House Votes to Rescind Oil Drillers’ Tax Breaks

[LaMidRighter]

1)

2) Closing loopholes is part of what it is all about.

absolutely. I also think that the wealthy would actually pay more in taxes willingly because it would be a voluntary act based upon transactions, and not on intangibles such as labor, investment, or capitol gains.

 

[danarhea]

absolutely. I also think that the wealthy would actually pay more in taxes willingly because it would be a voluntary act based upon transactions, and not on intangibles such as labor, investment, or capitol gains.

Well, we agree on half the problem, and I am willing to bet that we agree on the other half - That is, stopping all the reckless spending, whether it is by Bush, Clinton, a Democrat Congress, a Republican Congress, or what have you. I am sick to death of all the excuses on both sides of the aisle, and those who would lead us are doing just that - leading us into insolvency.

You might like what this guy has to say about it.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Well, we agree on half the problem, and I am willing to bet that we agree on the other half - That is, stopping all the reckless spending, whether it is by Bush, Clinton, a Democrat Congress, a Republican Congress, or what have you. I am sick to death of all the excuses on both sides of the aisle, and those who would lead us are doing just that - leading us into insolvency.

You might like what this guy has to say about it.

Couldn't agree more, I would like to see the interpretations of necessary spending be reigned in mainly to constitutional requirements. I have little problem with a few of the existing social programs being continued as last resort programs with full accountability, but outside of that, much of the pork needs to be eliminated.

 

[Kandahar]

Whatever the best guess is today it will go up tomorrow. Just last year new techniques quadrupled what we can recover and the estimates of just the Gulf of Mexico went up 50%. And Alaska, we've only scratched the surface.

OK, bump it up 50% and our share of the oil reserves would still be 7.5%. Now that's absurdly optimistic, of course, but even so it wouldn't have any impact on the revenue flowing into the pockets of Arab dictators.

but again exactly how does penalizing domestic exploration and refining lead us to independence from foreign oil supplies?

As I said, I have no problem with domestic exploration if the local/state communities want it. I just wish that people would stop making the intellectually dishonest argument that it will somehow solve our energy problems, when in reality it will barely put a dent in them.

 

[Kandahar]

The law of supply and demand.

The law of supply and demand doesn't include externalities, such as the cost of pollution caused by oil, the cost of terrorism caused by oil, and the cost of our military adventures in the Middle East caused by oil.

The consumers should have to pay for those things when they buy the stuff.

 

[Stinger]

OK, bump it up 50% and our share of the oil reserves would still be 7.5%. Now that's absurdly optimistic, of course, but even so it wouldn't have any impact on the revenue flowing into the pockets of Arab dictators.

It does if we aren't buying theirs or threaten to use our own.

As I said, I have no problem with domestic exploration if the local/state communities want it. I just wish that people would stop making the intellectually dishonest argument that it will somehow solve our energy problems, when in reality it will barely put a dent in them.

Who's making the argument it "solves" anything.

Again please explain the economic reasoning behind the Dems making domestic exploration drilling and refining more expensive as a way to make us independent of ME oil.

This is nothing but stupid punitive tax policies design to gain favor with the uniformed.

 

[Stinger]

The law of supply and demand doesn't include externalities, such as the cost of pollution caused by oil, the cost of terrorism caused by oil, and the cost of our military adventures in the Middle East caused by oil.

The consumers should have to pay for those things when they buy the stuff.

Then let the market decide what the price should be and where it should come from.

Explain how making domestic exploration and drilling and refining more expensive makes us independent of foreign oil.

 

[Cremaster77]

Explain how making domestic exploration and drilling and refining more expensive makes us independent of foreign oil.

In the long run, will our independence from foreign oil come from alternatives to fossil fuels or will it come from domestic exploration and drilling? The only reason Democrats can make the argument that this will accelerate energy independence is because they are marking the funds for research in alternative energies.

I still haven't seen your explanation of why the free market works for everything but oil companies. My understanding of this bill was that it was not "taxing" oil corporations but rescinding tax breaks that they get that other corporations do not get. If that's the case, then these oil companies would now be subject to the same forces as the rest of the free market. Why do you think they should be exempt from the free market when the free market is the answer to everything else?

