• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Senate votes to protect oil company subsidies

Lets get real. There are 9 types of tax breaks for oil companies.

Oil & Gas Industry Subsidies

Comments in that reddish color. 1 through 9 swiped from link.

So...I agree with some of it. I disagree with some of it. Im willing to bet no one is willing to tackle each portion of their tax code piece by piece. Because if you did, I bet it would play out almost exactly the way I outlined with the far left and far right staking out all or nothing positions when common sense ones are what we need. Oh well, those are my opinions on the "subsidies" the oil companies are getting.

To show why I put subsidied in quotes: How Much Big Corporations Pay In Taxes [GRAPHIC]



Guys, thats a HuffPo link so attacking the messenger wont be of much traction. I think Oil companies are paying quite a lot in taxes even AFTER getting tax breaks. Do those breaks need to be examined? Yes. Can we do it while Obama is politicizing the issue instead of examining it with some common sense? Probably not.
 
Last edited:
I went looking around for what subsidies are proposed to be cut. Apparently the dem plan of action is the Menendez plan (Senate-NJ-D).

So what exactly is it?


Senate defeats Democrats' measure to kill off


So they want to eliminate the manufacturing tax break that a slew of other companies get. Eliminate them all or dont eliminate them. Picking just the oil companies seems like its targeting rather than a good tax policy....which it is. The other stuff is real non-specific but if its the amortization costs and drilling breaks, Im leaning for. Put the breaks up on a line by line vote. Vote em up or down.

Oh yeah...debate? We dont need no steenkin debate :
 
From the link:
Exxon pocketed nearly $4.7 million every hour" last year, and simply doesn't need taxpayer subsidies on top of companies' massive profits.
The president added "it's like hitting the American people twice."
Click to expand...

To a certain extent, that is true, but it's only hitting the Americans who actually pay in toward federal income taxes that are getting hit twice. The thing worth noting is that the feds get a huge amount of federal revenue from the oil companies, so Obama is being disengenious as best, and downright manipulative at worst. The feds don't want to piss off one of their primary income sources besides federal income tax revenues from individuals. As much as the government likes to demonize Big Oil and Big Tobacco, they love the money generated for DC.
 

Subsidies? Shouldn’t these be called tax breaks? Subsidies are funded by tax payers...in other words, the money is taken from one person and given to another (in this case, it would be a lot of people (since a company is made up of people). On the other hand, a tax break is just allowing a person or a group of people/company to keep more of their OWN money. So there is a big difference between a subsidy and tax break.

And I believe these tax breaks are standard business deductions enjoyed by several companies, not just oil companies..
 

Posts 26 and 27.
 
American said:
I thought Harry Reid runs the Senate. He's a Democrat right?
Click to expand...

Can you count? Do you understand numbers? Do you understand the rules that the Senate operates under>

The answer would appear to be NO on all counts.

Reid delivered 49 of 53 Democrats. He delivered 92% of his own party. Two Republicans joined to make it 51. Had he delivered 100% of his own party and only the two Republicans joined, the vote would have still lost since it was short of the needed 60.
 
American said:
The VAST majority? hehehe
Click to expand...

Do you have trouble making mathematical computations of what the majority is? It is a simple thing. It is more than half. One more is a majority. Five more is still a majority. Twenty more is still a majority.

92% of the Democrats voted for it. While there is no specific mathematical computation that all could agree upon for what VAST is - I suspect 92% may qualify.
 
Last edited:
Oil company subsidies is liberal propaganda, they get the same tax breaks every other company gets,as in they can write off the cost of doing business just like everyone else. The only difference may be that oil company's cost are huge so their write offs are correspondingly huge. It's not cheap to find, drill and deliver oil.
 
So the left wants green subsidies and the right wants oil subsidies, goody, we get the worse of both worlds.
 

Actually, tax breaks and tax deductions are two different things.
 
1st I would like to state that I disagree with any and all subsidies and special tax breaks of any company. All should simply pay what they are suppose to pay. It is however as you say, propaganda by the democrats.

Oh, those dastardly dirty oil companies with their multi-MULTI billions in profits, yet, are subsidized by the government STILL! But, what about others who get off with far less than the average middle income person?? Our fearless dem leaders and POTUS seem not to have any problem turning a blind eye to the others. What makes GE any different? What makes our continued government sponsored fannie mae and freedie mac any different? Those companies continue to bleed massively, yet, the dems continue to allow the top executives in those companies to be paid millions per year, with additional millions in bonuses on the tax payers dime. Not a single utterance of dastardly doing by the companies that wrecked the housing industry, and not only that, but are still being handsomely awarded. NOt with subsidies or breaks, but actually being paid tax payer money for their past and continued failure.

It all should end. Any company that cannot stand on its own should not be propped up with tax payer money. Those who are among the most responsible of our economic hardships should not be the ones most handsomely awarded, yet the dems see NO problem with this. The dems are right IMO about the subsidizing of oil companies, but they are equally wrong about the subsidizing, the breaks and awarding of all those who have caused equal if not greater harm on the countries economy.
 

