On May 27, 6:30*pm, "Robert Green" wrote:
"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
*"Robert Green" wrote:
The Republicans have refused to cut the $20B in subsidies given to oil
companies while looking to make "political vengeance" cuts on anything
they
feel is socialism. *Whether it's NPR or Planned Parenthood, helping
people
isn't high on their agenda.
* * While the Dems go after the oil companies (and others) largely for
political vengeance. You will note that both go after those (and the
interests of those) who have the audacity to vote against them.
Thanks for reminding me. *(-: *It's true. *It's why no permanent progress
can be made. *But IIRC, the Dems pointed to the tax breaks that Big Oil is
getting (during one of the most profitable periods ever for them) *after*
the Republicans made a point to began targeting the much smaller social
programs that irk them so mightily. *IIRC, NPR and Planned Parenthood
really amounted to chump change compared to the $20B to Pakistan and $20B
for Big Oil and God Only Knows What to the "Whore on Terror." .
There you go again. You throw out numbers that have no relevance
and came from God knows where. I pointed out earlier that the tax
breaks
to the oil indusry have been widely discussed recently and everyone
from
the Dems in Congress, to Obama and the Republicans have been using
a number of $4Bil a year. And that, I believe was to the ENTIRE oil
industry,
not just big oil.
Then we have Pakistan. Where did this $20B in US aid to Pakistan come
from? And what time period does it cover? From what I can see it
would
have to go back and cover a decade for it to reach that amount. Do
you
use arbitrary numbers and time periods when you tally the cost of the
lib programs?
And one more time, back to the oil industry tax breaks. I have no
problem
in getting rid of them. But at the same time, we should be looking at
ALL
the similar tax breaks given to all kinds of companies. GE, who's CEO
Imelt is one of Obama's economic advisers, paid no corporate income
tax at all. How about looking at that.
Plus, from economics 101, when you increase the taxes on all players
in an industry, that cost is passed on to consumers in the form of
higher prices for products. It's no different than an increase in the
cost of materials, labor, capital, etc. So, what you and the Dems
are trying to do is get more money into the US govt to **** away
and have it come out of people's pockets at the pump.
We're playing "you put our programs on life support and we'll put yours in
the morgue!" *Why SHOULD we subsidize Big Oil when it's raking in cash and
practicing near perfect tax avoidance? *
Even with that near perfect tax avoidance, they are paying taxes at
close
to a 50% rate. That isn't enough for you?
I thought Congress was elected by
the people for the people and not for the sake of Big Business. *I would be
a lot more certain of NPR and Planned Parenthood actually providing US jobs
than I would the oil industry.
That figures. There is a difference. The oil industry PRODUCES real
goods. What exactly is it that NPR produces that is so essential
in a time when the US govt is going broke?
*As we saw from the BP, there are a lot of
foreign interests involved in oil drilling. *
No **** Sherlock.
That oil belongs to you and me
and nearly everyone reading this.
No, it belongs to those who put their capital on the line, built the
businesses, paid for the leases, searched for and found the oil.
*I bristle when I see some of the sweet,
sweet deals Big Oil has carved out for itself and how brazenly some in
Congress support this looting of the US Treasury, which I am sure they share
with their captive politicians in campaign contributions. *.
*Otherwise they'd realize there's plenty of good
the such organizations do that has a proven societal benefit and that
they'd
be actually killing US jobs, just about the last thing Americans want
right
now.
Yeah, I'm real concerned about some buffoon at NPR losing their job.
* *Yet the are more than willing to shut oil production, etc., not only
cutting jobs directly, but also by increasing oil prices which has an
even greater impact on jobs.
I'm a little confused here. *The Congressional Research Office has exposed
the myth that oil prices will rise if we terminate $20 billion of corporate
welfa
http://democrats.senate.gov/pdfs/201...gas-prices.pdf
They say: *The magnitude of the revenue effects of these tax changes might
be important in evaluating their effects on the oil industry. The five
provisions, taken together, are expected to raise approximately $1.2 billion
in 2012. For the calendar year 2010, the revenues of the five largest oil
companies were approximately $1.5 trillion with additional revenues accruing
to the non-majors. The net incomes, after tax, of these five companies
totaled over $76 billion with additional earnings accruing to the
non-majors. The total expected tax revenues are only 5% of the earnings of
the five largest firms in the industry and a smaller percentage of the total
industry. Even if the changes in taxes did impact domestic, or overseas
exploration and development activity, that does not necessarily imply that
less oil would be available in the U.S. market. More might be imported, with
little or no effect on gasoline prices.
