quote="smayschmouthfootball"gv74h3t]


And I am speculating that your assessment of Brooks is based on more than this piece.

Click to expand...

it's based on this article and other articles he's written.

he's basically a lazy pseudo-intellectual. he writes as though his articles are well-researched and academic, but they're not, and typically just a bunch of a nice sounding platitudes that seem agreeable, but are largely meaningless when you try to apply them to real life. they don't hold up to factual analysis.

most recently was his yarn about high unemployment here being due to poor education among Americans.

his whole premise there is absurd; jobs are moving to china not because Americans aren't educated; it's because the chinese can get away with paying their employees shit, and treating them like shit. they couldn't do that here anymore because of the unions. There is high unemployment across the spectrum in America, not only among the uneducated.

but that's his typical conceit: you (the little people) have your own selves to blame for your predicament. If you just mind your business and work hard, the "adults" in Brooks mythical moderate conservative party will take care of the big picture stuff.

Krugman took him to task for this (and a few other columns he's written) with no response (predictably) from Brooks.

It drives me nuts when people post his crap on Facebook (along with Tom Friedman) with some comment like "Great column, check it out." or "This really makes you think."

sorry, Red.

this is simply ridiculous: <blockquote>But instead of writing a $10 billion check to the manufacturer, the government just issued a $10 billion

do I even need to answer that?

no one does anything they weren't going to do just because they get a tax break. Period.

I don't agree with the conservative thinking that tax credits spur anyone to do anything; they often don't. Bush gave two big tax credits over his 8 years; the first one did lead to some spending... but the 2nd one, when the unemployment had remained high for years, was largely saved or used to pay down debt (the debt that resulted from the "Bush Boom").

I do, however, agree with the line that tax credits, and tax breaks make government smaller. that they certainly do. they don't make it "bigger" as Brooks is arguing, just because they might influence some action.

And of course government plays a role in the economy... I don't give him credit for that observation; that's like telling me "water is wet."

I blame Rome.

If they hadn't built all them fuckin' roads, we wouldn't be subsidizing either the energy industry OR the automobile industry today.

His argument that a tax break can get someone to do some specific action is absurd.

Reminds me of this: http://www.theonion.com/articles/tea-party-congressman-calls-for-tax-breaks-to-put,21242/

Of course, if you cut taxes on something, that may encourage people to do one thing over another. For example, if I'm a farmer and growing corn is taxed but wheat is not, I may decide to plant wheat. And the tax cut to wheat isn't "bigger government," it's smaller government. That's almost exactly the definition of smaller government. just because it may have some economic effect, doesn't make it "bigger government."

But if I wasn't going to plant ANYTHING, the tax cut is not going to induce me to plant crops in the first place. That's why his example is so ridiculous.

I just drove through Arizona, and there's not a lot of water there that I could discern.

Without those tax breaks, they're pretty much fucked.

MichChamp02 said:

do I even need to answer that?

no one does anything they weren't going to do just because they get a tax break. Period.

I don't agree with the conservative thinking that tax credits spur anyone to do anything; they often don't. Bush gave two big tax credits over his 8 years; the first one did lead to some spending... but the 2nd one, when the unemployment had remained high for years, was largely saved or used to pay down debt (the debt that resulted from the "Bush Boom").

I do, however, agree with the line that tax credits, and tax breaks make government smaller. that they certainly do. they don't make it "bigger" as Brooks is arguing, just because they might influence some action.

And of course government plays a role in the economy... I don't give him credit for that observation; that's like telling me "water is wet."

Click to expand...

I think you're wrong. The difference between something being profitable or not profitable can just as easily be achieved through a tax credit as a subsidy. It only makes a difference if you don't have the money up front. So the difference matters for things like healthcare. Not for things impacting large companies. I'm really surprised you'd assert the opposite with such confidence. Period!

Red and Guilty said:

MichChamp02 said:

do I even need to answer that?

no one does anything they weren't going to do just because they get a tax break. Period.

I don't agree with the conservative thinking that tax credits spur anyone to do anything; they often don't. Bush gave two big tax credits over his 8 years; the first one did lead to some spending... but the 2nd one, when the unemployment had remained high for years, was largely saved or used to pay down debt (the debt that resulted from the "Bush Boom").

I do, however, agree with the line that tax credits, and tax breaks make government smaller. that they certainly do. they don't make it "bigger" as Brooks is arguing, just because they might influence some action.

And of course government plays a role in the economy... I don't give him credit for that observation; that's like telling me "water is wet."

Click to expand...

I think you're wrong. The difference between something being profitable or not profitable can just as easily be achieved through a tax credit as a subsidy. It only makes a difference if you don't have the money up front. So the difference matters for things like healthcare. Not for things impacting large companies. I'm really surprised you'd assert the opposite with such confidence. Period!

Click to expand...

read my next post.

Red? are you reading it?

MichChamp02 said:

His argument that a tax break can get someone to do some specific action is absurd.

Reminds me of this: http://www.theonion.com/articles/tea-party-congressman-calls-for-tax-breaks-to-put,21242/

Of course, if you cut taxes on something, that may encourage people to do one thing over another. For example, if I'm a farmer and growing corn is taxed but wheat is not, I may decide to plant wheat. And the tax cut to wheat isn't "bigger government," it's smaller government. That's almost exactly the definition of smaller government. just because it may have some economic effect, doesn't make it "bigger government."

But if I wasn't going to plant ANYTHING, the tax cut is not going to induce me to plant crops in the first place. That's why his example is so ridiculous.

Click to expand...

Why wouldn't people, who weren't going to plant anything, be drawn to the industry if it becomes more profitable thanks to a tax break?

For an industry to exist, all else being equal, it has to profitable after taxes. A tax break can lower that bar. A subsidy can lower that bar even further (since taxes can only go to zero.) Up to the point where the subsidy would be bigger than a tax of zero, the impact is the same. Subsidies can go further, but they are not fundamentally different in impact in the big company setting.