Best post I think I've ever seen on this website. /applause! (Like wasn't enough for this one :lol

Hell, it might even make (Minus the picture) signature status.

Why subsidize if they are paying so much in taxes?
 
Last edited:
how can we end subsidies for big oil when big oil doesn't receive subsidies?


pretty hard to decide which side of an issue you fall on when the people in charge can't and won't be honest with us over even the basics. ( tax deductions =/= subsidies)
if we have decided to declare that tax deductions are subsidies, then we will have to accept that every single tax payer , corporate or individual, is being subsidized by the federal government.

as an aside, Harry Reid is still being a douche in the Senate... there is no good reason for him to refuse debate on the matter.... it's horrible governance to do so..... good partisan politics, but horrible governance.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
The vast majority voted to end these ridiculous subsidies. Only 4 dems voted against the bill....
Click to expand...

Of course. Have enough Dems vote against the bill so the subsidies remain in place and you and your party can still look like saints while nothing changes. The Dems still get oil money donations while while the other guy does the dirty work. You're being played.
 

You didnt read my posts did you?

Oil companies are paying billions in taxes. The majority of tax breaks they claim are similar to other manufacturing companies and other mining companies. I keep hearing griping about good paying jobs---oil pays very well. Why are dems so determined to make them pay even more?

I say more because I went after this :

Gasoline Taxes Vs. Exxon Profit, Per Gallon
Oh look, the government is making more from a gallon of gas than the oil company.

Interactive map at the link above---how much is government taking away from a gallon of gas by state:


Exxon sums up that their overall profit is 8 cents/gallon overall worldwide. Their business is a volume business. Government is raking in far more per gallon than Exxon at least is. Their business model seems to be working ok, but overall I question some of the tax breaks they do get, but I dont think we need the mass demonization from the very people that benefit the most from each gallon sold: the federal government.
 
Last edited:

I have to disagree with you on tax breaks for investments. These breaks were put into place to encourage businesses to invest in new technology and incentives growth. I spent alot of my life as owner operator of a small business and there were alot of times that the tax break I got for buying a new piece of heavy equipment for 100 K was only possible because of the tax break it gave me. This was good for me, for Caterpillar, my employees and there employees who all pay taxes and buy things from other company's with more employees on and on.
 
I was good with your post until you got to here. Have you looked at the tax on a pack of cigarettes lately?



Ed:
BTW - You (accidentally I'm sure) posted some of that data in the "Recall" thread.
 
Last edited:

Gee, I thought Conservatives were all against market interventionism, cause a subsidy requires any oil company to go begging for one. I'm sure the big boys do just fine and the smaller oil companies get screwed cause they didn't hire enough lawyers.
 
Matt Foley said:
Gee, I thought Conservatives were all against market interventionism, cause a subsidy requires any oil company to go begging for one. I'm sure the big boys do just fine and the smaller oil companies get screwed cause they didn't hire enough lawyers.
Click to expand...

Right off the bat, since they wind up paying taxes and more of them than anyone else, I dont think they are being subsidized. Tax break yes, subsidy no.
I outlined which tax breaks I am for and which I think need to be eliminated---essentially those tax breaks that every other company in the US gets as incentive to be in business, primarily in capital investment breaks, exploration and amortization. Its not as simple as you like to portray it. Your post is spin, why dont you tackle posts 26 and 27 and come back and tell me which tax breaks should be kept and which should be gone. Number them 1 to 9 to be clearer, put your money where your mouth is.

I think, judging by the tax outlay from earlier, Exxon is getting hosed compared to GE and Berkshire/Hathaway.
 

There's always excuses in market intervention, except my excuse for Tariffs are actually constructive where yours end up being destructive.
 
My thoughts are whey the government is not giving the subsidy on Petroleum products ? How they are getting loose in the company
 
Matt Foley said:
There's always excuses in market intervention, except my excuse for Tariffs are actually constructive where yours end up being destructive.
Click to expand...

bleh bleh bleh, look at the arlier post and outline which you would be for and against, I think it will be instructive.
 
OpportunityCost said:
bleh bleh bleh, look at the arlier post and outline which you would be for and against, I think it will be instructive.
Click to expand...

You know what makes this situation worse? You neocons wouldn't even consider using oil subsidies as a bargaining tool against Green Crap subsidies.
 
Matt Foley said:
You know what makes this situation worse? You neocons wouldn't even consider using oil subsidies as a bargaining tool against Green Crap subsidies.
Click to expand...

First off, dont call me a ****ing neocon. Im not.

Secondly, go back to the post outlined ealier in the thread and put your money where your mouth is and outline your position beyond evil oil companies, yadda yadda. Youre long on rhetoric and short on concrete positions. Go for it, it will be enlightening.

Third, the current crop of dems dont have the balls to put any subsidies on the table. Nor, I believe, do the current crop of Republicans.
 

And you neocons won't put oil subsidies on the table. We end up getting the worse of both worlds, thanks.

You know there's a massive national debt, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…