 

[Stinger]

In the long run,

Now. There is plenty of oil to meet our needs now and it is still the most cost effective. Alternatives are a pipe dream a long way off.

So how does increasing the price of domestic drilling and refining ease our cost and independence for foreign oil.

I still haven't seen your explanation of why the free market works for everything but oil companies.

It's working now, the price is below $50 a barrel.

My understanding of this bill was that it was not "taxing" oil corporations but rescinding tax breaks that they get that other corporations do not get.

Breaks that were put in, just like other R&D breaks other companies get as a expense, precisely to make us more independent.

If that is the goal why are the Dems doing just the opposite?

 

[jfuh]

Then let the market decide what the price should be and where it should come from.

Exactly, we shouldn't have any tax breaks to manipulate the market.

Explain how making domestic exploration and drilling and refining more expensive makes us independent of foreign oil.

Drilling and exploration doesn't make us independent of oil, it makes us even more dependent. Cheap oil does not create any incentive for the research of alternative non-polluting energy sources, and we would ever be more dependent on the black stuff. Thus even more dependent on foreign oil imports from unstable dictorial countries.
Hence as has been shown, expensive prices of oil leads to independence from oil all together.

 

[Stinger]

Exactly, we shouldn't have any tax breaks to manipulate the market.

Then remove them for "alternative energy" too.

Drilling and exploration doesn't make us independent of oil,

Why did you leave out the word "foreign"?

Cheap oil does not create any incentive for the research of alternative non-polluting energy sources,

As you said let the market make those choices.

and we would ever be more dependent on the black stuff.

It's the best cheapest energy source we have, let the market decide.

Thus even more dependent on foreign oil imports

There you go trying to confuse the issue. How does making our domestic sources cheaper and more available make us more dependent on foreign sources?

expensive prices of oil leads to independence from oil all together.

Let the market decide when we need to be independent of oil just like it did with horses.

 

[jfuh]

Then remove them for "alternative energy" too.

Oil is already highly profitable and produces no advantage for Americans, only for the oil industry. Alternative energies are a infant industry that would allow the US to pull ahead of the world technologically as well as producing real world benefits to all americans. For one, it presents the true means to wane off addiction to dictorial regimes. Even nuclear is an alternative to oil - hardly as you say - eons off?

Why did you leave out the word "foreign"?

AS the Wise and powerful King George once said, "we are addicted to oil" snicker snicker. Don't you think we should remove that addiction? As long as we are addicted to oil Stinger, we're going to rely on the ME dictators. Prove me wrong.

As you said let the market make those choices.

Good, then you agree with me that the house decision is a good thing. glad to see we are on the same page.

It's the best cheapest energy source we have, let the market decide.

I'm sorry did you say best? Cheapest? How much does it cost to clean up an oil spill? How much has it cost to clean up the smog in cities like LA? How much has it cost to clean up the air from the combustion of fossil fuels of sulfurous and nitrous oxides? And how much have the recent global warming attributed weather phenomena cost tax payers in relief funds? Fossil fuels as use for synthetic uses - good, as use for burning energy needs - can't be dumbererer.

There you go trying to confuse the issue. How does making our domestic sources cheaper and more available make us more dependent on foreign sources?

Prove that the domestic drilling would indeed make the price at the pump cheaper, show that energy demands would not increase as a result of decreased energy costs - in other words more wasteful use there of rather than efficient use.
Prove that domestic oil drilling and production will make us completely independent on foreign oil, in particular that from the ME. Show that we will not again fight senseless wars so as to secure oil fields costing thousands of american lives so that the oil companies can sustain a healthy profit to which we then give them tax cuts for which they use not for R&D or exploratory measures but for lobbying funds so that the politicians would send us to another meaningless war.
Fact of the matter is you can not prove any of the questions posted to you here in this segment because the facts are all opposite of your rhetorical beliefs. The only way to wane off our dependence from ME or dictorial oil needs is to completely break off our dependence on oil.

Let the market decide when we need to be independent of oil just like it did with horses.

:lamo and the market has Stinger, it says that the cost of oil is too high. We want alternative energy sources, wind, solar, nuclear, bio ect. Not blood oil.