What do you expect the Dems to say? And even they did not say
what you claim, which is that it's a myth that ending the tax
breaks would raise gas prices. Tell us this. Did you ever
study economics. When and where. And explain to us why
if all companies in an industry have to pay higher taxes they
don't just pass it along as they would an increase in the cost
of materials, energy, labor, etc.
"Little or no effect." *Despite the URL have DEM in it, the CRS is an
impartial agency. *I am surprised you've bought into the oil companies'
arguments because in the long run they boil down to "we'll cut out noses off
to spite our faces" to illustrate their displeasure with the end of free
government money.
It's not an oil industry argument, it's an economic fact. It's like
arguing that V=IR is a myth.
But are we talking about shutting oil production, at least in the Gulf,
which has been mostly for safety reasons? *Or are we talking about the
belief that drilling activity will be curtailed by ending government oil
company welfare?
The libs for the most part would shut down as much of the oil
industry as possible. I've seen it over decades
We still don't understand exactly what happened after the big BP spill and
what the long term effects will be. *We still don't know how well or poorly
MMS and its successor have done inspecting the existing oil rigs in an
effort to prevent further outrageously costly spills. *That's just prudence.
We still don't know exactly what happened to the Air France Airbus 340
that
crashed off Brazil 2 years ago. But all those planes are still
flying.
Now if you're implying that without the subsidies that gasoline prices will
skyrocket then I have my doubts. *Why? *It's FUD that's too convenient for
the oil companies and an assertion that needs to be tested and not just
assumed to be true.
Take a course in microeconomics 101 and you'll no longer have
doubts. And no one claimed that gas prices will skyrocket. That
$4Bil in increased costs that gets passed on would amount to
such a small increase, that it would be unnoticed. That is very
different from saying the effect does not exist.
*Dire warnings always come after gravy trains are
derailed but that doesn't make them true, as the Congressional Research
Office report strongly implies.
Many times they come BEFORE the gravy train is derailed. Here's
one right now. The US is on the road to going broke and the Dems
have shown they would rather demagogue about it and do nothing
rather than deal with it by reducing out of control spending.
If push came to shove, the Feds could rebate that money to the people in the
form of a reduced gasoline tax.
Remarkable how all kinds of ideas for more govt intrusion into areas
where
it's not needed pop iinto the heads of loon libs. You clearly don't
even
have a grasp of what the oil industry tax breaks amount to related to
the size of the industry, the volume of products sold, etc.
*After all, IT'S OUR FREAKING OIL - the
citizens of the USA. *
Spoken like Karl Marx
But reading the newspapers you'd think Shell, Exxon,
BP, believe they own the oil and have forgotten that we citizen-owners are
nice enough to give them fairly princely sums to get it out for us.
More loon lib lies repeated. Following the same logic, we
the people own your house. Get out!
Would it be the end of the world to remove the subsidies for say two years
to evaluate the changes that might happen in the oil exploration industry?
That seems to be a fact-based test rather than a conjecture based
assumption. *With the oil companies posting record profits, there's little
risk of bankrupting them.
No problem eliminating them outright. The amount is a joke compared
to
the size of the industry. But at the same time, why just focus on
the oil
industry. Do the same analysis of all industries.
Some of these oil subsidies are naked giveaways, with the problems they were
meant to address long ago solved. *Sen. Shaheen's site:
http://shaheen.senate.gov/news/press...e8-3d7f-474a-9....
says:
"The Close Big Oil Tax Loopholes Act (S. 940) would end $21 billion in
projected taxpayer subsidies for the five largest integrated oil companies
by eliminating six separate tax handouts. * Thanks to these subsidies, the
world's most profitable company, Exxon Mobil, paid no income tax in 2009 .. .
And there we have it folks. The favorite lib tactic. Crank up a
$4bil number
into a $21 demagogue number by choosing an arbitrary and unstated
future period. And Exxon Mobil being a multinational company, paid
income taxes as required in various parts of the world. That total
tax burden is near 50% of income. When you have all the facts, it
starts to look a bit different.
Also, why target Exxon Mobil? GE paid no US income tax and Obama
made their CEO one of his economic advisers.