 

[Stinger]

Oil is already highly profitable

Not compared to other endeavors, but that was not the question. If you want it to be totally market driven, then eliminate ALL tax breaks for ALL competitive energy forms.

and produces no advantage for Americans, only for the oil industry.

I am the oil industry, you might well be too if you own stock in any mutual funds. But this is just a diversion on your part.

Alternative energies are a infant industry

Alternative energies have been around since before oil. So what?

that would allow the US to pull ahead of the world technologically as well as producing real world benefits to all americans.

Having a domestic oil supply would pull ahead of the world technologically as well as producing real world benefits to all americans.

For one, it presents the true means to wane off addiction to dictorial regimes. Even nuclear is an alternative to oil - hardly as you say - eons off?

While I support fully the development of a larger, much larger nuclear power grid it is still a long way off. And it is the only feasible alternative out there at the moment.

AS the Wise and powerful King George once said, "we are addicted to oil" snicker snicker. Don't you think we should remove that addiction? As long as we are addicted to oil Stinger, we're going to rely on the ME dictators. Prove me wrong.

As long as we have a good supply, no.

Good, then you agree with me that the house decision is a good thing. glad to see we are on the same page.

Good then you agree let's end all energy subsidies and restrictions on development.

I'm sorry did you say best? Cheapest? How much does it cost to clean up an oil spill?

Minisucule in the big picture.

Prove that the domestic drilling would indeed make the price at the pump cheaper,

Disprove the laws of supply and demand.

Prove that domestic oil drilling and production will make us completely independent on foreign oil,

Prove anyone said completely. At least debate honestly.

Show that we will not again fight senseless wars so as to secure oil fields

Prove to me we won't be doing it over corn fields.

And again prove that increasing the cost of domestic oil exploration and drilling and refining will make us less dependent on foreign sources.

Don't bother you can't, this was a political maneuver, designed to fool the masses.

:lamo and the market has Stinger, it says that the cost of oil is too high. We want alternative energy sources, wind, solar, nuclear, bio ect. Not blood oil.

Oil is as cheap as it has every been. The cost for you to drive somewhere is as cheap as it has ever been when you factor in your total cost and current dollars.

 

[Iriemon]

Originally Posted by Stinger
The best way to oil independence is to use our own resources as a bargaining chip, .....

Originally Posted by Iriemon
How do you mean?

The law of supply and demand.

Thanks. That really explains your "bargaining theory."

 

[Iriemon]

Well, we agree on half the problem, and I am willing to bet that we agree on the other half - That is, stopping all the reckless spending, whether it is by Bush, Clinton, a Democrat Congress, a Republican Congress, or what have you. I am sick to death of all the excuses on both sides of the aisle, and those who would lead us are doing just that - leading us into insolvency.

You might like what this guy has to say about it.

Hear hear! We need more with that atittude!

The cons rant about spending, the libs rant about taxes, and nothing has been done for 6 years except run up spending, cut down taxes, and $3 trillion more debt.

It's tragic.

 

[Iriemon]

It does if we aren't buying theirs or threaten to use our own.

Who's making the argument it "solves" anything.

Again please explain the economic reasoning behind the Democrats making domestic exploration drilling and refining more expensive as a way to make us independent of ME oil.

This is nothing but stupid punitive tax policies design to gain favor with the uniformed.

1. Higher prices at the pump encourage people to be more efficient. They will buy hybrids instead of Hummers

2. Because the price of oil based fuel is marginally higher, it makes other sources of energy more economically viable, further reducing our oil requirements.

3. We are using up ME oil instead of what is left of our own reserve.

Given tax breaks to produce more of our oil simply incentives folks to use more of our limited reserves faster, which may result in a short term benefit, but in the long term keeps us even more dependent on foreign oil.

 

[Iriemon]

Breaks that were put in, just like other R&D breaks other companies get as a expense, precisely to make us more independent.

If that is the goal why are the Democrats doing just the opposite?

It's time to end the Republican era of tax breaks to companies while the Govt debt grows another $1/2 trillion every year.

Oil companies are a good place to start as any.

 

[Kandahar]

Then let the market decide what the price should be and where it should come from.

I would, except as I already said, there are costs associated with oil that the market price doesn't reflect: Pollution, terrorism, Middle East wars, etc. Why shouldn't the consumers pay for those things?

Explain how making domestic exploration and drilling and refining more expensive makes us independent of foreign oil.

Since I haven't said that they do, this question is silly.

 

[Cremaster77]

Now. There is plenty of oil to meet our needs now and it is still the most cost effective. Alternatives are a pipe dream a long way off.

So how does increasing the price of domestic drilling and refining ease our cost and independence for foreign oil.

Economically it's the most cost effective. But it's clear that our dependence on oil, particularly foreign oil has more cost than just economic. Investing in the process to divorce ourselves from this dependence clearly has long run benefit beyond the current price of a barrel of oil.

It's working now, the price is below $50 a barrel.

That's not the free market. If you give special tax incentives to one sector of the economy above others, that is the government interfering with the free market and helping to fix prices. It's no different than giving government subsidies to farmers. You avoided the question. Why is the free market the solution to everything else but does not apply to the oil industry?

Breaks that were put in, just like other R&D breaks other companies get as a expense, precisely to make us more independent.

If that is the goal why are the Democrats doing just the opposite?

Do you honestly think that the answer to oil independence is increased domestic supply? I think it's clear that the problem is on the demand side, not the supply side. As Iriemon has stated, increased oil prices (that the free market would dictate without government intervention) created economic incentive for more fuel efficiency and decreased demand. Decreased demand for foreign oil absolutely makes us more energy independent. Add to that the increased investment in alternative energy and you have both an intermediate and long term advantage in terms of energy independence with this course compared to the status quo.

 

[Stinger]

Thanks. That really explains your "bargaining theory."

Yes it does.

 

[Stinger]

Economically it's the most cost effective. But it's clear that our dependence on oil, particularly foreign oil has more cost than just economic.

On foreign oil it can although oil is relatively cheap right now with demand down and new discoveries being announced.

Investing in the process to divorce ourselves from this dependence clearly has long run benefit beyond the current price of a barrel of oil.

And the market is doing that, but it is also important the we free ourselves from over dependence on ME sources.

That's not the free market. If you give special tax incentives to one sector of the economy above others, that is the government interfering with the free market and helping to fix prices.

Then take them all away and cut the regulatory cost to bring on new refinery's and drilling.

Why is the free market the solution to everything else but does not apply to the oil industry?

Make the entire energy market a free market then, I agreed with you.

Do you honestly think that the answer to oil independence is increased domestic supply?

THE answer, no. Do you honestly think windmill energy is THE answer?

I think it's clear that the problem is on the demand side, not the supply side.

Our market problem is on the supply side, they know we are over dependent on them and they try to act as a cartel.

As Iriemon has stated,

Spare me, I'm not very impressed with Iriemon's economic assertions. He doesn't even understand supply and demand.

increased oil prices (that the free market would dictate without government intervention) created economic incentive for more fuel efficiency and decreased demand. Decreased demand for foreign oil absolutely makes us more energy independent.

Tell me do you really care or consider where it comes from when you are pumping it into your car? Does it run differently? There is plenty of oil we need to better position OUR domestic companies in the world market to insure that supply can't be used as a political and economic tool against us.

The mere fact that we are doing that, that we open exploration and drilling pressure the ME companies to give us price and supply concessions to that they can keep selling theirs to us.

Add to that the increased investment in alternative energy

With tax breaks? Let the market investigate those techinologies and when they are more viable than oil we will move to them. We did the same with horses and wood.

and you have both an intermediate and long term advantage in terms of energy independence with this course compared to the status quo.

But why have us at the mercy of the ME oil producers in the meantime especially since we will remain an oil based economy long after you and I are around.

But the bottom line here is that this move by the Dems was noting but political pandering and stupid.

 

[jfuh]

Not compared to other endeavors, but that was not the question. If you want it to be totally market driven, then eliminate ALL tax breaks for ALL competitive energy forms.

Really? Tell me what were the net profits of Exxon mobile in the last year?

I am the oil industry, you might well be too if you own stock in any mutual funds. But this is just a diversion on your part.

I'm sorry, how does this effect my payments at the gas pump? If any diversion this right here is your diversion

Alternative energies have been around since before oil. So what?

Yet until now we never matured the technology because oil was too damn cheap. Now oil is expensive, ppl are realizing the true costs of crude - war, terrorism, oil spills, paid government ect.

Having a domestic oil supply would pull ahead of the world technologically as well as producing real world benefits to all americans.

I noticed you have again twisted my words around. Or else you would not need to break my paragraphs down the way you are.
That said, prove that domestic oil supply will pull technology forward.

While I support fully the development of a larger, much larger nuclear power grid it is still a long way off. And it is the only feasible alternative out there at the moment.

Now if you can respond to the former portion as well too.

As long as we have a good supply, no.

Even given the IF we controlled 30% of all international oil reserves we still would rely on foreign oil. As much as you spin, you can not deny this simple fact.
As long as we are addicted to oil as your bush says, we will only have ever increasing demands for and will forever require to do business with dictorial regimes.

Good then you agree let's end all energy subsidies and restrictions on development.

:roll:

Minisucule in the big picture.

Minisucule? Exxon Valdez oil can still be found in Alaska just beneath the surface creating quite the ecological nightmare. You call that minuscule? Climate change as a result of the combustion of fossil fuels, minuscule? If it were so minuscule why are you so against any form of environmental measure to clean up the mess from it? IE Kyoto

Disprove the laws of supply and demand.

That's not what I asked. I'm not going to do your homework for you.

Prove anyone said completely. At least debate honestly.

I did, what's dishonest about it? And if we are not completely independent of foreign oil there's always going to be a dictator that we're going to need to kiss *** to.

Prove to me we won't be doing it over corn fields.

:lamo, for one, we have the largest in the world next?

And again prove that increasing the cost of domestic oil exploration and drilling and refining will make us less dependent on foreign sources.

Because then alternative energy sources become just as competitive against oil, thus increasing the incentive both environmentally and for security for the market to shift towards non-oil based. Hence completely independent of foreign oil. The higher the price of crude, the better it is for the country.

Don't bother you can't, this was a political maneuver, designed to fool the masses.

I just did. Indeed, it's your political maneuver because of your personal interests to maintain the oil business due to your "investments"

Oil is as cheap as it has every been. The cost for you to drive somewhere is as cheap as it has ever been when you factor in your total cost and current dollars.

Not when you factor in the costs of war and environmental damages. Who's paying for that? Oh right we are. And because the coward hadn't the balls to increase taxes to pay for these wars we're now the financial bitches of China.
See here's how it breaks down stung, you only see the short term benefits while remaining oblivious to the true long term impact.
Just not so long ago the generation before saw no harm done in cutting down trees for "modernization" yet know we realize the negative impact of such.
I thought you were a conservative, where's your sense of conservation and spending less then you make economic practices?

 

[Stinger]

When you can get my name right we will continue, I have no interest in debating children.

 

[Kandahar]

Stinger, why shouldn't oil consumers pay for the pollution, terrorism, and wars that they cause?

 

[LaMidRighter]

1. Higher prices at the pump encourage people to be more efficient. They will buy hybrids instead of Hummers

Really? I won't, because I have no need, want, or use for such worthless vehicles. Other coercive tactics have been aimed at consumer's wallets as well such as the gas guzzler tax, but sports cars, SUVs, and other high powered vehicles still are in high demand. Also, if someone is getting better mileage in a vehicle, they are likely to use it more, thus consuming the same amount of fuel over a given time period as the owner of the "evil" gas guzzler. Simple economic law, everything is in a state of flux, including supply and demand.

2. Because the price of oil based fuel is marginally higher, it makes other sources of energy more economically viable, further reducing our oil requirements.

Economically viable only when the consumer develops a need or want for it, as of right now, the technologies are inferior, performance wise to petroleum products, which is why oil is still in high demand.

3. We are using up ME oil instead of what is left of our own reserve.

Given tax breaks to produce more of our oil simply incentives folks to use more of our limited reserves faster, which may result in a short term benefit, but in the long term keeps us even more dependent on foreign oil.

With technological advancement and deeper reserves opening up, such as in the gulf of Mexico in my state, the limitations are not able to be accurately quantified and are always subject to change. moot point.